Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St. John, with introduction, notes, and indices, also the Greek text and English translation"

See other formats 


E hbeSb@TO Τῆι 1 Ε 


3937109 5, ἸΞΥΗΌΙΛΙ “LS 4O AL 





ϊ 
Δ 4 > 
ὧν 

, 4 


rh 
Ἷ 
ΕΣ 
δ υἷι 
a 


4, 
' 











THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL_COMMENTARY 


A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


BY 


ΒΕ. H. CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D. 


VOLUME I 





A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE REVELATION OF 
ST. JOHN 


WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND INDICES 


ALSO 


THE GREEK TEXT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION 


BY 


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


ARCHDEACON OF WESTMINSTER 
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY 


{IN TWO VOLUMES) 
Von. I 


EDINBURGH 
Τ δὲ Τ CLARK: 38:.GEORGE STREET 


PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY 
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED 


FOR 


T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH 
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


First EpITion . . « .ς 1920 
Latest Reprint . . « « 1956 


MAY 18 1964 


The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved 


ΤΟ 


MY WIFE 


TQ WHOM 
ῖ AM IMMEASURABLY BEHOLDEN 
IN YHIS AS IN MY OTHER STUDIES 
BUT IN THIS 


BEYOND ALL THE REST 





PRE EAC BE. 


i 


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 
ix 


x PREFACE 


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,! and he frequently reproduces Hebrew idioms 
literally in Greek. But his solecistic style cannot be wholly 
explained from its Hebraistic colouring. The language 

11 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. 


PREFACE xi 


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, 1 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 “2247. 
Crit. 1 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. 


x11 PREFACE 


When seeking such help, I had the good fortune to meet 
the Rev. F. 5. 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 δὲ, 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,) 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? 
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 Afpar. Crit., and 


‘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. 

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


PREFACE xill 


subsequently carried i-xiv. through the Press.! 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 large 
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 
proofs. 

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 


εν 1 Mr. Cryer further helped me by verifying the references in the Intro- 
duction, 


XiV PREFACE 


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 


PREFACE xv 


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, 


xvi PREFACE 


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 1 would repeat, as Professor Swete does 
in his work on the Apocalyse, St. Augustine’s prayer : 
Domine Deus ... quaecumque dixi in hoc libro de tuo, 
agnoscant et (ut; st qua de meo, et Tu ignosce et tut 


ale = ae Φὰ 
4 LITTLE CLOISTERS, WESTMINSTER ABBEY, 


May 1920. 





1 Advice to the reader.—Since the present work on the Apocalypse is a 
large one, and in many respects difficult, ἐΐ woudd 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 than that of the Epistle to the Hebrews or of St. Paul’s Epistle to 
the Romans. After the Translation he should read the Introduction, §§ 1, 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 
(§ 1) 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. 


CONTENTS: 


——_4-—— 


VOLUME 1. 


INTRODUCTION, pp. xxi-cxci. 


I. § 1. 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@P) and the Gospel (J) from different 
authors. § 1. 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. xxxsq. ὃ 4. Words and phrases 
with one meaning in J@P? and another in J, p. xxxisq. ὃ 5. Authors 
of J@P and J were in some way connected with each other, pp. xxxii- 
xxxiv. § 6. J and 1. 2. 3J by the same author, pp. xxxiv—xxxvii. 
§ 7. The importance of these conclusions for Johannine criticism, 
Pp. XXXvVil. 


III. Authorship of the Johannine Writings. Evidence partly internal, but 


mainly external. ὃ 1. J@P not pseudonymous, but the work of John 
the Seer, p. xxxvilisq. ὃ 2. The author of JP is distinct from the 
author of J, p. xxxix sq. § 3. There were two Johns according to 
Papias, the Apostle and the Elder, the latter being the author of 
J*P according to Dionysius, p. xlsq. ὃ 4. 1. 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 1J, pp. xlii-xliii. 8 6. If John the Elder is 
the author of J and I. 2. 3 J, is John the Apostle the author of Jap? 
No. Its author claims to be a prophet, not an apostle. He wasa 
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 
tesidence of John the Apostle in Asia tells against his being 
author of J@P, p. xlv. ὃ 8. These conclusions confirmed by the 
tradition of John the Apostle’s early martyrdom, which, if trust- 
worthy, renders his authorship of J@P or J, 1. 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 





1 JaP=the Apocalypse, J the Gospel, 1 J the First Epistle, etc. 


ὁ 


xvii 


XViil 


CONTENTS 


effect, p. xlv sq. ; (4) 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. 
xlviii-1. 


IV. The Editor of J®P, The present order of 204-22 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 20/22 
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. I-lv. 


V. Depravation of the Text through (§ 1) Interpolations, pp. lvi-lviii ; (8 2) 


Dislocations, pp. Ivili-lx; (§ 3) Lacunae, p. Ix sq.; (§ 4) Ditto- 
graphs, p. Ixi. 


VI. Greek and Hebrew Sources, and their Dates, pp. Ixii-Ixv. 
VII. Books of the O.T., of the Pseudepigrapha, and of the N.T. used by our 


Ψ 


author. § 1. General summary of the facts, p. Ixv sq. ὃ 2. John 
translated directly from the O.T., and did not quote any Greek 
version, though often influenced by the LXX (2.6. 0’) and another 
later version—a revised form of ο΄, which was subsequently revised 
and incorporated by Theodotion in his version (2.6. 6’), pp. 
Ixvi-Ixvili. § 3. Passages based directly on the Hebrew of the O.T. 
(or the Aramaic of Daniel) ; these are hardly ever literal quotations, 
pp. Ixviii-Ixxvii. § 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 ο΄, p. Ixxviii sq. ὃ 5. Passages based on the 
Hebrew of the O.T. or on the Aramaic of Daniel, but influenced, in 
some cases certainly, in others probally, by a later form of ο΄, which 
is preserved in θ΄, 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. ὃ 8. Passages in some cases dejendent on, 
and in other cases parallel with, earlier books of the N.T., 
pp. Ixxxiii-lxxxv*. 


VIII. Unity of 18Ρ, § τ. Unity of thought and dramatic development, 


Ixxxvii sq. §2. Unity of style and diction. Examples of unity of 
diction, Ixxxviii 54. § 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. 1xxxix-xci. 


CONTENTS xix 


IX. Date of 78Ρ, § 1. External evidence. The Trajanic, Claudian, and 
Neronic dates. The Domitianic date, pp. xci-xciii. § 2. Internal 
evidence. (1) Such evidence exists alike for the Neronic, Ves- 
pasianic, and Domitianic dates. (2) Evidence for the Domitianic 
which explains all the rest. (@) Use ofearlier N.T. books. (4) The 
present form of the Seven Epistles points to a Domitianic date, though 
originally written under Vespasian, p. xcili sq. (¢) The imperial 
cult (though presupposed throughout JP) 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. § 1. Nocertain trace of J@P in the Apostolic 
Fathers, p. xcvii sq. ὃ 2. In the 2nd cent. J@P was all but uni- 
versally accepted in Asia Minor, Western Syria, Africa, Rome, South 
Gaul, pp. xcvili-c. § 3. Two protests against its Johannine author- 
ship and validity in the 2nd cent. (a) Marcion. (4) The Alogi, 
Ρ. csq. § 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. 


XI. Object of the Seer. His Methods—Vision and Reflection or Reason. 
§ 1. Object of the Seer, p. ciii sq. ὃ 2. Methods of the Seer 
generally—psychical experiences and reflection or reason. Psychical 
experiences. (@) Dreams. (4) Dreams combined with translation 
of the spirit of the Seer. (c) Visions. (a) Visions in sleep. (8) 
Visions in a trance. (vy) Visions in which the spirit is translated. 
(δ) 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. cvisq. § 5. Highest form of spiritual experience, 
Ρ- ον]. § 6. Reason embracing the powers of insight, imagination, 
and judgment. Its use (a) in the arrangement of his own materials, 
(4) in the construction of allegories, (c) in the adaptation of tradi- 
tional material. (@) Conventional use of the phrase ‘‘I saw,” 
pp. cvii-cix. 


XII. Some doctrines of our author. § 1. Doctrine of God. § 2. Jesus 
Christ. (a) The historical Christ. (ὁ) The exalted Christ. (ὦ) 
Unique Son of God. (d@) High Priest and Lamb of God. § 3. The 
Spirit. ὃ 4. Doctrine of Works. § 5. First Kesurrection ; Mil- 
lennium and Second Resurrection ; Judgment, pp. cix—cxvii. 


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


ΧΧ 


CONTENTS 


XIV. § 1. Relative values of the uncials provisionally arrived at, p. clx-clxii. 


§ 2. Absence of conflation from best uncials confirms result arrived at 
in § 1, 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. 
8 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. ὃ 8. Textual 
value of the uncials, pp. clxxi-clxxiii. § 9. Cursives collated for this 
edition, and their groupings, pp. clxxiii-clxxvi. ὃ 10. Origen’s 
so-called text, p. clxxvi sq. § 11. Some account of the Versions, 
pp. clxxviii-clxxxiii 


XV. Methods of interpretation adopted in this Commentary. § 1. Con- 


temporary-Historical. § 2. Eschatological. ὃ 3. Chiliastic. § 4a. 
Philological—in earlier form. ὃ 5. Literary-Critical, embracing 
(a) Redactional-Hypothesis, (ὁ) Sources-Hypothesis, (ὦ Frag- 
mentary-Hypothesis. § 6. Traditional-Historical. § 7. Religious- 
Historical. § 8. Philosophical. §9. Psychological. ὃ 44. 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, 1-373. 


INTRODUCTION, 


Ἰΐ 


§ 1. Short Account of the Seer and his Work. 


Joun 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.!' 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,? 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. 
xx1 


xxii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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

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. 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. 

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,® he wrote his great Apocalypse in the 
form of a letter, about the year 95 a.p.6 The object’? 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 Seer 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 of God 
and of His Christ.” 

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

The fact of his having freely used sources might seem to 
militate against the unity of his work.!° But this is not so. A 
glance at the Plan” of the book will show how thought and 
action steadily advance step by step from its very beginning till 
they reach their consummation and culminate at its close. 

But unhappily the prophet did not live to revise his work, or 
even to put the materials of 20*~22 into their legitimate order. !2 
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 


1 See pp. Ixvi sqq., Ixxx sq. ? See pp. xxix-xl. _ 
8. See pp. xli-xliii. * See pp. xxxii-xxxiv. 
5 See p. Ixxxix sq. note. 8 See p. xxiv. 

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

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


1 See pp. xxili-xxviii. 12 See pp. I-lv. 


PLAN OF THE BOOK XXill 


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.} 

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 righ!,? 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, 113, the Apocalypse 
proper, consisting of seven parts—a significant number—and an 
Epilogue. The events in these seven parts are described in 
visions 7 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: 2.6. 7°17 ro—11}8 14, and 12, which relates to the past, 
but forms a necessary introduction to 13.3 

Thus there is no need to resort to the theory of Recapitula- 
tion which from the time of Victorinus of Pettau (civca 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. 


ὃ. 2. Plan of the Book. 


The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, 11-3, a letter consisting 
of seven distinct parts: (1) 142, (2) 2-3, (3) 4-5, (4) 6-203, (5) 
219222 14-15. 17 204-10. (6) goll-l5, (7) 215% 4d. 5b. 1-dabe 993-5 and an 
Epilogue, 215°-6b-8 226-7. 18a, 16. 18, 12. 10. 8-9, 20-21, 


1 See pp. I-lv. 2 See pp. lvi-Ix. 3 See p. xxv. 


XXiV THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, the Apocalypse 
proper—consisting of seven distinct parts, and an Epilogue. In 
the Prologue, 11°, 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, 
215 6.8. by Christ, 229-7 18. 16.18.10; and by John himself, 
228-9. 20-21, 

The seven parts and the Epilogue constitute a letter, 14-2221, 
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” 
(τ: 88), 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 deatitudes of the 
Apocalypse (ze. 18), and the Epilogue the seventh (¢¢. 227). 
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.? 

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 
1 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°10 171°), whereas seven is a most sacred 
number in his regard. 

The seven parts are as follows: (1) 1*%°, 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) 6-78, 81. 8.8. 32. 6. 18. Ο, 1114. τ2. 15-208. Judg- 
ments of the world. (5) 219-22? 14-15-17 20410, 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) 2015, Heaven and earth vanish: final 
judgment by God Himself. (7) 215% 44.5b.1-4abo 238-5, The 


1 See note oni. 3; also footnote! in vol. ii. 445. 


PLAN OF THE BOOK XXV 


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, sce. 7°17 ro—11}8 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 proleptic. After 71% the visionary gaze of the 
Seer leaves for the moment the steady progressive unveiling of 
the events of his future and beholds in 791’ 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 1415, 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 10-1118 the 
explanation is different. Our Seer sees Rome to be the 
impersonation of sheer might, of wickedness and lawlessness, ze. 
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. 24) 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: 


113, 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 
therein. 


Prologue, 11°, 


I, John writes to the Seven Churches 
to tell them that he has seen Christ 
and been bidden by Him to send 
them the visions written in this 
book—1*-*®, 


1*7, John begins his letter to the 
Seven Churches with the blessing of 
grace and peace from the Everlasting 
God and Jesus Christ, Lord of the 
dead and Ruler of the living, the 
Redeemer. 

190, 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 
Churches. 


XXVi 
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 Sertes— 


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. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 
world. 


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 Ilimself 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. 

71-8, 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. 

7917, Proleptic vision of a vast 
multitude of the faithful in heaven, #.¢. 
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. 
ἐν 3-5. 2. 6.13. 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. 


9-111, First and second demonic 
woes (heralded by trumpet blasts) 
affecting only those whv had_ not 
been sealed, with torment and death 
respectively. 


PLAN OF 


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. 
servants are visited with spiritual 
blindness and marked with the mark 
of the Beast. All the faithful are 
martyred. 


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


Judgments. Third Series, 15°-20°. 

(a) Preliminary judgments— the 
Seven Bowls affecting the heathen who 
alone survive. 


(ὁ) 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. 


All Satan’s : 


THE BOOK XXVii 

10-11'%, Proleptic digression on 
the Antichrist in Jerusalem—a vision 
contemporaneous in point of time 
with 13. 

1r}4>-19, Third and Satanic Wo- 
heralde| 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 
ofthe 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. 

141. Proleptic vision (a) of the 
Church triumphant oz earth in the 
Millennial Kingdom and the conver- 
sion of the heathen—a vision con- 
temporaneous with 2048, and (6) in 
148-11. 14. 18-20 of judgment of Rome 
and of the heathen nations—a vision 
contemporaneous with and summar- 
IZIN GMS ΠΟΥ νον ΖΟΙ 

1574, 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. 


15°°8, The Seven Bowls of God’s 
wrath entrusted to the Seven Angels. 
16. The Seven Bowls. 


1716, Vision of the Great Harlot 


181-19 21-234. Vision of her destruc- 


n. 

1839. 23f-24. The Seer’s appeal to 
Heaven to rejoice. 

19'*, Thanksgiving song of the 
angels. 

194 16°>6, Thanksgiving song of 
the Elders and Cherubim. 

16’, Thanksgiving song of the 
altar beneath the throne. 

1958, Thanksgiving song of the 


seated on the Beast. 
17°18. Interpretation of this vision. 
: host in heaven, 


XxViil 


(8) Destruction of the Parthian 
hosts by Christ and His elect. 


(y) 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. 


V Millennial Kingdom : Jerusalem 
come down from heaven to be its 
Capital. Reign of the martyred Saints 
for 1000 years. 


Final attack of the evil powers on 
the Saints in the Beloved City: their 
destruction and the casting of Satan 
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. 


VII. The Everlasting Kingdom 
established in which God and Christ 
dwell with man. Reign of all the 
saints for ever and ever. 


Epilogue. 





207710, 
ὩΣ Satan loosed: march of 


| 


f 
21%e- δ0-8. God’s testimony to John’s 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Lost (though referred to prolep- 
tically in 174 and presupposed in 
198; possibly displaced by the inter- 
polated passage, 19%). 


10.1.3, The Word of God and 
the armies of Heaven destroy the 
hostile nations. The Beast and False 
Prophet cast into the lake of fire. 

201, 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. 

219 22% 14:62 1 oGk” Vaan ae 
the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down 
from heaven to be the abode of Christ 
and the glorified martyrs who are to 
reign with Christ 1000 years and 
evangelize the nations. 

Close of the Millennial 
Gog and Magog against the Beloved 
City : their destruction and the casting 
of Satan into the lake of fire. 


20-15, 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 
fire. 

2418. 4d. 5b. 1-4abe 223-5, The 
heaven, the new earth, and the New 
Jerusalem. The faithful reign as 
kings for ever and ever, 


new 


book and His message to mankind 
through John of divine sonship for 
them that overcome. 

22°-7- 18a. 16. 13. 12. 10 Christ’s testi- 
mony to John’s book. The seventh 
beatitude. 
judgment. 

228: 9: 20-21, John’s own testimony. 
Christ’s final words. 
and benediction. 


Christ’s speedy coming to 


John’s praye 


AUTHORSHIP OF JOHANNINE WRITINGS XX1X 


II, 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS—-LINGUISTIC 
EVIDENCE. 


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. 

§ 1. Zhe grammatical differences. —These make the as- 
sumption of a common authorship of J and J?? absolutely 
impossible, unless a very long interval intervenes between the 
dates of 75} 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 
7" 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”) the evidence is more than adequate to prove diver- 
sity of authorship. Observe amongst a host of other differences 
that, whereas J uses μή with the participle 11 times and the 
genitive absolute frequently, our author uses neither. Also that 
whereas in our author the attracted relative never occurs, it often 
Secure ini) 5ῈΒ 1 78? ΤΡ 170 25 22! and 171. Again, 
in J*? ἄξιος is followed by inf. ; in J by wa. 

§ 2. Differences in diction—Lists of words found in J*? 
but not in J could be given here, or wice 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 πίστις 4 times 
and πίστος 8, whereas J has not πίστις at all, πιστός once, but 
πιστεύειν nearly 100 times. Our author uses ὑπομονή 7 times 
and σοφία 4, but J, neither. On the other hand, J uses 
ἀγαπᾷν 36 times and ἀγάπη 7 (1. 2. 3 J 31 and 21 respectively), 
but our author has ἀγαπᾷν only 4 and ἀγάπη only 2 times. 
Again, ἀλήθεια, ἀληθής, and χαρά found so frequently in J, are 
wholly absent from our author. J has μέν. .. δέ 6 or more 


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


ΧΧΧ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


times, our author not once: ἀλλά τοο and γάρ 65, and our author 
13 and 16 respectively. Again our author has ἐνώπιον 34 times 
and ἵνα 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 ἀρνίον (= Lamb of God) 29 times 
where J uses ἀμνός 2: pov or éuov! (= mine”) where J uses 
ἐμός 36 times: αὐτός as an emphatic pronoun 3” 1410 1013, 
whereas J uses ἐκεῖνος in this sense while he uses αὐτός as an 
unemphatic pronoun: see Abbott, Gr. 236. Again our author 
says ἐν μέσῳ Or ἀνὰ μέσον where J uses μέσος : ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ where 
J has Ἰεροσόλυμα.3 Our author uses ἰδού (26), but J ἰδέϑ: 
"Tovdatos, 29 39 (=a member of the Chosen People of God, nearly 
soin Ro 217: 38), where J has Ἰσραηλίτης, 1*7. Again, whereas our 
author defines the historic city Jerusalem as τῆς πόλεως. . . ἥτις 
καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα, 118, J names it as ᾿Ιερόσυλυμα, 119 218 
etc. : 

A very interesting divergence is to be observed where the 
Greek equivalent of “called” or “‘named” occurs. Here our 
author always has καλεῖν and λέγειν. Thus we have 1° τῇ 
νήσῳ τ. καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ, 12° ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος, while J 
writes 45 πόλιν... λεγομένην Συχάρ, 4535 Μεσσίας. ... ὁ λεγό- 
μενος Χριστός, 1116 θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος (cf. 188 «3 011 1154 20% 
213): and just as our author says, 118 ἥτις καλεῖται. .. Σόδομα, 
so J 19!7 says ὃ λέγεται... Τολγοθά. The divergence comes 
still more into relief when we compare J*? 1616 τόπον τ. καλού- 
μενον. . . Ap Μαγεδών and J 19) τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον. 
On this as well as on other grounds 8115 καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος 
λέγεται Ὁ Αψινθος is to be excised as a gloss. 

Again, our author always uses κατοικεῖν of living in a certain 
locality ; J sometimes uses μένειν in this sense, but never κατοι- 
κεῖν : also ὀλίγον, 171° (= ‘a little while”), whereas J says μικρόν 
in the same sense g times; and οὖς 8 times while J uses ὠτίον 
once. 

A very delicate distinction calls for attention in their equi- 
valents of the English “no longer.” Thus our author‘ says οὐκ 
... ἔτι (14, including chap. xvili.), but J always οὐκέτι (12), 
and ὡς with finite verb by way of illustration (2527), while J uses 
καθώς with finite verb (1315 1512 17°8 etc.). 

Finally, whereas J frequently uses καθώς (31, and 1. 2. 3 J 13 


17 uses σός (6), ὑμέτερος (3), ἴδιος (15), and 1 J ἡμέτερος (2), but our author 
uses the possessive pronouns always in their stead. He has ἐμός once. 

2In our author Ἱερουσαλήμ 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 ᾿Ιεροσό- 
λυμα. : 

3 J uses ἰδού 4 times. 

4 Our author has οὐκέτι 3 times (2 of these in chap. xviii.). 


AUTHORSHIP OF JOHANNINE WRITINGS 


times), our author uses always ὡς in the same sense. 


XXX] 


Where J says 


καθὼς ἐγώ (1510), our author says ὡς κἀγώ (227).1 Where J*? uses 


ἄχρι (11 times), J uses ἕως. 
ἄχρι. 


Where J*? uses σφόδρα, 1621, 2. 3 J, uses λίαν. 


Neither J nor 1. 2. 3 J use 
In this 


last contrast, I assume that 2. 3 J and J are from the same 


author. 


§ 4. Words and phrases with one meaning in our author and 


a different one in J: 


APOCALYPSE. 


a\nOivds=true in word as opposed 
to false (Ξ- ἀληθής). 
ἀκούειν φωνῆς" ἀκούειν φωνήν. 


αὐτός used as emphatic pronoun, 


οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ 3---α title of the 
highest honour: οἵ, 1} (4s) 73 107 
jl ΤΟΣ, 

δωρεάν, 215 2217 = ** freely,” 

ἔθνος or ἔθνη (23)=Gentiles, 236 112 
15*etc., orall nations, including the 
Jews (Ὁ). 

᾿Ιουδαῖος, 2° 39—used in a good sense. 


\douos=the created world, 11 138 
178. 

λαός -- Gentiles generally, but =Chris- 
tian believers twice. 

Ὃ Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, 19!8—a conception 
developed in Jewish thought. 


οὖν (6), always illative,® a particle of 
logical appeal. 

ποιμαίνειν, 2*7 12° 19! = ““ to destroy ” 
(though in 7!7=‘* to feed”’), 





FOURTH GOSPEL, 


=‘ genuine” as opposed to unreal. 
See vol. i. 85 sq. 

Different meaning in J. See Gram., 
vol. i. p. cxl. 

Used as unemphatic pronoun, ἐκεῖνος 
being used as emphatic, 

15)5 οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους. 


1525 ‘* without a cause.” 
ἔθνος (5) only used of Jewish nation. 


Used over 70 times, and generally 
in a bad sense. 

κόσμος = the world of man (frequently, 
and often in a bad sense). 

Jewish nation (2, excluding 83). 


Ὃ Λόγος, J 11899. This conception 
is quite different and presupposes, 
while opposing, Philonic specula- 
tions. 

195 times, and generally a narrative 
particle, Ζ.6. of historical transition. 

21. “τὸ feed.” 


17 uses ὡς in a temporal sense (=‘‘ when”) 20 times: our author never. 
On our author’s various uses of ὡς, see vol. i. 35 sq. 
* The servant in J 151° knows not his Master’s will, in J@P he does. 


In our author the word δοῦλος means (a) a slave as opposed to ἐλεύθερος : cf. 
615 1316 19'8, and (4) a willing servant of God, whether prophet or other faith- 
ful worshipper: cf. 11 2% 7% 107 etc. Thus our author uses δοῦλος as the 
equivalent of παρ. But in J δοῦλος follows the Greek usage as denoting a 
bondman in the literal sense, cf. 15!°, and in the metaphorical sense 8% 
δοῦλος. . ΄. τῆς ἁμαρτίας. τν is not used in this metaphorical sense. The verb 
72, however, is used ofidolatrous service. See Abbott, Johannine Voc. 212, 
227, 289-292, for the use made by the four Evangelists of this word. 

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


ΧΧΧῚΙ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


προσκυνεῖν, c. dat. =‘ to worship.” These constructions have exactly 
7 c. ace. ‘* to do homage to.” opposite meanings in J. See Gr. 
See note on 7": vol. 1. 211 sqq. p. cxli, also vol. i. 211-212; 


Abbott, Voc. 137 sqq. ᾿ 
ὕδωρ ζωῆς, 215 2217 {ize ζῶν, 4'° 7%8, which phrase 


ξύλον ζωῆς, 2122. 14 includes the meanings of the two 


phrases in J8P, See vol. i. 54 sq. 


Again, though 7!5 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ Τ τ. θρόνου T σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς 
is similar to J 115 ὃ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, the 
similarity is only an outward one. The same is true of 257 εἴληφα 
παρὰ τ. πατρός μου as compared with J 10!8 ταύτην τ. ἐντολὴν 
ἔλαβον παρὰ τ. πατρός μου. 

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


(a) The following phrases point in this direction: 


APOCALYPSE. FouRTH GOSPEL, 
2? οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι. 16? οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν. 
205 ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν. 138 ἔχεις μέρος μετά. 
225 ποιῶν ψεῦδος. 371 ποῖων τ. ἀλήθειαν (1 J 3° ποιῶν 
τ. ἁμαρτίαν). 
2217 ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω. 7°7 ἐάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρὸς μὲ καὶ 
πινέτω. 


(ὁ) The spiritual significance attached to such terms as ζωή, 
θάνατος, διψᾷν, δόξα, πεινᾷν, νικᾷν (16 times, in J (1), in 
1 J (6)), ὁδηγεῖν. 

(c) The occurrence of the following words and phrases 
exclusively in these two writers in the N.T. λαλεῖν 
pera (elsewhere in N.T. the dative or πρός cum. acc. 
follows λαλεῖν) : ὄψις (115—J 1152) -- πρόσωπον : τηρεῖν 
τ. λόγον or λόγους (4 times—J 8: see note, vol. i. 369): 
ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος, 68---ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Ιωάννης, J 1° 3): 
χρόνον μικρόν, 611---Τ 4783: μικρὸν χρόνον, 208--- 1288: 
κυκλεύειν OnCe—J once: πορφύρεος 2 times—J 2 times: 
σκηνοῦν, 4—J once: φοῖνιξ, once—J once. 

(4) The agreement of both authors (in 17—-J 19%”) in the 
rendering ἐξεκέντησαν against the LXX. See, however, 
vol. i. 18 sq. The use of the suspensive ὅτι; see 
Gram, Pp. CXXXVii. 

(e) The use by both authors of the following phrases and 
words—found occasionally in the rest of the N.T. 
ποιεῖν σημεῖον, 4—J] 14 (only 4 times in rest of N.T.): 
τηρεῖν τ. ἐντολάς, 2—J 4 (1 J 5 times): δεικνύναι (of 
revelation), 8—J 7: ἑβραιστί, 2—J 5: μαρτυρία, 9---} 14 
(1 J 6 times, 3 J once): πιάζειν, 1—J 8: onpaive, 
t—J 3: φιλεῖν, 2—J 13: σφάζειν, 8—1 J 2 times. 


AUTHORS OF JA? AND J IN SOME WAY RELATED xxxili 


(7) There is to be no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem—the 
Capital of the Messianic Kingdom, 217%. Accord- 
ing to J 471 the temple will cease to exist as the centre 
of worship. 

(g) The same Jewish and Christian ideas underlie the phrase 
ὃ ἀμνὸς Tov θεοῦ, J 17% 86 and the equivalent phrase τὸ 
ἀρνίον in 73. 

(Δ) 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 znd 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 te 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 inose 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 1st century are infinitesimal as 

¢ 


Χχχὶν THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


compared with those that prevailed in contemporary and earlier 
Judaism. 

$6. J and (1.) 2. 3 J were written by the same Author.— 
That J and 1 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! But a study of the internal 
evidence leads to the conclusion that all 2. 3 J and most 
probably 1 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*?, the 
style of these two Epistles is decidedly that of J (or 1 J) as 
opposed to that of J* 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*P 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*? 
and which is not found in J. In 2 710 we have εἴ τις (ἔρχεται), 
which occurs occasionally in J*? but never in J or 1 J, which have 
always ἐάν τις. But there seems to be a reason for using εἰ here 
and not ἐάν. The author assumes that the ἔρχεσθαι is not a 
mere possibility but a thing likely to happen. ὡς with the part. 
is found in 2 [8 οὐχ ὡς γράφων, and in J* 1 5% 13% but notin J. 
But the usage is not really the same in 2 15 δηὰ 1. Inthe 
latter ὡς conveys the idea of likeness, whereas in 2 J ® it implies 
a purpose. The Hebraism in 2 J ? διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν 
ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἔσται (= “which abideth in us and shall be 
with us”) is of frequent occurrence in J*®, But it occurs probably 
in J 133 τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον. . . καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, 
and in Col 17°, Hence no real weight can be assigned to these 
coincidences in sty le. 

On the other hand, the body of evidence in favour of a 
common authorship of J and (1.) 2. 3 J carries with it absolute 
conviction. 

i. 2. 3 J are with one exception (2 /*) free from the solecisms 

and idiosyncrastes of J%. 
li. Constructions common to 2. 3 J and J, but not found in J”: 
(a) 2 and 3 J use py 3 times with the participle: J 11 
times: 1 J 8 times: 3 J has μηδέν once with 
part., while J has it twice. But J*? never 
1 Origen (Eus. vi. 25. 10) writes that questions as to the genuineness of 


these Ep stles were rife in certain quarters: Jerome (De Viris /ilust. 9) 
distinctly assigns them to different hands. 


J AND I. 2.3 J BY THE SAME AUTHOR XXXV 


uses μή or μηδέν with the participle. In this 
respect J*® ‘diverges from: J, 1: 2. 3 J, exactly 
as the //zad does from the Odyssey. 

(6) In 2 J? the writer uses μή with the present 
imperative, 2.6. μὴ λαμβάνετε (3 11] μὴ μιμοῦ) in 
order to forbid an action not yct begun. Here 
the author of J*? would have used μή 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? we have the genitive absolute, which occurs 
often in J but never in J*? (nor 1 J). 

(4) The unemphatic possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ (or 
αὐτῆς) (1.6. the genitive before its noun) occurs in 
3 J 1° x1 J 2° and frequently in J, but never in J*P 
{save in a source 18°). 

(e) οὗτος is used resumptively in regard to a preceding 
clause (consisting of 6 with part. or és with finite 
verb) in 2 J 9 and 4 times in J but not in J*. 

(7) μαρτυρεῖν takes the dative 3 times in 3 J and 4 in J, 
but J*? always construes it withthe acc. μαρτυρεῖν 
is followed by ὅτι in 1 J and by περί in J, but 
by neither in J*?. 

(g) In 3 J® the order of the words, 6 φιλοπρωτεύων 
αὐτῶν Διοτρέφης, has several parallels in J but none 
in J*? (or 1 J). The author of J*? would have 
written ὁ Avorpépys 6 φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν. See 
Gram. p. αἰν!. πολύς 1S a prepositive in 2J71 J 4] 
—J 65 τοῦδ 1147 etc.; but always postpositive 
in JP; once in 1 J’and in J 37 6* 19412; 

(2) ἐρωτῶ σε... ἵνα, 2 J5—J 4* 17 τοῦθ but not 
in J*. αὐτὴ ἐστὶν. .. ἵνα, 2] 7 1512 778 
(τ J 3-25), but ποῖ in J®. μειζοτέραν τούτων 
οὐχ ἔχω χαράν, ἵνα ἀκούω, 3 7 -- μείζονα ταύτης 
ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει, ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ 
J 151%. To this construction I know of no real 
parallel. 

iii, Words, particles, and phrases common to 2.3 J and J (1 /), 
but not found in 752, 

(a) Words. ἀληθής, ἀληθῶς, ἀλήθεια, μείζων, μένειν, 
ὀφείλειν, χαρά. 

(ὁ) Purticles and phrases. ἀλλὰ καί, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, καθώς, 
καὶ νῦν, περί (Cum gen.), τοιοῦτος, ὑπέρ: καὶ ἡμεῖς 
δέ, 3 J2—J 15%: ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 2 JJ 84 τοῦτ (1 J 
11 27-1314 ete.): τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς 


* The verb ‘‘ask” does not occur in J4P though ἐρωτᾶν is found in 2 J and 
J, and alretvin tJ and J. J uses also ἐξετάζειν, ἐπερωτᾶν, πυνθάνεσθαι. 


ΧΧΧΥΪ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


2 J '—J 77 τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά : ὑπομνήσω, 3 J ' 
= 1455: τὸ κακόν, 3 11.--Ἰ 1838; τὸ ἀγαθόν 
ju_y 5%, 
iv. Words frequent in I. 2. 3 J and J, but exceptional in 
J”. ἐμός once in 3 J (in 15 verses), only once in J*P in 
404 verses; thus 3 J using it once in 15 verses 
approximates to J which uses it once in every 22. 
ΤΡ uses no other possessive adjective, but 1 J 
uses ἡμέτερος twice, and ὑμέτερος 3 times and σός 6. 
ἐπί does not occur in I. 2. 3 J, but 150 times in J* 
and 35 in J. If J had it relatively as often as J, it 
would occur 225 times instead of 35. Thus 1. 2. 3 J 
are strongly marked off here from J*? but approximate 
to ji 
v. The following parallel expressions are in themselves strong 
evidence of identity of authorship: 


2 [9 πᾶς 6... μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ J is (cf. 1819) ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἐμή. 


This parallel is full of significance ; for in J διδαχή is used only of 
Christ’s teaching (as derived from God, 71"), whereas in JP it is 
used only of heretical teaching : cf. 21" 15.24, 


2 J " ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. J 10'8 ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ 
τοῦ πατρός μου. 
2 15 ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (1 J ait): J 16% ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶπον. 
Zin ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι καινήν (ἐντολὴν J 13°4 ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι. 
καινὴν γράφω, J 2"). 


2 J} οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀληθεῖ J 833 γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 
10} ὍΣ ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν J 33 αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται 
πεπληρωμένη ἢ ἧ. (Chaise ξρεὶ 

3 J '° ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει. J 9% ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω. 

11} οὐχ ἑώρακεν. τὸν θεόν. J 149 ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα. 


: J? ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν. J 8'4 ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου. 


The connection of 2. 3 J with 1 J could be shown by such 


exa' nples as 2 [9 θεὸν οὐκ ieee J 512 6... ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ : 

3 J 1) ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν---ἰ 45: 2 }7ἴ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.--ἰ J 2.5.5; 
The conception of the Antichrist in 1. 2 J is quite different from 
that in J*?. 


vi. Zhere are no quotations in 1. 2.3 J. In this respect they 
show an affinity with 7 where there are very few, and 
offer a strong contrast to J*? 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 
700, The order of the words exhibits none of the 
monotonous regularity of ]*”. 

From the above evidence I conclude without hesitation that 

1. 2. 3 J and J are ultimately from the same author. J has 


RESULTS OF PRECEDING CRITICISM XXXVII 


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

§ 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*? 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.p., 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 4.p. This 
misconception has therefore vitiated the evidence of most Early 
Church writers on this question,” and has proved an zgns 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 Zaudatio 
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’. 


12J7ol μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες "I. X. ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί presents no difficulty 
in the face of 1 J 4. The ἐρχόμενον is timeless: ‘‘confess not J. Christ as 
coming in the flesh.” Nor does the phrase ὁ πρεσβύτερος, 2 [1 3 J} point to 
any connection with J@P. For πρεσβύτερος there has a different meaning. 
Even an apostle could designate himself thus: cf. 1 Pet 5! 6 συμπρεσβύτερος. 
But Peter has already called himself ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 11. Hence 
there is no risk of confusion. No weight, moreover, attaches to the use of 
κοινωνεῖν for κοινωνίαν ἔχειν, or the occurrence of the greeting χάρις, ἔλεος, 
εἰρήνη. 

2 Justin Martyr believes in the Apostolic authorship of J@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 (06. ere. 180) and subsequent 
writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, have lost ail knowledge of the early 
martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee. 


XXXVIIl THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


ΠῚ, 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS. 


It may assist the reader if the conclusions arrived at in this 
chapter are put shortly as follows (a) J’? and J are from 
distinct authors. (4) 2. 3 J are from the author of J and not of 
ΤΡ. 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 al! internal evidence the 
author of J andof1J. (4) John the prophet—a Palestinian Jew, 
who late in life migrated to Asia Minor, is the author of J*?. 
(6) 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.p. 

$1. The Apocalypse ts not pseudonymous, but the work of a 
Jvhn.—In Jewish literature practically every apocalyptic book 
was pseudonymous. I have elsewhere! 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 prior? 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 (2219). In four distinct 


1See my Zschatology*, 173-205 (especially 198-205), 403 sq. ; Daniel, 
p. xi sq., Religtous Development berween the O. and N. Testaments, 41-46. 


JA? AND J OF DIFFERENT AUTHORSHIP XXX1X 


passages he gives his name as John (11-49 228), He states that he 
is a servant of Jesus Christ (1!), a brother of the Churches in Asia 
and one who has shared in their tribulations (1°), that he has him- 
self seen and heard the things contained in his book (228), 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 (1%). Toa 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%) who lived in Asia 
Minor, and that his actual name was Jo!n. J*P is just as 
assuredly the work of a John as 2 Thess 2 and 1 Cor 15 are 
apocalypses of St. Paul. 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 Apocalyp-e is pseudonymous. 

There is manifold early evidence of the Johannine authorship. 
Thus Justin, who lived about 135 a.p. in Ephesus, where one 
of the Seven Churches had its seat, declares that J*? is by “John, 
one of the apostles of Christ” (Dza/. 81). Melito, bishop of 
Sardis, another of the Seven Churches, wrote (ci7c. 165) a lost 
work on J®P (τὰ περὶ. . . τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννου : see Eus. 
iv. 26. 2). Irenaeus (7c. 180) upheld the Johannine authorship 
of all the Johannine writings in the N.T. For J#?, see Haer. 
fit TY. I, ἵν. 20. II, V. 35. 2, where John is called Domini dis- 
cipulus (ὃ τοῦ κυρίου μαδητής) (a title, however, which does not 
exclude apostleship; cf. ii. 22.5). Tertullian cites J*P as the 
work of the Apostle John (¢ A/arc. iii. 14, 24). So also Origen, 
Hippolytus, and others: also the Muratorian Canon. 

§ 2. John, the author of J”, is distinct from the author of 
J.—Tertullian,? Hippolytus,* and Origen® were assured that 

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

2 Hence the attribution of the Apocaly pse to the heretic Cerinthus by Caius 
(200-220 A.D, See Eus. ii. 25, vii. 25) and the Alogi (Epiphanius, /aer. li. 
3,4), in ancient times and by certain modern scholars, i is an utterly baseless 
and gratuitous hypo'hesis. 3 Ὁ, Mare. iii. 14, 24. 

4 See his Comment. on Daniel, edited by Achelis, 1897, pp. 142, 240, 244, 
etc., and his Περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου, XxXxvi., Οὗτος γὰρ ἐν Tarp | νον ὁρᾷ ἀποκά- 
λυύψεν.. . λέγε μοι, ὦ μακάριε Ἰωάννη, ἀπόστολε καὶ μαθητὰ τοῦ κυρίου, τί εἶδες. 


5 In Joann. , tom. 1. 14: φησὶν οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου 
᾿Ιωάννης : tom, v. 3: see also the quotation from Origen in Eus. vi. 25. 9. 


χὶ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 (οὖ. 265 A.D.), 
bishop of Alexandria, a pupil of Origen. Dionysius (Eus. 4.£. 
vii. 25. 7-27) accepts J*P 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. (4) There is 
a large body of expressions of the same complexion and char- 
acter common to the Gospel and 1 J, but wholly absent from J*?. 
Indeed, the latter “‘does not contain a syllable in common” with 
the two former works. (c) The phraseology of the Gospel and 
1 J differs from that of J*®. The former are written in irrepre- 
hensible Greek (ἀπταίστως), and it would be difficult to discover 
in them any barbarism or solecism or idiotism (ἰδιωτισμόν). But 
the dialect and language of J*? is inaccurate Greek (διάλεκτον . . . 
καὶ γλῶτταν ὀυκ ἀκριβῶς ἑλληνίζουσαν), and is characterized by 
barbarous idioms and solecisms. Such is Dionysius’ criticism 
of the style of J*?; 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*®. 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 ΤΡ 
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 ? 

8.4. 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%.—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 


I. 2.3 J AND J BY SAME AUTHOR xli 


(εἶπεν), 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 (λέγουσιν). 
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 (z.e. the Elder), unless one will have it to be the 
first, saw the Apocalypse bearing the name of John (ili. 39. 6).” 
At an earlier date Dionysius of Alexandria threw out the same 
suggestion. He held that John the Apostle wrote J andi 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 (vil. 25. 16). 
Jerome testifies to the belief (‘“‘Johannis presbyteri . . . cujus 
hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur,” De vires 
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 (zbid. 18). 

§ 4. But 2 and 3 John appear on examination of the language 
and tdiom to proceed even more certainly than 1 J from the author 
of /--The traditional view assigns 1 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. xviil).”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 1 J. 
Thus Bousset (Offenbarung, 1906) at the close of a long discussion 
on the authorship of J*? (pp. 34-49) concludes that a John of 
Asia Minor, and not John the Apostle, was the author of J*P: 
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 V.T., pp. 


11 take J as it stands, since its relation to I. 2. 3 J does not require any 
critical study of its composition. J and 1 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 1 J, which is given in Moffatt’s 
Introd. to N.T.°, p. 590 sq., should be noted. They are important. 


xiii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


444-446, 1907) is also of opinion that John the Elder was the 
author of J*? and 2. 3 J as well as 1 J. Next, Schmiedel 
(Johannine Writings, pp. 208-209, 216-217, 229-231, 1908) 
attributes J*P and 2. 3 J to an unknown writer who assumed the 
pseudonym of John the Elder, and 1 J to another author. The 
joint authorship of J*? 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! of 2. 3 J in 
comparison with ] and J*?, 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 
ΤΡ, since an early tradition assigned the latter to John the Elder 
and the opening words (ὃ Πρεσβύτερος) 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 
above. 

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" 
The facts there set forth admit in the present writer’s opimion 
of only one conclusion as regards the relations of 2. 3 J with J 
and J*?, and this is that whereas 2. 3 7 have nothing whatever to 
do with /%, they are more tdiomatically connected with J than ts 
I J, and postulate the same authorship. 

$5. Hf, then, (7.) 2.3 J and J are derived from the same author 
and 75) from quite a different author, and John the Elder ts admitted 
to be the author of 2. 3 J, it follows further that John the Elder 
ts the author not only of 2.3 J, but also of J and of 1 J.— 
There is no eviden'e that John the Elder wrote J*P 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 (Le 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. 166 sq.): “The evidence of Papias and 
Irenaeus points to a prevalent Christian usage of the word 
(πρεσβιτερος), especially in Asia, to denote these 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 πρεσβύτερος 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*P is known to me. 


But for my previous study of J@? I should have missed most of the points 
that determine the question at issue. 


J4? NOT OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP xliii 


of the Apostles. ‘The absolute use of the phrase in Papnas 
(καὶ τοῦθ᾽ ὃ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε) 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 i ts only natural to recognize the Elder, 
mentioned in Sapias and in 2. 3 J, as John the Elder, whom 
Papias so carefully distinguishes from John the Apostle. The 
writer of 2. 3 J cannot have been an apostle} 

But tf John the Elder was the author of 2. 3 J. then we 
conclude further ὧν means of the results arrived atin 11. § 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 
own. 
δ 6. Lf John the Elder is the author of J and (1.) 2. 3 J, ts 
John the Apostle the author of J’? No. John, tts author, claims 
to be a prophet, not an apostle. He was a Palestinian Jew who 
migrated to Asta Minor when probably advanced in years.— 
John the author of J*? nowhere claims that he is an apostle. 
He appears to look upon the apostles retrospectively and from 
without, 2114 (cf. 187°). 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 Tt 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 wowld naturally 
have availed himself of his power as an apostle to suppress Diotrephes 
and others who disowned his jurisdiction and authority, which they could 
not have done had he been an apostle. Further, in case 1 Pet 5! 
is quoted to prove that an apostle may desiynate himself as an elder 
(πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ συνπρεσβύτεροΞ). we have only to observe 
that Peter has at the outset indicated his apostolic authority, so that the 
words in 5! form no true parallel to 2. 3 J}. 

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%) to the elders, who said that they had heard it from John 
the disciple. Such an expectation, if it was /zteral/y 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 metaph«rical sense. 
In these passages Irenzeus believes that the John he is speaking of is the 
Apostle and not the Elder, although he never designates him as ἀπόστολος, but 
only as μαθητής. 


xliv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


of the brotherhood of the Christian prophets, 22%, who are God’s 
servants in a special sense, 1! τοῦ 1118 226 whereas other 
Christians are God’s servants so far as they observe the things 
revealed by the prophets, 22%. He is a servant of Jesus Christ, 
14, a brother! of the Churches of Asia and a partaker in their 
sufferings, 1%. He is commanded “to prophesy” to the nations 
of the earth, το], He designates his work as ‘the words of the 
prophecy,” 1°, or “the words of the prophecy of this book,” 

227-10.18 fence it may be safely concluded that the author of 
ΤΡ was not an apostle. 

The author of J*? 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*® 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 his 
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 9,» Paul is similarly described (ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφός) ; but there one 
apostle is supposed to be referring to another. 


MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE xlv 


§ 7. The silence of ecclesiastical writers down to 180 A.D. as to 
any residence of John the Apostle in Asta Minor ts against his being 
the author of /*’.—The conclusion reached in ὃ 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*? was evidently the chief authority in the Ephesian 
Church, or at least one of his chief authorities. Thus Ignatius 
(circ. 110 A.D.) in his letter to the Church of Ephesus (12?) 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. 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 (crc. 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, tf trustworthy, renders his 
authorship of J? 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 10*-40= 
Mt 2070-°3, and especially the words: ‘The cup that I drink shall 
ye drink” (τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω πίεσθε Kai τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ 
βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε, ΜΚ τοβϑ-- τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου πίεσθε, 
Mt 2.038).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 12%, 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 Sthne Zebedaez, 1904; Wellhausen and 
J. Weiss on Mk 10%; Schmiedel, Avcyc. 82d. ii. 2509-2510; Burkitt, 
Gospel History, 250 sq. ; Moffatt, Zxtrod. to Literature of the N.7.* 602 sq., 
613 sq.; Swete, 716 Apocalypse, p. clxxix sq ; Bacon, Fourth Gospel in 
Research, 133, 147; Latimer Jackson, Problem of the Fourth Gospel, 
142-150. 
τς τ these words are taken to be a vaticination fost 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. 


xlvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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, 

(ὁ) But though Acts 12® fails us here, there is a Papias- 
tradition recounting the martyrdom of John.—A MS of Georgius 
Hamartolus (gth cent.) states on the authority of Papias that John 
the son of Zebedee was slain by the Jews ((lwavvys) μαρτυρίου κατ- 
ηξίωται: Παπίας yap... φάσκει ὅτι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, πληρώσας 
δηλαδὴ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ αὐτῶν πρόρρησιν). 
‘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 
Sidé (5th cent.). “ Papias in the second book says that John the 
Divine and James his brother were slain by the Jews” (Παπίας 
ἐν τ. δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ θεολόγος καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος 6 
ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν). Swete (Apoc. clxxix. sq.) 
adds here the folowing 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: ¢he martyrdom of John 
at the hand of the Jews might have taken place at any date 
before the last days of Jerusalem.” 

This Papias-tradition is rejected by Bernard, Studia Sacra, 
260-284; Harnack, 7ZZ., 1909, 10-12; Drummond, 227 sq. ; 
Zahn, Forschungen, vi. 147 54.; Armitage Robinson, /tstorical 
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. 

(c) Certain ancient writers imply or recount the martyrdom of 
John the son of Zebedee.—The first evidence is that of Heracleon 
(an early Gnostic commentator on J, about 145 A.D.), preserved 
in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9). Heracleon in connec- 
tion with Lk 121112. states that ‘Matthew, Philip, Thomas, 


1 ὁ θεολόγος is, οἵ 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*®, and also of 1. 2. 3 J, J, if, as is highly probable, John the 
Elder wrote 2. 3. 7. 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. 


MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE xlvii 


Levi,! 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, Acta Apost. Apocr. 11. 1. 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 (ἐκληρώθη Πέτρος τὴν περιτομήν, 
Ἰάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης τὴν avaroAnv' Φίλιππος τὰς πόλεις τῆς 
Σαμαρίας καὶ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν), and so on. What is significant in this 
legend is that it ignores wholly any residence of John in Asia 
Minor.? 

Next, in Clement (S¢vom. 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? (ἡ δὲ ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ 
(46. Χριστοῦ) μέχρι ye τῆς Παύλου λειτουργίας ἐπὶ Νέρωνος 
τελειοῦται). 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: τοῦ ἁγίου 
Ἰωάννου. . . προφητεύσαντος ἐν χρόνοις Κλαυδίου καίσαρος. 

The same tradition of John’s martyrdom is attested in 
Chrysostom (Yom. Ixv. on Mt 207), though in Hom. 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. 


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

* As Latimer Jackson observes, ‘‘the allusion Gal 2° is significant ; it 
suggests that John, extending the right hand of feliowship 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 drves salv. 42) tells the story 
of John and the robber, which, were it true, would imply his living to old 
age. 


xlviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 Pail. ii. But the statement becomes 
intelligible, if John’s apostolic activity belonged to the decades 
before 70 a.p. 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, seguens prodecessoris suit Johannis ordinem, 
nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat....” Here the 
composition of J*? 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=the 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 (circ. 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. 

(4) The Syriac Martyrology 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. Ἰωάννης καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις. 

Dec. 28. Ἔν Ῥώμῃ τῇ πόλει Παῦλος καὶ Συμεὼν Κηφᾶς. 


MARTYRDOM OF JOHN THE APOSTLE xlix 


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°). 
This was not later than 64 a.p.1_ Since he was martyred by the 
Jews, he must have died before 70 a.p. 

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? finds (11. 12. 15) an exact parallel in his confusion 
of James the Lord’s brother, who in Acts 151% takes part in the 
Council of Jerusalem, with James the son of Zebedee, who has 
already been martyred in Acts 123. In iy. 27. 1 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 AL. 111. 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. 

* 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: ““ 51 quis autem diligentius 
intendat his, . . . quaecunque Joannes discipulus Domini vidit in Apocalypsi,” 
and 31. 1: “‘ Talia quaedam enarrans de antiquis presbyter reficiebat nos” ; 
32. 1: ‘‘Senior apostolorum discipulus” ; also iv. 28.1. 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. 


ad 


l THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 (cévc. 196 a.D.) and Proclus: 
cf. Eus. iii. 31. 3-4, v. 24. 2; in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
ili. 6. 52), Tertullian and Eusebius. See Zacye. Bib. (2511) ; 
Moffatt, Zztrod.3 608 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 7th cent., as we have shown 
above. 

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, ctvc. 64 (Ὁ) and 70 A.D. 


IV. 
THE EDITOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


From the section dealing with the Plan, pp. xxili—xxviii, we 
have seen that J*? 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 20%. In 
204-22, 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 1--208 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 (1--2 8) 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 204-22. 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 204-22. For the 
main grounds for this hypothesis the reader should consult ii. 
144-154 and the commentary that follows. 


FIRST EDITOR OF THE APOCALYPSE li 


On p. lvii 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 204-22. 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 201! τὸν καθήμενον 
ἐπ’ tavrovt and 21° 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ { τοῦ θρόνου ἵ, 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.! 
Now in the interpolation which he has made in 1415 17 we find 
this same construction twice: τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφάλης and 
ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης ; and in 9!” we find the same non- 
Johannine construction τ. καθημένους ἐπ᾽ f αὐτῶν t, 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. 215 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τῷ θρόνῳ t 
seems to be a primitive corruption for ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον. 

In 204~22 there are three other passages where the editor has 
changed the text. In 204 the οἵτινες is an insertion of the 
editor to make the text possible Greek. But the construction 
without the οἵτινες, 2.26. τῶν πεπελεκισμένων καὶ οὐ προσεκύνησαν, 15 
always elsewhere the Hebraism used by our author. See vol. i. 
14 sq. Again, in 21° τῷ διψῶντι δώσω we should expect, in 
accordance with our author’s usage, αὐτῷ after δώσω (which 046 
and certain cursives actually add). Here again the editor was 
improving the author’s Greek. In 22! the order of the words, 
τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ, 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 2211-18-19 ‘To these 
passages, which are interpolations (see 11]. 221-224), we shall return 
presently. 

But though a fair Greek scholar, the editor is very unintelligent. 
He has made a chaos of 20422, 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 τό he has sought 


1 ἐπί, c, gen. dat. or acc., is found in our author as elsewhere after κάθησθαι. 
But where the idea of resting on is present, the genitive is most natural, 
But the use of the case after κάθησθαι ἐπί in our author is wholly unique. 
See p. cxxxii. 


lii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN : 


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 18 is singularly infelicitous 
as well as being impossible. Not understanding that 6 θεὸς ὁ 
παντοκράτωρ is a stock rendering of the Hebrew “ God of Hosts,” 
and that accordingly this title cannot be broken into two parts, 
he actually divides ὁ θεός from 6 παντοκράτωρ 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 
87-12 with the 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 85 
he represents our author as saying βρονταὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαί. 
But our author knows well that the ἀστραπαί always precede the 
βρονταί: cf. 45 1179 16!8 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 ἐγένετο σιγὴ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὡς ἡμιώριον. 
Besides, 81:12 is a weaker repetition of what is said elsewhere in 
our author, and is frequently at variance with its adjoining 
context. 

In 911} the clause καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ ὄνομα ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων 
(which is good Greek) appears to come from the editor’s hand. 
Our author would naturally have written καὶ Ἑλληνιστὶ ᾿Απολλύων, 
if he had written the words at all, since the preceding words run, 
ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἔβραϊστὶ ᾿Αβαδδών, and our author never aims at 
variety of construction in repeating the same simple fact. ὄνομα 
αὐτῷ is frequent in the LXX. See also 68 and the note on 9}}. 

The next interpolation due to this editor is 149°. 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 
14%-48>, 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, 217-9 2217, 

In 14120, however, the editor reaches the climax of his 
stupidity. Here by his insertion of the impossible verses, 14151’, 
which he found elsewhere, he has first of all divided the 
Messianic judgment into two acts, the first of which—added by 


FIRST EDITOR OF THE APOCALYPSE liii 


him—is called the harvesting of the earth, 1415-17, and the second 
of which is called the vintaging of the earth, 141829, 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*?, 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 19!-#! and assigned 
to the Word of God (ὃ Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ), who “treadeth the 
winepress of the fierce anger of God Almighty” (1915). 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. 

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 μετὰ ταῦτα 
εἶδον (see note on 41 in Commentary). Less important divisions 
are introduced by καὶ εἶδον. 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, 152*—is recounted ; and then at 
last we come to the real introduction to the Seven Bowls in 15), 
which rightly begins with the words καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα <idov—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 167, which was most probably interpolated 
by the editor, since it exhibits a wrong construction of zpo- 
σκυνεῖν from the standpoint of our author, we come to 1654 
καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν bddtwv—a Clause which he added in 
order to introduce some actual sentences of our author, Ζ.6. 
1657, These verses belong after το. 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 164. 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., lvii-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 
dynasty. 


liv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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. 161-148 (ὡς βάτραχοι" 
εἰσὶν yap πνεύματα δαιμονίων ποιοῦντα σημεῖα) was also apparently 
foisted into the text by the editor. It is against our author’s 
grammar, which would require ὡς βατράχους. To adapt the 
context to the interpolation he has changed ἐκπορευόμενα into ἃ 
ἐκπορεύονται. 17°” (ὄρη εἰσίν, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν] καὶ 
with ἑπτά added after βασιλεῖς), which gives a second explanation 
of the ἑπτὰ βασιλεῖς, appears also to be from his hand. 1910 
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 20*-22 with which we began. I have 
shown at length in 11. 144-154 the chaos to which the editor has 
reduced the work of his master in 204-22. 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 204-22, 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 1467, 
and again in 111° 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 Millennia! 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 
service. 

Such is our author’s teaching, but through the edifor’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 
(204) ! 

1 The editor prefers the genitive always after κάθησθαι ἐπί, as we have 
seen above. 


FIRST EDITOR OF THE APOCALYPSE lv 


Nearly all the incongruities in 204-22 are due to the editor’s 
incompetence. But in 2018 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” (2:6. the abode of righteous souls 
—not of the martyrs who went direct to heaven) and inserted 
ἡ θάλασσα. But the sea can only give up bodies, not souls. 
Yet the phrase “the dead” (τοὺς νεκρούς) implies personalities, 
7.6. souls, just as certainly as it does in the next line, where death 
and Hades give up “ the dead” (τ. νεκρούς) in them. Hence it 
follows that ἡ θάλασσα cannot have stood originally in the text. 
Besides, before the final judgment began the sea had already 
vanished, 2011, 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. 

2211 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, 2218>-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 
saints.” 


1 In addition to the arguments advanced in vol. ii. 222-223 against the 
authenticity of 2118-18, we should observe that in the writer’s use of ἐπιτιθέναι 
there is a play on the two meanings of this verb, z.e. ‘‘to add” and ‘‘to 
inflict.” The latter use is found in Luke 10%, Acts 16%, and frequently in 
classical Greek. Such a play on words is not found in our author. 

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


lvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


V. 


DEPRAVATION OF THE TEXT THROUGH INTERPOLATIONS, 
DIsLOcATIONS, LACUNAE, AND DITTOGRAPHS. 


§ 1. Jnterpolations—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, i /oc., 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 18 14)? 
First, as regards 18 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 11° 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 παντοκράτωρ from 
ὁ θεός by eight words, whereas it should immediately follow it, as 
it is a rendering of the Hebrew genitive (MN28) immediately 
dependent on 6 θεός (dx). Next, 141517 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” (1414) 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—z.e., the 
vintaging of the earth—the duty expressly attributed by our 
author to Christ in 191-21, 

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 81:12. whereby 
“the three Woes,” each preceded by a trumpet blast, have been 


INTERPOLATIONS lvii 


transformed into ‘‘the seven Trumpets.” This drastic interven- 
tion of the interpolator has necessitated slight changes in 82 6-18 
91.158 τοῦ 115 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.!_ 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. 
584 1418 (6 ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τ. πυρός), 17° (ὄρη εἰσίν. . . ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτῶν καὶ)----ἃ second interpretation of “the seven heads” from 
the hand of the editor or an interpolator. 19%! is mainly a 
doublet of 2289, and in 115» 1717 the additions appear to be 
simply dittographs. 

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

*14¢ (kal ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ . . αὐτοῦ) See vol. i. 11-13. *18 
(Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ "AAda . . . ὃ παντοκράτωρ). See footnote 
on English translation 7 /oc., vol. 11. 114 (ds χιών). 

25 (ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς). 222 (ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν ἐκ τῶν 
ἔργων αὐτῆς). See footnote on Eng. trans. 27 /oc., vol. ii. 

4° (a ἐστιν τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ): 45 (ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ 
θρόνου kat): 48 (κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν). 

584 (αἵ εἰσιν ai προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων) : 51! (καὶ τ. ζῴων καὶ τ. 
πρεσβυτέρων). See vol. i. 145, 148 respectively. 

68 (καὶ 6 adys ἠκολούθει μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ). See vol. i. 169 sq. 
684° (ἀποκτεῖναι... ὑπὸ τ. θηρίων τ. γῆς). See i. 171. 

*8? (οἱ ἐνώπιον τ. θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν). See i. 221: also footnote 
on Eng. trans. 2 doc. 8712. To adapt this interpolation 
of the first four Trumpets to its new context, changes 
were introduced in 83:6. 15 91-18 τοῦ 1115 and 8? trans- 
posed from its original position after 85. See i. 219-222. 

9 (καὶ ὁ Bacavopos ... dvOpwrov? See footnote: Eng. 
trans.). *91° (καὶ ἐν τῇ . . . ᾿Απολλύων). See i. 246. 
#gl6b-17a (ἤκουσα τ. ἀριθμὸν... ὁράσει). Observe that 
the wrong construction, τ. καθημένους ft ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν Ff, is 
duet toy editor, 'Seevis i252.) Gg! {καὶ ἐν Tals.) . 
κεφαλάς). See l. 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 event, but that 


the same events are either wholly or in part dealt with under each successive 
sertes of seven Seals, seven Trumpets, and seven Bowls. 


lvili THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


115 (cat ef ris. . ἢ ἀποκτανθῆναι). See i. 284. 
*1 45-4 (οἱ ἡ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τ. γῆς... εἰσιν and καὶ τῷ ἀρνίω. 
See il. 5-10, 422, footnote. *1415-!" καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος 
Badevdvor ὀξύ). See ii. 18-19, 20-22. 1418 (6 ἔχων 
ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ aries). ks (6 ἄγγελος). 

οὐ See il. 30-32. 15° (τ: φδὴν . . + 7. θεοῦ Kai). See 

. 34. 15% (οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες .. . πληγάς--- 
a Aaaiberaes change for ἄγγελοι ἑπτά Owing to interpola- 
tion of 15!). See ii. 31-32, 38. 

#1 6% (τοὺς ἔχοντας .. . εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ). See ii. 43. *1654 
(καὶ 7 ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος) added by 
editor when he wrongly introduced 16°-7, which 
properly belongs after1g*. 11. 44, 120-123. #1 6190-148 
(ὡς βάτραχοι. . . σημεῖα). See ii. 47-48. 16! (καί 
ἐγένετο. . . pépy). See ii. 52. 

* 17% (ὄρη εἰσίν... ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν" καὶ and ἑπτά after βασιλεῖς). 
See 1]. 68-69. 1η}ὅ---αἂ gloss on 17. See ii. 72. 
17)" (καὶ ποιῆσαν μίαν γνώμην). See ii. 73. 

1813 (καὶ ἵππων... σωμάτων). See 1]. 104. 

198 (τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον. . . ἐστίν). See vol. i. 127-128. 
19%-10, doublet of 228%, which has dislodged part of the 
original text. See ii. 128-129. 1012 (ἔχων ὄνομα. .. 
εἰ μὴ αὐτός). See ii. 132. 1916 (ἐπὶ τ. ἱμάτιον Kat), 
See ite 237; 

*20% (οἵτινες). *205 (οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι 
τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη). See note on text Ζ7: ἐϑέ,, vol. ii. 
272. 20}2 (κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν). Ἔ2ο}8 (ἡ θάλασσα--- 
an interpolation which has dislodged the original). 
ii. 194 sqq. 2014 (οὗτος ὁ θάνατος... πυρός). See 
li. 199 56. 

*21% (καὶ εἶπέν μοι Téyovav). See English translation, zn 
loc. 11. 443. 2125 text changed by editor. See ii. 173, 


* 


*221, See ii. 221 sq. *22!? ws τὸ ἔργον ἵ ἐστὶν αὑτοῦ 1. 
The order ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ is due to the editor. Our author 
wrote αὐτοῦ ἐστίν. *2218>-19 See ii. 222 sq. 

§ 2. Dislocations in 20*-22.—In vol. ii. 144, I 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 20%~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 20422 (see vol. ii. 144-154). Since this entire 


DISLOCATIONS lix 


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 1-20 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 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 1-20°.—Though there is nothing in the text 
of 1-20 in the least comparable to the confusion that dominates 
the traditional structure of 204-22, yet there are some very 
astonishing dislocations of isolated clauses and verses. 

Of the many dislocations of the text in 1-203 only one 
appears to have been deliberate, z.e. the transposition of 8? from 
its original position after 8° in order with other changes to 
adapt the interpolated section 87:12 (the first four Trumpets) to 
its new context. 

The remaining dislocations in 1-208 are as follows :— 

227¢ has been restored after 225, See Eng. trans. in Joc. 

38° has been restored before 3°. See Eng. trans. in /oc. 

7°°_6 has been restored after 78. See vol. i. 207. 

1118 has been restored after 1118», See vol. i. 295 sq. 

1118 has been restored after 1118°. See vol. ii. 416, foot- 
note to Eng. transl. 7 doc. 

13°» has been restored after 13%, See vol. ii. 419, foot- 
note to Eng. transl. z% /oc. 

14!?-13 has been restored after 1318. See vol. i. 368 sq. 

τοῦ». has been restored after 194. See vol. ii. 120-123 

16)5 has been restored after 35%. See vol. i. 80 sq. 

1714-17 has been restored as follows: 1717-16-14, See vol. ii. 
60 sq. 

1814-23 has been restored as follows: 1815-19. 21. 14. 22a-d. 28ed. 
22e-h, 23ab, 20, 23 

The most startling of the above dislocations of the text is 
that in 1848, How this dislocation arose we cannot determine, 
but that the text is dislocated is beyond question. First, we 
observe that 1815 comes in wrongly between 1818 and 18}5, and that 
both its sense and structure connect it immediately with 1822-28 
and, as an introduction to these verses, which, combined with it, 
express in due gradation the destruction of everything in Rome 


Ιχ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


from the greatest luxuries to the barest necessities. Thus 
1814. 22-23 (four stanzas) compose a special dirge over Rome. 
Next, 187° breaks the close sequence between 1819 and 182! by 
introducing an apostrophe to heaven between the descriptive 
passages dealing with the ruin of Rome, 1819, and the dramatic 
action of the angel, 1831, But, though it cannot stand after 1819, 
it comes in with the most perfect fitness at the close of the dirge 
over Rome (1815 22-25), 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 το}: 
165be-7 95-7, 

The dislocations in 75°8 1118 135>-6> 7714-17 could 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 1615 
which is to be restored after 3%, 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 1614, 
However this may be, it cannot possibly have stood oriyinally 
after 1614, with which it has no connection of any kind. Its 
natural place is after 3°», and nowhere else. 

Now we come to the two interesting dislocations, 1412-18, 
17151 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 14!*3 is exactly the same 
number of lines from 1.318 that 1715 is from 17}, of which it is a 
gloss. 

§ 3. Lacunae in the Text.—Apart from 204-22 where it is 
impossible to determine what lacunae exist (save in 2177; see 
below) owing to the disorder of the text, there do not appear to 
be many in 1-20%. There are, however, lacunae, and these are 
important. The first consists of a loss of several clauses in 161° 
(see vol. ii. 45-46). The second is a still graver loss after 19. 
These lost verses after 19°* (whose place has been taken by an 


1 That 142218 (ὧδε ἡ ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων κτλ.) 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, z.e. 1318, is at once manifest, when we com- 
pare the closing words of the persecution of the first Beast, 131° (ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ 
ὑπομονὴ . . . τῶν ἁγίων). These words are added for the encouragement and 
strengthening of the victims of the two persecutions. Next, it is clear that 17} 
was originally an explanatory marginal gloss on 174. Since it has no connec- 
tion whatever with its present context, the explanation given above for its 
position in its present context seems adequate. 


LACUNAE AND DITTOGRAPHS Ixi 


interpolation, #.e. 19910 modelled on 2289) recounted the 
destruction of the Parthian kings. Their destruction was 
prophesied in 171*, and the vision recounting their destruction 
should have been given here. In 17116 there is a prophecy 
of the destruction of Rome: in 18 a vision of this destruction. 
In 1414-18-20 (see also 1618-!4-16) 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 το}13} 
(207-10), Thus it is clear that a vision dealing with the de- 
struction of the Parthian hosts by the Lamb and the Saints 
(see 1714) should have been recorded in our text. That it 
actually did stand in the autograph of the Seer may be reason- 
ably concluded from 1918, 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. 1]. 122. 

A third lacuna occurs after 1872 The context makes the 
restoration easy, Ζ.6. οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι. Again, in 217%, 
where we should have a couplet, but where only the words καὶ 
τὸ ἀρνίον survive of the second line, we can with great probability 
restore the missing words by a comparison of 111% These are 
ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτῆς. See vol. il. 170 sq. 

§ 4. Dittographs.—There are several dittographs, ze. (a) 
133% 8=178; (Ὁ) 19%=21%= 22%; (c) 1919= 228-9; (4) 2o0l4 
See 

(a) Both members of the first, 2.6. 13° §=178, belong to our 
text. See vol. i. 337. 

(6) Here practically the same clause (καὶ εἶπέν μοι Οὗτοι οἱ 
λόγοι πιστοὶ K. ἀληθινοί) is repeated three times. In 215° 226 
it is a genuine part of the text. On21°° see note 3 on English 
translation, vol. 11. 443, in accordance with which the note in vol. 
ii. 203 (ad fin.) sq. is to be corrected. In 19% it is manifestly 
interpolated (see vol. ii. 128, 203 sq.), probably by the 
editor. 

(ὦ Here 228-9 is original and 19! is an interpolation of the 
editor repeated in the main from 2289 but giving to σύνδουλος 
quite a different meaning. See vol. ii. 128 sq. 

(4) 218 6 ἐστιν ὃ θάνατος ὃ δεύτερος is original. But in 20!, 
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! 


Ixti THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


VI. 
GREEK AND HEBREW SOURCES AND THEIR DATES. 


Our author has used sources. Nearly one-fifth of his text 
appears to be based on sources, é.¢. 718 1118 r2-13 (155-8?), 
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. (ὁ) Sources he found in Greek. (¢) Sources in 
Hebrew. 

(a) Chap. γ18 (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!°. Here “¢he 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 1 En 661, 67, and in 2 Bar 64844, The four 
winds appear in earlier tradition. See vol. i. 192-193. 

Chap. 74% 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 15°10 18, which later work appears 
to have been before our author. 

(ὁ) Greek Sources, t.e. sources already existing in Greek, 111-8 
12. 17--τ. 

Chap. 1τ1τ118 (before 70 Α.}.). This section had originally 
a different meaning and was borrowed by our author from a 
source written before 70 4.D. 1118 consists of two earlier frag- 
ments, both of which presuppose Jerusalem to be still standing 
(1118), 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 11°13 our author’s hand is discernible in the additions 118-9 
and the entire recasting of 11’, so that what stood there originally 
cannot be known. Jn our text the temple in 11! 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 412, 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 /ntrod. p. clviii ἢ. 


GREEK SOURCES Ixiii 


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 facie 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.p.). 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. 1. 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 12! 1817 and 127-10. 12, 
These were adapted by our author to their new Christian context 
by the addition of 12% 1 and by certain additions in 123(?), 12° 
(ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ), 129 (ὃ ὄφις 
ὃ ἀρχαῖος, ὃ καλούμενος Διάβολος... . ἐβλήθη), 121° (καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ and τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν dislodging a Jewish 
phrase), 1218 (ὅτε εἶδεν and ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν), 12)" (τῶν 
τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ). 
The expectation expressed in 1212 16 js 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 (1214 καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ) 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 (71-79 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 17!" cannot be 
reasonably interpreted of a later time than Vespasian. And yet 
our author’s additions in 178 11, 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. 
Similarily, 184 (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 171¢-2: 3b-6. 7. 18. 8-10 (greater part} 782-23. See vol. ii. 88-89, 
94-95. \B ‘consisted: of 17!) Gretter part, 12-18, 17. 16. See vol. ii. 


59-60. 
Our author has adapted these sources to his own purposes 


Ixiv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


by inserting the following clauses: 17! (καὶ ἦλθεν. . . δείξω cor), 
85 (καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με. . . πνεύματι), °° (καὶ κέρατα δέκα), δ᾽ (καὶ ἐκ τ. 
αἵματος... ᾿Ιησοῦ), ὃ (ἣν καὶ οὐκ. .. ὑπάγει), and (ὅτι ἦν. .. 
πάρεσται), ὃ (ὧδε ὁ νοῦς 6 ἔχων σοφίαν), 11 (ὃ ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν), and 
(καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει),. But the text of 17}}}7 is in disorder. 
1715 is a gloss (see vol. ii. 72), 17!” should precede 1716, and 
17/4 (our author’s addition) should follow immediately on 171°, 
Hence the right order of the text (see vol. ii. 61) is 1711-15 17. 16. 14, 
After 1714 our author transferred 1718, which originally belonged 
to A (see above), to the close of the chapter in order to introduce 
chap. 18. 

Chap. 18725**, This chapter, as we have already seen, 
belongs to the source A. Ourauthor apparently found it in some 
disorder in a Greek form. He has made few changes in it. He 
has introduced it by prefixing 181, by inserting 187°, and closing 
it by τ823 24. Since 182° is an appeal to the heavenly hosts—an 
appeal that is immediately answered in 191’, our author would 
naturally have placed it at the close of 18 and not where it stands 
in the traditional text. 1830. 28£ 24 would thus form the close of 
this chapter coming from our author’s hand and serving to 
introduce the theme of 19!-4 165%°7 195-7, 

Since, therefore, 187° does not apparently stand where our 
author inserted it, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the 
great disorder that exists in 181}: 38 arose subsequently to our 
author’s composition of the work as a whole. 

(c) Hebrew Sources. One chapter, z.e. 13, is mainly composed 
of translations from three Hebrew sources by our author (see 
vol. i. 334-338). Τὸ the first source, written by a Pharisaic 
Quietist before 70 A.D., is to be traced 13144. 2. 4-74.10, See vol. i. 
340-342. To the second source, 13°* 8, of which we find a second 
Greek translation from another hand in 178. See vol. i. 337. 
To the third, 1311- 128}. 18-14ab. 16ad-17a. 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: 13° (καὶ 
ἐπὶ τῶν... διαδήματα), **> (καὶ μίαν... ἐθεραπεύθη), δ᾽ (τοὺς... 
σκηνοῦντας), ™ (καὶ ἐδόθη... ἔθνος), 85:9 (τοῦ ἀρνίου . . . ἀκουσάτω), 
10. (ὧδε. .. ἁγίων), 12° (τὸ θηρίον τὸ πρώτον οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη . .. 
αὐτοῦ), 14-15 (ἐνώπιον... ἀποκτανθῶσιν), 19 (τ. μικροὺς... δούλους), 
17-18 (πὸ Gvopa ... ἔξ). 

Possibly 1558 is translated from a Hebrew source by our 
author, The grounds for this hypothesis are to be found in the 
two impossible phrases in 15° 9, Itis 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 


BOOKS USED BY OUR AUTHOR Ixv 


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 λίνον is a 
primitive error for λινοῦν in 15°, and that τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου 
was originally a marginal gloss which was derived from Ex. 40”, 
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--ἰν. 


Vil, 


Books OF THE O.T., OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND OF THE 
N.T. USED BY OUR AUTHOR. 


δ 1. 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 ina 
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, 1 and 2 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, 1 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 40 (the Cherubim), pp. 117-123; 63 (“a great 
sword”), p. 165; 69 (Martyrs=a sacrifice to God, cf. 144), p. 
174, vol. ii. 6 ; 69 (the one altar in heaven), p. 172 sqq. ; 61 (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, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corin- 
thians, Colossians (or else the lost Ep. to the Laodiceans, which 
presumably was of a kindred character), Ephesians, and possibly 


é 


Ixvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Galatians, 1 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 17 he has had Matt 2439 before him, where our 
author’s combination of Dan 718 and Zech 12!” occurs already. 
Our author derives from Matthew the words πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ τ. 
γῆς, which are not in the O.T. or Versions. Next, a reference to 
27 shows that it is the Matthaean (or Lucan: cf. 88) form of the 
command, ὁ ἔχων οὖς κτλ., Matt 1115 13° etc., that our author was 
familiar with. The dependence of 3%, 1615 on Matt 24%? 4% 46 js 
obvious at the first glance. 3° presupposes both Matt 10%? 
and the parallel passage in Luke 128. Other passages showing 
dependence on Matthew, though not so conclusively, will be 
found under 1°4 116 64 1115 below. 

That our author used Luke appears certain, though the 
evidence is less conclusive, from a comparison of 1° with Luke 
1178, , with Luke 128, 11° with Luke 435, and 1874 with Luke 
11°, 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, ze. the pesti- 
lence, Luke 211! (λοιμοῦ). 

Possibly 138 (τ. ἀρνίου τ. ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) 
implies an acquaintance with 1 Pet «19:20. Compare also 16!” 
and 1 Pet 518, and 1° and 1 Pet 2°. 

§ 2. John translated directly from the O.T. text. He did not 
quote from anv 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 (11!}8 12-13. 
17-18) derive such phrases and clauses directly from the Hebrew 
(or Aramaic), or from ο΄ or from the Hebrew combined with οἱ ἢ 
(see δὲ 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 ο΄ or 
any other version.?,_ 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 θάνατος and not λοιμός ὃ 
But if he had the Aramaic document behind the triple tradition in the Synop- 
tics this would be explicable, since ymo=‘‘ death” or Δ pestilence.” If he 
had the Little Apocalypse in Aramaic, we should have the explanation of this 
and other difficulties. 

? 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. 


TWO PRE-CHRISTIAN GREEK VERSIONS OF Ο.Τ.  Ixvii 


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 
θ΄ (i.e. Theodotion), where 6’ differs from o’. But since Theodo- 
tion lived several decades later than our author, we must assume 
with Gwynn (Dict. Christ. Biog. 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.! 

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 117> our text agrees not with o but θ΄ in Is 4812: similarly 37 
with θ΄ of Is 225" and 3% with θ΄ of Is 6014. Again the quotation 
1594 ὁ βασιλεὺς τ. ἐθνῶν" τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ; agrees word for word 
(though differing in case and tense) with Θ΄ of Jer τοῦ, whereas οἵ 
is here wholly defective. Finally, 18 (519) βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς is found 
in & of Ex τοῦ where οἵ 15 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 ο΄ from pre-Christian times 
or a revised version of ο΄, 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.? 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, z.e. 15-7) are constantly made according to the LXX, while 
in the Jewish portion (8-22°) the Hebrew text is taken into account.” There 
is no foundation in fact for this statement. 

1 This hypothesis (first suggested by Credner, Beztrdye, ii. 261-272) was 
practically accepted by Salmon (/zzrod. p. 547) and by Swete (/ntrod. to the 
O. 7. in Greek, p. 48). 

Gwynn supports this hypothesis by evidence drawn from 1 Bar 115-20, 
Since the date of 12-38 is generally accepted as earlier than 80 A.D., and since 
numerous passages in 1'°2” are clearly based on θ΄ and not o of Dan οἵ- 1", 
Gwynn (of. czt. 976) rightly infers the existence of a version of Daniel differ- 
ing from ο΄ and of a type closely akin to that which θ΄ bears. 

2 There is, of course, the possibility that our author was using a collection 
of Zest?monza. 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 θ΄. It is noteworthy that the author of the Fourth Gospel never agrees 


Ixvill 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


afresh into Greek and this work incorporated and revised by 


Theodotion in his version. 
investigation. 


But the matter calls for further 


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


different meaning. 


17 ὄψεται αὐτὸν πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ 
οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν! καὶ 
κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ 


τ. γῆς.3 


119 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. . . ἤκουσα 
φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄπισθέν μου. 


118 (1414) ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου. 
ἐνδεδυμένον ποδήρη. 


περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τ. μαστοῖς ζώνην 
χρυσᾶν. Cf. 156 where the text 
recalls the present. 

1148 ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες 
λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν. 


114 (1912) οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ 
πυρός. 
οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ. 


Zech 1210 ο΄ θ΄. ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς 
μέ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο (θ'. εἰς 
ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν) καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ 
(:5.:97) αὐτόν. 12)" ο΄. κόψεται ἡ γῆ 
κατὰ φυλὰς φυλάς. 

Ezek 312 ἀνέλαβέν με πνεῦμα, καὶ 
ἤκουσα κατόπισθέν μου. . . φωνὴν 
σεισμοῦ μεγάλου. 

Dan γ}8 (ο΄ 6’) ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. 

Dan 105 03 wha? οἱ θ΄. ἐνδεδυμένος 
βύσσινα (θ΄. Baddely). Ezek 10? 
renders the same words, évdeduxéra 
τὴν στολήν. 

Dan 10° ὨΠ323 oman vino. θ΄, ἡ ὀσφὺς 
αὐτοῦ περιεζωσμένη ἐν χρυσίῳ. οἵ. 
τ. ὀσφὺν περιεζωσμένος βυσσίνῳ. 

Dan 7° θ΄. καὶ ἡ θρὶξ τ. κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ 
ὡσεὶ ἔριον καθαρόν. ο΄. καὶτ. τρίχωμα 
τ. κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον λευκὸν 
καθαρόν. 

Dan 10° (ο΄ 6’) οἱ ὀφλαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ 
λαμπάδες πυρός. 

Dan τοῦ οἵ θ' quite different. 





exclusively with 0’ (see 19°? where it agrees in part), and only a few times 
literally with o’ in 217=Ps 68 (69)}9, 10%=Ps 81 (82)§, 1218Ξ- ΡΞ 117 (118), 
12°8=Ts 53!, 19°%4=Ps 21 (22). 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 p71 as θ΄. But this proves nothing; for 
ἐκκεντεῖν (ἀποκεντεῖν or κατακεντεῖν) is its normal rendering in the Versions. 
ο΄, of course, presupposes Ἰρη. Cf. John 19%” ὄψονται els ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. 

2 The words κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τ. γῆς agree exactly 
with Matt 2439 save that the latter omits ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. Now, since Matt 24 
combines Zech 12!° and Dan 778 just as our author does in 17, it is highly 
probable that our author was acquainted with Matt 24”, or that our author 
and Matt 248° drew here upon an independent source—/.e. a collection of 
O.T. passages relating to the Messiah. I have placed 1 ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ 
τ. νεφελῶν under ὃ 5, but possibly it ought to be under ὃ 3, 85 17°. In Zech 129 
the people mourn for him that is cut off, whereas in our text and in Matt 24%° 
they mourn for themselves. κόπτεσθαι ἐπ᾽ airév=‘*mourn in regard to 
him.” 

8 Our author here diverges greatly from θ΄, and here alone approximates to ο' 
against θ΄ in Dan., though not necessarily presupposing a knowledge of 0’. Our 
text and ο΄, however, really point to the same Aramaic 43 230 72y2 AWN rw, 
This appears to have been the original text ‘And the hair of his head 
was spotless as white wool.” 


PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T. 


lxix 


15 (19°) ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ws φωνὴ Ezek 43? (ο φωνὴ τ. παρεμβολῆς 


ὑδάτων πολλῶν. 


162 ἐκ 7. στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαῖα 
5 ὀξεῖα, (Ole GER Tied 

ἔπεσα πρὸς τ. πόδας αὐτοῦ ws 
νεκρός" καὶ ἔθηκεν τ. δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ 
ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ λέγων Μὴ φοβοῦ. 


τ 


118 ζῶν εἰμὶ εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων. 

2134 ἐδίδασκεν. . . φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα 
καὶ πορνεῦσαι. 

218 τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς κτλ. 
above. 

253 ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς καὶ 
καρδίας, καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ 
τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. 

3% ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον 
τ. ποδῶν σου.} 


See 


114 


310 τ΄ κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. 


2117 πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ πεπλούτηκα. 
3.9 ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ 
παιδεύω. 


359 ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τ. θύραν καὶ κρούω" ἐάν 
τις. . . ἀνοίξῃ. 
4! (79) μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού. 


ὡς φωνὴ διπλασιαζόντων πολλῶν. 
But our text is a literal rendering 
of the Hebrew 3 oD ipa ΡῈ. 
Dan 108 is based on Ezek 43? but 
only remotely, and is not followed 
by our author. Jerome remarks 
how Rev 1 supports the Mass. 
here. 

Is 49? ἔθηκεν τ. στόμα μου ws μάχαιραν 
ὀξεῖαν. 

Dan 10% 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*! (8’) 127, 1 Enoch 5} 

Num 25)? ἐβεβηλώθη ὁ dads ἐκπορ- 
νεῦσαι. . . Kal ἔφαγεν. 


Jer 17 Eye κύριος ἐτάζων καρδίας 
καὶ δοκιμάζων νεφρούς, τοῦ δοῦναι 
(nnd) ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ.3 

Is 604 ο΄. πορεύσονται πρὸς σέ. Θθ'. 
πορεύσονται πρὸς σέ, καὶ προσκυνή- 
σουσιν ἐπὶ τ. ἴχνη τῶν ποδῶν σου: 
ch 2515 

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

Hos 129. See vol. i. 96. 

Prov 311: wh ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου 
.. . ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος ἐλέγχει 
(ΝΑ παιδεύει).8 

Cant 5? κρούει ἐπὶ τ. θύραν. 

"Ανοιξόν μοι. 

Dan 7° θ΄. ὀπίσω τούτου ἐθεώρουν καὶ 

ἰδού. ο΄. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐθεώρουν. 





1 Based on the Hebrew of Is 60. 
by 6’, but as we see in a different form. 


The clause omitted by o’ is supplied 
See on 154 below under § 4, wherea 


closely related text is derived from Ps 85 (86)°. 
* Alone in the O.T. does Jer 17!° combine the two ideas in our text. 


Hence correct my note in vol. i. 72. 


unusual meaning of ‘‘ to requite.” 


Jeremiah also uses jn3 in the rather 


With the second line cf. also Prov 2413 
ἀποδίδωσιν (wn) ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. ἔργα αὐτοῦ : Ps 61 (62)!8, 


Moulton and 


Milligan, Voc. of G7, p. 160, try to explain this meaning of διδόναι by a 


quotation : 


a stick.” This is not a parallel. 
Hebraism. 
wholly to 


λίθῳ δέδωκεν τῷ υἱῷ μου (sc. πληγήν) τε ““Πε gave it him with 
Our text involves no ellipse. 

Our author’s use of διδόναι here = 
Jer 17'°; for in 22)? he naturally uses ἀποδιδόναι in this sense 


It is a 
“to requite” is due 


(Ξ- Ξ3ιῶἷᾶπ or δ᾿) as in Prov 24”, Ps 6113, 


8 See note in vol. i. 99. 


315 might be classed under § 4. 


ΙΧΧ 


4° ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωιαὶ 
καὶ βρονταί. 


4° κύκλῳ τ. θρόνου τέσσερα ζῷα γέμοντα 
ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 


41 ὅμοιον λέοντι... μόσχῳ... ἔχων 
τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου. 
ὅμοιον ἀετῷ. 

455 ὃν καθ᾽ ὃν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας 
ἕξ. 

4°° λέγοντες Αγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ 
θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ." 

5) ἐπὶ τ. δεξιὰν. . βιβλίον γεγραμ- 
μένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν, κατεσ- 
φραγισμένον. 


5° (512 118) ἀρνίον. . . ὡς ἐσφαγμένον. 

ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, of ... ἀπεσταλ- 
μένοι (Ὁ 122) εἰς πᾶσαν τ. γῆν. 

59 φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ 
ἔθνους. 


511 μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες 
χιλιάδων. 

67-8 ἵππος λευκός .. 
. . οἶππος μέλας... 


. ἵππος πυρρός 
. ἵππος χλωρός. 


618 οἱ ἀστέρες τ. οὐρανοῦ ἔπεσαν. .. 
ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τ. ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς. 


615 ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τ. σπήλαια καὶ 
εἰς τ. πέτρας τ. ὀρέων. 


616 καὶ λέγουσιν τ. ὄρεσιν καὶ τ. πέτ- 
pats ἸΙέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε 
ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τ. καθημένου 
«TX. Contrast Luke 23% which is 
drawn from οἵ, 

6'7 ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τ. ὀργῆς 
αὐτῶν, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι ; 


71 (208) ἐπὶ τ. τέσσαρας γωνίας τ. γῆς. 


not found in any version of Isaiah. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Ex τοῦ ἐγίνοντο φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαί. 
See vol. i. 116. Cf. Jub 23 ἄγγελοι 
φωνῶν βροντῶν καὶ ἀστραπῶν. 

Ezek 15 ἐν τ. μέσῳ ὡς ὁμοίωμα τεσ- 
σάρων ζῴων. 178 πλήρεις ὀφθαλμῶν 
κυκλόθεν. See vol. i. 118. 

Ezek 1 ἡ ὁμοίωσις. . . πρόσωπον 
ἀνθρώπου... λέοντος. . . μόσχου 
» + « ἀετοῦ. 

Is 6? ἐξ πτέρυγες τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ δὲ πτέρυγες 
τῷ ἑνί (Ἴπκῦ OrDID We Ὁ 23 wy), 

Is 68 ἔλεγον “Ayios ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος 
σαβαώθ. 

Ezek 2% 10 ἐν αὐτῇ (1.ε. χειρί) κεφαλὶς 
βιβλίου... ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα 
qv τὰ ἔμπροσθεν καὶ τὰ ὀπίσω. 
Is 29" τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦ ἐσφραγισ- 
μένου: Dan 8:5, 

Is 537 ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη 
καὶ ὡς ἀμνός. 

Zech 419 ἑπτὰ οὗτοι ὀφθαλμοί εἰσιν οἱ 
ἐπιβλέποντες ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τ. γῆν. 

From an older Aramaic text of 
Daniel than that preserved in the 
Canon. See vol. i. 147 sq. 

Dan 7° ο’ θ΄. χίλιαι χιλιάδες. . , 
μύριαι μυριάδες 

From Zech 18 6᾽-8, Our author has 
not used the Greek Versions but the 
Hebrew freely for his own purposes. 
See vol. i. 161 sq. 

Is 34) ο΄. πάντα τ. ἄστρα πεσεῖτα. 
-.. ὡς πίπτει φύλλα ἀπὸ συκῆς. 
Our text is independent of the οἵ 
here, but like ο΄ and σ΄ presuppose 
ἐν (πεσεῖται) instead of the Mass. 

"2°. 

Is 21-19 εἰσέλθετε els τ. πέτρας καὶ 
κρύπτεσθε.. . . καὶ τὰ χειροποίητα 
. . . εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τ. σπήλαια. 
See vol. i. 182. 

Hos 108 καὶ ἐροῦσιν τ. ὄρεσιν Kadipare 


ἡμᾶς, καὶ τ. βουνοῖς Πέσατε ἐφ᾽ 
ἡμᾶς. Is 2! κρύπτεσθε εἰς τ. γῆν 


ἀπὸ προσώπου τ. φόβου κυρίου. 


Joel 211 μεγάλη ἡμέρα τ. κυρίου. .. 
καὶ τίς ἔσται ἱκανὸς αὐτῇ (."}3)} ; 
2510 πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ἡμέραν κυρίου τ. 
μεγάλην. Nah 1° ἀπὸ προσώπου 
ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται (Ὁ "»"). 

Ezek 7? ἐπὶ τ. τέσσαρας πτέρυγας 
(m533) τ. γῆς. 


1 On the critical importance of this rendering, ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, see 
vol. ii., English translation, footnote on 1°. 


This epithet, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, is 


PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T. 


73 (94 141 224) ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν. . . 
ἐπὶ τ. μετώπων. 

7 ἡ σωτηρία τ. θεῷ. 

716-17 οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι οὐδὲ διψή- 
σουσιν ἔτι, κτλ. 

7'7 (214) ἐξαλείψει. .. πᾶν δάκρυον 
ἐκ τ. ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν. 


[82 ἐνώπιον τ. θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν. } 
83 ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τ. θυσιαστήριον. 


84 ἀνέβη ὁ καπνὸς τῶν θυμιαμάτων. 


[87 χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα. 

9° ἑητήσουσιν . . . τ. θάνατον καὶ οὐ 
μὴ εὕρωσιν αὐτόν. 

97 τὰ ὁμοιώματα τ. ἀκρίδων ὅμοια 
ἵπποις ἡτοιμασμένοις εἰς πόλεμον. 


98 οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῶν ὡς λεόντων. 

9" φωνὴ ἁρμάτων ἵππων. . . τρεχόν- 
των. 

93) οὔτε βλέπειν. . . οὔτε ἀκούειν 1 
οὔτε περιπατεῖν (or under ὃ 4). 


10! οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς στύλοι πυρός. 
ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ βιβλαρίδιον. 


10? ὥσπερ λέων μυκᾶται. 

τοῦτ Fpev? τ. χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τ. δεξιὰν εἰς 
τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ ὥμοσεν ἐν τ. ζῶντι εἰς 
τ. αἰῶνας. 

105» ὃς ἔκτισεν τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. ἐν 
αὐτῷ καὶ τ. γῆν καὶ τ. ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ τ. 
θάλασσαν καὶ τ. ἐν αὐτῇ. See on 
147 under II. 

107 τὸ μυστήριον τ. θεοῦ, ws εὐηγ- 
γέλισεν τ. ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τ. προφή- 
τας. 


10° τὸ βιβλαρίδιον καὶ λέγει μοι. . . 
μέλι. 


1 But Dan 525 was doubtless in the mind of our author: θ΄. θεοὺς .. 


xxi 


Ezek 94 δὸς σημεῖον ἐπὶ τ. μέτωπα." 


Ps 39 7. κυρίου ἡ σωτηρία (Ay wa mm»), 
Is 4919, See vol. i. 216. 


. πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ 
. 7nd) 


Is 258 ἀφεῖλεν... 
παντὸς προσώπου ΠΡΌ .. 
Ὁ25 92. 992). 

{A common Hebrew expression. ] 

Amos 9] τ. κύριον ἐφεστῶτα ἐπὶ τ. 
θυσιαστηρίου. 

Ezek 8" ἢ 
ἀνέβαινεν. 

[Ex 9*4 (see i. 233).] 

Job 37 of dueipovra τ. θανάτον καὶ 
οὐ τυγχάνουσιν. 

Joel 2% 5 ὡς ὅρασις ἵππων ἡ ὅρασις 
αὐτῶν". παρατασσόμενος εἰς 
πόλεμον (i. 244). 

Joel 18 (i. 245). 

Joel 24° (i. 245). 


ἀτμὶς τ. θυμιάματος 


Ps 11313.16 (1155-7) οὐκ ὄψονται. .. 
καὶ οὐκ ἀκούσονται . . . καὶ οὐ 
περιπατήσουσιν. 

Dan 108 (θ΄. τὰ σκέλη. οἵ, οἱ πόδες). 

Ezek 29 ἐν αὐτῃ (ΐ.4. χειρὶ) κεφαλὶς 
βιβλίου. 

Hos 11? ὡς λέων ἐρεύξεται. 

Dan 127 (6' 0’) ὕψωσεν τ. δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ 
. . « (>0’) εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ ὥμοσεν 
ἐν τ. ζῶντι (τ. ζῶντα εἰς ο7) τ. αἰῶνα. 

Ex 20}1} ο΄. ἐποίησεν (Mvy) κύριος τ. 
οὐρ. καὶ τ. γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν 
αὐτοῖς : Neh 9%, 


Amos 37 ἐὰν μὴ ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν 
(= 01 corrupt for mD=7. βουλὴν 
αὐτοῦ θ΄ and μυστήριον in our text) 
πρὸς τ. δούλους αὐτοῦ τ. προφήτας. 


Ezek 318 (i. 267-268). 





. of ov 


βλέπουσιν καὶ of οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, seeing that the preceding words in our author, 
τὰ εἴδωλα τ. χρυσᾶ καὶ τ. ἀργυρᾶ, κτλ., are based on Dan 5”. 
2 Both o’ and θ΄ read ὕψωσεν, but o reads τ. ζῶντα εἰς τ. αἰῶνα θεόν instead 


of the last five words in θ΄. 
+ δ), but Daniel has here 07. 


αἴρειν is the usual rendering of δ δ) in the phrase 


3 Our author uses κτίζειν as a rendering of avy, but none of the O.T. 


versions do so. 


In 147 he uses movetv—the usual rendering. 


Hence 147 is 


given under § 4. Observe that ο΄ > καὶ τ. θάλ. 
4 The idea first suggested by Ezekiel is reproduced in the Pss. Solomon 


and the Little Apocalypse in the Synoptic~. 
wholly transformed : see vol. i. 194 sqq. 
(z.e. 1m) our author uses σφραγίς (2.6. Onin). 


in connection with Eph 45), 


But in our text the idea is 
While the Pss. Solomon use σημεῖον 
See later (p. 1xxxv) on this verse 


ΙΧΧῚΪ 


II? μῆνας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ δύο. 
114 αἱ δύο ἐλαῖαι καὶ αἱ δύο λυχνίαι αἱ 
ἐνώπιον τ. κυρίου τ. γῆς ἑστῶτες. 


115 πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τ. στόματος 
αυτῶν καὶ κατεσθίει. 


117 (131 178) τ. θηρίον τ. ἀναβαῖνον 
ἐκ τ. ἀβύσσου. 

11 (137) ποιήσει wer’ αὐτῶν πόλεμον 
καὶ νικήσει αὐτούς. 


1115 +. κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τ. Χριστοῦ 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τ. αἰῶνας 
τ. αἰώνων. 


128 ἔχων. . . κέρατα δέκα. 
124 σύρει τ. τρίτον τ. ἀστέρων τ. 
οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τ. γῆν. 


[25 ἔτεκεν υἱόν, ἄρσεν. 
125 οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν. 


1293 ὁ ὄφις. . . ὁ πλανῶν. 
132 τὸ Onplov . . . ὅμοιον παρδάλει... 
ὡς ἄρκου. . . ὡς. . . λέοντος. 


137 ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τ. ἁγίων καὶ 
νικῆσαι αὐτούς. See above under 
117. Here our text agrees closely 
with Θ΄. 

138 (178) γέγραπται. . . ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ 
τ. ζωῆς. ᾿ 

138 7. ἀρνίου τ. ἐσφαγμένου. 

13 εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, | εἰς 
αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει" | εἴ τις ἐν 
μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι | Ἴ αὐτὸν ἡ ἐν 
μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. Ourauthor 
combines the first two clauses in 
the Hebrew. 


142 φωνὴν. . . ὡς φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολ- 
λῶν. See on 1) above. 

14° καὶ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐχ εὑρέθη 
ψεῦδος. 


148 ἔπεσεν, ἔπεσεν Βαβυλών. 


148 Βαβυλὼν... ἣ ἐκ τ. οἴνου [τ. 
θυμοῦ] τ. πορνείας αὐτῆς πεπότικεν 
πάντα τ. ἔθνη. See on 188 below. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Dan 755 127 (i. 279). 

Zech 4? λυχνία χρυσῆ. 438 δύο ἐλαῖαι. 
4.3} παρεστήκασιν κυρίῳ πάσης τ. 
γῆς. 

2 Sam 22° πῦρ ἐκ τ. στόματος αὐτοῦ 
κατέδεται. Cf. Jer 5'4 δέδωκα τ. 
λόγους μου εἰς τ. στόμα σου πῦρ 

. καὶ καταφάγεται. 

Dan 7° θ΄. τέσσερα θηρία. . . ἀνέβαινεν 
ἐκ τ. θαλάσσης. 

Dan 7”) θ΄. ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τ. ἁγίων 
καὶ ἴσχυσεν πρὸς αὐτούς. ο΄. πόλεμον 
συνιστάμενον πρὸς τ. ἁγίους καὶ 
τροπούμενον αὐτούς. 

Ps 23 κατὰ. τ. κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τ, 
Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ. 9%" (το δ) βασιλεύσει 
κύριος εἰς τ. αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τ. αἰῶνα τ. 
αἰῶνος. 

Dan 77 θ΄. κέρατα δέκα αὐτῷ. 

Dan 8!° (θ᾽) ἔπεσεν (ἐρράχθη, 0’) ἐπὶ τ. 
γῆν ἀπὸ τ. δυνάμεως τ. οὐρανοῦ καὶ 
ἀπὸ τ. ἄστρων. 

Is 667 ἔτεκεν ἄρσεν (Mass. 121 13). 

Dan 2535 (θ΄) τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς. 
This clause is missing in 0’, 

Gen 3° ὁ ὄφις ἠπάτησέν με. 

Dan γϑ 6’ ο΄. θηρίον ὡσεὶ πάρδαλις (ο΄. 
πάρδαλιν)... γὅ ὅμοιον ἄρκῳ (ο΄. 
ὁμοίωσιν ἔχον dpxov)... 73 ὡσεὶ 
λέαινα. 


Dany 


Dan 12! θ΄. ὁ γεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βίβλῳ. 
Ps 68 (69)°8 ἐκ βίβλου ζώντων, 

Is 537 ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγήν. 

Jer 1532 ὅσοι εἰς θάνατον, εἰς θάνατον" 
καὶ ὅσοι εἰς μάχαιραν, εἰς μάχαιραν 

. καὶ ὅσοι εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς 

αἰχμαλωσίαν. Cf. also 50 (43)"' 
where the same Hebrew words are 
rendered for the most part by 
different Greek words. 


Zeph 3'° οὐ λαλήσουσιν μάταια, καὶ 
οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν 
γλῶσσα δολία. The Seer’s words 
are a compression of the last four 
words of the Hebrew, 313 nat ΜΟῚ 
ὉΠ ΒΣ xin xdi. Se; 

Is 213 ο΄. πέπτωκεν, πέπτωκεν (B). 
So also θ΄. 


PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T. 


141° πίεται ἐκ τ. οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τ. 
θεοῦ τ. κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου ἐν τ. 
ποτηρίῳ τ. ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ. 

1414 ἐπὶ τ. νεφέλην καθήμενον. See 
1 in 8 5 below. 

[14'© πέμψον τὸ δρέπανόν cov καὶ 
θέρισον, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα θερίσαι, ὅτι 
ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς γῆς.] 

1418 πέμψον σου τ. δρέπανον τὸ ὀξύ, 
καὶ τρύγησον τ. βότρυας τ. ἀμπέλου 
τ. γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ 
αὐτῆς 1 

145) (1915) ἐπατήθη ἡ ληνός. 


15° μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ τ. ἔργα σου. 


15° δίκαιαι καὶ ἀληθιναὶ αἱ ὁδοί σου 


(cf. 167 197). 


15° ἐνδεδυμένοι t λίθον t.2 But λίθον 
=ww, which should here have been 
rendered βύσσινον. See vol. ii. 38. 

περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τ. στήθη ζώνας 
χρυσᾶς. See on 1138 above. 

15° ἐγεμίσθη ὁ ναὸς καπνοῦ... Kal 
οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. ναόν. 


16? ἐγένετο ἕλκος κακὸν καὶ πονηρὸν ἐπὶ 
τ. ἀνθρώπους. 





ἸΧΧΊΙ 


Is 5117 ἡ πιοῦσα ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου τ. 
ποτήριον τ. θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ. Ps 74 
(75)" ποτήριον ἐν χειρὶ κυρίου, οἴνοι 
ἀκράτου πλῆρες κεράσματος.3 


Joel 3 (4) ἐξαποστείλατε δρέπανα 
ὅτι παρέστηκεν τρυγητός (23 53 
Fe) 


Joel 3 (4)!%. See preceding passage. 


Is 63° s9a5 naa AMD: ο΄, πληρὴς κατα- 
πεπατημένης. σ΄. ληνὸν ἐπάτησα. 
Lam 115 ο΄. ληνὸν ἐπάτησεν κύριος. 

Ps 110 (111)? μεγάλα τ. ἔργα κυρίου. 
138 (139)!4 θαυμάσια τ. ἔργα σου. 

Ps 144 (145)} δίκαιος κύριος ἐν πάσαις 
τ. ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. 118 (119)! πᾶσαι 
αἱ ὁδοί σου ἀλήθεια. 

Dan 10° θ΄. ἐνδεδυμένος βαδδείν. 


Is 64 ὁ οἶκος ἐνεπλήσθη καπνοῦ. Ex 
4055: (5) οὐκ ἠδυνάσθη Μωσῆς 
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. σκηνὴν τ. μαρτυρίου 

καὶ δόξης κυρίου ἐπλήσθη ἡ 
σκηνή. 

Ex 9" éyévero ἔχκη . . . & τ. 


ἀνθρώποις. Deut 28% ἕλκει πονηρῷ 





1 Just as the interpolation 14} refers only to the harvest οἵ judgment—an 
idea which is not used metaphorically by our author (see ii. 19, 20 sqq.)—so 
14)8 refers only, and rightly, to the vintage of judgment. 

* This tracing of 15° to Dan 10° rests on the supposition that λίθον is a 


corruption of λίνον. 
author does not use it, but βύσσινος. 


But the use of this word is questionable in itself, and our 
See vol. ii. 38. 


3 In Ps 75° οἴνου ἀκράτου is a rendering of 1p9 75 where the Mass. punctu- 


ates differently. Cf. Jer 32'(25!5) where we find τ. οἴνου τ. ἀκράτου. 
terms are brought together in Pss. Sol 8" ἐκέρασεν. 


The two 
By our 


. . οἴνου ἀκράτου. 


author, ο΄ and Pss. Sol 779 is taken as=‘‘ unmixed wine,” but it is pointed 
apn and rendered ‘‘(which) foams” by modern scholars. 
In 14!” 1613 the cup is God’s cup of judgment, whereas in 174 188 (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. 1sp=Oepiopds, whereas o’ presupposes 7x3. 
! ρ ᾽ Ρ PP 


These words 


are confused in Jer 485: where some MSS read one and some the other. 


Possibly Vp in Is 16° is also corrupt for 1x2 (=o’). 


follows the Mass. 7*sp. 
grain, if indeed it is so used. 
it should be here. 


Thus in our text 14} 


But 5va is only used here in O.T. of the ripening of 
In Gen 40" it is used of vines, and so possibly 
Thus ¥sp would be corrupt for 7’s2, and Joel 415 would 


rightly relate only to the vintage (so R.V. in marg.), just as in 148 of our 


text. 


Ιχχὶν 


16° πᾶσα ψυχὴ ζωῆς. 
164 ἐξέχεεν τ. φιάλην αὐτοῦ εἰς τ. 
ποταμοὺς... καὶ ἐγένοντο αἷμα. 


167 ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι αἱ κρίσεις σου. 
1618 οἷος οὐκ ἐγένετο ad οὗ ἄνθρωποι 
ἐγένοντο ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. 


161" δοῦναι αὐτῇ τ. ποτήριον τ. οἴνου τ. 
θυμοῦ τ. ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ. 

167! χάλαζα μεγάλη. 

17' τῆς καθημένης ἐπὶ ὑδάτων πολλῶν, 


177 μεθ᾽ ἧς ἐπόρνευσαν οἱ βασιλεῖς τ. 
γῆς 
ἐμεθύσθησαν οἱ κατοικοῦντες τ. γῆν. 


17° ἀπήνεγκέν με. 
See 21}0 below. 
174 ποτήριον χρυσοῦν ἐν τ. χειρὶ αὐτῆς. 


ες ἐν πνεύματι. 


178 γέγραπται. . . ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς 


ζωῆς. See 138 above. 
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. See 138 
above. 


178 μισήσουσι τ. πόρνην καὶ ἠρημω- 

μένην ποιήσουσιν αὐτὴν καὶ γυμνήν. 
18! ἡ γῆ ἐφωτίσθη ἐκ τ. δόξης αὐτοῦ. 
183 ἔπεσεν ἔπεσεν, κτλ. See 148 
above. 


ἐγένετο κατοικητήριον δαιμονίων. 


188 ἐκ τ. οἴνου τ. πορνείας αὐτῆς πεπό- 
τικεν πάντα τ. ἔθνη. This is with- 
out doubt the original reading and 
explains the later corruptions. See 
148 177. 


153 οἱ βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐπόρ- 
νευσαν. See 172 above. 

18’ ἐξέλθατε ἐξ αὐτῆς ὁ λαός μου. 

18° ἐκολλήθησαν αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι 
ἄχρι τ. οὐρανοῦ. 

185 ἀπόδοτε αὐτῇ ὡς καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέδωκεν. 


ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ ᾧ ἐκέρασεν. 

187 ὅτι ἐν 7. καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς λέγει ὅτι 
Κάθημαι βασίλισσα, καὶ χήρα οὐκ 
εἰμί, καὶ πένθος οὐ μὴ ἴδω. 





THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Gen 17! πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ζῴων, 

Ex 7% ἐπάταξεν τὸ ὕδωρ. .. καὶ 
μετέβαλεν (but Mass. 727: = ἐγένετο) 
πᾶν τὸ ὕδωρ. . . els αἷμα. 

Ps 18 (19). See on 19? below. 

Dan 12! θ΄. ola οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ᾽ ἧς 
γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐν τῇ γῇ (ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, 
ΑΚ).} 

Jer 321 (25:5) Λάβε τ. ποτήριον τ. οἴνου 
τ. ἀκράτου. See on 14'° above. 

Ex 9% χάλαζα πολλή. 

Jer 28 (51)}8 κατασκηνοῦντας (= Π)3Ὁ 
κατασκηνοῦσα, Q) ἐφ᾽ ὕδασι πολλοῖς. 

Is 23}7 ἔσται ἐμπόριον (ANIN = πορνεύσει) 
πάσαις τ. βασιλείαις. .. τ. γῆς. 

Jer 28 (51)? ποτήριον. . . Βαβυλὼν 
. » » μεθύσκον πᾶσαν τ. γῆν. 


Jer 28 (51)7 ποτήριον χρυσοῦν. . . ἐν 
χειρὶ κυρίου. 


Ezek 2339 ποιήσουσιν ἐν σοὶ ἐν μίσει 
καὶ ἔσῃ (31»}) γυμνὴ καὶ αἰσχύνουσα. 

Ezek 432 ἡ γῆ ἐξέλαμπεν ὡς φέγγος 
ἀπὸ τ. δόξης, ID AYND PARA, 


Is 1321] Possibly a combination of 
oye .. . 32% or based on 
1 Bar 435 κατοικηθήσεται ὑπὸ δαι- 
μονίων. 

Jer 28 (51)7 ποτήριον χρυσοῦν Βαβυλὼν 
. . . μεθύσκον πᾶσαν τ. γῆν. ἀπὸ τ. 
οἴνου αὐτῆς ἐπίοσαν ἔθνη. 32! (255) 
λάβε τ. ποτήριον τ. οἴνου. .. καὶ 
ποτιεῖς πάντα τ. ἔθνη. See note on 
ii. 14. 


Jer 51% Heb. ‘py mand ws. }» ο΄, 
Jer 28 (51) ἤγγικεν (p33) els οὐρανόν. 


Ps 136 (137)8 ἀνταποδώσει cou... ὃ 
ἀνταπέδωκας ἡμῖν. 

See above on 14". 

Is 477% εἶπας Εἰς τ. αἰῶνα ἔσομαι 
ἄρχουσα... ἡ λέγουσα ἐν καρδιᾳ 
αὐτῆς οὐ καθιῶ χήρα οὐδὲ 
γνώσομαι ὀρφανείαν. 





1 Our text and θ΄ agree in adding the last three words ἐπὶ τ. γῆς and ἐν τ. 


vi. 1 am inc 
Dan 12] in the first cent. A.D. 


I am inclined to infer the existence of 0x2 in the Hebrew text of 


PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T. 


189 οἱ βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτῆς 
πορνεύσαντες. 

1818 ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων. 

188 τίς ὁμοία τ. πόλει τ. μεγάλῃ. 

1819 ἔβαλον χοῦν ἐπὶ τ. κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν. 


ἔκραξαν. 
1823 φωνὴ. .. μουσικῶν. .. οὐ μὴ 
ἀκουσθῇ. .. ἔτι. 
φωνὴ νυμφίου καὶ νύμ- 


1833: ἃ 228: hb PIS . ὦ καὶ φωνὴ 
2 aaa μύλου. . . καὶ φῶς 
λύχνου. 


[1838 of ἔμποροί σου ἦσαν οἱ μεγισ- 
raves τ. is. ] 

19? ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι ai κρίσεις 
αὐτοῦ. See 158 16’ above. 


19! ᾿Αμήν, ᾿Αλληλουιά. 

196 ὡς φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ... ὡς 
φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολλῶν. See 15 
above. 

195 ἐβασίλευσεν κύριος . . 
καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν. 

1911 εἶδον τ. οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳγμένον, καὶ 
ἰδού. 

ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρίνει. 


. χαίρωμεν 


1912 οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ, κτλ. See 1" 
28 above. 

1915 ἐκ τ. στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται 
ῥομφαία dfeta.1 Cf. 11%, 

iva ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη. 


καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ 
odnpg.? Cf. 27 12. This line 
will be treated under § 4. 

πατεῖ τ. ληνὸν τ. οἴνου τ. θυμοῦ... τ. 
θεοῦ. See on 14” above. 

19'718 λέγων πᾶσι τ. ὀρνέοις. 
Δεῦτε συνάχθητε εἰς τ. δεῖπνον... 
τ. θεοῦ. 18 ἵνα φάγητε σάρκας 
βασιλέων... καὶ σάρκας ἰσχυρῶν. 

19°) πάντα τ. ὄρνεα ἐχοητάσθησαν ExT. 
σαρκῶν αὐτῶν. 


20! εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς. 





1Cf. Heb 4)? ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. 


δίστομον. 


Ιχχν 


See 17? 18 above. 


Ezek 273 ἐν ψυχαῖς ἀνθρώπων. 

Ezek 27° θ΄. τίς ὥσπερ Τύρος ; 

Ezek 27°° ἐπιθήσουσιν ἐπὶ τ. κεφαλὴν 
αὐτῶν γῆν. 

Ezek 27% κεκράξονται. 

Ezek 2613 ἡ φωνὴ τ. Ψψαλτηρίων cov ob 
μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἔτι. 

Jer 25}0 φωνὴν νυμφίου καὶ φωνὴν 
νύμφης, | ὀσμὴν μύρου καὶ φῶς 
λύχνου. (Here φωνὴ μύλου in 
Apoc. is right =o'n7 5p). 

Is 238 of ἔμποροι αὐτῆς ἔνδοξοι, ἄρχοντες 
T. γῆς. 

Ps 18 (19)!° τὰ κρίματα κυρίου ἀληθινά, 
δεδικαιωμένα ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (΄"" ὌΞΩ 
vim ἸΡῚΣ ΠΝ), Ps 118 (119) 7: 187, 

Ps 105 (106) γένοιτο. 

Dan τοῦ θ΄. φωνὴ ὄχλου (ο΄. φ. 
θορύβου). 


Ps 96 (97)! ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν, 
ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ γῆ, εὐφρανθήτωσαν. 

Ezek τὶ ἠνοίχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ 
εἶδον. 

Is 114 pasa pee. o presupposes a 
different text—xpive? ταπεινῷ κρίσιν. 


Is 114 πατάξει γῆν τ. λόγῳ τ. στόματος 
αὐτοῦ. 
Ps 29 ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. 


Is 638, For diction, cf. Lam 15. 


Ezek 39%. See ii. 138. 


Ezek 394 τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μετὰ σοῦ δοθή- 
σονται εἰς πλήθη ὀρνέων... κατα- 
βρωθῆναι. 305 καὶ ἐμπλησθήσεσθε. 

Dan 7° θ΄. ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι 
ἐτέθησαν. "5 τὸ κριτήριον ἐκάθισεν. 
7 τὸ κρίμα (τ. κρίσιν ο΄) ἔδωκεν 
(Ἐπ. ο΄) ἁγίοις (+7. 0) ὑψίστου. 


. τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν 


2 These ideas of smiting the Gentiles with the word of His mouth (Is 114) 
and of breaking them in pieces like potter’s vessels (Ps 2°) have already beev 


combined in Pss. Sol 177-27 89, 


Ixxvi 


20" εἶδον θρόνον. 
μενον. 

20! βιβλία ἠνοίχθησαν. 

20! ἄλλο βιβλίον ἠνοίχθη, ὅ ἐστιν τ. 
ζωῆς. 

218 ἡ σκηνὴ τ. θεοῦ μετὰ τ. ἀνθρώπων 
καὶ σκηνώσει per αὐτῶν καὶ αὐτοὶ 
λαὸς αὐτοῦ ἔσονται. 


. καὶ τ. καθή- 


21" ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον. See 7” 
above. 
215 τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν. . . ἰδοὺ 


καινὰ ποιῶ. 


21 τῷ διψῶντι. . . δώσω ex... Τ᾿ 
ὕδατος τ. ζωῆς δωρεάν (22:7). 


217 ἔσομαι αὐτῷ θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται 
μοι υἱός. 

21° ἀπήνεγκέν με ἐν πνεύματι ἐπὶ 
ὄρος... ὑψηλόν. Cf. 178 above. 


2113 ὀνόματα. . . τ. δώδεκα φυλῶν 
υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ. 2118 ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς 
πυλῶνες τρεῖς καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ πυλῶνες 


τρεῖς, κτλ. 

2118 ἡ ἐνδώμησις τ. τείχους αὐτῆς 
ἴασπιΞ. 

2119 ὁ θεμέλιος. .. ὁ δεύτερος σάπ- 
φειρος. 


2128 (226) ἡ πόλις οὐ χρείαν ἔχει τ. 
ἡλίου οὐδὲ τ. σελήνης ἵνα φαίνωσιν 
αὐτῇ, ἡ γὰρ δόξα τ. θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν 
αὐτήν. 

2133 καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τ. 
φωτὸς αὐτῆς καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς 
φέρουσιν ' τ. δόξαν αὐτῶν... 

2135 καὶ οἱ πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ κλεισ- 
θῶσιν ἡμέρας... 

2138 καὶ οἴσουσιν τ. δόξαν... 
εἰς αὐτήν. 

2177 οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ. .. 


. τ. ἔθνων 
πᾶν κοινὸν. 


εἰ μὴ οἱ γεγραμμένοι ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ τ. 
ζωῆς. See 138 178 above. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Dan 7° 6’ ο΄. ἐκάθητο. . . ὃ θρόνος 
αὐτοῦ “ο΄. 

Dan 7? 6 ο΄. βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν. 

Ps 68 (69)53 βίβλου ζώντων. 


Ezek 3727, Lev 261% 13, See ii. 207. 


Is 43.519 μὴ μνημονεύετε τὰ πρῶτα, 
καὶ τὰ ἀρχαῖα μὴ συλλογίζεσθε, 
ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ καινά. See ii. 203. 

Is 55! οἱ διψῶντες, πορεύεσθε ἐφ᾽ ὕδωρ, 
καὶ ὅσοι μὴ ἔχετε ἀργύριον. .. 
ἀγοράσατε. 

2 Sam 7} ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα 
καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν. 

Ezek 4οἱ" ἤγαγέν με ἐν ὁράσει θεοῦ 

. καὶ ἔθηκέν με ἐπ᾽ ὄρος ὑψηλόν 
(7a2 79 Seam... N'A). 

Ezek 48°! al πύλαι τ. πόλεως ἐπ᾽ 
ὀνόμασιν φυλῶν τ. ᾿Ισραήλ᾽ πύλαι 
τρεῖς πρὸς βορρᾶν. 48535:94 καὶ τὰ 
πρὸς ἀνατολὰς. . . πύλαι τρεῖς κτλ. 

Is 542 θήσω τ. ἐπάλξεις σου ἴασπιν. 


Is 54}} τὰ θεμέλιά σου σάπφειρον. 


Is 60! οὐκ ἔσται σοι ἔτι ὁ ἥλιος εἰς 
φῶς ἡμέρας οὐδὲ ἀνατολὴ σελήνης 
φωτιεῖ σου τ. νύκτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται... 
ὁ θεὸς δόξα σου. 

Is 60° καὶ πορεύσονται. . . τῷ φωτί 
gov... ἔθνη. 60% αἱ πύλαι σου 

. ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς οὐ κλεισθή- 
σονται, εἰσαγαγεῖν πρὸς σὲ δύναμιν 
ἐθνῶν καὶ βασιλεῖς αὐτῶν ἀγομένους." 
60° + πλοῦτος. . ἐθνῶν καὶ λαῶν 
καὶ ἥξουσιν 1.3 

Ts 52! οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται διελθεῖν 

. ἀκάθαρτος. See ii. 173 sq. 

Dan 12! θ΄. ὁ γεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βίβλῳ 

ο΄. ἐγγεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ. 





1 In the Mass. as well as the LXX the text is clearly corrupt: 2.6. ‘‘ that 
men may bring unto thee the wealth of the nations and their kings led (by 


them) ” 
Ξε leading.” 


by their people. 


As modern scholars recognize, 0°73 (=‘‘ led”) is corrupt for Ὁ 2Π|} 
Hence instead of ‘‘and their kings led (by them),” render : 
‘‘under the leadership of these kings.” 


The kings lead and are not led 


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 


2136 is nearer the Mass. 75 x2" Ὁ) ὉΠ, 
‘the wealth of the nations shall come unto thee.” 


Our author either read 


ik) instead of 383}, or followed the Mass. in 60", 


PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T. 


221-2 ποταμὸν ὕδατος ζωῆς. . . ἐκπορ- 
evduevov ἐκ τ. θρόνου τ. θεοῦ. The 
idea is to be found in its developed 
form in 1 and 2 Enoch. 

22° ἐν μέσῳ. . . τ. ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν 
καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ξύλον ζωῆς ποιοῦν καρποὺς 
δώδεκα, κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον ἀπο- 
διδοῦν τ. καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ τ. φύλλα 
τ. ξύλου εἰς θεραπείαν τ. ἐθνῶν. 


22° πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. 
4 , ὅνταν τς 
224 ὄψονται τ. πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ. 


22° οὐκ ἔχουσιν χρείαν φωτός, κτλ. 
See 2123 above. 


κύριος ὁ θεὸς putloer! ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. 


ye 


22128 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ 
μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. 
120 ἡ 5 Led : 

22> ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τ. ἔργον 
ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ." 


μισθός 


2217 ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω. . . ὕδωρ ζωῆς 
δωρεάν. See 21° above 

[22'8>-19 ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ em αὐτά, ἐπιθή- 
oa... καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ, κτλ.] 


ΙΧχνὶ 


Ezek 47! ὕδωρ ἐξεπορεύετο. . . ἀπὸ 
νότου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον.3 Zech 
145 ἐξελεύσεται ὕδωρ ζῶν ἐξ ᾽Τερου- 
σαλήμ. 

Ezek 47!" ο΄. ἐπὶ τ. ποταμοῦ ἀναβήσεται 
ἐπὶ τ. χείλους αὐτοῦ ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν 

. οὐδὲ μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ" 
τῆς καινότητος αὐτοῦ (") }) Π2) πρωτο- 
βολήσει, ὅτι. .. ἔσται... ἀνάβασις 
αὐτῶν (wnby) εἰς ὑγίειαν. 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 14! ἀνάθεμα (ὉΠ) οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. 

Ps 16 (17}} 125 minx. But o’ has 
ὀφθήσομαι τ. προσώπῳ σου. Con- 
trast Mass. and o’ in 83 (84)’. 


Ps 117 (118) θεὸς κύριος καὶ ἐπέφανεν 
quw—an abbreviated form of the 
Aaronic blessing: see ii 210-211. 

Is go! ᾿Ιδοὺ κύριος. . . ἔρχεται, . . 
ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ wer’ αὐτοῦ. 6211, 

Prov 24!" ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. 
ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Cf. Ps 61 (62)}2 ἀποδώ- 
σεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. ἔργα αὐτοῦ. 

Is 551] οἱ διψῶντες πορεύεσθε. 


Deut 45 οὐ προσθήσεσθε πρὸς τ. ῥῆμα. 
. . . καὶ οὐκ ἀφελεῖτε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 


Δ ΤῺ 18! our author renders ΠΝ Π of Ezek 43? by ἐφωτίσθη, just as he 


renders Ni, Ps 117 (118)? by φωτίσει. 

2 Clem. Rom. ad Corznth, xxxiv. 3 has a close but independent parallel 
to 22.) ἰδοὺ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ (cf. Is 40) πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ 
(cf. Is 621), ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (cf. Pr 2413. Here 
Clement is a mosaic of the o’ of these three passages, but not so our author. 
The ο΄ of Is 621! is ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μισθόν, καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ mpd προσώπου 
αὐτοῦ. The order of the words, ὡς τ. ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ, is not our author’s: 
see p. clviiad fin. The clause=inbyp2. ws here =‘ according as ”—a classical 
meaning not elsewhere found in our author. But in our author’s mind ὡς 
is the regular rendering in our author for 3 in Hebrew (see vol. i. 35-36). 
The Hebrew particle has this meaning. Yet we should expect κατὰ τὰ ἔργα 
αὐτοῦ (cf. 221%), 

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. 

4R.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.” 


Ixxvili 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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


by ο΄. 
14 ἀπὸ ὁ Gy. 
158 ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός. 


15> ὁ πρωτότοκος τ. νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων 
τ βασιλέων τ. γῆς 


233. ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ. 


2550 δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τ. ἐθνῶν. 
27 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, 
ὡς τ. σκεύη τ. κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται. 


35 οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω τ. ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τ. 
βίβλου 1 τ. ζωῆς. 


3% ἐγὼ ἠγάπησά σε. 
43 (γ}9 19%) ἐπὶ τ. θρόνον καθήμενος. 


[58 θυμιαμάτων, αἵ εἰσιν αἱ προσευχαί. 
59 (143) ἄδουσιν ᾧδὴν καινήν. 


[68 ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ 
καὶ ἐν θανάτῳ καὶ ὑπὸ τ. θηρίων τ. 


vis. Sey 

619 ἕως πότε. . . οὐ κρίνεις Kal 
ἐκδικεῖς τ. αἷμα ἡμῶν ἐκ τ. κατοι- 
κούντων ἐπὶ τ. yas; cf. 19%. 

615 ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον 
+ ἑλισσόμενον t. 


714 ἔπλυναν τ. στολὰς αὐτῶν. .. ἐν 
r. αἵματι: Cf 22:5 
92 ἀνέβη καπνὸς . . . ὡς καπνὸς 


καμίνου. 
ἐσκοτώθη ὁ ἥλιος. 


115 πατάξαι τ. γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ. 


111] πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τ. θεοῦ εἰσῆλθεν 
ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔστησαν 2 ἐπὶ τ. πόδας 
αὐτῶν. 

11|74-|8 ἐβᾳσίλευσας 
ὠργίσθησαν. 


καὶ τ. ἔθνη 


Ex 3)4 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὦν. 

Ps 88 (80) 58 ὁ μάρτυς ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός. 

Ps 88 (89)* κἀγὼ πρωτότοκον θήσομαι 
αὐτόν, ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τ. βασιλεῦσιν τ. 

γῆς. 

Ezek 337 θανάτῳ ἀποκτενῶ (Mass. 
wm" 7352) 

Ps 28° δώσω σοι ἔθνη τ. κληρονομίαν 
σου. .. ποιμανεῖς αὐτους ἐν ῥάβδῳ 
σιδηρᾷ, ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντ- 
pipers αὐτούς. See vol. i. 75-77 
and Pss. Sol 1778, 

Ex 32583 ἐξάλειψόν we ἐκ τ. βίβλου 
σου. Ps 68 (69) ἐξαλειφθήτωσαν 
ἐκ βίβλου ζώντων See i. 84. 

Is 433 ἐγώ σε ἠγάπησα. 

Is 6! τ. κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου 
I Kings 223 θεὸν. . , καθήμενον 
ἐπὶ θρόνου αὐτοῦ. 

Ps 1403 ἡ προσευχή μον ὡς θυμίαμα. 

Ps 143 (144)° φδὴν καινὴν dooual σοι. 
Is 421}, 

Ezek 14} ῥομφαίαν καὶ λιμὸν καὶ 
θηρία πονηρὰ καὶ θάνατον (737). 


2 Kings 97 ἐκδικήσεις τ. αἵματα τ. 
δούλων μου. . . ἐκ χειρὸς ᾿Ιεζάβελ. 


Is 344 ἑλιγήσεται ὡς βιβλίον ὁ οὐρανός. 


Gen 401} πλυνεῖ ἐν οἴνῳ τ. στολὴν 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν αἵματι. 

Ex 198 ἀνέβαινεν ὁ καπνὸς ὡς καπνὸς 
καμίνου. 

Joel 2'° ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη συσκοτά- 
σουσιν. 

Ι Sam 48 οἱ θεοὶ οἱ πατάξαντες τ. 
Αἴγυπτον ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ (. . . Ὀ3:π 
7207933). 

Ezek 37! εἰσῆλθεν els αὐτοὺς τὸ 
πνεῦμα kal... ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τ. πόδων 
αὐτῶν. 

Ps 98 (99)! κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν" ὀργι- 
ζέσθωσαν λαοί. 





1 Here and in 20" our author appears to use βίβλος owing to ο΄ in the first 


passage and 6” in his second 


For, when writing independently, he uses 


βιβλίον, even when using the phrase τὸ βιβλίον τ. ζωῆς, 13° 217 (cf. 178). In 
all βιβλίον occurs 23 times (3 times in an interpolation). 


2 Our author uses ἐστάθην (88 12!) as the aorist of ἵστημι. 


Chapter 11 is 


a source, and the use of ἔστησαν in it may be due to ο΄. 
3 The ideas in the Apoc. 1 and Ps 88 (89)* are wholly dissimilar, but the 
dependence in case of the diction is clear. 


PASSAGES INFLUENCED POSSIBLY BY Ο’ 


11184-8 7, δούλοις cou T προφήταις Kai 
τ. ἁγίοις καὶ τ. φοβουμένοις τ. ὄνομά 
σου τ. μικροὺς καὶ τ. μεγάλους. 

121..3 σημεῖον . . γυνὴ. . . ἐν 
γαστρὶ ἔχουσα καὶ κράζει ὠδίνουσα 
“Ὁ. TEKEW,} 

125> ποιμαίνειν πάντα τ. ἔθνη ἐν 
ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. 

12)? εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί. 

147 τ. ποιήσαντι τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. γῆν 
καὶ θάλασσαν. Contrast 108 under 
§ 3 above. On this phrase see 
Ἄν σΙ θ᾽ πὸ ΓΔ 

141} ὁ καπνὸς . .. εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων 
ἀναβαίνει. .. ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός. 


153 ἄδουσιν [τ. ὠδὴν Μωυσέως τ. δούλου 
τ. θεοῦ]. 


154 δοξάσει τ. ὄνομα σου. 

154 πάντα τ. ἔθνη ἥξουσιν καὶ προσ- 
κυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου. 

15° περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τ. στήθη ζώνας 
χρυσᾶς. 

16° δίκαιος εἶ. . . ὅσιος. 

αἷμα. .. πεῖν. 

17} καὶ τ. σάρκας αὐτῆς φάγονται. 


192 ἐξεδίκησεν τ. αἷμα τ. δούλων αὐτοῦ 
ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῆς. See on 6!° above. 

19° ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει els τ. 
αἰῶνας See on 14" above. 

195 αἰνεῖτε τ. θεῷ ἡμῶν, πάντες ol 
δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ, οἱ φοβούμενοι αὐτόν, οἱ 
μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι. 


1015 ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη" καὶ 
αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ 
σιδηρᾷ. See 2:7 above. 

20° ἐπὶ τ. πλάτος τ. γῆς. 


κατέβη πῦρ ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέ- 
gayev. (Lhis could be registered 
under § 3, since the Hebrew could 
hardly be rendered differently. ) 


21! οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν. 
2132(21:9) τ. πόλιν τ. ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλήμ. 
21}3 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός 


μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. Already registered 
under § 3 above. 


Ixxix 


Amos 37 τ. δούλους αὐτοῦ τ. προφή- 
τας. ῬΞ11351(115:5) τ. φοβουμένους 
τ. κύριον τ. μικροὺς μετὰ τ. μεγάλων. 

Is 74 σημεῖον" ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν 
γαστρὶ ἕξει (NA λήμψεται, Β). 2617 
ἡ ὠδίνουσα ἐγγίζει τεκεῖν, ἐπὶ τῇ 
ὠδῖνι αὐτῆς ἐκέκραξεν, 

See on 227 above. 


Is 4918 εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί. Cf. 4433. 

Ex 20" (quoted on 10° under ὃ 3 
above). Neh 19° ἐποίσηας τ. οὐρανὸν 
ele ihecyquiets aime Oa Naas. 


Is 34° νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας. . . kal... 
els τ. αἰῶνα χρόνον καὶ ἀναβήσεται ὁ 
καπνὸς αὐτῆς. 

Ex 14%! Μωυσῇ τ. θεράποντι αὐτοῦ. 

Ex 15! qoev Μωυσῆς. . . τ. φδὴν 
ταύτην. 

Ps 85 (86)" δοξάσουσιν τ. ὄνομά σου. 

Ps ὃς (86) πάντα τ. ἔθνη. . . ἥξουσιν 
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου. 

See on 113 under § 3. 


Ps 144 (145)} δίκαιος κύριος. . . καὶ 
σιος 

Is 4039 πίονται. . . τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν. 

Is 4955 φάγονται. . . τ. σάρκας 
αὐτῶν. 


Ps 124 (135) 39. αἰνεῖτε τ. ὄνομα 
κυρίου, αἰνεῖτε δοῦλοι κύριον" . .. οἱ 
φοβούμενοι τ. κύριον. See on 118 
above. 

Is 114 καὶ πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ 
στόματος αὐτοῦ. 


Hab 1° ἐπὶ τὰ πλάτη (τὸ πλάτος----Α) 


τ. γῆς. 
2 Kings 119 ο΄ exactly as in our text. 


Is 65)? ἔσται yap ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ 
ἡ γῆ καινή. 


Is 52! ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, πόλις ἡ ἁγία. Cf. 
Dan 9*4 6’. 
Is 40" ἰδοὺ κύριος κύριος. . . ἔρχεται 


. 60d ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 





1 Possibly this passage should have been given under § 3. 
? Our author rightly follows the Hebrew here, m7 "32y, against 0’. 


lxxx 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


§ 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 of ο΄, such as is preserved in Theodotion θ΄. 


1! ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι. 


Dan θ΄. 233. 39. 46 ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι. 


18 (5' 205) ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν Ex 195 θ΄. βασιλεία ἱερεῖς, which= 


ἱερεῖς τ. θεῷ. 
1™ ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ ὃ τ. νεφελῶν. 


1170 (28 2215) ᾿Ε γώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ 
ἔσχατος. 


119 ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. 


37 ὁ ἔχων τ. κλεῖν... ὁ ἀνοίγων καὶ 
οὐδεὶς κλείσει καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς 
ἀνοίγει. 


3% ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον 
τ. ποδῶν σου. See on 155 under 


ὃ 4. 


4) ἃ bel γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. 
119 above. 

9” τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τ. εἴδωλα 2 τ. χρυσᾶ 
καὶ τ. ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τ. χαλκᾶ καὶ τ. 
λίθινα καὶ τ. ξύλινα, ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν 
δύνανται οὔτε ἀκούειν οὔτε περι- 
πατεῖν. 


See on 


10° ὥμοσεν ἐν τ. ζῶντι els τ. αἰῶνας. 


on mp0, But the Mass. has 
“3 naboo, and also ο΄. βασίλειον 
ἱεράτευμα. See vol. i. 16. 

Dan 7}8 θ΄. ἰδοὺ μετὰ τ. νεφελῶν... 
ἐρχόμενος = Mass, ANN *33y OY WN. οἵ. 
ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τ. νεφελῶν. . . ἤρχετο. 

Is 4813 (cf. 445) PANN ὯΝ AN PRI ὯΝ. 
Is 4813 θ΄. ᾿Εγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ 
ἔσχατος. ο΄. ᾿Εγώ εἰμι πρῶτος καὶ 
ἐγώ εἰμι εἰς τ. αἰῶνα. 

Dan 259 6’. τί δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα 
ΞΟ 

Is 2255 θ΄. δώσω τ. κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαβὶδ 
Ξ καὶ ἀνοίξει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ 
ἀποκλείων᾽ καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται 
ὁ ἀνοίγων. ο΄. δώσω τ. δόξαν Δαυεὶδ 

. καὶ ἄρξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντι- 
λέγων, καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ 
ἀνοίγων. 

Is 60" θ΄. καὶ πορεύσονται... παροξυ- 
νάντων. καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν 
ἐπὶ τ. ἴχνη τ. ποδῶν σου. ο΄ om. 
last eight words. 


Dan 5” θ΄ (> 0’). τ. θεοὺς τ. χρυσοῦς 
καὶ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χαλκοῦς καὶ 
σιδηροῦς καὶ ξυλίνους καὶ λιθίνους, 
ot οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ot οὐκ ἀκούουσιν 
(o’< entire passage). Cf. Ps 113 
(114)!71) 7, εἴδωλα... οὐκ ὄψονται 

. οὐκ ἀκούσονται. . . οὐ περι- 
πατήσουσιν. 

Dan 127 θ΄. ὥμοσεν ἐν τ. ζῶντι τ. 
αἰῶνα. 


1 Our author knows only oy, as does 6’, whereas o’ presupposes Sy. In 
1415 ἐπὶ τ. νεφέλην καθήμενον does not presuppose >y, for καθήμενον requires 


ἐπί here. 
μετὰ τ. ved. : by ἐν in Mk 13” 


Thus oy is presupposed by μετά in Rev 17, Mk 14% ἐρχόμενον 
ἐρχόμενον ἐν ved., Lk 2177: whereas Matt 2489 
2653 ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τ. ved. presuppose οὐ and Sy. 


See vol. i. 18. 


3 This combination of demons and idols is first found in 1 En gg’. 
3 ο΄ has this phrase also in 338: 39: but since there is no other passage in 


our author based on Daniel that agrees with o’ against 6’, and many that agree 
with θ' against ο΄, we conclude that where they agree, as here, our author is 
influenced by a version of the character of 6’. 

4The Mass. here trs. χρυσοῦς καὶ ἀργυροῦς. But, since θ΄ and Peshitto 
here, as well as all the authorities for the same list of substances in σ΄, support 
the order xp. καὶ dpy., there can be no doubt that the Mass. is wrong here 
and that our author and 6’ attest the true order in 5%. Our author is follow- 
ing 5% here, as the concluding clauses prove. 


ECHOES OF THE O.T. 


12! καιρὸν 
καιροῦ. 

13° στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα. 

137 ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τ. ἁγίων. 


καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ 


1315 ὅσοι ἐὰν μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τ. 
εἰκόνα. 

148 Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη. 

1554 ὁ βασιλεὺς τ. ἐθνῶν" τίς οὐ μὴ 
φοβηθῇ; 

20} τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς (cf. 128). 


20} ef τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τ. βίβλῳ! τ. 
ζωῆς γεγραμμένος. 


2212 μὴ σφραγίσῃς τ. λόγους. .. τ. 
βιβλίον τούτου. 


ΙΧΧΧῚ 


Dan 127 6/ ο΄. καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς 
(ΑΟΓῚ καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ. Cf. 7”. 

Dan 78 6’ ο΄. στ. λαλ. μεγ. 

Dan 77! θ΄. ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τ. 


ἁγίων. ο΄. πόλεμον συνιστάμενον 
πρὸς τ. ἁγίους. 

Dan 3° @ ο΄. ὃς ἂν μὴ (-- πεσὼν 0’) 
προσκυνήσῃ σι ἔρως 

Dan 47" 0 ο΄. Βαβ. ἣμ 

Jiex Το 07 (-Ξ.-.7}» τίς A “μὴ φοβηθή- 


σεται, βασιλεῦ τ. ἐθνῶν ; 

Dan “δ θ΄. τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς. 
ο΄. ὥστε μηδὲν καταλειφθῆναι ἐξ 
αὐτῶν. 

Dan 12! θ΄. πᾶς (+6 εὑρεθείς AQ) ὁ 
γεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βίβλῳ. ο΄. ὃς ἂν 
εὑρεθῇ ἐγγεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ. 

Dan 124 θ΄. σφράγισον τ. βιβλίον. οἵ. 
σφράγισαι τ. βιβλίον. 12° 07. 
ἐσφραγισμένοι οἱ λόγοι. ο΄. ἐσφραγ- 
lopéva τὰ προστάγματα. 


§ 6. Phrases and clauses in our Author which are echoes of 


O.T. passages. 
2 τὴν γυναῖκα ᾽᾿Τεζάβελ. 


5° ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τ. φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα. 

ἡ ῥίζα Δαυείδ (cf. 2216), 

9° ἐξῆλθον ἀκρίδες εἰς τ. γῆν. 

915 τ. ποταμῷῴ τ. μεγάλῳ Εὐφράτῃ. 

97! φόνων... πορνείας... κλεμ- 
μάτων. 

φαρμάκων... πορνείας. 

101} δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ 
λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν. .. καὶ βασι- 
λεῦσιν. 


11| κάλαμος. .. μέτρησον τ. ναόν. 


112 ἐδόθη τ. ἐθνεσιν καὶ τ. πόλιν τ. 
ἁγίαν πατήσουσιν. 


118 πνευματικῶς Σόδομα. 
1110 δῶρα πέμψουσιν ἀλλήλοις. 


φόβος. .. ἐπέπεσεν ἐπί. 
1112 ἀνέβησαν εἰς τ. οὐρανόν. 


1113 ἔδωκαν δόξαν τ. θεῷ (cf. 147). 
τ. θεῷ τ. οὐρανοῦ (cf. 161). 
111 βασιλεύσει εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων. 


1 Kings 20 (21) "Ie{dBeX ἡ γυνὴ 
αὐτοῦ. 

Gen 49° σκύμνος λέοντος, ᾿Ιούδα. 

Is 111 ἐκ τ. ῥίζης ᾿Τεσσαί. 

Ex 10)? ἀναβήτω ἀκρὶς ἐπὶ τ. γῆν. 

Gen 1518 τ. ποτ. τ. wey. Hud. 

Ex 2088 (Mass., but different order in 
0)" 

2 Kings 952 αἱ πορνεῖαι ᾿Ιεζάβελ.. 
καὶ τ. φάρμακα αὐτῆς. 


Jer 1τἰθ ἰδοὺ καθέστακά oe... ἐπὶ 
ἔθνη καὶ βασιλείας. 
Ezek 40° ἐν τ. χειρὶ αὐτοῦ fv... 


κάλαμος μέτρον. 4118 διεμέτρησεν 
κατέναντι τ. οἴκου. 

Zech 12° θήσομαι τ, ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ λίθον 
καταπατούμενον. Dan 9% (6’) τ. 
πόλιν τ. ἁγίαν. 

Is τ'ῦ Israel addressed as ‘‘ Sodom.” 

Esth . 9} ἀποστέλλοντες μερίδας ἕκαστος 
τῷ πλησίον. 

Frequent in the O.T. 

2 Kings 2" ἀνελήμφθη. .. 
οὐρανόν. 

josh:7™, Jera3" ete. 

IDE 95. 215. 19.087. Ὁ οἵ. 211, 

Ps 9%? (101%) βασιλεύσει κύριος els τ. 
αἰῶνα. 


εἰς τ. 





1 See note on 3° under ὃ 4. 6’ explains our author’s use of βίβλος here 


instead of his own word βιβλίον. 


t 


IXxxli 


147 φοβήθητε τ. θεόν, 

14} πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ. 

15! πληγὰς ἑπτά. 

16! ἐκχέετε τ. φιάλας τ. θυμοῦ τ. 
θεοῦ. 

1610 ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἐσκοτω- 
μένη. 

1613 ἐξηράνθη τ. ὕδωρ αὐτοῦ. 

189 κλαύσονται καὶ κόψονται. 

184 σου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ψυχῆς. 

187! Suggested by 


20° τ. πόλιν τ. ἠγαπημένην. 


214 οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος 
οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. 

21}9 τ, δόξαν τ. θεοῦ. 

2118 ἡ πόλις τετράγωνος κεῖται. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Eccles 1238, 

Gen 1935. 

Lev 267) πληγὰς ἑπτά. 

Jer 10% ἔκχεον τ. θυμόν σου ἐπὶ ἔθνη. 


Ex 10% γενηθήτω σκότος ἐπὶ γῆν 
Αἰγύπτου. 

Ex 1435) ἐποίησεν τ. θάλασσαν ξηράν. 

2 Sam 17? ἐκόψαντο... καὶ ἔκλαυσαν. 

Deut 1215: 30. 21, Ps 20 (21) etc. 

Jer 28 (51)®*4 λίθον... ῥίψεις καὶ ἐρεῖς 
Οὕτως καταδύσεται Βαβυλών. 

Ps 77 (78)® τ. ὄρος τ. Σειὼν ἠγάπησεν. 
86 (87)? ἀγαπᾷ κύριος τ. πύλας Σιών. 

Is 35}0 ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ 


Is 58°. 
Ezek 4816 where the measures of the 
city show that it was τετράγωνος. 


§ 7. Passages dependent on or parallel with passages in the 


Jewish Pseudepigrapha. 


113 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου. 
below. 

27 δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τ. ξύλου τ. 
ζωῆς. 

217 ὄνομα καινόν. 


See on 14} 


4 καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεῳγμένη ἐν τ. 
οὐρανῷ. 
45 (152) θάλασσα ὑαλίνη. 


611} ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται. . . ἕως πληρω- 
θῶσιν. .. οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ 
μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι. 


613 ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας... 
σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα. 


. καὶ ἡ 


T. Lev 18}} δώσει τ. ἁγίοις φαγεῖν ἐκ. 
τ. ξύλου τ. ζωῆς. See vol. i. 54. 
T. Lev 8 ἐπικληθήσεται αὐτῷ ὄνομα 

καινόν. 

1 En 14 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄλλην θύραν ἀνεῳγ- 
μένην (1.6. in heaven): T. Lev 53. 

2 En 3° “They showed me a great 
sea”’ (z.e, in the first heaven). Cf. 
T. Lev 27. 

In 1 En 47 the end will come when 
the number of the martyrs is com- 
plete exactly as in our text. 475: 
“1 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.” 2 

Ass. Mos. 10° Sol non dabet lumen et 
in tenebras convertent se cornua 
lunae . . . et (luna) tota convertet 
se in sanguinem,? 


1 Here the martyrs are regarded as an offering to God just as in our text 


144 (ἀπαρχὴ τ. θεῷ). See vol. i. 174. 


2 Ezek. 327 (ο΄. ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φάος αὐτῆς) and Joel 2%! (34) (ο΄. ὁ ἥλιος 


μεταστραφήσεται εἰς σκότος καὶ ἡ σελήνη εἰς αἷμα) are the sources of Ass. Mos 
10°. 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. 180, 


PASSAGES BASED ON THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 


71 τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους. . . ἐπὶ τ. 
τέσσαρας γωνίας τῆς γῆς, κρατοῦντας 
τ. τέσσαρας ἀνέμους τ. γῆς. 

[88 ὡς ὄρος μέγα πυρὶ καιόμενον. 7} 


91 ἀστέρα ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς 
τ. γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεὶς τ. 
φρέατος, κτλ.3 

929 ἵνα μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τ. δαιμόνια 
καὶ τ. εἴδωλα. 

14 βασανισθήσεται ἐν 
ἐνώπιον τ. ἀγγέλων. 


πυρὶ o ee 


1414 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου." 


1714 (Cf. 1916) Κύριος κυρίων ἐστὶν καὶ 
βασιλεὺς βασιλέων. 


1915 ἐκ τ. στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται 
ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ 
τὰ ἔθνη" καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν 
ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. 

208 τὸν Γὼγ καὶ Μαγώγ. 

201" ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ἅδης ἔδωκαν τ. 
νεκροὺς τ. ἐν αὐτοῖς. 


227 τ. θρόνου τ. θεοῦ καὶ τ. ἀρνίου. 


lxxxiii 


See vol. i. 204, 192 (note), where this 
conception is shown to be in 1 
Enoch. 

1 En 18} ὡς ὄρη μεγάλα καιόμενα : 21° 

ὁμοίους ὄρεσιν μεγάλοις καὶ ἐν πυρὶ 

καιομένους. 

En 86! ‘‘ Behold a star fell from 

heaven and it arose” etc. 


-_ 


1 En 997 ‘‘ Who worship stones... . 
impure spirits and demons.” 

1 En 48° ““Ας straw in the fire, so 

shall they burn before the face of 

the holy.” 

En 46! which first applies to ¢he 

Messiah, this phrase which in Dan 

γ15ΞΞ τ 6 saints.” 4 Ezra 13° 

where the Syriac presupposes ὅμοιον 

υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου. See vol. ii. 20. 

1 En 94 (Gs?) Κύριος τ. κυρίων καὶ 
βασιλεὺξ τ. βασιλευόντων (H= 
βασιλέων). 

Pss. Sol 175 7150 quoted in vol. ii. 
136 where already Is 114 and Ps 29 
are applied in the same Ps. to the 
Messiah. 

See vol. ii. 188. 

1 En 51! ‘* Sheol also shall give back 
that which it has received, and hell 
shall give back that which it owes.” 
See vol. ii. 194 sqq. 

1 En 628: ὅ, See vol. ii. 175sq. The 
throne is the throne of God and of 
the Son of Man. 


με 


§ 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, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 
Colossians, Ephesians and possibly Galatians, 1 Peter and James. 
The possibility of his having had one or more other books of the 
NT. ts not excluded. 





1 The diction is almost identical, but the ideas are quite different. In 
1 En the stars are really spirits or angels undergoing punishment. In this 
interpolated passage 872 the ‘‘burning mountain” in 85 and ‘‘the 
burning star” in 8!° are purely physical things. Contrast our author’s 
use in 9}. 

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 1412 ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ ὁ 
ἑωσφόρος. 

ὃ Combined worship of demons and idols first mentioned in 1 En 99’. 

4 The fact that the expression ὅμοιος υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου 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 ὁ vids τ. 
ἀνθρώπου. 


Ixxxiv 


1} δεῖ γενέσθαι. 

13 μακάριος. . . καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τ. 
λόγους... καὶ τηροῦντες. 

ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς. 

14 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη. 


15 ὁ πρωτότοκος τ. νεκρῶν. 
15 τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς. 


18 βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τ. θεῷ. 

17 ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ τ. νεφελῶν, καὶ 
ὄψεται αὐτὸν πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ 
οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν, καὶ 
κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ 
τ. γῆς.3 

17 val, ἀμήν. 

116 ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ws ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει. 


118 νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν. , 
27 ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω 3 (seven times). 


29 οἷδά σου. . . τ. πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ 


πλούσιος εἶ. 


2 τι στέφανον τ. ζωῆς." 

230 πλανᾷ τ. ἐμοὺς δούλους πορνεῦσαι 
καὶ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα. 

2523 οὐ βάλλω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος" πλὴν 
ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε.ὅ 

234 7, βαθέα τ. Σατανᾶ. 

38 ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, ἥξω ὡς 
κλέπτης καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν ὥραν 
ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ. 

16 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης" μακάριος 
ὁ γρηγορῶν. 5 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Matt 248, Luke 21°, 

Luke 1138 μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τ. 
λόγον τ. θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες. 

Matt 2618 ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστιν. 

Col 1? χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη and eight 
other Pauline epp. Not earlier 
than N.T. apparently. 

Col 118 πρωτότοκος ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν. 

Gal 2” τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπή- 
σαντός με. 

1 Pet 29 βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα. 

Matt 24% τότε κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ 
φυλαὶ τ. γῆς καὶ ὄψονται τ. υἱὸν τ. 
ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τ. νεφελῶν 
τ. οὐρανοῦ. 


2 Cor 1% τὸ ναί. .. τὸ ἀμήν. 

Matt 17° ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ 
ὡς ὁ ἥλιος. 

2 Cor 6° ἀποθνήσκοντες καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν. 

Matt 1175 13% 43. Luke 88 143 ὁ ἔχων 
ὦτα ἀκουέτω: Mark 4% 33 ὃς (εἴτις) 
(433) ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. 

2 Cor 6'° ὡς πτωχοὶ πολλοὺς δὲ πλουτί- 
fovres. Jas 2ὅ τ. πτωχοὺς τ. κόσμῳ 
πλουσίους ἐν πίστει. 

Jas 113 τ. στέφανον τ. ζωῆς. 

Acts 1538 ἔδοξεν. . ἡμῖν μηδὲν 
πλέον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμῖν βάρος πλὴν 

εἷς ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων.. .. καὶ 
πορνείας. 

1 Cor 2!° στ. βάθη τ. θεοῦ. 

Matt 244 γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε 
ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν ἔρχεται. 

243 ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε, ὅτι εἰ ἤδει ὁ 

οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης 


1 Peculiar to Paul and our author in this sense. 
2 The combination of Dan 7! and Zech 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 1338, Luke 21”, which omit the quotation from 
Zech. Further, the phrase πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ τ. γῆς is peculiar to our text and 
Matt 24°, and the meaning assigned to κόψονται (*‘ mourn for themselves ἢ) 
is peculiar to our author and Matt 245, On the other hand, our author keeps 
to the Hebrew in rendering μετὰ τ. νεφελῶν, whereas Matt 24°° reads ἐπὶ τ. 
ved. as ο΄. Observe that our author has ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (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. 

4Jas 112 contains the earliest instance of the phrase. Cf. Τὶ Benj. 4} 
στεφάνους δόξης. 

5 Our author was clearly acquainted with the Apostolic edict, but that he 
also used Acts is doubtful. 

6 The dependence of 3° 16° on Matt 244 43. 46 is obvious. 

7 φυλάσσειν is a Lucan word: cf. Luke 187, Acts 758 164 274, whereas our 
author does not use φυλάσσειν at all, but uses τηρεῖν in the same sense. 


PASSAGES BASED ON THE N.T. 


28 δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν cov θύραν ἠνεῳγ- 
μένην. 

3° duoroyjow τ. ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐνώπιον τ. 
πατρός μου καὶ ἐνώπιον τ. ἀγγέλων 
αὐτοῦ. 


3} ἡ ἀρχὴ τ. κτίσεως τ. θεοῦ. 


. καὶ οὐκ οἶδας 
See on 


3)" πλούσιός εἰμι... 
ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ. .. πτωχός. 
2° above. 

371 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τ. 
θρόνῳ μου, ὡς. . . ἐκάθισα μετὰ τ. 
πατρός μου ἐν τ. θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. 

5° μὴ κλαῖε. 

64 λαβεῖν τ. εἰρήνην ἐκ τ. γῆς. 


67-17 71 Subject-matter of the Seals 

suggested by the Little Apocalypse.! 
6 ἕως πότε... οὐ. .. ἐκδικεῖς τὸ 
αἷμα ἡμῶν. 


612-18 ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος 
τρίχινος καὶ ἣ σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς 


αἷμα, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες τ. οὐρανοῦ 
ἔπεσαν εἰς τ. γῆν.3 
615-16 οἱ βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς. . . καὶ πᾶς 


δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς 

εἰς τ. σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τ. πέτρας τ. 

ὀρέων" καὶ λέγουσιν τ. ὄρεσιν καὶ 

τ. πέτραις Πέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ 

κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου, κτλ. 
6" τίς δύναται σταθῆναι. 


7° ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν τοὺς δούλους τοῦ 
εοῦ. 


lxxxv 


ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἂν 
εἴασεν διορυχθῆναι τ. οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ. 
46 Μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος. 1 Thess 
55 ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης. .. 
ἔρχεται. 

1 Cor 16° θύρα γάρ μοι ἀνέῳγεν. 
212 θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης. 
Matt 10° ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ 
ἔμπροσθεν τ. πατρός μου (contrast 
Luke 128 ἔμπροσθεν τ. ἀγγέλων τ. 

θεοῦ). 

Col 118 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ ἀρχή. 
τοκος πάσης κτίσεως. 
Contrast Col 157 τ. πλοῦτος τ. δόξης τ. 
μυστηρίου... ὅ ἐστιν Χ. ἐν ὑμῖν. 


2 Cor 


15 πρωτό- 


Col 3! τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ X. ἐστιν ἐν 
δεξιᾷ τ. θεοῦ καθήμενος. Eph 28 
συνεκάθισεν ἐν τ. ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χ.᾽1. 

Luke 7} (853) μὴ κλαῖε. 

Matt 10% μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν 
εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τ. viv" οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν 
εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν. 

Matt 24%?) 550} 50 ἢ ‘parallels in 
Wake θα τ οὐθο See voli. 
158 sqq. 

Luke 187 8 6 δὲ θεὸς οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ τὴν 
ἐκδίκησιν τ. ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ,. . . 
ποιήσει τ. ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν ἐν τάχει. 

Matt 24” ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ 
ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τ. φέγγος αὐτῆς 
καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τ. 
οὐρανοῦ. So Mark 1374-5 save that 
for last four words it reads ἔσονται 
ἐκ τ. ovp. πίπτοντες. Luke 21% 
ἔσονται σημεῖα ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ 
καὶ ἄστροις. 

Luke 2359 τότε ἅρξονται λέγειν τ 
ὄρεσιν Ilécare ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ τ. βούνοις 
Καλύψατε ἡμᾶς. 


Luke 2136 ἀγρυπνεῖτε. .. ἵνα κατι- 
σχύσητε. - σταθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν 
τ. υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρώπου. 

Eph 43) ἐσφραγίσθητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπο- 
λυτρώσεως. 3 








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 6132:18 with Matt 2439 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. 

“The meaning of σφραγίξω, 7°*, may be partly due to Eph 4830 118; cf, 


2 Cor 1%, 


In fact, in Eph 439 the sealing gives the faithful assurance of their 


spiritual preservation to the day of redemption, and this thought is allied to 


Ιχχχυΐ 


717 τὸ ἀρνίον... ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς. 

9” οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (205). 

118 προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας 
διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα 

116 κλεῖσαι τ οὐρανόν, ἵνα μὴ ὑετὸς 
βρέχῃ τ. ἡμέρας τ. προφητείας αὐτῶν 

11 ἡ βασιλεία τ. κόσμου. 

12° ὁ Σατανᾶς. . . ἐβλήθη εἰς τ. γῆν. 


138 τ. ἀρνίου τ. ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ κατα- 
βολῆς κόσμου. 

131! θηρίον (1.6. ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, 161% 
1929)... εἶχεν κέρατα δύο ὅμοια 
ἀρνίῳ καὶ ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων. 


144 οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου av 
ὑπάγει. 

147 τ. ποιήσαντι τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. γῆν 
καὶ τ. θάλασσαν. 


1418 οἱ ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες. 

17} κύριος κυρίων ἐστὶν καὶ βασιλεῦς 
βασιλέων.3 

1715 κλητοὶ καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί. 


1619 (148 175 etc.) Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη. 


184 ἐξέλθατε ἐξ αὐτῆς. . . ἵνα μὴ συν- 
κοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις. 


1839 αἷμα προφητῶν καὶ ἁγίων εὑρέθη 
καὶ πάντων τ. ἐσφαγμένων ἐπὶ τ. 
γῆς. 

197 χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν. 

19° μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τ. δεῖπνον τ. γάμου 

«ον κεκλημένοι. 

2144. δῦ τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν᾽ ἰδοὺ καινὰ 
ποιῶ πάντα. 

2119 ἀπήνεγκέν με ἐν πνεύματι ἐπὶ ὄρος 
μέγα καὶ ὑψηλόν, καὶ ἔδειξέν με. 


22% ἡ χάρις τ. κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ μετὰ 
πάντων τὸ ἁγίων. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


1 Pet 2" 7. ποιμένα... 

Luke 181, 

Luke 4” ἐκλείσθη ὁ οὐρανὸς ἔτη τρία 
καὶ μῆνας ἕξ. Jas 5}7 οὐκ ἔβρεξεν 
ἐπὶ τ. γῆς ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ μῆνας 
ἕξ. 

Matt 48 τ. βασιλείας τ. κόσμου. 

Luke 10'8 ἐθεώρουν τ. Σατανᾶν ὡς 
ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. 

Ι Pet 13° duyod . . . προεγνωσ- 
μένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. 

Matt 7 τ, ψευδοπροφητῶν. οἵτινες 
ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασι 
προβάτων ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσιν λύκοι 
ἅρπαγες. 

Luke 9 ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅπου ἃν 
ἀπέρχῃ. Cf. ΜΚ 2! 107, 

Acts 474 14!5 ὁ ποιήσας (ὃς ἐποίησεν, 
14}5) τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. γῆν καὶ τ. 
θάλασσαν. 

1 Thess 4} οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ. 

I Tim 6" 6 βασιλεῦς τ. βασιλευόντων 
kal κύριος τ. κυριευόντων. 

Matt 20! 22 πολλοί 
κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. 

Ι Pet 5᾽8 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι (= Rome as in 
Apoc. ). 

2 Cor 67 ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν. 
Eph 5}} μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε τ. ἔργοις 
«δα T. oK6TOUS. 

Luke 11° ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ τ. αἷμα πάντων 
τ. προφητῶν τὸ ἐκκεχυμένον ἀπὸ 
καταβολῆς κόσμου. 

Matt 5! χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. 
Luke 14'° ἐποίει δεῖπνον μέγα... καὶ 
ἀπέστειλεν. . . τοῖς κεκλημένοις. 

2 Cor 5} τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ 
γέγονεν καινά. 

Matt 48 παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν. .. els 
ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν, καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ. 

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% ἡ χάρις μετὰ 
πάντων τ. ἀγαπώντων τ. κύριον 
ἡμῶν᾽1. X., Col 418 ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 


. τ᾿ ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. 


γάρ εἰσιν 





that of our author, according to whom the /azthful 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 10%» above under § 3, and 147 


under § 4. It will be seen that 14 
of the O.T. passages. 


is closer verbally to Acts 4 than to any 


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 
theearth. 197 in our author represents in vision the fulfilment of this promise. 


UNITY OF THOUGHT Ixxxvii 


VIII. 


UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


8 1. Unity of thought and dramatic development.—When the 
interpolations of the editor are removed and the dislocations 
of the text set right (see p. lvii 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 7917 10-1118 14111. 14. 18-20, breaks with the chronologi- 
cal order and in 7917 141-11. 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. xxiil sqq.) will abundantly prove. 

Smaller unities! maintained and developed within the 
Apocalypse might be brought forward, such as: (a) the Seven 
Beatitudes, 13 1615 (which is to be restored after 33>) 1418 
19 2214 208 227. (ὁ) The judgment demanded by the souls 
under the altar is dealt with in various stages of fulfilment in 89-4 
918 1418 167 (which with 165° is restored in this edition to its 
original context after 19+). (c) The promises of the re-evangeliza- 
tion of the heathen world in 11) 14%? 154 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 12-1!!! 4! ro48, In 10! it is 
possible that λέγουσιν is an oversight for λέγει, which 025 Tyc Pr gig vgifv s 
arm bo eth attest. But the adoption of sources (11178 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 19% 22°. But even in I-10 various 
other heavenly beings instruct the Seer—one of the Elders in 5° 7151, the 
Cherubim in 61" 8. δ 1 This fact prepares us for the intervention of one of the 
Seven Angels of the Bowls in 171 21°: 1° 221, 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 (17!"'°), 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 
(219-22 14-15. 17 204-6), 

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 10149 one of the holy watchers, 816 "44: Gabriel, and possibly in 10°44, 
Many angels act in this capacity in 1 Enoch 21-36: two angels in 2 Enoch. 


Ixxxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 
219--223: 1415.17 when restored to their nght context immedi- 
ately after 20%, 

§ 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 r1!-!8 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 204-22. 


1} δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ yevéo- 
θαι ἐν τάχει. 

13 μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ. .. 
τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας. 
τηροῦντες. 

117 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. 

27 τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει. 

2!! τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου. 

238 τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν. 

2}} ἔρχομαι ταχύ. 

3135 τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, ἡ κατα- 
βαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
θεοῦ μου. 


(ὁ) Chaps. 1-3 and 4--2ο8, 


1! δεῖξαι. . . ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι. 

1° ἐποίησαν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ 
θεῷ. 

11° ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. 

113 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου. 

118. περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς 
ζώνην χρυσᾶν. 

114 οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρός. 

27 τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει. 

216 πολεμήσω μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. 

27) μετανοῆσαι ἐκ. 

2°3 ἐν θανάτῳ (= “᾿ by pestilence ”). 

277 ποιμανεῖ (= ‘* shall break ”’). 

37 ὁ ἅγιος ὁ ἀληθινός, where ἀληθινός 
(= ‘‘ faithful ἢ. 

3° ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον 
τῶν ποδῶν σου. 

3}9 τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης. 

3}0 τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (ina 
technical sense). 


228 δεῖξαι rots δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ 
γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. 

227 μακάριος ὁ τηρῶν τοὺς λόγους 
τῆς προφητείας. 


2218 ἐγὼ. . . ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. 

221 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νυμφὴ λέγουσιν. 

218 ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος (cf. 20°). 

2218 ὁ ἀστὴρ. . . ὁ πρωϊνός. 

22!” ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ. 

2132 ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ καινὴν. . κατα- 
βαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
θεοῦ. 


4) δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι. 

5° ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς Tw θεῷ ἡμῶν 
βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς. 

4° ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. 

1415 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου. 

15° περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στήθη ζώνας 
χρυσᾶς. 

19)? οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλόξ πυρός. 

1418 λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα. 

134 πολεμῆσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ: cf. 1714, 

οἷν. 21 1761, 

68 ὁ θάνατος. 

10᾽5 (125), 

om 


154 ἥξουσιν Kal προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν 
σου. 

12°16", 

610 818 1" 


UNITY CONSISTENT WITH USE OF ΘΟΕΓΕΘ ᾿ΙΧΧΧχΧΙΧ 


The above examples could be increased indefinitely. But 
there is still weightier evidence. The recurrence of idioms—in 
many cases idioms unigue 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 
here. 

§ 3. But this unity in the dramatic movement of the Apocalypse 
does not necessitate the assumption that all and every part of the 
Apocalypse ts our author's own creation. As a matter of fact 
this is not the casé. 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 ofan 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.! 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 11213 combined with 11620, ΤῊ 113 seven candlesticks and only seven 
are visible, and in 116 seven stars and only seven stars. Now, since from 
17° 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—z.e¢. the Churches as they should be ideally, and since in 118 
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 


xc THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


earlier date survive. As I have elsewhere shown, these letters 
came from our author and from none other. 

Again in 41:8 our author re-edits a vision of his own, 43}.8: 5-S8aede, 
See vol. i. 104-106 and the commentary i” /oc. In the course 
of incorporation certain infelicities have been incurred. It is 
said of the Seer in 4% ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι---ἃ phrase which 
denotes the state of trance as in 11% But according to 4! he 
was already in this state, as the words pera ταῦτα εἶδον show. 
See vol. i. rog—111, 106-107. Again 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. 1. 115-116. 

In 718 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 (7° μὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν. . . ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν, 
κτλ.), are not directly referred to again. 

In 11118 our author has made use of two sources (1113 119-18), 
both written before 70 a.D., in which, if the text is taken literally, 
the historic Jerusalem is supposed to be standing (11-8), and the 
Temple to be inviolable (11'). These references have been taken 
literally by many scholars as determining the date of the whole 
Apocalypse, especially by those who accept its adso/ufe 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. Ourauthor could not possibly 
have regarded the earthly Jerusalem as τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν (117). 
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 
(211), This latter he calls also τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημένην (20°). 
But for him the actual city is that ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα 
καὶ Αἴγυπτος ὅπου καὶ ὃ κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη (11°). But our 
author has re-edited this section by the addition of 11#™- 8be. % 
and the recasting of 117, 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 ¢he spiritual security of the Christian community despite 
the attacks of Satan and the Antichrist. But such spiritual 
security does not exclude martyrdom, as 1118 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 (27: 1}. 17- 29 39 18, 33 (see vol. i. p. 45) of al ἐκκλησίαι. 
The larger thought of all the Churches seems to be here before him. 


DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE xci 


vol. i. 269-270. 11115 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 12! ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς where our author would have used 
ἐπὶ τ. κεφαλάς: in 12° ἐπτὰ διαδήματα instead of διαδήματα ἑπτά: 
in 127 τοῦ before the infinitive—not elsewhere in J*?: in 12}? 
οὐρανοί instead of οὐρανέ: in 1214 ἀπὸ προσώπου Ξε “because of.” 
Contrast 616 2011, 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. 

1213-15, 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. Ixili sq., vol. 11. 56-58, 88 sqq.). But 
traces of the original date of their composition survive in 17°! and 
184. See vol. ii. 59 sq., 93. Another trace of 18 being a source 
survives in 18%, where it is stated that Rome has become κατοικη- 
τήριον δαιμονίων καὶ φυλακὴ . . . πάντος ὀρνέου ἀκαθάρτου, whereas 
our author himself in 19% 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 10-1138 
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. 


IX. 
DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


The date of J*? can be established by external and internal 
evidence. 

§ 1. External evidence.—This evidence almost unanimously 
assigns J*P 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 


XCii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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, .e., 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. 207%: Ἰωάννην δὲ Τραϊανὸς 
κατεδίκασε μαρτυροῦντα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας. Synopsis de vita et 
morte prophetarum (attributed to Dorotheus): ὑπὸ δὲ Τραϊανοῦ 
βασιλέως ἐξωρίσθη ἐν τῇ νήσῳ Πάτμῳ . . . pera δὲ τὴν τελευτὴν 
Τραϊανοῦ ἐπάνεισιν ἀπὸ τῆς νήσου... εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ λέγουσιν μὴ ἐπὶ 
Τραϊανοῦ αὐτὸν ἐξορισθῆναι ἐν Πάτμῳ ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ. 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, παρέμεινε yap αὐτοῖς (ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης) pexpt τῶν 
Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων, or those cited below from Origen on Matt. tom. 
xvi. 6. 

The Claudian and Neronic dates—11* and 6° 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 Ioann.). 1 do not see, however, how we are to explain 
the Claudian date (41-54 a.D.), which is maintained by 
Epiphanius (//aer. li. 12, μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου ἐπάνοδον, 
τὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου γενομένην καίσαρος : li. 33, αὐτοῦ δὲ προφητεύσαντος 
ἐν χρόνοις Κλαυδίου καίσαρος ἀνωτάτω, ὅτε εἰς τὴν Πάτμον νῆσον 
ὑπῆρξεν. 

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*? 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: εἰ δὲ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν 
ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ 
καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, 
ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ 
ἀρχῆς. 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, /ntrod. p. c. 


DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE XCili 


Clement of Alexandria. In his Quis Dives, 42, we find: rod 
τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν 
"Edecov. 

Origen (185-253). Jn Mt. xvi. 6 (Lommatzsch, iv. p. 18), 
ὁ δὲ Ῥωμαίων βασιλεύς, ὡς ἡ παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε TOV 
᾿Ιωάννην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν 
νῆσον. 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 (civc. 270), Eusebius, and Jerome are quite 
explicit. Victorinus in his /# Afoc. τοῦ! writes: “Hoc dicit 
propterea quod quando haec Ioannes 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 Ioannes, de metallo dimissus, sic postea 
tradidit hanc eandem quam acceperat a Deo Apocalypsin.” Also 
on 17/0 “ Unus exstat sub quo scripta est Apocalypsis, Domitianus 
scilicet.” Eusebius, .£. 111. 18. 1: Ἔν τούτῳ κατέχει λόγος τὸν 
ἀπόστολον ἅμα καὶ εὐαγγελιστὴν ᾿Ιωάννην ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα, 
τῆς εἰς τὸν θεῖον λόγον ἕνεκεν μαρτυρίας, Πάτμον οἰκεῖν καταδικασ- 
θῆναι τὴν νῆσον. 111. 20. 9: Τότε δὴ οὖν καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον Ἰωάννην 
ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον φυγῆς τὴν ἐπὶ ᾿Π!φέσου διατριβὴν ἀπειληφέναι 
ὁ τῶν Tap ἡμῖν ἀρχαίων παραδίδωσι λόγος. ili. 23. 1: ᾿Απόστολος 
ὁμοῦ καὶ εὐαγγελιστὴς ᾿Ιωάννης τὰς αὐτόθι διεῖπεν ἐκκλησίας, ἀπὸ 
τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον μετὰ τὴν Δομετιανοῦ τελευτὴν ἐπανελθὼν φυγῆς. 
Jerome (De viris tllustr. 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#? clearly 
shows. The students of J*” fall into three groups on this 
question. (1) 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, Diisterdieck, 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. \xiisqq. But such a date 
cannot be maintained in the face of 171%! (see vol. ii. 59-60, 


XCiV THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


69-70) and 184, both of which postulate a Vespasianic date. 
Hence such statements as clearly presuppose a Neronic date 
(#.e., in 11118 12 (Ὁ). 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. |xxxiii-Ixxxvi. 
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. 

(ὁ) The present form of the Seven Letters, although in their 
original form of Vespasianic date, point to a Domtitianic.—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 Piil. xi. “ Beatus Paulus . . . gloriatur in omnibus 
ecclesiis, quae solae tunc 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° 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 4190, 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 31°, (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 tn 7.5 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 


DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE XCV 


reached the pitch of antagonism that is presupposed in the J*? 
before the closing years of Domitian’s reign. In the reign of 
Vespasian the Christians, as Moffatt (/rvod.° 504) writes, “seem 
to have enjoyed a comparative immunity ... and our avail- 
able knowledge of the period renders it unlikely (cf. Linsenmayer’s 
Bekimpfung des Christentums durch den romischen Staat, 1905, 
66f.) 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.£. iii. 18. 4) states that there were many others.! 
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. JP 2338 38 1211 20%) was 
tantamount to a refusal to accede to the Emperor’s claims to 
divinity, and thereby entailed the penalty of death (13). 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 tothe 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 (1115). 

(4) The Nero-redivivus myth appears implicitly and explicitly 
in several forms tn our text, the latest of which cannot be earlier 
than the age of Domitian. 

The Jewish source lying behind 171217 was probably written 


1 On the persecution under Domitian, see Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. 1. i. 
104-115. 


ΧΟΥῚ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 117), 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 givenin13and17. At thisstage 
there isa fusion of the Nero myth with those ofthe Antichrist and 
Beliar. The expectation ofa 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 rst century. For this form of the myth, see vol. ii. 84-87. 
I do not see how it is possible to assign 13 and 17 im 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 17111, 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, 17!°1 must be regarded 
as a survival from sources belonging to the time of Vespasian 
and Titus. In its present context, therefore, 17!" 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. Nota 
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 178 as τὸ θηρίον... 


1 A critical study of all the forms assumed by the Antichrist myth is given 
in vol. ii. 76-87. 


CIRCULATION AND RECEPTION xCVii 


ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ εἰς 
ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει, and again ὅτι ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ πάρεσταιι. So 
again in 171}, where it is further added that he ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν. 
See also 117. Another description is given in 13° καὶ μίαν ἐκ τῶν 
κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ws ἐσφαγμένην eis θάνατον, καὶ ἣ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου 
αὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη. Cf. 1314. Now I have shown in vol. ii. 71: 
(a) Domitian cannot be described as οὐκ ἔστιν, seeing that ἔστιν 
must be affirmed of him. (8) Pre-existence cannot be ascribed 
to him, as the clause 6 ἦν would require. (y) It cannot be said of 
him that he is ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά. (δ) It is impossible to connect μίαν 
ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν ὡς ἐσφαγμένην (13°) with Domitian. (e) It cannot 
be maintained of Domitian, who is already seated on the throne 
of the Beast, that μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου. (f) There is 
no ground for making Domitian the leader of the Parthian hosts 
against Rome, as Nero redivivus is represented in 171213. 17. 16, 
and fighting against the Lamb, 1714. (y) Nor can we conceive 
Domitian in 101-19 as mustering the nations to battle against the 
Word of God in the Messianic war that prepares the way for the 
Messianic kingdom.! 

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. 


X. 
CIRCULATION AND RECEPTION. 


δ τ. There are most probable but no absolutely certain traces 
of J? in the Apostolic Fathers—In the Shepherd of Hermas, 
Vis. ii. 2. 7, there is a very probable connection with our author.? 
Thus μακάριοι ὑμεῖς ὅσοι ὑπομένετε τὴν θλίψιν τὴν ἐρχομένην τὴν 
μεγάλην : iv. 2. 5, θλίψεως τῆς μελλούσης τῆς μεγάλης, and in iv. 
3. 6, τῆς θλίψεως τῆς ἐρχομένης μεγάλης, all but certainly recall Rev 
714 τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης, and 510 τῆς Spas... τῆς μελλού- 


‘If it were possible to ascribe the Apocalypse to the reign of Vespasian 
the objections given in β, y, 6 above would be fatal to the identification of 
Domitian with Nero redivivus. {and ἡ would also stand in the way. 

* The fact that Hermas used the same imagery as J®P may be rightly used 
as evidence that he knew it. Thus the Church, Vs. ii. 4, is represented by 
a woman (cf, J@P 12} 544.}); the enemy of the Church by a beast (θηρίον), Vis. 
iv. 6-10, J@P 13: out of the mouth of the beasts proceed fiery locusts, Vis. 
iv. I, 6, J@P 9%: whereas the foundation stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem bear 
the names of the Twelve Apostles, J@P 2114, and those who overcome are made 
pillars in the spiritual temple, J@P 312, in Hermas the apostles and other 
teachers of the Church form the stones of the heavenly tower erected by the 
archangels, Vis. iii. 5.1. The faithful in both are clothed in white and are 
given crowns to wear, JP 61! etc., 219 31; Hermas, Szm. viii. 2. 1, 3. 


ὅ 


xcvili THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


ons ἔρχεσθαι, i. τ. 3, πνεῦμα. .. ἀπήνεγκέν pe διὰ ἀνοδίας, is 
reminiscent of 17° ἀπήνεγκέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι. Barn. 
Xxi. 3, ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ, seems to suggest 
some dependence on Rev 2210 12 ὁ καιρὸς γὰρ ἐγγύς ἐστιν. .. 
ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχὺ καὶ 6 μισθός μου per ἐμοῦ. (See, however, 
Is 4010) Barn. vii. 9, ἐπειδὴ ὄψονται αὐτὸν τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 
τὸν ποδήρη ἔχοντα. .. καὶ ἐροῦσιν Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὅν ποτε 
ἡμεῖς ἐσταυρώσαμεν, has affinities with Rev 1718 ὄψεται αὐτὸν 
πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν. . . ἐνδεδυμένον 
ποδήρη. (See, however, Δ᾽ Ζ. tn the Apostolic Fathers, p. 16.) 
But as for the passages in Ignatius, 44 Phil. vi. 1 (see vol. i. 
92) has nothing to do with Rev 312, nor Ad EA. xv. 3, ἵνα 
ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοί, καὶ αὐτὸς ἡ ἐν ἡμῖν θεός, with Rev 218: nor 
does Barn. vi. 13, λέγει δὲ Κύριος Ἰδοὺ ποιῶ τὰ ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ 
πρῶτα, reflect Rev 215 ᾿Ιδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα (see vol. il. 203): 
for the sense is absolutely different. Nor should we connect 
Clem. Rom. Ad Cor. xxxiv. 3 (see p. Ixxvil, footnote) with Rev 
go>: 

§ 2. 75 the 2nd cent. J’ 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*?, to attest, not its apostolic 
authorship, but its credibility. (Περὶ μέντοι rod θεοπνεύστου τῆς 
βίβλου περιττὸν μηκύνειν τὸν λόγον ἡγούμεθα, τῶν μακαρίων Τρη- 
yopiov . . . καὶ Κυρίλλου, προσέτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων Παπίου, 
Εἰρηναίου, Μεθοδίου καὶ Ἱππολύτου προσμαρτυρούντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον.) 
Eusebius, however, never definitely says that J*? was known to 
Papias (HZ. iii. 39). The statement, however, in iii. 39. 12 
which he attributes to Papias, seems to be an echo of J*? (χιλιάδα 
τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσθαι μετὰ THY ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς 
τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης). But 
Eusebius proceeds to say that this statement of Papias was due to 
his misunderstanding of certain apostolic statements (ἀποστολικὰς 
. . + διηγήσεις), which he took literally instead of figuratively. 

Melito, bishop of Sardis (160-190 A.D. fl.), wrote a commentary 
(Τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου Kal τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννου), 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 
7} was written by John, one of the apostles of Christ: Dzad. 
Ixxxi. 15, wap’ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ tis, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωάννης, els τῶν ἀποστόλων 
τοὺ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ. αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτῃ ποιήσειν ἐν 
Ἱερουσαλήμ τοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Χριστῷ πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσε: 
cf. also Apol. i. 28 (which refers to Apoc. 12%); Eus. iv. 18. 8. 
Irenaeus maintained the apostolic authorship of all the Johannine 


CIRCULATION AND RECEPTION XC1X 


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 (εἴγε. 210 A.D.), used J#? of John as an authority in his 
controversy (Eus. v. 18. 14). 

In Western Syria.—Vheophilus, bishop of Antioch in the 
latter half of the 2nd century, Cites is in a treatise against 
Hermogenes (Eus. iv. 24), ἐν ᾧ ἐκ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννου 
κέχρηται μαρτυρίαις. 

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, Agaznst all 
FHleresies, In this work he uses such expressions as Joannes in 
PI POCAIY PSE Vive As 2) 1: Ὁ», 28296) 21: 3, 'ν' 528. 2, 724. 2. 
Ioannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi, iv. 20. 11, v. 26. 1; 
in Apocalypsi videt Ioannes, v. 35. 2; per Ioannis Apocalypsin, 
i. 26. 3. See Zahn, Gesch. N.T. Kanons, i. 202, note 2. Ata 
slightly earlier date, 177, the Churches of Vienne and Lyons 
addressed an epistle to the Churches in Asia and Phrygia (Eus. 
Vv. I. 10, 45 (where τῇ παρθένῳ pytpi =the See Church), 55, 
58) in which reference is made to Apoc. 144 12! 199 2211, the last 
being introduced by the N.T. formula of Canonical Scripture— 
iva ἣ γραφὴ πληρωθῃ. 

In Alexandria.—Clement follows the general tradition of the 
Church, and cites J*? as scripture, Paed. 11. 119 (τὸ συμβολικὸν 
τῶν γραφῶν), and the work of John the apostle, Quzs 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*, the 
Gospel, and the first Epistle (Zz Joann. tom. v. 3; Lommatzsch, 
i. 165; Eus. vi. 25. 9). The upholders of Millenarianism in 
Egypt, against whom Dionysius wrote, appealed to the Apocaly pse 
(Eus. vii. 24). 

Ln 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*? was universally 
recognized at Rome: “ Johannes 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 ἢ.), in his Περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχριστοῦ (ed. Achelis, 
1897), constantly quotes the Apocalypse. He speaks of it as 
ἡ γραφή (chap. 5) and its author ἀπόστολος καὶ μαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου 
(36). See Zahn, i. 203 (note). 


c THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


In Carthage.—In this Church, which was the daughter of the 
Roman Church, J*® enjoyed an unquestioned authority at the 
close of the znd 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 (μά. 12). See Zahn, i. 111, 203 sq. The Acts of 
Perpetua and Felicitas show many traces of dependence on our 
author, as ὃ 4, “‘circumstantes candidatos milia multa”: § r2, ‘‘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*?. 

§ 3. There were, however, 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 Ioannem agnitum non vis, habes communem magistrum 
Paulum ”). 

(ὁ) The more important attack came from the Alogi—the 
name given to them by Epiphanius (/aev. 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". 

With these Alogi, as Zahn urges (i. 223-227, 237-262, ii. 
967-973), the sect mentioned by Irenaeus (iii. 11. 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’ 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. 27... iii. 28. 1-2). 
There is no conclusive evidence that Caius and his school 
rejected the Gospel. 

1T φάσκουσι τοίνυν οἱ ᾿Αλογοι: ταύτην γὰρ αὐτοῖς τίθημι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν. 


a δ» πον χα 


CIRCULATION AND RECEPTION ci 


The writing of Caius was answered by Hippolytus ᾿ (215 A.D.) 
in a work entitled Κεφάλαια κατὰ Ταίου καὶ ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ τ. 
ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάνου, 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*’. In Africa, Cyprian repeatedly makes 
use of it. 

§ 4. The question of the authenticity of J” reopened by 
Dionysius of Alexandria, bishop of Alexandria, 247-265 A.D.— 
Fragments of this scholarly and temperate criticism of the 
Apocalypse (Περὶ ᾿Επαγγελιῶν) are preserved in Eusebius (vii. 
24-25). This book was written as a refutation of a work by 
Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, entitled "EAcyxos ᾿Αλληγοριστῶν, 
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. vil. 24). In 
his refutation of this book Dionysius advances many grounds 
to prove that J*? was not written by the author of the Gospel 
and τ 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. /% rejected for some time by the Syro-Palestinian Church 
and by the Churches of Asta Minor.—The criticism of Dionysius 
in discrediting the apostolic authorship of J*? 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*? was written by John 
the Elder of whom Papias wrote (Eus. iii. 39. 6). He is doubtful 
(ili. 24. 18, 25. 4) whether to reckon it among the accepted 
(6poroyovpeva) or the rejected (νόθα). 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, τὰ δὲ λοιπά, 
πάντα ἔξω κείσθω ἐ εν δευτέρῳ. καὶ ὅσα μὲν ἐν ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ἀναγιν- 
ὦσκεται, ταῦτα μηδὲ κατὰ σαυτὸν ἀναγίνωσκε). 

The influence of Dionysius’ criticism spread also to Asia 
Minor. Thus J*? does not appear in Canon 60 of the Synod 
of Laodicea (c’vc. 360), nor in Canon 85 of the Afost. 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 was seated: ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ 
ἀποκαλύψεως. See Lightfoot, St. Clement, 1. ii. 420. 


cii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


(Zahn, ii. 177 544., 197 544.), nor in the list of Gregory of 
Nazianzus (0b. 389). Amphilochius of Iconium (04. 394) 
states that J*” is rejected by most authorities (of πλείους δέ ye | 
νόθον λέγουσιν). 

The school of Antioch did not look with favour on 75}. 
Chrysostom (0. 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 
Nicephorus. 

§ 6. Quite independently of the criticism of Alexandria, 755 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. Ephraem’s 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, 616. On 
these the reader should consult Gwynn, Zhe Apocalypse of John in 
Syria, pp. xc-cy, and Bousset’s Offenbarung, 26-28. But it took 
centuries for J*® to establish itself in the Syrian Churches. Junilius 
( De partibus divinae legis, i. 4), who reproduces the lectures of Paul 
of Nisibis, writes (551 A.D.), ‘‘ De Ioannis apocalypsi apud Orient- 
ales admodum dubitatur.” Jacob of Edessa (04, 708) cites it as 
Scripture, and yet Bar Hebraeus (οὖ. 1208) regards it as the work 
of Cerinthus or the other John. In the Armenian Church it 
first appears as a canonical book in the 12th century (Conybeare, 
Armenian Version of Revelation, p. 64). 

5.7. J% was always accepted as canonical in the West, and 
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 
D onysius, writers were unanimous after the elaborate defence by 
Hippolytus of the canonicity of J**. Only Jerome takes up a 
dou otful attitude towards it; for, while in Zp. ad Dardanum, 
129, he appears inclined to accept it, elsewhere (Jn Ps. 149) 
he ranks it in a class midway between canonical and apocryphal. 
ΤῊ found a succession of expounders in Victorinus of Pettau 
(οὐ. 303), Tyconius, Primasius, and is duly recorded in all the 
Western lists of the canonical books. 

[ἡ 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 13th century save in the 





OBJECT OF THE SEER ciii 


Nestorian Church. With the views of later times the present 
work is not here concerned. For these, readers may consult 
Bousset, Ofenéarung, 19-34; or the present writer’s Studies tn 
the Apocalypse, 1-78. 


ΧΙ. 


ΟΒΙΈΟΤ OF THE SEER AND HIS METHODS—VISION 
AND REFLECTION. 


§ 1. 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*? 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 


Civ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


1 Cor 157427, 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; (6) dreams 
combined with translation of the spirit ; and (c) visions. 

(a) Dreams. — Dreams conveying a revelation. — Dreams 
play a great réle in Jewish apocalypses. They are found in 
Dan 2! 4° 71; in 1 Enoch 83-90, 2 Enoch 1? etc.; Test. 
Naph. 5}. 61-715, 4. Ezra: τα 12° 1345, Such» dreamenare 
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 45 7! 81°49 ; 1 Enoch 83-90, where 
the two dreams 851 are called two visions in 832; Test. Levi, 
where the vision of 8! is called a dream in 818; Test. Naph., 
where what is called dreams in 7! is called visions in 51; 4 Ezra, 
where what is called dreams in 11! 13}! is called visions in 
1210 1321.25 y417, In 2 Bar. the Seer seems to have waking 
visions, except in 36! 53}. 

Now in these apocalypses dreams and visions are equally 
authoritative sources of divine knowledge as well as in the O.T. 
Cf. 1 Sam 28% 15, Deut 131-8, Jer 235-82 279 208, Joel 27%. But it 
is remarkable that dreams fall into the background in the 1st 
cent. A.D. in Christian literature.1 Thus the Hebrew Test. 
Naph. (date uncertain) 21 41 7} 5 speaks only of visions, and in 
318 treats a dream as no true source of divine knowledge. See 
my edition of the Zest. XJ Patriarchs, pp. 221-223. In the 
N.T. dreams are not divine means of revelation unless in Matt 
120 212-18. 19.22 2719 Hence it is only visions that are recounted 


1 This is not the case in the Talmud. Belief in dreams was the rule, and 
dishelief the exception. Cf. Berakhoth 55-58, Sanh. 30%, Ber 28%, Hor 13%. 
Sirach, on the other hand, declares that dreams are vanity, 31 (34)}ὃ. See 
Jewish Encyc. iv. 654 sqq. 


DREAMS AND VISIONS ἘΝ 


in the Apocalypse. It is not even said that the Seer fell asleep 
and saw a vision. It is simply said, “1 saw.” In 4 Ezra, on the 
other hand, sleep precedes the visions in 111 13! and in 2 Bar 
36! 531, though in other sections this element of the dream is 
wholly wanting. 

(ὁ) Dreams combined with a translation of the spirit of the 
Seer.—Test. Levi 259 51:7. This combination reappears in 
Hermas, Vis. 1. 1. 3, ἀφύπνωσα καὶ πνεῦμά pe ἔλαβεν καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν 
με δι᾿ ἀνοδίας τινος. 

(c) Vistons——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! 18, 

(8) Vistons in a trance.—Cf. Ezek τὶ, Test. Jos 19}, 2 Bar 
221 5513 761, Acts τοῦ, Apoc 110844 (éyevouny ἐν 
πνεύματι) and passim where καὶ εἶδον is used. Yet 
the latter may be otherwise explained, as we shall see. 

(y) Visions in which the spirit is translated.—Ezek 313. 14 83, 
Dan 817, τ Enoch 711-5, 2 Enoch 3}, 2 Bar 68 545. 
Wse; Is"6—11, capoc. 4. 17 21: St.” Paul (2 Car 
123) does not know whether in his vision he has 
experienced an actual translation of the spirit 
or not.! 

(ὃ) Waking visions—Daniel seems to experience a trance 
when awake in τοῦ, Stephen in Acts 755, Zacharias 
in Luke 11-0, 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 110-20 41:8. 7917 38-5 y4l4 18-20 7.3.4 211-15 
2 15a 4d. 5b. 1-4abe 53-5, 


δ 3. Value of such psychical experiences depends not on their being 
actual experiences, but on their source, thetr 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 


‘For similar psychical experiences in heathenism, cf. Reitzenstein, 
Poimandres, 5, 9 sq. etc. ; Dieterich, Zine Mithras-Liturgie. 

* 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 und der Geister, 1899. 


cvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 tne 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 vea/ in both 
cases, but by quite a different standard, 1.6. dy the source from 
which they sprang, the environment tn 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 ts 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 81? 
“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 τα But in 
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 ; and the sounds he heard naturally clothed 


SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE AT ITS HIGHEST cvii 


themselves in the literary forms with which his memory was 
stored. Thus ¢he seer laboured under a twofold disability. His 
psychical powers were venerally 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 
scholar. 

§ 6. Reason embracing the powers of insight, imagination, and 
judgment.—In the manifold experiences enumerated in ὃ 2, 4-5, 
the use of the reason is always presupposed, but as the secondary 
and not the primary agent in action, save perhapsin ὃ 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 ¢héodicée or philosophy of religion ; 
(ὁ) in his creation of allegories ; (c) in the adaptation of traditional 
materials to his own purpose and their reinterpretation ; (4) in 
the conventional use of the phrase “1 saw.” 

(a) Arrangement of materials.—Now, whereas the collected 


cviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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*® 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. 

(6) 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 11, 1 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 ot the form in which 
it ts 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 
next. 

(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, 7**, and the 
Heavenly Jerusalem, 219-22 141517, 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. 


DOCTRINE OF GOD cix 


(d) Conventional use of the phrase “I 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 
ΤῈ 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 τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει (27 11- 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 51*44, 1 Cor 545, 1 Tim 179, Such words are not merely 
men’s words; cf. τάδε λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα, Acts 2111, as Agabus 
declares, also 75°, In 1 Tim 4! the words τὸ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει 
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 τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει to express his convictions 
as a prophet. 


ΧΙ. 
SoME DOCTRINES OF OUR AUTHOR. 


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 fresl. 
and in some respects unique. 

§ 1. 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 


cx THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 (μόνος ὅσιος, 154 165: cf. 48 610). He 
is the True One, 61° (ἀληθινός = ἀληθής in our author), who keepeth 
covenant ; with this truthfulness is associated His righteousness in 
judgment, 15° 167 το}: 5, From these spring His wrath against 
sin, 617 1118 195; and His avenging of all the wrongs done on 
the earth, 610 τοῦ, He is the Judge of all the dead, 201!-15, 

(ὁ) 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, 1® 227 35-21 1.1 and the Father also 
of all such as conquer, 217, and will dwell with them and 
be their God for ever, 21°. 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 (ὦ. 

(c) God is everlasting and omnipotent. First, as everlasting, He 
is designated as ὃ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος, τ΄ 48; ὃ ὧν Kal ὁ Fy, 
1117 165 (see vol. i. 10 564.) ; 6 ζῶν εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων, 49 108 157, 
Next, He is omnipotent. Our author’s favourite expression for 
this idea is κύριος (> 16! 19!) ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, 48 1117 158 
167-14 79% 15 2122; He is also designated 6 δεσπότης, 610. ὃ κύριος 
(+ ἡμῶν, 1115), 1115 14! 3154; κύριος ὃ θεός, 225; ὃ κύριος καὶ ὃ 
θεὸς ἡμῶν, 41}. 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 fart 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! 518 712 1115, 

(d) He is the Creator, 411} 14%. Yet see § 2 (ὃ on the cre- 
ative activity of Christ. 

(e) He is the Judge of all the dead, 2011-15, 

§ 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. (ὁ) The Exalted Christ. 
(c) The Unique Son of God. (d) The Great High Priest. 
(6) The Pre-existent Christ. (/) The Divine Christ. 


DOCTRINE OF CHRIST ΟΧΙ 


(a) The Historical Christ.—He is most frequently designated 
by His personal name “ Jesus,” 1° 1217 141? etc., occasicnally by 
the originally official name “ Christ,” 111° 1210 204 6, and by the 
combination of the two, 11 25 2221, He is of Israelitish birth, 
being the Root of David, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, 5°, and 
born in the midst of the Jewish theocracy, 12!* 5, 2.6. the γυνὴ 
περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον. 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 (12!" τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς). 
Thus the faithful are sons of this woman as Jesus is. On the 
other hand, they decome sons of God, 217, which Jesus 25 originally 
and uniquely (1° 277 3521 141), He has twelve apostles, 2114; 
His crucifixion in Jerusalem is referred to, 118; His resurrection, 
1° 18 and ascension, 3?! 125. 

(ὁ) 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,” 118 14!4—an apocalyptic expression first applied to 
the Messiah in 1 Enoch 46), 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, 15; 
as the resurrection and the life, and so the exclusive Mediator 
of salvation (ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς Tod θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ἄδου, 118. He 
is the Supreme Head of the Church, the Centre of all its lite 
(ἐν μέσῳ τῶν λυχνιῶν, 118 21) and the Master of its destinies (ἔχων 
ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτά, 11°), chastening its individual 
members and judging them from love and in love, 319; promis- 
ing them that conquer in the coming tribulation every blessing 
of the Kingdom of God) 2’ 1! 17. 268 35.12 31° embracing them 
in a perfect fellowship, 37°, and glorifying all who depart in this 
fellowship with the beatitude pronounced by God Himself, 14). 
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°7 725 195; for He is “‘ King of kings and Lord of lords,” 
1714 1916, And to Him is committed the Messianic judgment, 
17 141}: 18-20 yoll-21 201-10 2212 

(c) As Unique Son of God, Pre-existent and Divine.—Whereas 
the faithful decome sons of God, 217, He zs Son of God essentially, 
16 218 27 25.21 1.1 He is “the Word of God,” 19}, “the Holy, 
the True,” 3’, even as God is, 610; ‘‘the First and the Last,” 1!” 
28 2 2180. “the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” 
2213_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 414 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ. This does 


cxii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


not mean the first κτίσις of God (as in Prov 832), but the active 
principle in creation—the αἰτία or cause. The words, “1 am He 
that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, 
117-18 recall to some extent the divine name “ which is, and which 
was, and which is to come,” τὸ 48. He sits with God on His 
throne, 32! 7!7 125, ‘*the throne of God and the Lamb, 22! 8. 
The divine worship offered to Christ in 513 is described in the 
same terms as that offered to God in 410, and the same hymn of 
praise is sung in honour of both Christ, 518, and God, 719,1 and 
during the Millennial reign the saints minister to Him as 
to God, 208. Many designations which belong alone to God in 
the O.T. are freely used of Christ. He is described in 115 15 in 
terms used of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7%. He searcheth the 
heart and the reins, 27, as God in Jer 1710, Ps 71% His are the 
seven eyes that are sent out into all the earth, 5°, as are those of 
Yahweh, Zech 41°: as Yahweh’s garments in Is 631%, His are 
sprinkled with blood, 1918; and as Yahweh in Deut 101’, He also 
is Lord of lords, 1714. 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 ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος, τ΄ 48 (1117 165), 
Yet see 117 28 2218 above. Next, the final Judgment belongs to 
the Father alone, 20!!! Thirdly, though He is the active prin- 
ciple in creation, 413, it is the Father who is the Creator, 41! 147.? 


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, 223. 

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,” 5910 


Again in 2788 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”! 


DOCTRINE OF CHRIST cxili 


(d) As Great High Priest: Lamb of God.—It is probable 
that Christ is represented as a priest in 11° 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,! the most prominent one—a Christian development—is 
that of the Lamb as a victim—dpviov . . . ds ἐσφαγμένον, 5° 12 
1211 138 and elsewhere. The second idea—derived from 
1 Enoch and Test. XII Patr.—is that of a lamb who is a leader 
—either a spiritual leader, as in 717 141 4, cf. 1 Enoch 89* where 
Samuel is so symbolized, or a military leader, 5°, z.¢, a lamb 
‘with seven horns and seven eyes,” that is, a Being of transcen- 
dent power and knowledge: the Messiah is so symbolized in 
1 Enoch go’, Test. Jos 198.2. This conception, which is borrowed 
in the main from Jewish Apocalyptic, comes to the front in 1714, 
where it is foretold that the ten Parthian kings will war with the 
Lamb and the Lamb will overcome them—r6 ἀρνίον νικήσει 
αὑτούς (cf. Test. Jos. 198, 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°. 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. 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. 

1See Expositor, 1910, vol. x. 173-187, 266-281. Spitta, Streztfragen der 
Geschichte Jesu: Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu, 
1910. I have strengthened the evidence adduced by Spitta by further facts 
from 1 Enoch and the Testaments in the next note. 

2 This usage is well attested in 1 Enoch, where, 895 (161 B.c.), Samuel as a 
leader is called a lamb, and likewise David and Solomon, 894" 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 909: 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 1 Enoch 9088 and in the 
Test. Joseph 19% (109-107 B.C.), where the words, προῆλθεν ἀμνός, kal... 
πάντα τὰ θηρία ὅρμων κατ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνίκησεν αὐτὰ ὁ ἀμνός, 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 Zest. 
XII Patr. pp. xcvii-viii, Reub 61:15, Levi 8'* 18, Jud 241-53, Jos 195-9), 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 1714, the latter in 5°. In 13! the second Beast assimilates itself to 
the horned lamb, z.e., to the Messiah : see vol. i. 358. 

3 See Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im 
ersten nachchristlichen Jahriausend, 1888. 


οχὶν THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


explained, as already foretold under the influence of such a 
passage as Is 537 “ 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 88283 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 (1° 
τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν Kai 
ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ : 59 ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας 
τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς. .. καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς 
τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς). 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, 138—the Lamb was slain from its foundation. And he 
who would follow Christ must conquer in like fashion (37! ὁ νικῶν 
δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι per ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ pov, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα 
καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ). 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° 14%, 
but there is no suggestion of a ransom paid to God or a lower 
being. 
Hence, since the Lamb as the Redeemer stands in the midst 
of the throne of God, 5° 717, and the throne of God is His throne, 
221-8 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 § 1 (c) ad jin.), 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. Zhe Spirit—There is no definitely conceived doctrine 
of the Spirit in our author. In 1‘ the editor sought to introduce 
the doctrine of the Trinity by inserting καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ 
πνευμάτων τῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ : see vol. i. 11-13. But 
such a grotesque conception has no place in our author. In the 
words τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει the Spirit of Christ is meant in 27-11-17. 38 
3° 18.22, for in all the seven Epistles the Speaker is Christ. 


DOCTRINE OF WORKS CXV 


The same is true in 143 2217, See vol. ii. 179; vol. i. Introd. 
xi. ὃ 6 (ὦ). 

§ 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, 20!? 22'%, which are 
recorded in the books, 20!2.1_ These doctrines imply man’s free 
will and self-determination. On the other hand, the term 
“book of life,” 138 178, 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 κλητοί, ἐκλκετοὶ καὶ πιστοί, 1713, set forth God’s share and 
man’s share in man’s salvation: the call (κλῆσις) remains 
ineffective without faith (πίστις)---α word which in our author 
means faithfulness or fidelity in 219 1310, and can also be so in 
218 y 412, 

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? the “works” of the Church of Ephesus are defined 
as consisting in ‘‘labour and endurance.” ‘The first of these is 
certainly manifest. In 219 we have a very instructive definition, 
οἷδά σου τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ THY πίστιν καὶ τὴν διακονίαν 
καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν. The first καί is used, of course, epexegetically. 
“ Love, faith, service, and endurance” define the ἔργα. See vol. i. 
371 sqq. In 3? watchfulness is enjoined, and 210 faithfulness 
unto death. The ‘‘ works of Jesus,” 27°, 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 τὸ yap βύσσινον 
τὰ δικαίωματα τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν, in 198, 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, 611, are 
described as lacking such garments for a time, though they 


1Tn 2° the judgment is not eschatological, but that which takes place in 
this world. 


cxvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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, 
1413, but with the spiritual bodies which are assigned by God to 
them, which in 61! (note) and 3° (note) are described as white 
garments. Faith has an heroic quality in our author. It 
leads to endurance, 219, to faithfulness in persecution, 213 131, 
even when this ends in death, 210 143% In 218 14! πίστις is 
followed by an objective genitive, in 219 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. Zhe 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, 204, These reign with Christ for 1000 years in 
the Jerusalem that, coming down from heaven, 219-22 14-15. 17, 
forms the seat of the Millennial Kingdom (see vol. ii. 184). To 
them is committed the re-evangelization of the world, 2174 2214-17, 
which is promised in 11 1457 154. Into the Holy City pour 
the nations of the earth, and are healed of their spiritual diseases, 
2124-27, Without this city are sorcerers and fornicators and 
murderers, 2215, At the close of this kingdom the unrepentant 
nations rebel afresh and are destroyed, and thereon follows the 
final judgment. See vol. 11. 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,” 20 188. 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. 1. 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, 20°, and such others as during the 


GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE CXVil 


Millennial Reign enter the city and eat of the tree of life, 22. 
All the remaining righteous coming forth from the “treasuries ”! 
and the wicked from Hades? receive their final award. 


ST 


A SHORT GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


CONTENTS. 


§ 1. Noun, adjective, and verb forms, p. cxvii. ὃ 2. The article, 
p. cxix. § 3. Pronouns, p. cxxi. § 4. Ihe verb, p. cxxill. § 5. 
Prepositions, p. cxxvil. § 6. Conjunctions and other particles, 
p. exxxiv. ὃ 7. Case, p. cxxxvili, ὃ 8. Number, p. cxli. ὃ 9. 
Gender, p. cxlii. § 10. The Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse, 
Ρ-. Cxitt. 

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. (4) Resolution of 
infinitive into finite verb, p. cxlvi. (c) Hebrew construc- 
tions impossible and unintelligible in Greek, p. cxlvi. 
(d.e. 7) Further Hebraisms. (9) Secondary meanings 
of Hebrew words attributed to Greek words where 
these words agree in their primary meaning, p. cxlvii. 
(2. ¢) Other Hebrew idioms literally reproduced, 
p. cxlvili. 

ii, Other commonplace Hebraisms, p. cxlviii. ili. 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 in the Hebrew sources used by our 
author, p. cl. 

§ 11. Unique expressions, p. clii. ὃ 12. Solecisms due to slips 
on the part of our author, p. clii. § 13. Primitive corruptions 
due to accidental or deliberate changes, p. cliv. ὃ 14. Con- 
structions in the interpolations conflicting with our author’s use, 


p. οἷν. § 15. Order of words, p. clvi. ὃ 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 fim. On the ‘‘ Abyss” see vol. i. 239-242. 


Cxviil THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


§ 1. Moun, Adjective, and Verb forms. 


(i.) Louns. —Words ending in -ρᾶ form their gen. and dat. in 
-ρῆς, PN, AS μαχαίρης, 1314.1 μαχαίρῃ, 134°), 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 μάχαιρα in the gen. and dat. the ἡ forms are certainly original 
in only 2. -pys forms become practically universal under the 
Early Roman Empire. 

(ii.) Adjectives.—yxpvoav, AXC (for χρυσῆν), 118, is formed on 
the analogy of ἀργυρᾶν. The contracted form χρυσοῦς occurs 
always (15 times) in our author, elsewhere in the N.T. 3 times. 
The best uncials are only at variance in 24. On the other hand, 
βαθέα (βάθη, 8 025), 274, is original. 

(iii.) Verbs.—(a) Trregular or unusual forms.—Present. δύνῃ, 
2? (only once so in LXX) for δύνασαι, presupposes δύνομαι (see 
Thackeray, G7. 218). It is found in the poets and in prose 
writers from Polybius onward. ἀφεῖς, 239, and ἀφίουσιν, 11, 
presuppose ἀφίω (which is found in Eccles 218) and not ἀφίημι. 
Schmiedel suggests a present ἀφέω (Thackeray, 251). διδῶ, 49. 
and ἀποδιδοῦν, 22%, presuppose διδόω, but διδόασιν, 1718, Senn 
In like manner dzoAdvwr, 9! (so also Jer. 23! BA, Sir 202), 
presupposes ἀπολλύω as δέ μέ σὴς does δεικνύω (cf. Ex 288; 
Thackeray, 245). All these instances but the first show the 
transition from forms in -p to -w forms. 

(ὁ) Imperfect and Aorists with a instead of ε forms, or ending 
in -α or -av.—elxay, 9° 9 (NA). ἀπῆλθα,3 10° (A: -θον, NC 025. 046). 
ἀπῆλθαν, 211 (AN: -θον, 046. -θεν, 025): ἀπῆλθαν, 214 (A: -Gev, 8 046). 
ἀφῆκας, 24 (AN*% 025. 046: -κες, N*C). εἶδα, 17° (AN (ida): εἶδον, 
025): (e)tda, 173 (A: εἶδον, δὲ 025). πέσατε, 616 (A 025): ἐξέλθατε, 
184 (Ax). See Thackeray, (07. 211-212. 

(c) Perfects with termination -es (2nd sing.) for -as, κεκοπίακες.--- 
(a) 23(AC); πέπτωκες, 25 (δὲ. -κας, AC 046). It is rare in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gv. 215) and in the papyri. See Robertson, Gr. 
331. I have generally with A adopted the τας form. (B) 
Perfects ending in -av } πέπτωκαν " 185 (AC. πεπτώκασιν, δὲ ο46: 
πέπωκαν O25: πεπώκασιν, 110, 17 5%. Rd. πεπότικεν) : εἴρηκαν, 198 
(AN 025): [yéyovay 21° AN®: γέγονα, 8 025. 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 (G7. 336). 

In 82 we have ἑστήκασιν. But it occurs in an interpolation. 


1It is noteworthy that in 13 καὶ 025. 046 twice change μαχαίρῃ inte 
μαχαίρᾳ against AC, and that 025. 046 make a corresponding change in 13%, 
against NAC. 

2 Cf. xarédvva Ps. 1429(RTN**). See Thackeray, Gr. 211. 


THE ARTICLE cxix 


Hence our author did not apparently use the perfect ending in 
“acl, 
(4) Various Aorist forms.—davaBa, 41, ἀνάβατε, 1112: ἐρρέθη, 
611 of : στήρισον, 32(AC 025): πεῖν, 166 According to Thackeray 
(Gr. 64), πεῖν (or wiv) occurs 21 times, while πιεῖν occurs 97 times 
in the LXX (SAB). 

(e) Pluperfect form.—7" ἱστήκεισαν instead of εἱστήκεσαν. 
This -εἰσαν is found regularly in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr. 216). 
As regards the beginning of the word, its usual form in the 
LXX is ἱστήκειν (Thackeray, Gr. 201). 

(7) Augment.—3? ἔμελλον (ANC 025): 104 ἤμελλον (AC 046). 
Our author uses ἐδύνατο, 79 (ANC 046), 143 (ANC), 158 (AC: ἦδυν. 
δὲ 025. 046). Hence it should be read in 5° with & against A 
025.046. In ἀνοίγνυμι our author augments the preposition in 
ἤνοιξεν, 6%, ἠνοίγη, 1119 155, ἠνοίχθησαν, 20120"), and trebly 
augments the participle in ἠνεῳγμένος, which should perhaps be 
read in 38 with & 025 against ἀνεῳγμένος (AC 046), seeing that only 
046 supports ἀνεῳγμένος in 41 10% 8 ro" against the other chief 
uncials. 


§ 2. The Article. 


(i.) The article introduces conceptions assumed to be familiar 
in apocalyptic, though mentioned in the text for the first time: 
to! ἡ ἶρις, 10° ai ἑπτὰ βρονταί: cf. also 113 1214 1612, With 
great aptness the art. is used in τὸν πόλεμον, 1614, εἰς τὸν πόλεμον, 
208, τὸν πόλεμον, 191°, because the war here is the great Mes 
sianic war at the world’s close. On the other hand, compare 
the phrase εἰς πόλεμον, 9” 9. 

(ii.) The generic art. (Blass, Gv. 147) is regularly found with 
ἥλιος (except in 72 1612 225), γῆ, θάλασσα, οὐρανός. 

(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 47 68 1312 208 218, 

(iv.) The art. can appear with the predicate when the 
subject and predicate are convertible or identical.! Cf. 117-20 
25 9211 7718 18% [108] 21% 8 2218-16, After οὗτος the pred. has 
the art. on this principle; cf. 716 11420 144 199 205 [4] 

(v.) (2) 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, 20° τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημένην, 21% 10 
τὴν πόλιν THY ayiav—the City par excellence and the. Holy City in 
contrast to the earthly Jerusalem spiritually called Sodom and 


1 In 1” the second ἑπτά is an interpolation and the al ἑπτά belongs to the 
predicate. See vol. ii. 389, footnote. 


CXX THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


‘Egypt, 118: cf. 86 οἱ... ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες, 1718 ἡ πόλις 7 
μεγάλη. 

(6) The same rule holds good in the case of prepositional 
phrases coming after an articular noun :? 14 ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις 
ταῖς ἐν τῇ "Agia: 2%: 55 ὃ λέων 6 ἐκ τ. φυλῆς: 1116 1119 1417 
τ68. 12 1015. 21 208.18 Hence in the titles of the Letters to the 
Churches we should always read τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν... ἐκκλησίας 
and not τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν. .. ἐκκλησίας. A is right here three 
times and C once. See also Order of Words, p. clvi sq. 

Again in 15° the text ὃ ναὸς τ. σκηνῆς τ. μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ, which is impossible in other respects, wrongly omits the 
art. before ἐν τῷ ovpavd. It rightly appears in 11! 6 ναὸς τ. θεοῦ 
ὃ ἐν τ. otpava. 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. 

(vi.) Phrases which occur for the first time without the art. 
have the art. prefixed on their recurrence. 4538 τέσσερα ζῷα... 
τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα: 5°8 ἀρνίον... τοῦ apviov: 131617 χάραγμα. .. 
τὸ χάραγμα: τ5 Ὁ θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην . .. τ. θαλ. τ. vad. etc. 

(a) Hence in 116 the art. must with °C 025. 046 (against 
N*A which om.) be read before εἴκοσι τέσσαρες. Hence, 
further, it follows that 2217 ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν must be trans- 
posed before 21 rod ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν. The need for 
the rearrangement of 20-22 has been shown at length in vol. 
il. 144-154. 

(6) In 173, however, we find γυναῖκα καθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον 
although the θηρίον has been frequently mentioned previously. 
Similarly in 14} the art. is omitted before ἕκατον τεσσεράκοντα τέσ- 
capes χιλιάδες although they have already been described in 7**. 
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 12° ἄγγελοι τ. ἑ. ἐκκλησιῶν, 2° 
συναγωγὴ τ. Σατανᾶ, 67, 616 ἀπὸ προσώπου τ. καθημένου,2 724 15° 


1 τὴν βλασφημιάν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων in 29 is difficult. NS 5." " read τὴν ἐκ, 
while 025 and several cursives om. ἐκ. Either of these readings removes the 
difficulty. But ἐκ τ. λεγόντων is here to be taken partitively. Hence: “the 
blasphemy of certain of those who say,” etc. Thus the art. could not be 
repeated before ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων. This is better than the explanation given 
in my notes in vol. i. 56. See, however, under § 5. vi. (a) on ἐκ. 

2In 20" οὗ ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου should, according to our author’s usage, be 
οὗ ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ or οὗ ἀπὸ προσώπου. This anomaly seems due, like 
others in 20*-22, to the disciple of the Seer who edited these chapters after the 
Seer’s death. 


PRONOUNS cxxi 


κιθάρας τοῦ θεοῦ, 21! υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, 2114 δώδεκα ὀνόματα τ. ὃ 
ἀποστόλων, 223 εἰς θεραπείαν τ. ἐθνῶν. 

(ὁ) The art. is frequently omitted in prepositional phrases. 
ἄχρι θανάτου, 21° 121! 133: ἐν θανάτῳ, 238: ἐν πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, 1419: 
εἰς φυλακήν, 21°; cf. also 272 1310, 

(c) The art. is omitted before proper names. Ἰησοῦς and 
Ἰωάννης are always anarthrous. We have ὁ Χριστός when used 
alone, 111° 121° 204 8, but anarthrous in ᾿Ιησοῦς X., 1-25, In τῷ 
Βαλάκ, 214, the art. is inserted because the name is indeclinable. 
In 16!” the art. before Ei¢parnv may point to the earlier mention 
of this river in 915. The text in 2&15 presents a difficulty. 
Νικολαϊτῶν is first with the art. and then without it. The noun 
in 26 may be treated as a description of a certain class, and then 
treated as a proper name in 218. In the predicate the art. is 
found before proper names: cf. 68 [811] 129 1918 20%, θεός 
always has the art. except in 7? and in 217 where it is in the 
pred. Κύριος, when alone, has the art., cf. 114815, but we find 
ἐν κυρίῳ, 1418, and κύριος κυρίων, 1714 τοῖθ, When combined with 
other names, ὁ κύριος 6 θεός, 2172 22, 6 κύριος Ἰησοῦς, 2271, but also 
κύριος ὁ θεός [18] 48 τοῦ 225. In the vocative we find κύριε, 157, 
κύριε 6 θεός, 1117 153 167, or the Semit. voc. ὃ κύριος 6 θεός, 411. 

(viii.) The art. with the infinitive occurs only in 127 (τοῦ 
πολεμῆσαι), 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 
πρὸ τοῦ before the infinitive in 148 13! 175, and of διὰ τό before 
Mean 25 - 

(ix.) When a noun or participle preceded by the article 
follows a noun (in the gen. dat. or acc.), and should therefore be 
in the gen. dat. or acc., it may in our author, according to 
Hebrew usage, stand in the nom.: cf. 15 ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃ 
μάρτυς ὃ πιστός, 230 τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ, ἡ λέγουσα. On this 
Hebraism see below, p. cxlix sq. 


§ 3. Pronouns. 


(i.) Possesstve.—On vernacular and ordinary possessives see 
notes on 2519 and footnote in vol. ii. 208, where it is shown 
that though cov may precede or follow its noun, the genitives of 
αὐτός can only follow. The genitive is found before its noun in 
the best authorities (A vg 5} 3), in 213 αὐτῶν θεός - but the text is 
manifestly corrupt, and the wrong order may be due to the 
editor of 204-22. It is also found in 185, but this is a source. 
See Abbott, Gr. 414 sqq., 601 sqq. ἐμός only once in 220, 1 


17 has it 39 times. In J we find also (ἡμέτερος only in 1 J 18 22) σός, 
ὑμέτερος, ἴδιος (15 times), not one of whichoccurs in our author. Seeing that 


ΟΧΧΙΪ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


(ii.) Personal.(a) αὐτός is used as an emphatic personal 
pronoun,! cf. 320 1419 1915@*) 217. It is used intensively (= 
“ self”) in [1417] 1711 (source) 1913, The phrase καὶ αὐτός, “ he 
also,” “himself also” (in J 719), seems not to belong to our author 
except in the phrase ὡς καὶ αὐτοί, 611, ὡς καὶ αὐτή, 18° (a source): 
cf. ὡς κἀγώ, 277 371. It occurs, however, in a Greek source, 17}, 
and in an interpolation, 1417, In 14! the καί before αὐτός is a 
Hebraism and not to be translated. καὶ αὐτός in 32 196 *) 217 
=‘‘and he.” αὐτός has lost this meaning in modern Greek and 
becomes a demonstrative. 

(ὁ) ἑαυτοῦ is found twice between the art. and its noun in 
107, Here the intervening ἑαυτοῦ is very emphatic. See 
Abbott, Gr. 415. 

(iii.) Demonstrative.—(a) ὅδε occurs seven times and refers to 
what follows, but not once in J. (ὁ) otros refers to what precedes, 
74 ττΆ8 [124] ete. But mot :alwaysiin J, 1} ΟΕ 6h ages 
1 J 18 515 where it refers to an explanatory clause introduced by 
iva, ἐάν, Or Ort. (ὦ) ἐκεῖνος is used only as an adjectival pronoun 
in our author in temporal phrases, ο΄ 1118, but in J constantly 
as a substantival pronoun. See Abbott, Gr. 283 sqq. 

(iv.) Lndefinite.—els = “a”: cf. 818 ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ, 918 φωνὴν μίαν, 
1017 ἕνα ἄγγελον. Notin J. Both authors, however, use εἷς ἐκ ; 
while J uses els tus ἐκ, 114°, once in this sense, or simply tes with 
a noun, 445 55, or with a proper name, 111 12%, τις is found only 
in εἴ τις, ἐάν τις in Our author, save in 7! (0). 

(v.) Relative.—(a) ὅστις is mostly used of a class of persons 
or things, 17 224 οὐ etc.; but it is also used of an individual, 118 
1218 τοῦ: cf. 11% Similarly in J. I have followed the advice 
given in Abbott’s Gr. (218, footnote) and rendered ὅστις generally 
by “that,” which “introduces a statement essential to the com- 
plete meaning of the antecedent,” and ὅς by “who” or “ which ” 
—words which carry no such meaning. 

(4) This relative is never attracted to the case of its ante- 
cedent 3 in our author, though this attraction is frequent in J and 
πη τ} re 


ἐμός and kindred possessive adjectives had all but ousted movin Asia Minor, 
Moulton (Gv. 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 ἐμός and σός are disappearing in the papyri, and in modern 
Greek no possessive adjective exists. See Robertson, Gr. 684. 

1 J also uses αὐτός in this sense, but it is unemphatic. When he wishes 
to express emphasis he frequently uses ἐκεῖνος, 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 αὐτός together with the 
personal pronoun or proper name, 2% 335 4 #4, but not so our author. 

* It is once found in a source, z.e. 188, 


THE VERB CXxxiii 


§ 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 ‘Ihe 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. 71649 οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι οὐδὲ 
διψήσουσιν ἔτι, κτλ. 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 14 17!**4 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. ο 844 17-20 1.211 saq. 
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. 51° βασιλεύουσιν. 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. 

(ὁ) ἔρχομαι 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, z.¢. 37° εἰσελευσόμαι, 
208 ἐξελεύσεται. He is, therefore, perfectly acquainted with the 
form of the future of the simple verb, but he avoids it. J uses 
it once, 1428, and both the above-mentioned compounds in 10°. 
In 14 he connects it with a future πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι. 

(c) Again the future is used alike in dependent and inde- 


1 Chap. 11 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 aspecial purpose. No unity of time appears to be observed init. The 
réle 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 résumé. In the 
vision of Jerusalem and the Temple the seer receives a prophecy, 1118, that 
Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot (πατήσουσιν) for 34 years, and that the 
two witnesses shall prophesy during this period. The scene then shifts appar- 
ently to the actual period of the witnesses, 1146 ; but the presents ἐκπορεύεται, 
κατεσθίει, etc., can be taken as futures. In 117 the text uses future verbs 
and foretells the death of the witnesses. In 11°° it reverts again to the 
present, describing the events that follow on their death save in πέμψουσιν, 
11!° (but the presents here also are practically futures). Finally, in 114-13 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, Zemses, § 14 (y), 81; Is 91.5.1] Hence 1131 
is a prophecy rather thanavision. The past verbs in 20%! are to be similarly 
explained. Futures occur before and after them. But in 20% it is only the 
author’s familiarity with Hebraic usage that leads to this usage of the perfect, 
whereas I11-!8 15 translated from a source, 


CXxiV THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


pendent clauses where it has a frequentative sense, and is in such 
case best rendered by the present, as in 4°! ὅταν δώσουσιν... 
δόξαν... πεσοῦνται. 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.) Zmperfect (Past).—(a) The past imperf. is found only in 
the case of nine verbs: ἀκολουθεῖν (2 times), διδάσκειν (1), δύνασθαι 
(4—never in aor.), εἶναι (17), ἔχειν (5---εἶχαν, 9® 9), κλαίειν (1), 
λαλεῖν (2), λέγειν (1), στήκειν (1 in a source, 2.6. 124). It is 
therefore of infrequent occurrence. But it is used with special 
force in relative clauses, 113 2!* 6°: also in descriptive sentences, 
54 καὶ ἔκλαιον, 514 [68] το] 211% In 71! ἱστήκεισαν (pluperf.) is 
used as a past imperf. = “‘ were standing.” 

(ὁ) But the place of the past imperf. (or historic present) is 
frequently taken by the (imperfect or perfect) participle: éywv 
(for εἶχεν, or possibly in one or more cases for ἔχει), 118 47: 8 625 
102 122 2112 14: ἐκπορευομένη, 116: καθήμενος, 47: καιόμεναι, 4°: περι- 
βεβλημένος, 191%, 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. 57 714 
85 τοῦ 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. 
Weymouth (Ox the Rendering of the Greek aorist and perfect into 
English, 1890) has gone elaborately into the subject. See also 
Moulton, G7. 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. 323 566. 

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. (4) The Greek aor. 


1 The ordinary nomenclature of English tenses is very misleading. 
Perfect and imperfect relate to a state of action and not to time at all: 
similarly also does aorist. Hence we can have a present aorist. ‘‘I smite,” 
the pres. imperfect ‘‘I am smiting,” the pres. perf. ‘‘I have smitten.” 
Similarly we have past aorists—‘‘I smote,” past imperf. ‘‘I was smiting,” 
past perf. (=pluperf.) “1 had smitten.” The Greek has corresponding 
tenses for the most part. Pres. aor. λύω (cf. παραγγέλλω, Acts 1618: ἀφίομεν, 
Luke 115), pres. impf. λύω, pres. perf. λέλυκα : past aor. ἔλυσα, past impf. 
ἔλυον, past perf. ἐλελύκειν. 


RENDERING OF GREEK AORISTS AND PERFECTS οχχν 


can be timeless or refer to an indefinite time: cf. 2* ἀφῆκας, J τοῦ 
ἐβλήθη. 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, owfszde 
the pure narrative, to an indefinite past, and be practically time- 
less. (ὦ 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, 11° ἃ eides—‘ 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 (8) or (c). 
The following passages fall naturally under (4), where the aor. is 
practically timeless. 1° καὶ ἐποίησεν, ‘and hath made us”: 24: 224 
ἔγνωσαν = “ have recognized” = “know”: 34 οὐκ ἐμόλυναν, “have 
not defiled”: 38 érjpyoas . . . καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω, “hast kept... 
and hast not denied”: 410 ἐτήρησας : 5° 19 jydpacas . . . ἐποί- 
noas: 714 ἔπλυναν .΄.. ἐλεύκαναν : 118 ὠργίσθησαν: 144 ἠγοράσ- 
θησαν: 148 18% ἔπεσεν ἔπεσεν. .. ἐγένετο, “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 17? ἐπόρνευσαν... ἐμεθύσθησαν, 171? 
οὔπω ἔλαβον, 17!" ἔδωκεν : ἐκολλήθησαν and ἐμνημόνευσε in 185, 
18° ἀπέδωκεν... ἐκέρασεν, 187 ἐδόξασεν. .. ἐστρηνίασεν, 1814 
ἀπῆλθεν. .. ἀπωλετο. Under (c) when the aor. refers fo events 
that have just happened and must be rendered by the English 
pres. perf., come the following passages: 119 ἃ εἶδες, “which thou 
hast (just) seen”: 27! ἔδωκα. . . Kal οὐκ ἠθέλησεν 3-- “1 have 
given . . . butshehasrefused”: 11? ἐδόθη: 111517 éyévero . . . 
ἐβασίλευσας : 1118 ἦλθεν, which recurs in the same sense in 147: 15 
181 197: 1210 ἐγένετο... ἐβλήθη: 121? κατέβη: [14)5 ἐξηράνθη]: 
14}8 ἤκμασαν : 16° ἔκρινας : 181619 μιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρημώθη : 18% ἔκρινεν: 
19? ἔκρινεν. .. ἐξεδίκησεν : 1978 ἡτοίμασεν... ἐδόθη: 2216 
ἔπεμψα. 

(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, 
εἴληφα and εἴρηκα, which are so used. The former appears to 
be so used in 57 8°, though the R.V. takes it as=a present, and 
Robertson (G7. 899) defends it in both cases as a “dramatic 
colloquial historical perfect.” But the context is certainly in 


1 The R.V. has 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. 

* The failure to recognize this use of the aorist here led to the change of 
ἠθέλησεν into θέλει. 


ΟΧΧΥΪ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


favour of the aorist sense,! and the same perfect (Thackeray, Gr. 
24) occurs in this sense in Dan Ixx. 49%. As regards εἴρηκα in 
714 198, no doubt as to the aoristic sense can be entertained. 

(vi.) Aorists used by our author and his sources.—(a) Of 
ἵστημι3 our author uses ἐστάθην, 88 1218, whereas ἔστην is used in 
his sources, 111} 1817, (6) Again our author uses ἐθαυμάσθην, 133 
=‘‘T wondered” (as a middle: always passive in ο΄ except in 
one doubtful instance—Thackeray, Gr. 240 n.), whereas ἐθαύμασα 
is used with the same meaning in source 17%7 as in J and 
generally in Greek. (¢) Our author uses ἠνοίγην in connection 
with the temple, r1!® 155, and ἠνοίχθην in connection with the 
books, 20!2(*) (as in Dan 710 ο΄ 6’). Since Matthew and Luke 
in Acts use both forms in connection with the same subjects, no 
safe inference is possible here. 

(vii.) Zperative—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 31! κράτει ὃ ἔχεις and 2% ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε in 
connection with their contexts. 

With negatives, μή with the pres. forbids an action already 
begun: 127 210 μὴ φοβοῦ, 5° μὴ κλαῖε, while μή with the aor. 
subj. or imper. forbids an action not yet begun: 6° τὸν οἶνον μὴ 
ἀδικήσῃς, 7° μὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν, τοῦ σφράγισον... καὶ μὴ αὐτὰ 
γράψης, 117 221°, 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 37 we find μὴ θαυμάσῃς occurs when we 
should expect μὴ θαύμαζε, as is clear from 3‘, and in 10%” he uses 
μὴ πιστεύετε Where the context would lead us to expect μὴ πισ- 
trevonte. In all other cases μή with the imper. is rightly used in 
J. See Moulton, Gv. 125 sq. 

(viii.) Zufinttive-—(a) Our author generally uses the aor. inf. 
save in the case of certain verbs. Thus βλέπειν is never found 

1This use of εἴληφα as an aorist is certainly strange, seeing that our 
author uses ἔλαβον in 5° 10! 17! (source) 204; aor. subj. 3)! 184 (source) ; 
aor. imper. 10% ® 221"; aor. inf. 4"! 5% Ὅν 

2 The pres. perf. of this verb, ἕστηκα (‘‘I have taken my stand ”), is used 
as a pres. imperf. (hence=‘‘I am standing”’) in 3, and in like manner 
the past perf. εἱστήκειν is used by our author as a past imperf. in 7%; but in 
124 (a source) we find éornxev from στήκω in the same sense. Some editors, 
however, read ἕστηκε here (cf. σύρει in the preceding clause). 

3 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. 


PREPOSITIONS CXXVii 


in the aor.. even in the indicative. In 228 we should read ἔβλεπον 
with A. In the rest of the N.T. it occurs once in the aor. 
imper., Acts 34. στρέφειν occurs in 118 (source). καταβαίνειν, 
1313, After μέλλειν the pres. follows inf. regularly (10 times) 
except in 3216 124. In J the pres. inf. follows without exception. 
The usual construction in classical Greek is μέλλειν with the 
fut. inf. 

(4) On the infinitive=a finite verb in a conditional clause 
and also in the principal sentence, see 13! n., and below, p. cxlvi. 

(c) On the infin. with the art.=a finite verb, see 12’ ἢ. and 
also below, p. cxlvi. These three cases are pure Hebraisms. 

(4) The infinitive follows ἄξιος, 52+ % 12, where J 157 puts ἵνα 
cum subj. 

(ix.) Participle.—To the use of the participle for a finite verb 
attention has already been drawn: see above, § 4, ii. (ὁ). Present 
and perfect participles occur frequently, but never the future 
part. The last is found once in J 6%. ὁ ἐρχόμενος 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 λέγων or λέγοντες -- ΝΟ as in 41 

11-12 111. 16 14® comes properly under the head of Hebraisms. 

(x.) Zhe 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 ἰδού (=37) is encouraged through Hebrew precedent. Cf. 


Blass, Gr. 74; Robertson, 395 sq. 


§ 5. Prepositions. 


Moulton (G*». 98) gives the statistics for the relative frequency 
of prepositions in the N.T. For every 100 times that ἐν occurs 
he finds the relative frequency of the prepositions with which we 
are here concerned as follows: eis, 64; ἐκ, 34; ἐπί 32; πρός, 25; 
did, 24; ἀπό, 243 κατά, τῇ ; μετά, τῇ ; ὑπό, 8. Calculating J inthe 
same way (though the numbers are to be taken as only approxi- 
mately correct): ἐν, 100; εἰς, 83; ἐκ, 73; πρός, 45; διά, 26; pera, 25; 
ἀπό, 18; ἐπί, 16; xara, 4. Here we observe that ἐκ is nearly 
as frequent as εἰς, that ἐπί 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: ἐν, 100; ἐπί, 89; ἐκ, 87; 
εἰς, 49; μετά, 33; ἀπό, 23; διά, 11; κατά, 5; πρός, 5.1 Here the 
most notable differences are in the case of ἐπί (J*P 89 —J 16), διά 


1 These numbers refer to the entire text, including sources and interpola- 
tions. 


CXXViii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


(J? τι —J 26), πρός (J*? 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) εἰς slightly exceeds ἐν in frequency, 
whereas in twelve writers of literary κοινή it occurs nearly twice 
as often. Here our author diverges from the literary κοινή in 
using ἐν more than twice as often as eis, while the κοινή uses εἰς 
nearly twice as often as ἐν. On the other hand, our author approxi- 
mates closely to the κοινή in his frequent use of ἐπί, and therein 
diverges strongly from the rest of the N.T. See also Robertson, 
Gr. 556 sq. But these differences between J*” and J are not half 
so striking as those that emerge in the individual treatment of 
the prepositions. 

(i.) ἀνά = “apiece,” in 48 ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ. Cf. J 2® Found 
also in Matthew and Luke. The phrase ava μέσον, 71", is a 
compound preposition, but ἀνά is an adverb in ava εἷς ἕκαστος 
in 2171, These latter uses not in J. 

(ii.) ἀπός 36 times. (a) with μακρόθεν, 181% 15. 17 (source). 
Not in J. 

(4)= “αἱ a distance from,” 142° ἀπὸ σταδίων, cf. J 1118 218. 
Not elsewhere in N.T. It is not necessary to explain it asa 
Latinism; cf. Moulton, Gz τοῖ sq.; Robertson, Gr 575; 
Abbott, Gv. 227. It is found in Strabo, Diodorus, and Plutarch. 
For an analogous construction with pera, cf. Test. Reub. 1? pera 
ἄτη δύο τῆς τελευτῆς : T. Zeb. 11 μετὰ οὖν δύο ἔτη τοῦ Pavarov—a 
construction also found in Plutarch. And with πρό, cf. J 12}, 
Amos (οΎγ 11 47. 

(c) ἀπὸ προσώπον. This phrase occurs three times, 616 
1215 2011, In the last instance, however, it has a strange 
form, ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου, to which we shall return pre- 
sently. In all three cases the phrase is the equivalent of 
20. In 616 201! it=“from the presence of.” It could be 
taken in this sense also in 12! if it is connected with πέτηται, 
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 ‘359 
in Hebrew. ἀπό alone is used in this sense in Matt 18’. In 
2011 the art. in ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου is quite exceptional. It 
appears only a few (three or more) times in the ο΄ 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 AX 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 204, see vol. 
ii. 182. This phrase is absent from J. 


PREPOSITIONS Cxxix 


(4) Abnormal use of ἀπό before ὁ ὦν. This is deliberate on 
our author’s part. 

(6) After passive verbs: ἀπεκτάνθησαν, 9!§; ἡτοιμασμένον, 12°. 
This came to be the rule in later writers. 

(7) After ἀπέρχεσθαι and ἀπολλύναι, 1814: ἀφαιρεῖν, 2219: 
κρύπτειν, 616 (ἀπὸ προσώπου, where J 12°° has simply ἀπό) : φεύγειν, 
Ὁ 20) {1} 10°). 

None of the above usages appear in J save (ὁ) and one 
instance of (/). 

(in. caygaus 21... τ ιν τὴ}39 185 (5008 

(iv.) διά. (a) with gen. 11 2172 In J τὸ times. (0) With 
acc. 16 times and 45 in J. 

(v.) eis. εἰς follows βάλλειν when the noun after εἰς is not a 
person, cf. 210-22 86 [7. 8] yo4 913 y 419 (8) 7821 268 10. 14. 16. save 
in 14/6 (interpolated) where we have βάλλειν. .. ἐπὶ τ. γῆν. 
Contrast 14! But ἐπί when the noun is a person, cf. 274 
βάλλω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (cf. 117). Similarly after καταβαίνειν we have εἰς 
τὴν γῆν, 153.5, but ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, 1674. Our author uses 
eithenveis: τὴν γῆν 5° Ὁ 87 gk? ret 5 741° 16)-2 etc. even 
after πίπτειν, 6! οἱ, though this verb in other phrases is 
followed by ἐπί, 616 711 [810] 1116, or ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (see on ἐπί 
below). εἰς occurs about 78 times. 

(vi.) ἐκ. This preposition is of very frequent occurrence— 
about 135 times. 

(a) Partitive Genitive. As subject, 119 βλέπουσιν ἐκ τῶν λαῶν : 
ef. Ὁ τὸ As object, 21° ἐξ ὑμῶν, 3° 5° (in. 2!’ we have 
genitive alone—rod μάννα: cf. 2 J* ἐκ τῶν τέκνων). ἐκ occurs often 
after eis in a partitive sense: cf. 58 61 γ18 etc., but in 171} (source) 
ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά -- “one of the seven.” For εἷς ἐκ, cf. J 141 68 70.71 
7°0 etc. This appears to be the best explanation of 29 τὴν 
βλασφημίαν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων, “the blasphemy of certain people 
who say”; or the ἐκ may be simply a sign of the genitive. Hence 
“the blasphemy of,” etc.: cf. J 3! ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τ. Φαρισαίων : or 
better, Aesch. Zum. 344, ὕμνος ἐξ Epwvur, “hymn of the Erinyes” ; 
Soph. Ant. 95, ἡ ἐξ ἐμοῦ δυσβουλία. 

(6) ék . . . dard, 5.) 21210 where the prepositions may 
signify respectively heavenly origin and divine mission. But 
in J 1* 741. 42 11 (Abbott, Gz. 227 sqq.) these mean respectively 
“native of” and ‘resident in.” 

(c) ἐκ follows a variety of verbs, γεμίζειν, ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ἐκδικεῖν 
(involving a Hebraism), ἐξαλείφειν, ἐξέρχεσθαι, ἔρχεσθαι, κρίνειν 
(187 (a source) involving a Hebraism), λαμβάνειν, λύειν, μετα- 


1 This phrase is explained also as ‘‘ blasphemy arising from” (cf. J 3%) ; 
but in our author we should expect in this case βλασφημίαν τὴν ἐκ. In 64 
the ἐκ is rightly omitted by A after τὴν εἰρήνην [ἐκ] τῆς γῆς. If the ἐκ is 
retained it isto be taken with λαβεῖν, as in 57 10!° 184 (source). 


i 


CXXX THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


voeiv,! πίνειν, ποτίζειν, φαγεῖν, χορτάζεσθαι. It follows ἀγοράζειν, 
5°; but this verb is followed by παρά, 5418, and ἀπό, 1484. In 188: 19 
πλουτεῖν is followed by ἐκ and in 18° by ἀπό. 

(4) ἐκ is used after a passive: cf. 1318 πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός, 
18! ἐφωτίσθη ἐκ τ. δόξης αὐτοῦ. 

(4) ék=“ by reason of,” 818 ἐκ τ. φωνῶν, 16! ἐβλασφήμησαν 

. €K Τ. TOVWV αὕτων. 

(/) ἐκ is used with the material of which anything is formed: 
cf. 1812 πᾶν σκεῦος ἐκ ξύλου. This usage is common to Greek 
and Hebrew: cf. Xen. Symp. 8, στράτευμα ἐξ ἐραστῶν : Aesch. 
Suppl. 953, ἐκ κριθῶν pébv. See (a) above ad fin. 

(vii.) ἔμπροσθεν. This twice occurs in a local sense in the 
phrase ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν, 1010 228, the first of which is an 
intrusion: also as an adverb in 40. In J its meanings are various : 
it denotes superiority in 115 80. priority in time in 378, and has a 
local sense in 1οῦ 1237, 

(vili.) ἐν. This preposition occurs nearly 157 times. (a) 
The most noteworthy use of ἐν 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 ἐν τούτῳ: 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 (Gz, pp. 12, 61, 104) 
thinks that the publication of the Tebtunis Papyri (1902) has 
“rescued the instrumental ἐν from the class of Hebraisms” in 
the case of ἐν μαχαιρῃ, Lk 2249, and ἐν ῥάβδῳ, τ Cor 431. To this 
claim Abbott (Gv. 256 n.) rejoins effectively. But even though 
the instrumental év 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 
év in our author. No adequate explanation can be found save 
in its Origination in a mind steeped in Semitic. Even Moulton 
(p. 61 n.) concedes that this ἐν “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. ἐν 
is used instrumentally after ἀγοράζειν, 5°: ἀδικεῖν, 919: ἀποκτείνειν, 
273 68 920 1 310%) yo2l: βασανίζειν, 1419: καίειν, 1920; but without 
ἐν, [88] 218 (due to editor?) : κατακαίειν, 1716188: καυματίζειν, 168: 
κηρύσσειν, 52: κιθαρίζειν, 142: λευκαίνειν, 714: λύειν, 19: μιγνύναι, 87: 
πατάσσειν, 11° 191°: πλανᾶν, 1929 1838; περιβάλλεσθαι, 3° 44 
(Σ ἐν, A): ποιμαίνειν, 277 125 19): πολεμεῖν, 216 (1911): χρυσοῦν, 
1816, ἐν 15 used locally after καθίζειν in 331 5) (but ἐπί ας. acc. 204) : 
1 Cf, 271 (22) 92-21 1611, μετανοεῖν ἀπό is found in Acts 8% and Jer 88 


(LXX). But μενανοεῖν ἐκ does not occur inthe LXX. It probably represents 
jD 3υ in our author’s mind. 


PREPOSITIONS CXXx1 


after κατοικεῖν, 1312 (but this is not our author’s use. He uses 
ἐπί C. gen.). 

(2) ἐν is used temporarily in 110 218 οὐ τοῦ 118 etc.: see 
temporal phrases without ἐν in 1810 16 19 μιᾷ dpa (source). 

(c) évis used generally after γράφειν, 13 138 201% 15 2157 2218 19 
(but εἰς is found in 11], and ἐπί in 178: see under ἐπῶ. 

(4) ἐν is found in the phrases ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρί, 118: ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ, 
21: ἐν τ. χειρί, 65 79 τοῦ εἴς. ; but ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν, 51. Also in 
ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, after λέγειν, 147: (but without ἐν in 512 818). 
ἐν is never used in this phrase after κράζειν, 61° 7? 108 (see vol. 1. 
260 ad fin., ii. 22 ad init.) except in passages from another hand 
or source, 1415 1832, It is also omitted in this phrase after φωνεῖν, 
1418, ἐν μέσῳ is always followed by gen. 11% 2! 4 etc. ; hence 27 
ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ in N° 025 is either a conflation of two texts 
or a correction of the later. 

(ix.) ἐνώπιον. Very frequent: 34 times, but only once in J, 
7.6. 20°, and twice in 1. 3 J. 

The frequent occurrence of this word, which, it is true, is 
found sporadically in the κοινή (see Moulton, Gz., pp. 99, 246), is 
best explained as due to Semitic influence. 

(x.) ἔξωθεν, 142%. 

(xi.) ἐπάνω. Only twice. Really an adverb but used asa 
preposition, 68 20%. 

(xii.) ἐπί. About 143 times? in all (74 with acc., 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 
these. 

(a) ἐπί in various phrases : 

(a) ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 5% 1% 18 71 10% 5 8 etc.—never ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (for 
14/6 is an interpolation). If our author wishes to use γῆν he 
writes εἰς τὴν γῆν, 5° 618 85 οἱ etc. See vol. i. 191. (f) ἐπὶ τῆς 
θαλάσσης-ς---50 always. 513 Ἐ 7! 10% 58 except in 152, where the 
ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν seems due to its being preceded by ἱστάναι, 
which always in the case of other nouns is followed by ἐπί with 
the acc. See vol. i. 262 ad med., 11. 34 ad init. Our author’s use 
comes out forcibly in 7! ἵνα μὴ πνέῃ ἄνεμος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μήτε ἐπὶ 
τῆς θαλάσσης μήτε ἐπὶ πᾶν (δὲ 025: cf. 716 οὐδὲ μὴ... πᾶν 
καῦμα: 9, 2127) δένδρον. Observe the ἐπί with the acc. at the 
close. (y) ἐπὶ τὴν (τὰς) κεφαλήν (-ds). Only in 12! do we find 
ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. See vol. i. 300 sq., 303. (δ) ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον, 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 δὲ reads ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, and is 
supported by Pr gig vg 5} 2 arm bo eth. 


CXxxii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


if he uses the pl. ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων. See vol. i. 206 ad med. In 
14° we find { ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώποῦ { ; but this verse is corrupt. See 
vol. ii. 15 ad fin. (e) The above forms are rigid. But in 
phrases composed of ἐπί and χείρ or ἡ δεξία our author uses the 
gen. or acc. : cf. ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς 131%, ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς 
120, and ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα, 149 2014: ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν, 51. See vol. i. 335 
ad med. 

(2) ἐπί with some case of θρόνος (or νεφέλη) determined by 
the case of the preceding participle καθήμενος. This is one of 
the most remarkable idiosyncrasies of our author. When the 
part. is in the nom. or acc. it is followed by ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον : when 
the part. is in the gen. it is followed by ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου : when in 
the dat. by ἐπὶ τῷ Opdvw.! 
ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον 
(or ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην) 

(or ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον). 


(a) 6 καθήμενος 
τὸν καθήμενον 


So in 424 625 ττὸ 1.14 101 This usage of our author is 
generally not observed in the interpolations or edited portions. 
Thus 917 τ. καθημένους ἐπ᾽ ft αὐτῶν — seems due to a reviser of 
the preceding words: 1416 ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τ. νεφέλης (AN: τ. 
νεφέλην, C ο25) occurs in the interpolation 1415 17: 20} τὸν 
καθήμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (A: ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, &), and γ18 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ 
+ τ. θρόνου t (AN: τῷ θρόνῳ, 025. 046), are due to the editor of 
20t22. 215 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τ. θρόνῳ, is a primitive corruption. 
On 14° see vol. ii. 12. 

(B) τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ. So 4° 518 719 τού, In 64 τῷ 
καθ. ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτόν Τ is a primitive corruption, while τῷ καθ. ἐπὶ τ. 
νεφέλης occurs in the interpolation, 1415-17, 

(y) τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνους So 410 51-7 616: cf. 17} 
(τῆς καθημένης ἐπὶ ὑδάτων 19! 2! (rod καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου 
both times). Hence 1918 τῶν καθημένων ἐπ᾿ fF αὐτοῖς ¢ (A: 
αὐτούς &) seems to be a primitive corruption. 025. 046 and 
cursives read rightly ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν. These MSS may have preserved 
the original reading here, and A may be corrupt. 

(c) ἐπί is used after certain verbs. (a) βάλλειν ἐπί with 
acc. 224 1819 (source): (8) γράφειν ἐπί with acc. 217 312 775.8 
(source) 1916, In 14! the gen. ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων after γράφειν is 
due to our author’s predilection for the gen. pl. in this phrase: 
see under (a) above. (y) ἐκχέειν ἐπί with acc. 16% 10. 12.17, 

1 It is noteworthy that this participle in the nom. and acc. is followed by 
ἐπί with the acc. in five passages of the six where it occurs in the rest of the 
N.T., Matt 9%, Mark 215, Luke 577 21%, J 125: exception, Acts 8; and that 
when it is in the gen. it is followed by ἐπί with the gen. in Matt 24° 27)*: 
exception, Mark 13°. But whereas these may be coincidences, in our author 


the use isa law. In Mark 135 we have καθημένου followed by els, whereas 
Matt 248 has ἐπὶ τ. ὄρους τ. ἐλαιῶν. 


PREPOSITIONS CXXxXill 


(8) ἱστάναι ἐπί with acc. 329 ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν (contrast 
J 1816 εἱστήκει πρὸς τῇ Ovpa), 1. 8% 111} 1218 τ41 152, (e) 
καθίζειν ἐπί with acc. 20%. (ζ) κατοικεῖν ἐπί with gen. See νοὶ. i. 
289, 336, li. 12 ad fim. This construction is characteristic alike 
as to meaning and form. ‘Two other constructions are found in 
13!? 17? where they appear due to sources: (7) κόπτεσθαι ἐπί with 
acc 1’=“to wail because of” (but in Zech. 12! (o’), 2 Sam. 
116 (A) “to wail for”). So far as I am aware this usage is not 
Greek. Sy 7D could be rendered “ wail over him,” as in Zech. 
1210, or “wail because of him,” as the text requires here. Has 
our author assigned to ἐπί a meaning that belongs only to by? 
We could also render the Greek “to wail in regard to him.” 
In 18° this phrase = “‘to wail over.” (6) πίπτειν ἐπί with acc. 
G16 11: 16 310 7p 711 16) but with «is τὴν γῆν, 618 Οἱ, since our 
author does not say ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (see (a) above). (ι) σκηνοῦν ἐπί 
with acc. 7). (x) τιθέναι ἐπί with acc. 117, but in τοῦ with 
ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης in conformity with his usage (see (a) above). 
(A) μαρτυρεῖν and προφητεύειν are followed by ἐπί (= ‘‘con- 
cerning”) with dat. in 2216 (δὲ 046) το}. ἐπί has this meaning in 
J τ216 ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα. But in 2216 A vg bo read ἐν. See 
ἐπί with dat. after δεδέσθαι, g!*; ὀργίζεσθαι, 1217; εὐφραίνεσθαι, 189, 

(4) After ἐξουσία ἐπί there follows sometimes the gen. 226 τ 16> 
(source) 1418 208; sometimes the acc. 68 137 169 2214, J has 
neither of these constructions, but the gen. without ἐπί, 172, 
or the inf. 112 527 rol8 ) etc. A similar usage occurs in 1718 
βασιλείαν ἐπὶ (= “ over”) τῶν βασιλέων : cf. Rom. 9°. 

(xiil.) κατά. (a) with gen. 2* 1: 20 κατὰ σοῦ, “against thee.” 
Once in J 19! in the same sense. (6) With acc. (a) = 
“according to,” 278 18° (source) 2012 18, (8) Temporally in 22? 
κατὰ μῆνα. (y) Distributively in 48 ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν : cf. J [89 2155]. 

(xiv.) κυκλόθεν as a prep. in 48: 4: as an adv. in 48, 

(xv.) κύκλῳ as a prep. 45 51} 71, 

(xvi.) μετά. 52 times (41 with gen. and 11 with acc.). (a) 
μετά with gen. after ἀκολουθεῖν [68] 141° (= “to accompany ”): 
δειπνεῖν, 359; ἔρχεσθαι (μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν), 17: καθίζειν, 321 %*) ; 
λαλεῖν, 112 τοῦ 171 2191: μοιχεύειν, 223: [μολύνεσθαι, 144]: 
ποιῆσαι πόλεμον, 117 1217 137 1019: πολεμεῖν, 216 127 134 1714- ἃ 
decided Hebraism, only in our author in the N.T. An 
occasional instance of it has been found in the papyri: πορνεύειν, 
177 18% (source). This construction is not classical Greek, 
which requires the acc. So also μοιχεύειν. (ὁ) μετά with acc. 15 
only found in the phrase pera ταῦτα, except in 111! μετὰ τὰς τρεῖς 


1 Perhaps we might trace it to such an expression as that in Is. 23} 
PINT MID 52 ΠΝ AN. πορνεύειν μετά is found in Ezek. 16%4, but the 
Hebrew does not explain the μετά. Similarly 4x3 (ΞΞ μοιχεύειν) is followed 
by nx (ΞΞ μετά) in Jer. 29%; but not ο΄, which gives ἐμοιχῶντο τὰς γυναῖκας. 


Cxxxiv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


ἡμέρας. μετὰ ταῦτα has two meanings in our author—its ordinary 
one, “after these things,” 119 4? 9!2 208, and a technical one, 
which, when combined with εἶδον, always introduces a new and 
important vision, 41 7% 155 18! 191. On the value of this 
phrase as a canon of criticism, see vol. i. 106, footnote. This 
usage is found in J: (cf. 213 37? 44% 5! 6! 71 198) as introducing 
a new section. 

(xvii.) παρά. 3 times (2 with gen. and 1 with dat.). In J 35 
times (26 with gen. and 9 with dat.). 

(xvili.) πρός. 8 times (1 with dat. and 7 with acc.). In J,on 
the other hand, πρός with acc. occurs about roo times, and with 
the dat. 4. πρός c. dat. is found in our author only once, 113; 
elsewhere in N.T., Mark 5, J 1816 2011-12), He uses πρός 
with acc. after verbs of motion, 32° τοῦ etc. (6 times). πρός -- 
“against,” in 13° ἤνοιξεν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ eis βλασφημίας πρὸς τ. 
θεόν. Here εἰς would be more natural: cf. Mark 32°, Luke 1210, 
Acts 611. This preposition is much more varied in meaning in J. 

(xix.) ὑπό. Only twice, and one of these in an interpola- 
tion, 6%. 

(xx.) ὑποκάτω. 4 times. Really an adverb but used as a 
preposition. 


§ 6. Conjunctions and other Particles. 


(i.) ἀλλά. 13 times, but over roo times in J and 20 times in 
Ὑ.2; 131}. 

(ii.) ἄν. (a) As ἃ particle in a relative clause ἄν occurs only 
twice, in 235 ἄχρι οὗ ἂν ἥξω, and in 144 ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει (A:-y No25. 
046). J, on the other hand, uses ἄν 5 times in the sense of 
“if” (alone in the N.T.), and 22 times as a mere particle in 
relative or conditional sentences. 

(4) But our author uses ἐάν also as a mere particle after ὅσοι, 
419 1315 (source). With the same meaning it recurs in 11° ὁσάκις 
ἐάν (source), but as a conjunction followed by a subjunctive in 
379 [2218 19]. ἐὰν μή is followed by the subj. 25 3%, but in 222° (an 
interpolation) by the indicative! In J ἐάν is once used as a 


1 Thus ἐάν is substituted for ἄν 3 times (3.9 and 11° 1315 sources) out of 4. 
Moulton (Gr. 43) states that in pre-Christian papyri the proportion of ἐάν to 
ἄν was 13 to 29, but in the Ist 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. ἐάν occurs last for ἄν 
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 Ist cent. A.D., 
25 to 7. 

: It is significant of the character of § that it changes ἐάν into ἄν in 3! 135 
and thus represents our author as using ἐάν only 1 out of 4 times. C changes 
it in 118. Notwithstanding the untrustworthy character of 025. 046, they are 
here more trustworthy than WN in this respect. 

But Thackeray (Gr. 67), with a large body of papyri at his disposal, gives 


CONJUNCTIONS AND OTHER PARTICLES CXXXV 


mere particle in 15’. Otherwise frequently as a conjunction 
followed by the subjunctive. J uses ay 14 times in the apodosis 
of an impossible supposition, but our author does not use this 
construction. 

(iil.) ἄρτι, 122°, and ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι, 141%, It is hard to decide whether 
ἄρτι Ξε ‘‘at this moment,” as occasionally in J (see Abbott, Gv. 
25 564.) 199), or “‘at this present time,” as contrasted with past or 
future time—a later meaning belonging more properly to νῦν, 
which J uses very frequently but not our author. 

(iv.) ἄχρι. Always followed by subjunctive in our author: 
225 (ἄχρι ov) 73 158 20% 5, In 17!" we find ἄχρι τελεσθήσονται. 
But this is a source. 

(v.) γάρ. crc. 17 times. In J nearly 70. 

(vi.) δέ. 6 times. Very frequent in J and with different 
shades of meaning: see Abbott, Gz. 271 Joc. 

(vis) ei. εἰ is found only in combination (a) with tus:? 115% 
[x15] 13% 10) 7491 2015 (ei τὶς οὐχὶ ἃ very common com- 
bination not once in J: (4) with μη, (= except”), 217 94 13!” 148 
[ΟἿΣ 2127, This use is found in J 213 67 etc.: or with δὲ μή (= 
otherwise ”’),.2°18:. alsoyain) J. 14474 «But 7. 565. the) former 
combination in other idioms. 

(vili.) ἔξωθεν (as adverb = ἔξω) 117 5! (some MSS). 

(ix.) ἔτι. 18 times, including a restoration of ἔτι for ἐπί in 71°. 
2211 is an interpolation. 

(x.) ἕως, With subjunctive (=“‘till”), 64. In J with ind. 
g!8 2172.23, In various combinations in J. 

(xi.) ἰδού. 26 times. In J 4. J uses ἴδε (15), but our 
author does not. 

(xii.) ἵνα. Final clauses introduced by iva? followed by the 
subj. 33 times, and by the ind. 13. (The latter is unclassical : 
Attic uses ὅπως with ind.) In J ἵνα is followed by the subj. 
save thrice out of nearly 140 times. ἵνα μή 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 ὃς ἐάν, 16, ὃς ἄν, 78: in 
i/A.D. 39 and § 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 δὲ introduced later forms into his text. 

1 εἴ τις is only found once in the Johannine writings outside the Apoca- 
lypse—2 J 1 εἴ τις ἔρχεται. Here the case is put as an actual occurrence, 
and the coming asa real event. Hence this form does not militate against 
Johannine authorship. 

2 In my commentary I have followed Blass in taking ἵνα in 1415 as almost 
equal to ὅτι ‘‘in that.” But here also it may express purpose. Thus μακ- 
άριοι of νεκροὶ οἱ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες. . . ἵνα dvatanoovrar=‘* Blessed 
are the dead that die in the Lord: yea, saith the Spirit, in order to rest,” 
etc. Cf. 224and J 8 9? ris ἥμαρτεν. . . ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ ; 111, and see 
Abbott, Gv. 114-128, who insists that ἵνα expresses purpose in J, 


CXXXVi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


ing to observe the sequence of tenses adopted by him after ἵνα 
or ἵνα μή. 


Pres. ind. followed by pres. ind. : “ I 

bs PIS. SUDIw «1% a 5 

ip aor. subj. : ὃ 7 

es fut. ind. 4 

Past. ind. pres. subj... . 5 

e aor. subj. ; ᾿ 12 

fA fut. ind. - . 7 

Fut. ind. fut. ind. : Ξ Ι 
Imperative 

(pres. or aor.) pres. subj... - Ι 

5) aor. subj 5 : 2 


(xiii.) μή. Never with the participle in our author, but 1c 
times in J and 11 times in 1. 2. 237. μή with pres. imperative, 177 
210 etc. ; with aor. subj. 66 73 τοῦ, the use of these two tenses 
being carefully distinguished; see above, p. cxxvi. py... 
pyre... pyre, 78: also py... ove... οὐδὲ in Ὁ, but 
never μὴ . . . μηδέ, as in J (J7s) who never uses pire; nor μηδὲ 

ον pydé. Οὐδὲ wy... οὐδὲ, 716, 

(xiv.) ὄπισθεν as prep. 110 49, as adv. 5]. 

(xv.) ὀπίσω as prep. 12! 13%, and also in 110 (NC) τοῦθ in RC 
025. 

(xvi.) ὅπου, 213) 118 2010, In the latter two passages there 
is the combination ὅπου καί In sources used by our author 
there is a Hebraism in connection with this word: drov... 
ἐκεῖ, 12% 14; ὅπου... ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, 179; but this Hebraism never 
appears to come from his own hand. In 14* we have ὅπου ἂν 
ὑπάγει (AC: corrected into ὑπάγῃ in & 025. 046). This use 
of av here is to be rejected, according to Blass, Gr. 207, 217; 
Robertson, Gr. 969. See, however, under ὅταν : also Vocabulary 
of G. 7. (Moulton and Milligan) under ἄν. 

(xvil.) ὁσάκις. 11° (source). 

(xviii) ὅταν. This particle takes the aor. subj. οὔ 117 125 
1710 207, or the pres. subj. 107 189,! or the fut. ind. 4°, or even 
the aor. ind. 81, In the last passage the use of ὅταν in ὅταν 
ἤνοιξεν (corrected into ὅτε in 8 025) is quite incorrect according 
to Blass (Gr. 218). Yet it is found in the cow: cf. Mark 119 
ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο ἐξεπορεύετο ἔξω τ. πόλεως: Ex 16°: cf. ὡς av 
in Gen (Tischendorf’s ed.) 2789 ὡς ἂν ἐξῆλθεν ᾿Ιακώβ, of a single 
definite action in the past. ὅταν, however, with the indic. generally 
denotes indefinite frequency (an unclassical usage): cf. Mark 312 

1 As Abbott (Gr. 385) points out, ὅταν with the pres. subj. refers to the 


coincidence of time between the action of the pres. subj. and that of the 
principal verb. 


CONJUNCTIONS AND OTHER PARTICLES = cxxxvii 


11%; similarly ὅπου ἄν, Mark 65°, On ὅταν with fut. ind. see 
Robertson, Gv. 972. 

(xix.) 6re Occurs 13 times and always with aor. ind. In J 
21 times (4 with fut. ind.). 

(xx.) ὅτι. 63times. (a) Abbott, Gv. 154 sq., points out that 
the suspensive use of ὅτι “is almost confined to the Johannine 
writings and the Apocalypse.” Here ὅτι -- “ because,” and he 
cites as examples outside these writings Gal 45, 1 Cor 1215.16, 
Rom Οἵ. In J 15 {ὅτε εὗπον cou. . . meorevers) 1419 1519 166 
20%, In like manner in our author we must render 3! 
“* Because (ὅτι) thou hast kept the word of my endurance I also 
will keep thee,” 316 17 187.1 

(ὁ) Besides the suspensive use of ὅτι, where the ὅτι 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. 32.42 5*°i6"" etc. ete 

(ὦ Next it means “that” after εἶδον, οἶδα, γιγνώσκω, ἔχω κατά 
τινος OF ὄμνυμι, 25: “- 30. 238. 1. 8,9. 16 706 ete, 

(4) Finally, it is used before direct discourse (7.6. ὅτι “ recita- 
tive”), 21 18. 

(xxi.) οὗ = “where” [1715]. Our author as also J uses ὅπου 
and not ob. 

(xxli.) οὐ, Wefind οὐ... οὐδέ, 716 920 128 204 21%: οὐ. 
oure, 97! οὐδεὶς . . . οὐδὲ . . - οὐδὲ. π΄ - OUT, 53: οὐδεὶς ..- 
οὔτε, 54. 

(xxiil.) οὐ μή. 15 times. Always followed by subj. in our 
author except in 181} (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.) οὐαί, This interjection is followed by the dat. in our 
author in 818, In 121? (a source) by the acc. In 1810 1619 (4 
source) by the nom. It is a noun in 913 5) τ 11408), 

(xxv.) οὐκέτι. τοῦ: in 1811-14 with neg. (source). 12 times 
in J. 

(xxvi.) οὖν. (a) Used of logical appeal 6 times, 11° 25-16 δίς. 

(ὁ) Narrative or continuative οὖν does not occur once, and 
only a few times in the Synoptic Gospels. In J οὖν 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 (Gz. 470 544.) finds difficulties in many of the Johan- 
nine uses of οὖν. He pertinently remarks (p. 479, footnote) : “the 

1 On the ground of this and a few other similarities of style Abbott (Gr. 


155) suggests that ‘‘the author of the Gospel may have been a disciple or 
younger coadjutor of the author of the Apocalypse.” 


CXXXViii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


absence of narrative οὖν in Revelation i. ‘mportant, because . . 
it is largely made up of narrative, so that we might have expected 
narrative οὖν in abundance if it had been written by the hand 
that wrote the Fourth Gospel.” The word occurs only once in 
rang) & if, 

(xxvil.) οὔπω. 171012 (source). 13 times in J, 1 J once. 

(xxvili.) οὔτε. We find 7c... οὔτε, 315 16 920 214; οὐδεὶς 

. οὔτε; 54, 

(xxix.) πλήν -- “only,” 235: cf. Phil. 416 for this meaning. 
Blass (Gr. 268) would assign this meaning to πλήν also in 1 Cor. 
tr, Eph 588, Phil 415. 

(xxx.) ὧδε = (a) “hither,” 4! 1112; (4) metaphorically (= “ here 
is need for”), 1310 18 412 179, 

(xxxi.) ὡς. (4) 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 
omitted. 

(ὁ) In a comparison the same case follows ὡς as that which 
precedes it. This, of course, is the usual construction. Cf. 218 
τ. ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ws φλόγα πυρός, ο8:9 1215 133 1821] 212 221, 
Hence 16% εἶδον... πνεύματα τρία... ὡς ἱ βάτραχοι ἵ 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 καθώς though it 
occurs nearly 180 times in the N.T. In J it occurs 31 times 
and 13 in 1. 2. 3 J. J uses és in a temporal sense ( =‘ when ”) 
about 20 times, but J*®, 1. 2. 3 J never. Our author uses ὡς as a 
word of comparison about 73 times (only once with a numeral), 
J 13 times (8 times with a numeral). 

(4) In 22! ws=“according as,” followed by substantive 
verb—a usage not found elsewhere in the Johannine writings. 

(xxxii.) ὥσπερ. 103, 


§ 7. Case. 


(i.) (2) The nominative stands in the case of a proper noun 
without regard to the construction, in place of the case normally 
required. 91! ὄνομα ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων. This is good Greek (cf. 
Xenoph. Oecon. vi. 14, τούς ἔχοντας τὸ σεμνὸν ὄνομα τοῦτο τὸ καλός 
τε κἀγαθός), but it comes from the hand of the editor and not 
from the author, whose construction will be found in 68. 

(6) 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. 178 θαυμασθήσονται of 
κατοικοῦντες. . . Ov... βλεπόντων is not a gen. abs. But 
for this intervening ὧν the text would have read βλέποντες or 
ὅταν βλέπωσιν. 

(ὁ) Temporal genitive. This genitive denotes the whole 
period of time during which something happened: 48 7! ἡμέρας 
kat vvxtos—a phrase that should be restored in 812 2125, 

(iii.) Dative. (a) Instrumental dative. This dative is of 
infrequent occurrence. It is found in 44 περιβεβλημένους ἱματίοις, 
1918 βεβαμμένον αἵματι, 187) ὁρμήματι βληθήσεται (source), 2214 
τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν, 218 [88] καιομένῃ πυρί, 152 μεμιγμένην 
πυρί, 5' κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν, τη. 1816 κεχρυσωμένη χρυσίῳ. 
φωνῇ μεγάλῃ is found after λέγειν, 512 (61) 818 (yet with ἐν, 147-9): 
after κράζειν, 61° 7? τοῦ τοῦ (but with ἐν in passages from another 
hand, 1415 183): after φωνεῖν, 1418. This instrumental dat. is 
mostly replaced in our author by ἐν (see above, p. cxxx, under ἐν), 
or occasionally after passive verbs by ἐν or ἀπό. 

(4) Dative of time, μιᾷ ὥρᾳ in 18-16 19 (source) is difficult. 
It seems to mean “in the course of an hour.” Hence we 
should expect ἐν μιᾷ ὥρᾳ, just as in 188 we have ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ or 
else μιᾶς ἡμέρας, “in the course of one day.” Yet see Blass, 
Gr. 120. 

(c) Hebraic dative. 218 τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς. . . τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν. 
See below, p. cxlvii (4) (6). 

(iv.) Accusative of point of time. 3% ποίαν ὥραν. Cf. J 4° 
ὥραν ἑβδόμην. See Abbott, Gr 75; Acts 2018 τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς 
πεντηκοστῆς. This usage (Blass, Gr. 94) occurs in connection 
with ὥρα in Attic Greek and in the papyri. Moulton, Gv. 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! it carried with it a rough peremptory note, 
and in the N.T. this note still survives: cf. Mark 92 τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ 
κωφὸν πνεῦμα: J 19% χαῖρε 6 βασιλεὺς τ. Ἰουδαίων. In the latter 
passage there is a note of derision: βασιλεῦ τ. Ἰουδαίων 2 would 
have conceded the justice of Christ’s claims. In the tender ἡ 
παῖς ἔγειρε, Luke 854, Moulton (Gz. 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, ὁ παῖς ἀκολούθει (= “‘ you 
there, the lad I mean, follow’’). 
* Moulton (Gy. 71) observes that Mark’s use of this phrase in 1518 ‘is 


merely a note of his imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek 
idiom,” 


οχὶ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


to inferiors: cf. Is 4218, Joel 1218. But it is never used in 
addressing God in the O.T. (except possibly in Neh 15, Dan 94). 
Yet since the LXX generally renders $s and ons in the vocative 
by 6 θεός, 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. 44 
5 κύριος καὶ ὃ θεὸς ἡμῶν," 610 ὁ δεσπότης ὃ ἅγιος, 1212 153 165 
18+ Ὁ τρῦ, In contrast with this prevailing usage, we find, 
however, κύριε ὃ θεός, 1117 153 167: κύριε, Ἰησοῦ, 227, 

(vi.) Verbs with different cases or constructions. 

a) ἀκούειν. Our author uses this verb with gen. of person, 
61. 3.5 813 765-7, and acc. of thing, 1° 73 916 2283 Βαϊ ἀκούειν takes 
both the gen. and acc. of the thing, as, for instance, with φωνή. 
Now in J ἀκ. dwvyst=to hear so as to obey: cf. 52% 28 103 16, 
while ἀκ. φωνήν τεῖο hear without further result: cf. 38 597, 
similarly ἀκούειν λόγον and λόγων. See Abbott, Gr. 435 sq., 
Johannine Voc. 116 (footnotes). This distinction does not 
exist in our author, save apparently accidentally. Thus in 429 
1112 (NC 025 but not A 046) ἀκ. dwv7s=“to obey.” In g}8 
rot 8 ττ12 1210 τ," *) 7184 rol6 the phrase ax. φωνήν 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 ἀκ. φωνῆς has exactly the same force in 1418 
16! 21°, Hence our author does not observe either the usage of 
J nor the well-known one of Acts 97 where ἀκ. φωνῆς τε “to hear 
a sound” (without understanding its meaning), and in οὗ 2614 ἀκ. 
φωνήν = “to hear intelligently ” ° 

(ὁ) γράφεσθαι. Always γράφεσθαι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ in our author : 
cf. (18) 20!2 2127 and especially 138; but in source, γραφ. ἐπὶ τὸ 
βιβλίον, 178. This latter construction is found in quite other 
phrases: 217 ἐπὶ τ. ψῆφον... γεγραμμένον, 312 1916, 

(c) διδόναι. This verb is followed by the partitive gen. (τοῦ 
pavva) in 217; not so elsewhere in N.T. 

(4) εὐαγγελίζειν. In τοῖ c. acc. of person, and in 145 with 
ἐπί C. acc. 

The rest of the N.T. uses the middle of this verb and 
frequently c. acc. 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 Brblisch. Aramaischen, p. 148 sq. 

2 ὁ κύριος as a vocative is not found except in this passage (Abbott). 

3 In 5'3 we have πᾶν κτίσμα... ἤκουσα λέγοντας (al. λέγοντα), the idea of 
the thing prevails and not that of the person ; hence the acc. 

4 In classical Greek ‘‘ to hear a sound.” 

5 In 1. 2. 3 ἀκούειν takes a gen. of the person and an acc. of the thing 
except in 3 J ὁ where it is followed by an acc. of the person. 


NUMBER exh 


form. In Attic this verb takes acc. of thing and dat. of 
person. 

(6) προσκυνεῖν. The cases with this verb are dealt with in vol. 
i. 211 sq. Our author clearly uses προσκυνεῖν with dat. only of 
the worship of God. When the verb takes the acc. it is homage 
or inferior worship that is designed. Abbott (Voc. 137) shows 
that ‘the Synoptists reserve the acc. 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 ” 
[προσκυνεῖν, c. acc. (=worship of), and c. dat. (= prostration to)] 
in which the Evangelists ‘‘appear to use προσκυνέω with the acc. 
as meaning such worship as ought to be paid to God alone.” 
Thus though προσκυνεῖν c. dat. occurs in J 47) 25 938, it has not the 
full meaning of worship which is implied in 425-24, Hence our 
author and J again differ here. 

(79) περιβάλλεσθαι 11 times c. acc. ; Once c. ἐν. 

(g) φωτίζειν. In 2173 c. acc: in 225 φ. ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. Here 
there appears to be a Hebraism: see p. cxlviii (1) (c). 


§ 8. Mumber. 


(i.) When several subjects follow a verb and the first is in 
the sing., the verb is in the sing.: cf. 87 9217 1118 1210 1820 7920 
20H; but if they precede, the verb stands in the pl.: cf. 6!4 1817 
201384, So also in J: see Abbott, Gr. 307. 

(ii.) (2) The neuter plural is generally followed by the pl. 
verb: cf. 119 (ἃ εἰσίν), 32: 4 (ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν), [4°] 514 (τὰ τέσσερα 
ζῷα ἔλεγον), 939 (ἃ... δύνανται), 1118 τοῦ 1670 (ὄρη... . εὑρέθησαν), 
2012 214. The pl. verb may precede the neuter pl.: cf. 49 
(δώσουσιν τὰ ζῷα), 111% (ἀπεκτάνθησαν .. . ὀνόματα) [1614 (εἰσὶν 
γὰρ πνεύματα), τ838 (ἐπλανήθησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), 2174, This 
construction can generally be explained κατὰ σύνεσιν, the neuter 
nouns being conceived of as masculine or feminine. 

(4) But the sing. verb occasionally follows the neut. pl.: cf. 
119 (ἃ μέλλει), 227 [(ἔθνη) . . . συντρίβεται Ὁ], 48 (τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα... 
ἔχων 1), 13! (ἃ ἐδόθη), 141% (τὰ γὰρ ἔργα... ἀκολουθεῖ), 1814 
(τὰ λιπαρὰ. .. ἀπώλετο), το35 (τὰ στρατεύματα... ἠκολούθει) ; 
less often the sing. verb precedes: cf. 88 (ἐδόθη... θυμιάματα), 
poi δ. 1: 

(111.) The plural verb follows certain collective nouns in the 
sing.: ὄχλος πολὺς... ἑστῶτες, 7°: ὄχλου πολλοῦ... λεγόντων 
1g! 6, but generally in J this noun has the sing. verb except in 

1 But it is better to take ἔχων here as influenced by the ὃν καθ᾽ ἕν preceding 
it. 


exlii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


624 749 y2'2, In J 74% 1212 ὄχλος is accompanied by a participle 
in the sing. (in its collective character) and by the verb in the 
pl. (as conveying the idea of separate individual action). See 
Abbott, Gr. 307. λαός has the pl. verb in 184 and γῆ in 13° 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 κατὰ σύνεσιν. Thus 47 ζῷον ἔχων, 
48 τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα... λέγοντες, 131} τῷ θηρίῳ ὃς ἔχει, 171} 
θηρίον... αὐτὸς ὄγδοός ἐστιν, 1716 τὰ δέκα κέρατα... καὶ τὸ 
θηρίον, οὗτοι. In 151" ἄξιος (A) τὸ ἀρνίον is to be similarly 
explained, though in 5° 14! ἀρνίον has the part. in the neuter. 
Similarly 74 χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι (cf. also 14%), 191} τὰ 
στρατεύματα ἐνδεδυμένοι, 5° πνεύματα ἀπεσταλμένοι, 513 πᾶν κτίσμα 
. . λέγοντας (δ), 9° ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς (2.6. ἀκρίδες). With φωνή there 
are several such wrong concords: 4! 7 φωνὴ... λέγων: cf. 
also 511-12 913.14 7715, In 125 υἱόν, ἄρσεν is peculiar. 

(ii.) The gender of ὕαλος 2118 is nearly always fem., but our 
author in making it masc. has the sanction of Theophrastus. 


§ το. 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 Oxyrhyn¢hus, 
assuming the extent of Greek education to be the same.” 


HEBRAISMS OF J4? cxliii 


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 (Afoc.? 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 Afocalypse ts absolutely 
unique.) 

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 /terary 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 


1Jn the next edition of Moulton’s Prolegomena, the Hebraic style of the 
Apocalypse is accepted, as 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. 


cxliv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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 
van. 
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.) Zhe Greek text needs at times to be translated into Hebrew 
in order to discover its meaning and render tt correctly in English. 

(a) The resolution of the participle in one of the oblique 
cases (gen. dat. or acc.), 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 This idiom is attested in the N.T. outside the Apocalypse in 2 John 3 
διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἔσται-ε ‘‘ 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 1° τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων 

. νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη, 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 δὲ reads, ἑστῶτας. . . ἔχοντας κιθάρας τ. θεοῦ καὶ ddovras, in 
1523, and 046 and many cursives read καὶ ποιήσαντι in 1° instead of καὶ 
ἐποίησεν and ἣ λέγει. . . Kal διδάσκει for τ. λέγουσαν. .. Kal διδάσκει 
in 2%. 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 1° Pr fl 
gig vg (arm?) 52 eth render “qui dilexit et fecit” (τῷ ἀγαπῶντι . .. 
καὶ ἐποίησεν) : in 2? and 2° Pr gig vg s? eth render ‘‘qui se dicunt. . . 
et non sunt” (τ. λέγοντας. . . καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν) : in 2% gigs? arm eth= 
qui dicit . . . et docet (ἡ λέγουσα. . . καὶ διδάσκει), 2% arm’ * ὃα τ- ξρῸ 
sum qui scruto . . . et do (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ épavvdv . . . καὶ dwow): in 7 Pr gig 
vg 51 arm eth=qui venerunt (or veniunt) . . . et laverunt (ot ἐρχόμενοι. . . 
καὶ ἔπλυναν) : in 147% 743. 1075 s* arm bo eth=citharizantes et cantantes 


HEBRAISMS OF J4? exlv 


“It is,” writes Driver (Hebrew Tenses, 163), “a common 
custom with Hebrew writers, after employing a participle or 
infinitive, 7o 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. 

The idiom of a participle continued by a finite verb is 
rendered literally into Greek in the LXX in Gen 27°%, Is 14", 
and idiomatically in Is 5° 2°, Ezek 223. 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 
το in the first chapter in 5 and recurs in 18 apts ate τ the 
1428 15°. (a) In 156 we have τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς 
. Kal ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, 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.” (8) The failure to recognize this idiom in 1/8 has led most 
scholars to mispunctuate the text, and the rest, like Wellhausen 
and Haussleiter, to excise 6 ζῶν. The translation of ὃ ζῶν καὶ 
ἐγενόμην νεκρός Should be 117° “Fear not: I am the first and 
the last, 118 And He that liveth and was dead.” Thus we 
recover the right sense. (y) Again we have in 238 ἐγώ εἰμι 6 
épawav ... καὶ δώσω another example of this idiom=‘“I am 
He that trieth . . . and giveth.” Here the Hebrew in our 
author’s mind would be ΠῚ) j737 or even jms): cf. Dan 12”, 


and see vol. 11. 392 n. For a further treatment of this idiom the 
reader can consult the note in vol. 1. 14 sq. (δ) Next, attention 
should be drawn to 204, where originally I feel assured there was 
another: instance of this idiom ; for the οἵτινες in τῶν πεπελεκισμένων 

. καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν 15 obviously an insertion made 
by John’s literary executor, who edited 204~22 after John’s death. 


A Bapitiereee «ον. καὶ ἄδουσιν) : in 157% δὲ Pr fl vg s! arm eth=stantes 
c habentes. . . et cantantes (ἑστῶτας... ἔχοντας... καὶ δουσιν). 

‘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 treated by modern editors as amacoloutha. 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. 


k 


cxlvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


See vol. ii. 182, 183. The insertion of οἵτινες 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. (ε) In 1478 ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς κιθαρῳδῶν κιθαριζόντων 
ἐν ταῖς κιθάραις αὐτῶν 1 καὶ ᾷδουσιν ὡς δὴν καινήν =“ The voice 
which I heard was as the voice of harpers, harping with their 
harps and singing as it were a new song”: (ζ) 2% ἡ λέγουσα 
ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν καὶ διδάσκει = “who calleth herself a prophetess 
and teacheth ” (not “‘and she teacheth,” R.V.). 

(ὁ) In 1315 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 καὶ ἐδόθη + αὐτῇ ἵ δοῦναι 

. καὶ moujon=vym... nnd nb inm=“And it was given 
unto him to give . . . and to cause.” See vol. ii. 420, footnote. 

(c) Just as in (a, δ), the constructions under this head are quite 
impossible and unintelligible as Greek, but are full of meaning 
as literal reproductions of a Hebrew idiom. (a) The first is 127 
ὃ Μιχαὴλ καὶ of ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ (:- δὲ 046) πολεμῆσαι. 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. 
(8) The same idiom recurs in 1319 where only A has preserved 
it in a slightly corrupt form: εἴ tis . . . ἀποκτανθῆναι, ἵ αὐτὸν ἡ 
ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι (=300) NIT... 6? 309 Wa) = “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 καύσων ἔσται (Luke 1254) the ἔσται 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. 

(4) Again an expression may be possible in Greek as regards 
form but wrong in regard to sense. Thus in 2% βάλλω εἰς 
κλίνην as a piece of Greek is meaningless in its context but full 
of significance if retranslated into Hebrew. See vol. 1. 71. 


1 Here all modern editors insert a full stop before καὶ ἄδουσιν. Both the 
Syriac versions could be rendered καὶ ἀδόντων. The Bohairic requires this 
rendering here. It is true that s} has an internal corruption=x:dappddv 
κιθαρίζοντα ἐν ταῖς καθάραις αὐτοῦ" ὃ καὶ ἄδοντας. 

* Cf. Ezek 26) for this form of the Niphal infinitive, 


HEBRAISMS OF 13 cxlvil 


(e) The finite verb in Hebrew is translated literally, when 
idiomatically it should be rendered by a participle. Cf. 116 ἡ 
ὄψις αὐτοῦ ws ὃ ἥλιος φαίνει (= WN’ WNwd)= “his face was as 
the sun shining” (not ‘“‘shineth”). See vol. i. 31. 

(f) The Greek phrase κύριος ὃ θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ requires to 
be retranslated in order to punctuate and translate it rightly. It 
should not be punctuated as in WH with a comma after κύριος 
and another after θεός. In fact no commas should intervene at 
all. The entire phrase is found in 2 Sam 510, 1 Kings 19!® 14, 
Hos 125, Amos 318 413 514 etc. (=msayn ‘nds mm), and often 
κύριος παντοκράτωρ, Hab 218, Hag 17%, Zech 13, Next it is to 
be observed that ὃ παντοκράτωρ in all these cases is a rendering 
of ΠΊΝΩΝ (with or without the art.) following the construct case. 
Hence 6 παντοκράτωρ 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 θεός and 
ὃ παντοκράτωρ. They belong inseparably together, and ὁ παντο- 
κράτωρ is never separated in the LXX from the noun of which 
it is an attribute, nor does our author ever disjoin ὃ θεός and 
ὃ παντοκράτωρ: cf. 48 1117 153 167 14 τοῦ: 15 2121 Thus we see 
that on textual grounds 18 (κύριος 6 θεός, 6 ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν καὶ ὃ 
ἐρχόμενος, 6 παντοκράτωρ) 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, ἢ. 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 
Almighty.” 

(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 10! we have the extraordinary phrase οἱ πόδες 
αὑτοῦ ὡς στύλοι πυρός. Here, as I have shown in vol. i. 259 sq., 
πόδες is to be rendered as “legs.” (8) Again ποιμαίνειν is to be 
rendered as “to break” in 227 125 1915 for the same reason: see 
vol. i. 75 sq. (y) Again in 15 the primary sense of πρωτότοκος, 
“firstborn,” is eclipsed by the secondary denoting “chief” or 
“sovereign ”—which secondary sense it derives originally from 

1 Hence it is clear that N 025. 046 Pr gig vg 52 wrongly insert ἡμῶν 
between ὁ θεός and ὁ παντοκράτωρ in 1956. A s! bo arm eth Cyp rightly omit. 
It is noteworthy that in 48 the scribes of some eight cursives and arm! sub- 
stituted σαβαώθ for ὁ θεός under the influence of the LXX of Is 63, and thus 
arrived at the impossible text σαβαὼθ ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Clearly they did not 
know that ὁ παντοκράτωρ was a rendering of σαβαώθ. Possibly this latter 
word was originally a marginal gloss explaining the origin of 6 παντοκράτωρ. 
It is significant of the independence with which our author deals with O.T. 
phrases that he changes nmixas m7’ (ΞΞ κύριος σαβαώθ, LXX) in Is 6%, on which 
his text is based, into κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ in 48 1117 158 167 198 21%, or 
into ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκ. in 164 19}, 


cexlviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


the Hebrew 133. Cf. Job 1818 where nyo 52 ΞΞ- “the most 
deadly disease,” and Is 1430 ὉΔΟῚ “yo2= “the poorest.” See 
note on 15 in the Commentary. (δ) Possibly in 17 κόπτεσθαι ἐπι 
we have an instance in which a secondary meaning of 5y is 
assigned by our author to ἐπί. 

(2) Other Hebrew idioms literally reproduced in the Greek 
need to be retranslated in order to appreciate their exact 
meaning. (a) 238 δώσω -- “ἴο requite,” as jn) in Jer. 1710 on 
which 27° is based. (8) 38 δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν cov Oipav=“I have 
set,” etc. See vol. i. 41. (y) 3° ἰδοὺ διδῶ = “ behold I will make” : 
vol. i. 41. (δ) 5% ἐν μέσῳ... ἐν peow=“ between . . . and”: 
see vol. i. 140. (ε) 6! λέγοντος ὡς φωνή (AC 046 and most 
curss.) βροντῆς. Here ὡς φωνή = po, which our author may 
have had in his mind, and which=@s φωνή or ὡς φωνῇ. ΒΥ ἃ 
slip our author wrote the former. The same misrendering is 
found in Is 517 εἴς. : see vol.i. 161. (€) 121! ἐνίκησαν διὰ τὸ αἷμα 
τοῦ apviov . . . Kat οὐκ ἠγάπησαν, κτλ., where the καί is to be 
rendered by “seeing,” as vav in Hebrew. The καί (=vayv) 
introduces a statement of the condition under which the action 
denoted by ἐνίκησαν took place. See footnote 7, vol. 11. 417. 
The same Hebraism recurs in 18% 19% (my) 1214 ιἀπὸ 
προσώπου Tod dpews=WNIN 35D—“ because of the serpent”: 
see vol. i. 330. (0) 218 τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς. . . τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν = 
ppbn . . - 25 sab. The dative is to be explained as a repro- 
duction of the Hebrew idiom where $ introduces a new subject : 
see vol. ii. 216, footnote. (c) 225 6 θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. Our 
author uses φωτίζειν as a transitive verb in 181 212°, 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 1182’, we can render 
φωτίζειν transitively as in 18! 2175 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) 37° καί introducing the apo- 
dosis (cf. 10” 141), (6) 5” (οἱ 88 271 στ) GAGev Kat 
εἴληφεν. (ὦ) 68 6 καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ 6 θάνατος = 
927 yw Poy 399m. Here observe the non-Greek sense assigned 
to θάνατος : cf. 233 188. (4) 6! μίαν éek=“the first of.” (e) 88 ἵνα 
δώσει (1.6. θυμιάματα) ταῖς προσευχαῖς -- “to offer it upon” = AAN? 
mbpn Sy: cf. Num 1917 or 1812, (7) 10% ὕπαγε λάβε. (9) 125 
υἱὸν ἄρσεν -- 21 13. (1) 13° ὄνομα = ὄνόματα (cf. 178). 

(¢) The future is to be rendered by the 2γέ5. in 4910, for 
here the future represents the Hebrew imperfect in a frequen- 
tative sense. Thus ὅταν δώσουσιν. .. δόξαν. .. πεσοῦνται, 
“when they give... glory... they fall down.” This miss 


HEBRAISMS OF JA? cxlix 


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. 11. 399, footnote. The future 
in 138 προσκυνήσουσιν should be rendered as προσεκύνουν (= 
Hebrew imperf.). 

(2) The present in οὗ is to be rendered as a future, where 
φεύγει represents the Hebrew imperf. in our author’s mind: as a 
past imperf. in 710 κράζουσιν, 124 σύρει, 167! καταφεύγει. 

(iii.) Hebrew constructions are reproduced, parallels to 
which are found occasionally in vernacular Greek. 

(a) Nominativus pendens.—This construction is found in 226 

12.21 ὃ wkdv δώσω αὐτῷ, 68 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὄνομα 
αὐτῷ. In other passages, however, our author has assimilated 
the construction more to the Greek construction by changing the 
nom. into the dat., 2717 (21°) τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ, 64 τῷ 
καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτὸν ¢ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ : cf. Matt. 54°. This construc- 
tion is very frequent in the LXX owing to its frequency in the 
Hebrew. 

(4) The oblique forms of the personal pronoun are added to 
relatives. 3° ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὑτήν, 72 οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, 
7 ay αὐτὸν 12.5.5 295: Cf..alsov12® * (που τ΄ ἐκεῖ) 17° 
(ὅπου... ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν). 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 17 (=Luke 416), 725 
9% (οἷα... οὕτως), 13°, J 127, Acts 1517, Examples of this idiom 
occur exceptionally in the κοινή. It is found also in Early 
English. But in our text its frequency is due to Semitic 
influences. 

(c) (a) A noun or participial phrase, which is dependent on 
or in apposition to a preceding gen. dat. or acc., 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. 237 !2)2 is a well- 
established idiom in the Greek text of the Apocalypse.? Our 


1 This occurs also elsewhere in the N.T., Matt. 416 1236, Luke 121, 
Acts 7%, 

* 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 κοινή, 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 rot 


cl THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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. 15 218-20 312 [80] olf 1412 20%, In these 
passages observe that the nom. is always preceded by the art. 
15 ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, 230 τὴν γυναῖκα ᾿Ιεζάβελ, 
ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν, 3! τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, ἡ κατα- 
βαίνουσα, [8° τῶν κτισμάτων... τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς]. How 
readily a Jew could adopt or fall into such a solecism when 
using an inflected language, is illustrated by Nestle (Zextual 
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 vex Israelis.” (8) If the art. is omitted, then 
the word or phrase is put in the same case as the noun that 
precedes it. Contrast οἷ" τῷ ἀγγέλῳ, 6 ἔχων τ. σάλπιγγα, and 7? 


917 13! 145 15? 18! 201 ἄγγελον. . . ἔχοντα τὴν κλεῖν. (y) But 
this rule does not apply to λέγων. Thus in 14° we have εἶδον 
ἄλλον, ἄγγελον πετόμενον... ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον... . λέγων. But 


λέγων (or λέγοντες) stands by itself: it appears almost indeclin- 
able. This may be due to the fact that it may reproduce mtond 
in our authors mind. Cf. 4! ἡ φωνὴ... λέγων; 511 ὃ 
ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν. . . λέγοντες, 111 ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος... λέγων, 
1115 φωναὶ... λέγοντες. This solecism is, of course, found in 
the LXX: cf. Gen 15! 2270 3818 4516 4820 etc. (δ) ἔχων follows 
an acc. when not preceded by the art. in 5° ἀρνίον éornxos .. . 
ἔχων, 14!4 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπον, ἔχων, 175 θηρίον... ἔχων. But 
in 5° 1η8 it seems corrupt for ἔχον. In 14}4 ἔχων is right and 
καθήμενον ὅμοιον, which precedes, is a slip for nom. 

(iv.) (2) There are passages which need to be retranslated in 
order ¢o 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 13% 1! and 155-8 (a) As regards 
13° I have shown in vol. i. 337 that ἐθαυμάσθη... ὀπίσω τοῦ 
θηρίου is corrupt, and that the corruption did not originate in the 
Greek but in the Hebrew; for since 13° 8 and 178 are doublets 
(the latter being an independent rendering of a purer form of the 


πολεμῆσαι in 127 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. 


HEBRAISMS OF JA4? cli 


Hebrew original), we are enabled to discover the origin of the 
corruption. ‘Thus the clause in 13°°=A‘nn “NND.. . ΠΌΠΠῚ), 
where the “INN is corrupt for NW, or rather MINI = βλέπουσα. 
Thus we have: “the whole earth wondered when it saw the 
beast,” which brings it into line with 178 “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. (8) In 13" we have the extraordinary 
statement that the second Beast had two horns like a lamb and 
spake likeadragon! The first idea may be suggested by Matt. 715 
“ 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 ἢ as }'3ND instead of }3MD; and, since 
καὶ ἐλάλει = 1271n\, the latter is most probably corrupt for 73Nn\, as 
in 2 Chron. 2210 (cf. 2 Kings 111). Thus 13° should be read: 
“but he was a destroyer like the dragon.” This brings our text 
into line with Matt. 715 (quoted above) and prepares us for the 
statement in 13'5 that this second Beast put all to death that did 
not worship the first Beast. (y) Again in 1556 there are two 
expressions, ἠνοίγη 7 ὃ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἡ ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ, and ἐνδεδυμένοι ft λίθον ἡ καθαρὸν λαμπρόν, which are 
clearly corrupt. Inferior MSS (025. 046) have corrected the 
second into λίνον. 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, 155 6 ναὸς τῆς 
σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ odpavG=D DWI TWD SAN 55, which 
was corrupt for ὩΣ) ΠΟ San -- ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
a phrase which we find exactly in 1119 accompanied by the same 
verb ἠνοίγη and the repeated article. In 156 + λίθον ¢ is to be 
explained by a mistranslation of Ww which can be rendered 


either by λίθος, μάρμαρος, or by βύσσινος. Here the latter, of 
course, is the right rendering. 

(ὁ) 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 1558 are distinctly our author’s, furnishes 
such strong evidence for the former hypothesis that it seems 
necessary to accept it. If this is right, then we must conclude 


clii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


that our author inserted here a translation which, while repro- 
ducing exactly the corrupt Hebrew before him in 15° 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 121416 18* (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. lxiv ad fin. 

(c) For other passages which need to be retranslated in 
order to discover their meaning, see 1832 (μουσικῶν), 181° ἐκ τῆς 
τιμιότητος αὐτῆς. .. ἠρημώθη. 


S11. Unique Expressions in our Author. 


(i.) 14 ἀπὸ ὁ dy. Our author knows perfectly the case that 
should follow ἀπό, but he refuses to inflect the divine name. 
See vol. i. Io. 

(ii.) 146 ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος : cf. 1117 16°; see vol. i. To. 

(111.) 118. 1414 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου : 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 
Hebraisms. 

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 /iteral 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 
translations. 

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- 


SOLECISMS DUE TO SLIPS OF AUTHOR cliii 


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.) 12° ἤκουσα pane .. . ὡς σάλπιγγος ἵ λεγούσης Τ (for 
λέγουσαν) : cf. 6° τ48 16! where the construction is normal. 

(it. ) 1 οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ws ἐν καμίνῳ ἵ πεπυ- 
ρωμένς t (for πεπυρωμένῳ, a correction rightly introduced in δὲ, 
some Cursives, sl? etc.). 

(iii.) 120 a μυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων... Kal ἵ Tas ἑπτὰ 
λυχνίας ἡ (for τῶν ἑ. λυχνιῶν). 

(iv.) 237 συντρίβεται for συντριβήσονται or συντρίψει (?). 

(v.) 44 καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ἡ θρόνους... τέσσαρας. .. 
πρεσβυτέρους καθημένους περιβεβλημένους. . . στεφάνους χρυ- 
σοῦς 7. 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 491. He seemingly in- 
serted it as the object of εἶδον. It is obviously a slip. 

(vi.) 61 λέγοντος ὡς + φωνή ἵ, where we should have φωνῇ : 

§ ro. i. (2). (ε) above, and vol. i. 161. 

(vii.) 614 ὡς βιβλίον ἵ ἑλισσόμενον ἡ. This is rightly corrected 
in δὲ and some cursives into ἑλισσόμενος. 

(viil.) 7° + περιβεβλημένους t στολὰς λευκάς. This is obviously 
a slip for the nom. In this sentence A Pr vg omitted καὶ ἰδού 
and changed, with the exception of ἑστῶτες, the following nomina- 
tives into accusatives. 


(ix. ) τοῦ ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα. .. Ἰλαλοῦσαν.. . . καὶ λέγουσαν ἦ 
(for λαλοῦσα... καὶ λέγουσα : see vol. i. 267). 
(x.) 111 ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος. . . λέγων (source). This may be 


only an abnormal construction to which partial parallels are found 
in the LXX: see vol. i. 274. 

(ταῦ προφητεύσουσιν. οὖν T περιβεβλημένους F. 

(xii.) 114 ai ἐνώπιον τοῦ ρὲ «= «+ ἵἿ ἑστῶτες [-. Since our 
author’s sense and usage here require the ai ἑστῶσαι, the par- 
ticiple in the masc. and without the art. is a slip. 

(xiil.) 133 καὶ μίαν ἐκ τ. κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην. This 
is a slip exactly like that in 44 above. It is an addition oh our 
author, and was added seemingly as the object of εἶδον in 13}. 

(xiv.) 14°7 εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον πετόμενον. . . ἔχοντα... 
7 λέγων ἡ. But it is perhaps best to take λέγων as ἃ Hebraism = 
ΟΝ: cf. 41. For analogous cases see p. cl ad med. 

(xv.) 1415 εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη “λευκή, καὶ τ τὴν νεφέλην ἡ 
καθήμενον ὅ ὅμοιον. 7 υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, ἔχων. Cf. 4? εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ 
θρόνος καὶ ἐπὶ τ. θρόνον καθήμενος, 101} εἶδον. . . καὶ ἰδοὺ 
ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὃ καθήμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτού͵ where we have the normal 
construction. 


cliv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


(xvi.) 142° τὴν ληνὸν . . . ἵ τὸν μέγαν Ἷ. 

(xvii.) 192 τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς ἵ τῆς καιομένης t. The fact 
that the Hebrew and Aramaic words for “ fire” (1.6. UX and NBN) 
are feminine, may have led to our author’s forgetting himself for 
the moment and writing τῆς καιομένης. In Rom 11* we have τῇ 
Βάαλ instead of τῷ Βάαλ. 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 nwa, which mentally 
he substituted for y2. The influence of the Hebrew is to be 
traced in Mark r2!! (= Matt 214”), where in the quotation from 
the LXX (Ps 118%) the αὕτη -- ΠΕ, though we should expect 
τοῦτος Cf. Gen 351% 27 361, Ps τοῦ" 119% 56 etc. Possibly in 
1316 of our text the fem. αὐτῇ in ἐδόθη αὐτῇ may be due to mn; 
and the fem. art. in ἡ οὐαί (1912 1114) may be explained by the 
gender of Hin. 

(xviii.) 219 τῶν ἐχόντων Tas ἑπτὰ φιάλας ἵ τῶν γεμόντων T τῶν 
ἑπτὰ πληγῶν. It is hard to explain how such a slip as τῶν γεμόν- 
των (ΑΝ 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 τὰς γεμ- 
οὔσας as certain cursives have done, rather than into γεμούσας as 
046 and many cursives. For the participle is used attributively, 
following ras . . . φιάλας. Contrast 157. 

(xix.) 2114 τὸ τεῖχος τῆς πόλεως T ἔχων ἵ. 

(xx.) 222 ξύλον ζωῆς ἵ ποιῶν ἡ . .. ἀποδιδοῦν. Here our 
author would no doubt have corrected ποιῶν into ποιοῦν, as is 
done in & 046 and most cursives ; for he knows the gender of 
ξύλον : cf, 2214 1812), If the gender of yy led to his writing 
ποιῶν, he would on revision either have corrected or written 
ἀποδιδούς 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 (715 20 11-18 
21% 2212) to the editor. 

(i.) (a) 139 αἱ λυχνίαι αἱ ἑπτὰ [ἑπτὰ] ἐκκλησίαι εἰσίν. 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 τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν 
should be followed by ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι without the article”... 
“the second ἑπτά... 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 


NON-JOHANNINE CONSTRUCTIONS εἷν 


the art. before the second émrd, since the predicate is coexten- 
sive with the subject. (See chap. xiii. § 2. iv.) 

(ii.) (a) 64 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτόν FT. 

(iii.) (6) γ15 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τοῦ θρόνου F. 

(iv.) (a) 8:3 + ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ νὺξ ὁμοίως T for ἡμέρας καὶ ὁμοίως 
νυκτός (as in Bohairic). 

(v.) (ὁ) 9" τοὺς καθημένους ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτῶν 7. Contrast 19% 21, 

(vi.) (a) 149 ἐπὶ f τοῦ μετώπου fF. 

(vii.) (α) 1918 τῶν καθημένων ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτούς ἱ (A). 

(viii.) (ὁ) 204 τῶν πεπελεκισμένων . . . καὶ [οἵτινες] οὐ προσ- 
εκύνησαν. A correction by the editor of John’s Greek. 

(ix.) (ὁ) 20! τὸν καθήμενον ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτοῦ +. Editor’s correction 
of John’s Greek as in 715 917. 

(x.) (ὁ) 2018 ἔδωκεν $7 θάλασσα ἵ τ. νεκροὺς τοὺς ἐν ἵ αὐτῇ t. 
This was a deliberate change on dogmatic grounds. See note 
in loc. 

(xi.) (a) 215 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τῷ θρόνῳ ἵ. 

(xii.) (a) 219 } τῶν γεμόντων { AN 025 for τὰς γεμούσας. 

(xiii.) (6) 2175 οἱ πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ κλεισθῶσιν ἡμέρας ἱ νὺξ 
γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ. 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 καὶ νυκτός. See 
note 77 loc. 

(xiv.) 2127 } πᾶν κοινόν t. Read πᾶς κοινός. 

(xv.) (ὁ) 221? ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ. This order, which is con- 
trary to our author’s own usage, is, like other departures from 
our author’s usage in 204-22, to be traced to the editor. See 


below, §15, ii. (2). 


§ 14. Constructions in the interpolations conjitcting with 
our authors use. 


18 6 θεός, 6 ὧν... ὁ παντοκράτωρ. See above, ὃ το, i. ()). 

222 ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν. Our author does not use the indica- 
tive after ἐὰν μή. 

811 καὶ τ. ὄνομα τ. ἀστέρος λέγεται “O ᾿Αψινθοςς. Our author 
does not use λέγειν but καλεῖν in this sense: cf. 19 118 129 1616, 
This addition is made in an interpolated section ; whether before 
or after it was interpolated cannot be determined. 

917 τ. καθημένους ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν (—the construction John’s editor 
prefers, being better Greek: cf. γ18 97 20! in ὃ 13 above, and 
1415 16 in this section). 

1455 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης. 

1416 ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης. 

151 is an interpolation, since independently of other grounds 
it misuses καὶ εἶδον to introduce the Seven Bowls, where we 


clvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


should expect μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον. Since the latter phrase, which 
is used to introduce new paragraphs or sections, is found in 155, 
we see that the subject of the Bowls is there mentioned for the 
first time. 

162° τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ. Our author would 
use the acc. here: only the dat. in reference to God. 

1618 εἶδον... πνεύματα τρία... ὡς βάτραχοι. (AN® 046 
min”) Here our author would have written βατράχους (so cor- 
rected text in 8* min?). See on as, p. CXxxviii. 

1619 εἰς τρία μέρη. Wrong order. Our author would say 
μέρη τρία. 

179 ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν. Our author does not use 
this construction, but ὅπου alone: cf. 215) 718 2010, 

17}5 οὗ ἣ πόρνη κάθηται. Our author uses ὅπου, not οὗ. 

1818 καὶ ἵππων. .. καὶ σωμάτων. An addition conflicting 
alike with the syntax and the sense of the context. 

19! προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ (7.6. an angel). See note on 16?° 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.) Zhe 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 18” 
τὸν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως δοῦλον. Τί, 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. 717 ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων. 

(ὁ) Nor can participial or prepositional phrases stand between 
the art. and its noun.!_ If these stand in an attributive relation, 


1 It is quite otherwise in J 8" (and 12%) ὁ πέμψας we πατήρ. Contrast 16° 
τὸν πέμψαντά pe), 8°! τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ ᾿Ιουδαίους. 


ORDER OF WORDS clvii 


they must follow the noun with the art. repeated: cf. 1119 ὃ ναὸς 
τοῦ θεοῦ ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: 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}. This 
occurs only in the titles of the letters to the Churches. Thus in 
2! we must read with AC Prr@ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας, 
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*?, 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., τῆς ἐν “Edéow ἐκκλ., 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 τῷ 
ἀγγέλῳ 7G. From the combination of these two usages emerges 
the strange piece of Greek, yet one that is essentially our author’s 
-ὀτῷ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας. 

(c) But though a participial or prepositional phrase may not 
intervene between the art. and its moum, it is inserted many 
times between the art. and the participle dependent upon it: 
1116 οἱ... πρεσβύτεροι ot ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενοι, 14}3 1714 
ΤΟΣ: ΑΙ ΞΟ ΤΙ τ 150. Δ 1 1.1. Εἰς. 

(ii.) Zhe Pronoun.—(a) The genitive of the possessive noun 
does not precede its noun, unless when it is used unemphatically 
(2.6. vernacularly): see notes in vol. 1. 49, 68 sq.; Abbott, Gr. 
414-422, 601-607. But in our author αὐτοῦ, αὐτῆς, αὐτῶν are 
never found in this unemphatic position except in 18 (source), 
though very frequently in J and a few times in 1. 3 J. 

(ὁ) Again the genitive of the possessive pronouns (pov, ἡμῶν, 
σου, ὑμῶν, αὐτοῦ, αὐτῶν) is never separated from its noun.? It 
occurs roughly over 300 times or more. Hence 128 οὐδὲ τόπος 


1WH (N.7. im 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 ναοῦ, as in ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ᾿Ασίας 
ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, Κυζίκῳ, Περγάμῳ, etc., just as τῆς is omitted before 
ἐκκλησίας 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! of the 
Greek text in vol. ii. 244. 

2 When a noun is followed by an attributive adjective, the pronominal 
genitive is generally inserted between them: cf. 24 τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην, 
219 312 τοῦ > 1316 141%, The genitive of the noun can be separated by an attri- 
butive adjective from the noun it depends on: cf. 19!” τὸ δεῖπνον τὸ μέγα τοῦ 
θεοῦ : also 6!7 164, Here the emphasis is laid on the gen, 


clviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι is against our author’s style,! also 1814 σου τῆς 
ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ψυχῆς (on other grounds we have found that 18 is a 
source): and also 2212 ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ, 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. τ 
βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, 215 319 g5- 6. 28 4) 722.47 736.14 1617 O35 
2073, See vol. 1. 304, footnote. 

(c) otros 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 ofa 
passage depends on οὗτος being pre- or post-positive. 

The oblique cases of otros never appear in the position of an 
attribute any more than the possessive pronouns.? Hence even 
in 1815 (source) we have οἱ ἔμποροι τούτων, though the attributive 
position would be the more regular: see Blass, Gram. τόρ. 
Contrast J 547 rots ἐκείνου γράμμασιν (classical as regards ἐκείνου 
and its position). 

(4) ἄλλος is always pre-positive, though generally post-positive 
in the LXX as in Hebrew. 

(iii.) Zhe Adjective.—The adjective as a rule follows after the 
noun it depends on. But there are certain exceptions. In 11 
we have ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, 3° μικρὰν δύναμιν, 20° μικρὸν χρόνον 
(yet χρόνον μικρόν in 611), 1538 (source) ὅλη ἡ γῆ (elsewhere 
always post-positive—3! 612 129 1614), μέγας is always post- 
positive except in 16! μεγάλης φωνῆς (always elsewhere in our 
author the adj. is post-positive in this phrase—ze. 18 times). 
1821 (source) 4 μεγάλη πόλις. ἰσχυρός is Once pre-positive in 18? 
(source) ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ. Elsewhere post-positive (5 times, in- 
cluding 18°), 

Thus, save in four passages of our author (110 38 16! 203), the 
adjective always follows the noun. The other instances (13% 
18” 21) are in sources. 

(iv.) Zhe 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 (z.e. 12! ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς instead of ἐπὶ τ. 
κεφαλήν), 12% 14 ὅπου. . . ἐκεῖ (instead of ὅπου alone), 127 rod before the inf. 
(whereas inf. is used in the same sense twice without rod in 13°), 1213 of 
οὐρανοί (instead of οὐρανέ), οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν (instead of oval τῇ γῇ : cf. 813), the 
statement in vol. i. 300 544. 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 és μέλλει ποιμαίνειν 

. σιδηρᾷ in 12°: 125 (modelled on 12"): ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος ὁ καλούμενος. . . 
ἐβλήθη, 129 : τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν in 12 12}} : ὅτι εἶδεν and ὅτι. . . εἰς τὴν γῆ» 
in 12!8 7217-18, See Commentary 7 doc. 

2 This does not hold of ἑαυτοῦ. In 10*7 this possessive occurs in the 
attributive position, which is its normal one. See Blass, Gram. 168 sq. 


COMBINATIONS OF WORDS clix 


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 l. 15 aé 
imo, for “ exception, xvi. 19,” read “the clause καὶ ἐγένετο... εἰς 
τρία μέρη is an interpolation”: and for the last five lines read: “In 
the case of ἑπτά, 17° (in 139 the second ἑπτά is an interpolation ; 
8?> is recast and in part interpolated, and 13%" belongs to a source), 
δέκα, 1713 (in 13! καὶ ἐπὶ τ. κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα is inter- 
polated), δώδεκα, 2151, 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 χιλιάδες it always precedes it. Cf. 
δώδεκα in 748 2116 and the compound numbers in 141 8, Hence 
1118 χιλιάδες ἑπτά (Source) is against our author’s order. The 
numerals are never separated from the nouns they qualify: hence 
1718 μίαν ἔχουσιν γνώμην (046 min™) is a late change. 

(v.) Zhe Verb.—(a) The verb generally precedes its subject 
and almost always its object except in sources such as 11118 (see 
vol. i. 272 sq.) and 18. In other sources—translations from 
Hebrew such as 12. 17—the order is Semitic. 

(4) Again the verb and its object are rarely separated by pre- 
positional or other phrases. This holds absolutely in the case of 
ἀκούειν φωνήν (φωνῆς). Hence A, ἤκουσα φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄπισθέν 
μου, is right in 119, and not NC 025, ἤκ. ὀπίσω μου φ. μ. 

(c) The insertion of a relative or conditional clause between 
a conjunction and the verb it introduces is only found in the 
sources used by our author, 124 ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς 
καταφάγῃ, 13) ἵνα ὅσοι... προσκυνήσωσιν. . . ἀποκτανθῶσιν. 


§ 16. Combinations of Words. 


Our author always writes ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταί. 
Cf. 45 111° 1618 He observed that the ἀστραπαί precede the 
βρονταί and wrote accordingly. But the editor who interpolated 
87-12 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 85 
βρονταὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαί.1 


1 This non-Johannine order is not mentioned in the list of grounds for 
rejecting 87-!? in vol. 1. 218-222. 


clx THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


XIV. 


ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT—GREEK MSS anp 
VERSIONS, AND AN ATTEMPT TO ESTIMATE THE RELATIVE 
VALUES. 


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. 

§ 1. Zhe relative values of ANC 025. 046. 051 according to their 
respective attestation of certain Greek and Hebraistic constructions 
in our author, which are tn 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! John unquestionably 
wrote τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν ᾿Εφέσω ἐκκλησίας and not τ. ayy. τῆς ἐν *E. 
ἐκκλησίας, as we find in most texts of J*. 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),! and the 
Vulgate (in one passage). To these I am able to add the 
support of two cursives, 201g. 2050, and of four versions, 2.6. arm 
for all seven passages, s! for four, 52 for two, and gig (2!) 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 25 13 314 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 (31). Now Hort argues that this ‘‘transposition .. . is 
interpretative of τῷ (as in Epiph. 455 Β, τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῷ ἐν 
Ovarelpos). Thus, according to Hort, ecclesiae Pergami (Pr) supports the 
original text, whereas Pergami ecclesiae (vg s* 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. 5] supports it in 
ght oti4s arm® in 243 arms} in 2) ἜΤΗ in 2, fl in 2.” in ἘΠΕ 
readings of s? I have followed Gwynn; for my three texts of s? have been 
normalized and agree in giving the late reading in all seven passages. 


RELATIVE VALUES OF THE UNCIALS clxi 


each for one. The evidence is given in a collected form in vol. 
11. p. 244, save that Pr should perhaps be added, as Hort urges, 
to the evidence given under 28:13 314 and vg under 41. 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 τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῳ ἐν... ἐκκλησίας 
as original in all seven passages.!_ But my study of grammar of 
J*? has thrown further light on the subject, and made it clear 
that John could not, consistently with his usage throughout the 
rest of J*®, have written otherwise. The grounds for this 
statement are given in my Gram. § 15. (i.) (4), 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, & 025. 046. 051 have corrected τῷ 
ἀγγέλῳ τῷ in every passage into the normal construction τῷ 
ἀγγέλῳ τῆς. On the other hand, A has retained the original 
construction in 21-818 and C in 2! (preserving a hint of it also 
in 218), Of the 223 cursives, 2050 directly supports it in 213, 
2019 indirectly in 21, and 2040 indirectly in 28. 

Thus the vast superiority of A (C) to & 025 is at once 
obvious. All the MSS have been corrected or normalized to 
some degree, but this process has been thoroughgoing only in 
ἐξ 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! in 21. 72:18 31; 52 in 218 31; sa in 212: 
like arm, if Hort’s contention is right (see note, p. clx), Pr in the 
remaining three passages, fl in 21, and vg in 31. But Tyc gig 
& 025. 046 and the cursives (with three exceptions) show no 
knowledge of the original text. eth would represent either order 
in the same way. 

(ὁ) The next construction which is of a unique character in J*? is 
that which follows, 6 (τὸν) καθήμενος (-ov) ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον, τοῦ 
καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ. For these 
constructions see vol. i. p. cxxxii. These constructions occur 
28 times. Two of these are found in a wrong form in the 
interpolation 14-17, and two in 2011 215 where the wrong 
construction save in 215 is to be traced to the editor. 

In the remaining 24 cases A is right in 20 and wrong in 4 


1 Weiss ( Texthritische Untersuchungen, 64 sq. note) has wholly failed to 
recognize the next text here. Similarly Bousset and nearly every editor save 
Lachmann, Hort, and Souter. 


clxii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


(1.6. 64 715 917 1918): C (defective) is right in 9 and wrong in 2 
(64 917): δὲ is right in 17 and wrong in 7 (ze. 518 6418 715 ΟἹ] 146 
1918): o25 right in 16 and wrong in 8 (1.6. 43:9 518 64 715 ΟἹ 14° 
194): 046 right in 17 and wrong in 7 (49 6416 71015 ol? 146), 
C o25 correct the text rightly in 1416 and 025. 046 in 201}. 
From the above statistics we conclude that & 025. 046 are 
practically of equal value. A stands much above them. 

(c) In the case of certain Hebraisms we find & 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 156 our author wrote τῷ ἀγαπῶντι. .. καὶ 
ἐποίησεν. Here the finite verb must be translated as if it were 
ποιήσαντι. 046 min? have actually so corrected the text. Again, 
1523 x min? correct the Hebraism ἔχοντας. . . 8 καὶ adovow 
into ἔχοντας. . . 8xat ddovras. Another Hebraism, 2.6. in 2%, 
τὴν γυναῖκα. . . ἡ A€yovoa .. . καὶ διδάσκει, is corrected by N° 
025 min? into τὴν γυναῖκα. . . τὴν λέγουσαν, but by 046 min™ 
into ἣ λέγε. The same Hebraism in 3! τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, 
ἡ καταβαίνουσα is corrected by N° into τῆς x. Ἴερ. τῆς καταβαινούσης, 
and by 046 into ἣ καταβαίνει. Again in 127 ὃ Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ 
ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ Tod πολεμῆσαι, 8 046 min™ omit the τοῦ. In 1 320, 
where the same Hebraism occurs twice, every uncial save A and 
all cursives remove the Hebraism by drastic corrections. In τοῦ 
N 025. 046 min” Tyc Pr gig vg s? arm®@ insert ἡμῶν between 
ὃ θεός and 6 παντοκράτωρ, against A min’ Cyp 51 arm* ¢ 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. 
§ ro. (i.) (/), p. exlvii. Such examples show the vast superiority 
of A (C) to 8 025. 046 as witnesses to the primitive type of text. 

§ 2. The absence of conflate readings from A (C) and their 
(rare) occurrence in ® 025. 046 support the distinction already 
established between these MSS.—In 17% δὲ (52) reads αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς 
γῆς, where αὐτῆς is the reading of A al™ Tyc vg s! arm? eth, and 
τῆς γῆς that of 046 al?™ gig arm’. Cyp Pr read τῆς γῆς ὅλης, and 
bo (-Ξ αὐτῆς pera τῆς γῆς) conflates this reading with that of A. 

In 47 8 alone reads ὡς ὅμοιον ἀνθρώπῳ. This may be a confla- 
tion of ὡς ἀνθρώπου (A, etc.), and ὅμοιον only preserved in 2018. 

In 6457 κ 046 min™ read ἔρχου καὶ ide, and in 68 δὲ min” 
alone attest this reading. But since the phrase καὶ ide is not used 
by our author, but καὶ iSov, this phrase is clearly an early intrusion. 
But 046 min™ Pr gig vg*8, which insert καὶ ide (or καὶ ἰδού, Pr 
gig vg&8), omit καὶ εἶδον in the words that follow. Since this 
form of the text is as old as the 4th century, the text of δὲ is prob. 
ably conflate. 

In 215 025 min” read ὁμοίως ὃ μισῶ---ἃ conflation, though ὃ μισῶ 


RELATIVE VALUES OF THE UNCIALS elxiii 


is found as yet only in a few cursives and arm*. Again in 27, where 
ANC 046 have ἐν τ. παραδείσῳ, and 1. 35™ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου, 
025 reads ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ, which may be either a conflation of 
the above two or else a correction of the latter. 

In 046 191? we have the conflate reading ὀνόματα γεγραμμένα 
καὶ ὄνομα γεγραμμένον. 

§ 3. The readings’ of the uncials taken singly and also in 
groups of two. The evidence of this section confirms the provisional 
values assigned to these MSS in 88 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 AX or A 025, and more than twice 
as many times as A 046. The combinations of C ands 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, δὲ, or 046, and when combined with A it is right oftener than 
As or A 046 in combination. In the third class, therefore, to 
which we must relegate δὲ 025 and 046, 025 stands first according 
to this reckoning. As regards αὶ and o46, the former takes 
precedence of the latter, and is in certain respects much superior 
to it. 


11 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. 16 will 
show. In chap. 12 it agrees with cursives against all the other uncials in 
reading τίκτειν, 124, éxe?”, 12°, in omitting μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 12%. In 125 it omits ἐν 
(a mere correction) with 025 and cursives, and in 125 it omits éxe?! with C 
and cursives. In 12° it is right with A 025 (μέγας πυρρός), and in 1213 with 
A and cursives in reading of οὐρανοί. In 16% 10. 12 (+4 ἄγγελος) it agrees 
with cursives against uncials, also in 16'4 (δαιμόνων and eis πόλεμον) 161° 
(βλέπουσιν). In 16% 10. 14. it agrees with δὲ and cursives against all other 
uncials: in 168 (ζῶσα) with δὲ 025. 046 and cursives against A, in 1618 (οἱ 
ἄνθρωποι) with & 046 and cursives, in 16! (ἀνατολῶν) with A. The readings 
of 051 given in this edition are derived from Swete’s Commentary. 


clxiv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 





TABLE I. 
| 
Peculiar to the 
Probably : 
ἜΣ i Possibly gras Laer 
Right readings. pais eh Sh ig Wrong. among the 


uncials. Ortho- 


alternative: margin. : Ξ 
ἡ ies g graphic variants 








ph in brackets. 
FN RR A ea | 7 I2 154 229 (+27) 
Ce ire are ea I 67 69 (+10) 
ye 225. 18:22 Nea Get goed Bs 414 425 (+47) 
ROD os ae τοῦ ον 12 12({Ὲ1) 
OS ers See eee eee νὴ 7 
O25... «| ΓΤ 15. ΤΟ ee a Π 5 103 114 (+21) 
046. 3 δὲς τὰ se 350? 
AG ws 31 30 2 38 (+13) 
ἌΝ, ἢ eed Ge 2) 2 I 3 37 (+16) 
A 025 . | 30 6 3::1}} 52 43 (+4) 
A 046 .] 24 7 ἥν: ie 33 (+21) 
Croke. |) 2 ste 12 14 
C046 .| 1 (?) wie 6 7 
Ore Sal clas 12 16 
MOZ5 oe |e 5 21 28 (+12) 
ρα. πον Ι 4 6 
8046 .| 7 2 5 44 59 (+5) 
025.046| 4 (44 65 1918 2113) | 2 I 28 49 2 





The classification of the uncials from the above data is thus: 


TABLE II. 
Class a . . . . ᾽ Α 
pga : ; ; : aie 
ells . : : . 4 025 8? 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 & 046, enters respectively into 
combination with one or other of the remaining four (in such 
groups as AC, A 025, AX, A 046, C 025, etc., 2.6. groups of two), 
we arrive at the following results, allowance having been made 
for the lost sections of C and o25. 


1 Weiss (Die Johannes-Apokalypse: Texthritische Untersuchungen, p 147) 
is of opinion that A preserves wholly unsupported upwards of 60 right 
readings, C 4 and N 8. Though I have followed quite different lines of 
investigation, my results do not differ much. They are slightly more in favour 
of Aas against 8. Gwynn’s estimate of the readings peculiar to each MS 
differs alike from those given above and by Weiss. See Afoc. in Syriac, p. 
xliii sq. 

- The inferior character of the text of δὲ for J*®? has been amply proved both 
by Weiss and Gwynn, Apocalypse of St. John in Syriac, p. x1 sqq. 


RELATIVE VALUES OF THE UNCIALS clxv 





TABLE III. 

A Cc. 025. x 046 
Standing alone . ὃ 62 Ι 6 6 3 
In combination . . 155 59 49 46 47 

217 60 55 52 50 





This table confirms the results of Table II. save that & is nearer 
to 046. If wecombine the results of these two tables, 025 still 
shows itself to be a better MS than &. 

§ 4. Zhe 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. 




















TABLE IV. 

AxNC.1 ANC 025. ANC 046. ΑΝ 025. ΑΝ 046. AC o25. AC 046. 
12 5.6 1: 9. 12. 16. 18 τῦ 23. 7. 15 "Ἢ 4: 8. 11 4° 3. 11 119 23- 9. 24 210. 16. 17 
27 2. 5. 7. 10. 13. 14 (dzs). 24 7 = — 2.7 — 

a 32 (ts). 3. 7. 9. Ἢ oa 5 ait ari sie 7 

— 19 
AC 025. 046. AC 046. A 025. 046. NC 025. NC 025. 046. NC 046. C 025. 046. 
τἴ- 16. 20 210.17 18,18 314 19 220 15: 1. 20 113 216. 17 37 
27: 18, 19. 20 =2 4) 4. 9. 10 =2 2?- 18, 22 = =I 
38 9. 14 = =(* 


Ξε το | | 





-...- 


1 According to Weiss (9. εζί.), ANC have preserved the original text only 
20 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 (of. ct. p. xlviii) 
proceeds when he assumes that ‘‘ the consent of NAC represents the consent 
of the uncials” and uses it as a ‘‘standard by which to compare P and Ὁ." 
ANC 025 represents ‘‘ the consent of the uncials,” 


clxvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 
If we study this table we find that the several MSS enter 
into the above combinations as follows :— 


A - 63 times, 


C z : : . : sh POT.” 5 
025 . . . . . . 55 ἢ 
XN . . . . 46 ” 
ο46 . . . . ΓΟ 


There are two points that call for explanation here. (a) First 
the numbers of C 025 8 046 seem unduly large as compared with 
those of A, seeing that A belongs to the first class, C to the 
second, and 025 & 046 to the third, according to our classifications 
at the close of § 3. But there is really no difficulty here. IfC 025 
N 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 8 046 uphold this text in a considerably 
weakened form, & replacing it to a considerable extent by readings 
often of an early date, and 046 by readings of a later growth. 

(4) Since only 1-3! 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 fim. 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,! 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 & 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. 

8 5. The character of the Versions.—The versions differ 


1 Compare in 1! τοῦ δούλου (A) for τῷ δούλῳ : in 1A > quay: in 1° ἐν 
Χριστῷ (A) for ἐν Ἰησοῦ: in 112 λαλεῖ for ἐλάλει: in 11° > ἔχῳν : 1% ἐν τ, 
δεξιᾷ for ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς. On the other hand, A ‘alone is characterized by 
singular readings which are to be accepted, not as divergences froma standard 
text, but as survivals of the primitive and authentic text” (Gwynn, p. liv). 


RELATIVE VALUES OF THE VERSIONS clxvii 


greatly from the Greek MSS in regard to the character of their 
testimony. Each Greek MS of J? 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 ἢ 1 and the parallel sections 
in the other versions and Greek MSS will suffice to prove this. 
Thus in τ΄ ἀπὸ ὃ dv (ANC 025) is supported by fl gig vg (5.2) 
arm bo eth, while Pr supports 046 ἀπὸ θεοῦ ὃ ὦν (and Tyc a 
further development of this reading). In 15 λύσαντι (ANC) is 
supported by Pr ἢ gig (51: 3) arm, while Tyc vg bo eth support 
025. 046 λούσαντι. In 16 βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς AN*C 046 is supported 
by Tyc (fl) vg-4, but the corrected text N° βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς by 
Pr gig vg? arm! %4: 025 ΔΥΠῚ" 8: α read βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς : 046 
βασίλειον ἱερεῖς, while 51: 2 Όο -- βασιλείαν ἱερατικήν, and eth= 
βασιλ. ἁγνίαν. In 18 the addition 4 ἀρχὴ καὶ (τὸ) τέλος N* is 
supported by Tyc gig vg bo against ANC 025. 046 Pr ἢ (st?) 
armeth. In 19 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ N° 046 is supported by Tyc Pr vg4 
51. 2 arm? 8: against Ἰησοῦ AN*C 025 fl gig vg4 arm‘ bo eth. 
In 118 τῶν λυχνιῶν AC 025 is supported by Tyc Cyp Pr ἢ s+? 
arm} 2.4 bo eth against τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν δὲ 046 gig vg arm®, In 
6 ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει AC 025. 046 Tyc gig vg 51: 2. arml-* 3 eth 
against φαίνει ὡς ὃ ἥλιος δὲ Pr Cyp fl arm* (ἢ) bo. In 2! τῷ 
ἀγγέλῳ τῷ AC Pr [in Comm.] (fl?) 51 arm‘ against τῷ ayy. 
τῆς ἐξ 025. 046 Tyc gig vg arm! bo eth. In 87 6 πρῶτος 
AN 025. 046 51:2 arm‘ against 6 πρῶτος ἄγγελος 2020 al Tyc 
Pr gig vg arml23¢ bo eth. In 89 τὸ τρίτον A 025. 046 5" 3 
against τ. τρίτον μέρος ἃ Tyc Pr ἢ gig vg arm bo sa eth. 
In 82 all the uncials and cursives are wrong. The true sense 
is either preserved or recovered in bo eth and partially in 
Pr fl. In 92 καμίνου μεγάλης AN 025 Tyc Pr fl vg arm) " 
bo eth against Kap. καιομένης 046 53 and καμ. pey. καιομένης 
2020 gig 51 arm! (~?). In οὐ ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων AN 025 gig 
vg=d aoainst ἐπὶ τ. μετώπων αὐτῶν 046 Tyc Pr fl vg ®¥ st? 
arm (bo) eth. In οὐ φεύγει A(N) 025 against φεύξεται 046 Tyc 
Pr fl gig vg s+ 2 arm bo eth. In 1116 τοῦ θεοῦ ANC 025 Tyc Pr 
fl gig vg 51 arm! 2 “- bo eth against τ. θρόνου τ. θεοῦ 046 52 arm’. 
In 1119 ὁ ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ AC gig fl arm bo eth against ἐν τ. οὐρ. & 
025. 046 Tyc Pr vg 51: 2 and τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ (> Tyc bo) AC 
025 Tyc gig vg 51" arm! 3 4 bo against τ. διαθήκης τοῦ θεοῦ & ἢ 
eth: τ. διαθήκης κυρίου 046. In 123 μέγας πυρρός A 025 Tycvgs!sa 
eth against πυρρὸς μέγας NC 046 Pr ἢ gig 52 arm bo. In 128 ἐκεῖ 

1 There are only 61 verses in fl (Codex Floriacensis), z.¢. 1'-2!, 8’-9', 


1178-12", 14'°-16°, fl does not show such remarkable faithfulness to the 
primitive text in the later sections as in 11-2), 


clxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


AN 025.046 s! arm®4; > C Tyc Pr fl vg s? arm! 3: (bo ?) eth. 
In 141° ἐθερίσθη ἡ γῆ al Greek MSS and Versions ( -- vg" fl 
arm! 82) against ἐθέρισεν τ. γὴν ve"* fl arm’? ,:> bo. In 
1418 6 ἔχων AC Tyc gig vg 5}: 2 arm eth against ἔχων ὃὲ 025. 
046 Pr fl bo: φωνῇ AN 046 Tyc fl gig vg 51 arm! 3: 8: eth 
against κραυγῇ C 025 52 bo: ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαί (ΑΝ 025 
fl gig vg 51:2 against ἤκμασεν ἣ σταφυλή 046 arm eth: > bo. 
In 152 ἐκ τ. θηρ. καὶ ἐκ τ. εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ AC 025 5} 3: arml- 2a 
against ἐξ Pr fl, which > ἐκ 3, Ἴγο gig vg bo eth give a different 
construction. In 158 ddovow AC 025. 046 against ἄδοντας N 
Tyc Pr fl vg bo eth: τῶν ἐθνῶν AX 025. 046 (Pr) fl gig bo 
eth against τῶν αἰώνων S*C Tyc νρ 51:3. Here arm™ 44 is con- 
flate. In 15* φοβηθῇ AC 025. 046 Pr fl gig arm bo against dof. 
σε N O51 Tye vg st? eth. In 15° οἱ ἔχοντες AC 51:3 arm bo 
eth against ἔχοντες 8 025. 046 (Tyc Pr fl gig vg): ἐκ rod ναοῦ 
ANC 025 Tyc ἢ gig vg 56. )3 ae bo eth against 046 Pr arm!-? 
which omit: + λίθον + AC vg“ against λίνον (-οῦν) 025. 046 Tyc 
(Pr) gig vg? and λινοῦς & fl bo: > eth. In 16! μεγάλης φωνῆς AC 
046 (arm*) bo sa against φωνῆς pey. S 025 Pr ἢ gig vg 51 
arm? 8: φωνῆς eth. ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ ANC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig vg 513 
arme against 046 arm® which omit: while arm‘ bo sa eth= ἐκ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ and arm! 3: 4 -- ἐν τ. vad: ἑπτά ANC 046 Tyc Pr gig vg 
51: 2 arm against 025 fl bo eth which omit. In 16% δεύτερος AN® 
025. Tyc Pr ἢ gig vg arm* eth against δεύτ. ἄγγελος 046 sl? 
arm!-28«bo, In 164 ras πηγάς ANC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig arm bo 
against eis τ. πηγάς 046 51- 3 eth. 

Now, taking the Latin and Syriac versions in the above thirty- 
three passages (813 1416 15% not being included) we arrive at the 
following results : 


Tyc. Pr. fl. gig. vg. 851, 52, 














Right. - : 17 14 18 21 14 (16) | 21 16 





Wrong ; 4 14 16 15 10 13 (12) | 9 14 


We are not to conclude that these numbers indicate the pro- 
portion of right to wrong readings throughout J*’, 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 


RELATIVE VALUES OF THE VERSIONS clxix 


than all the other Latin versions together. 51 2 compare favour: 
ably with the Latin, s! being right more than twice as many times 
as it is wrong, and s? being oftener right than wrong. Unfortun- 
ately there is no critical edition of s?. 

A further and very important fact emerges from this study of 
the Latin versions, and this is that a text akin to 046 and tts 
allies (often ὃς 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 ANC 025. 046 for the same sections. We 
find 





A XN xe C.1 025, 046 
Right . : 33 15 3 23 23 14 
Wrong. . fo) 14 ae 5 9 19 


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 8 and 046. 

From the above study, therefore, we conclude that a// 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: 
51 gig s? Tyc fl vg Pr. But in the case of certain peculiarly 
difficult readings (δ 1 (a) ad fin. above) the version that is here 
last, 1.6. Pr, is equal to the first, s? comes next, fl and vg in third 
place, and gig Tyc? last. 

We have not as yet taken account of the respective values 
of arm bo sa eth. 

§ 6. Zhe Armenian, Bohatric, and Ethiopic Versions.—The 
Armenian version is difficult to compare with the other versions. 
In Mr. Conybeare’s edition five texts are distinguished, arml- 2: 8. 4 
andarm*. The last is a recension of the t2th century. The four 
first represent various forms of the Old Armenian. Of these 
arm‘ stands apart from arm!-28, Conybeare describes arm‘ as a 
recension of the 8th century, and arm!:23 as texts of the fifth. 
Conybeare rather throws discredit on arm‘, but it is in many 
respects the best of the Armenian texts. It frequently stands 
alone against arm!?%4jin supporting the true text. In the 
sections which we have used for purposes of comparison, #.e. the 
sixty-one verses which alone survive of fl, there are two conflate 

1 C is defective in some of these sections. 


? It must be borne in mind that there is no critical text of Tye. Tyc may 
appear in better company when this is published. 


clxx THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


readings in arm. Thus arm‘ (together with 2020 gig 51) reads 
καμίνου μεγάλης καιομένης in 95, and arm? *¢ read τῶν αἰώνων 
καὶ βασιλεὺς πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν 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. 








arm4 (alone 


1, 3. 8, 4. α. against one, two, 
τὴς i or more members bo. eth. 


of arm]- 2 3. a), 





Right . - 20 8 14 17 
Wrong . . 13 2 15 13 





— 


Where arm‘ and one or more of arm!**%® agree, their 
evidence is recorded in the first column. Where arm‘ is right 
over against arm? 2 8: it stands in the second column. arm‘ is 
only twice wrong against combinations of arm? 2" 8: α, 

It is now possible to arrange the versions in the order of 
their merit in the sections preserved in fl, 2.6. 11-21, 87-9}, 1116 
1214, 1415-165, 

In this arrangement, according to the number of the right 
readings which they attest, it must be borne in mind that s? eth 
and Tyc are wholly uncritical texts. They may be better or 
worse than they appear here. Furthermore, while it is true that 
s! 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 813, which in this passage has alone preserved the 
original or else restored it. 

Versions in order.—S! arm gig s? 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‘ s! gig arm 1" 3: 8, 
» ii. eth s? Tyc vg. 
" ome te 


THE UNCIALS clxxi 


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 215 it enjoys the honour 
of attesting the original text together with 2050 s! arm* @ against 
all the uncials and all the remaining versions. 

§ 7. Felations 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*? generally in agreement with some 
other authorities, but at times they stand alone. As an instance 
of the former, cf. 19! where with Pr they add ὅτι before 
σύνδουλος : of the latter, 18! ἐκ -- τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ καί: 2144+ 
καὶ (>bo) ἰδοὺ πάντα ποιηθήσονται (ἐποιήθησαν, eth) καινά: 2118 
(crit. note ad fin.) : 228 (crit. note ad fin.). 

(ὁ) bo sa agree against eth and all else in 20 μέγαν θρόνον 
(σὺ rest): in 22/84 ὅτι before ἐάν τις bo sa agree with certain 
authorities against eth and others: 199 καὶ λέγει por? with AX 
etc.: > eth δὲ etc.: 201} 4 γῆ καὶ 6 οὐρανός with AN etc. 
(instead of ὁ ovp. x. ἡ γῆ with 35. 432 Pr eth). 

(c) bo sa eth stand alone in 18? ἦ μεγάλη +7) πόλις : 20] in 
transposing order οἵ ἅλυσιν Lennie 4 215> ποιήσω πάντα καινά. 
bo sa eth agree with some other authorities in 161 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
42. 367 arm (for τοῦ ναοῦ): τόδ: 19%: 218 οὐρανοῦ 025. 046 
etc. (for θρόνου). 

(4) sa eth agree with certain authorities against bo: 1819 
ovat? with AC etc.: > bo with N etc. 19% τοῦ γάμου with ANX° 
etc.: >>bo with x* etc. 2214 πλύνοντες τ. στολὰς αὐτῶν with AX& 
etc. against ποιοῦντες τ. ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ bo with gig 046 Cyp etc. 

(2) bo eth agree against sa: 1019 αὐτῶν bo eth καὶ etc. against 
αὐτοῦ sa A etc. 

(f) bo stands against eth: 18° ποτηρίῳ eth AC etc. against 
ποτ. αὐτῆς bo & etc. 18? ξύλου bo NC etc. against λίθου eth 
A etc. 

The above are a few examples from chaps. 16-22. 

§ 8. Character of the uncials as regards their textual 
value. 

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 7 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 


clxxii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


whereas C’s singular readings take no particular direction, A’s 
are pre-eminent as being certainly right in over 60 passages. 

x. 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 (of. 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 
ὃς with the normal cursive form of text, but these are not 
numerous. 

025. 046. These MSS are so widely sundered that they 
differ from each other in kind. While o25 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 δὲ, considering its late date. We have 
already seen (see Table I. p. clxiv) that whereas δὲ alone preserves 
6 right readings (reckoning together columns one and two) 
against the rest of the uncials, 046 preserves 3. Again AN 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 & enters into groups of three or more MSS attesting the 
right text 45 times, 045 does so 40. 

o25 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 znd 
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 1* we have πνευμάτων a+éotw ἐνώπιον. 15 τῷ 
ἀγαπήσαντι. 18 βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς. 19 συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει 
καὶ (+év τῇ) βασιλείᾳ. 29 τὴν βλασφημίαν , τῶν λεγόντων. 218 
ἐν τ. ἡμέραις - ἐν αἷς. 217 δώσω αὐτῷ - φαγεῖν. 29 τὴν γυναῖκα 
. 2. τὴν λέγουσαν. 41 ἡ φωνὴ ve λέγουσα. 52 κηρύσσοντα 
z φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. 5° ἀρνίον... ἔχον. 7 ὄχλος tae ἑστῶτες, 

. περιβεβλημένοι. 818 ἀγγέλου πετομένου. This change is 
due not to the scribe’s idea of syntax, but of the sense of the 
passage. 91 φωνὴν ... λέγουσαν. τοὶ Kai κα ἶρις, corrected 


CURSIVES COLLATED FOR THIS EDITION  clxxiii 


according to sense of context. The scribe knew no better. 114 
ἐλαῖαι -- ἑστῶσαι. 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: 


19 175 325 
18. 35** 4201 617 456 αὶ 337. 632". 919. 920. 1849. 2004. 2040 (I-11"). 
386 1934 468* 


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 1” 046 with 
cursives reads καὶ ἐκεῖ : 116 χειρὶ αὐτοῦ τῇ δεξιᾷ: 2% ἀνοίξω (for 
ἂν ἥξω): 32 ἀποβάλλειν for ἀποθανεῖν : 34 ὀλίγα ἔχεις ὀνόματα 
(order): 537 εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀνοίγων. 

§ 9. Cursives collated for this edition.—The list of the 22 
cursives collated for this edition is given in vol. 11. 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 & in the 
third class. It agrees with A 2019 in 218 and in 11° save that 
for ὄπισθεν it reads ὀπίσω, and with A and certain cursives in 1%, 
Over against seven agreements with A, it supports δὲ in τ 
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 1-117 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° τῶν 
ζώντων : 38 τὰ ἔργα (for τὸν Adyov): 312 τῷ ὀνόματι (for τῷ vac) : 
49 + καὶ προσκυνήσωσιν (-σουσιν, 920) τῷ ζῶντι and another 
addition in 82. In 410 they omit ἐνώπιον τ. θρόνου and have 
other omissions in 4* 512 74 9% They invert the order in 38 
and attest the same impossible readings in 5! 614 71 99. 

From 11° to 201! where it ends, the text is largely free from 
corruptions of the later cursives. It often supports A against 
most other authorities (cf. 11! εἰσῆλθεν ἐν αὐτοῖς, 1212 οἱ οὐρανοι) 
and δὲ and less often 025. But its excellence is still more 
clearly shown by the fact that in 11%-201! 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 &. 

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 


clxxiv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


majority of the uncials against the majority of the cursives. 
Thus in 1‘ it reads ἀπὸ 6 dv with ANC 025 αἱξθ fl gig vg s+ 2 bo 
against 046 and most cursives. In 1° ἐν Ἰησοῦ with XC ο25. 
2020 gig vg s! bo against the rest ; Ἰησοῦ (without Χριστοῦ) with 
ΑΝ 025 al fl gig vg? arm* against the rest. In 11 καί (without 
ἐκεῖ AN 025. 045 al Tyc Pr fl vg 5.2 bo against the rest. In 118 
λυχνιῶν (without preceding ἑπτά) ACP al!® Tyc Pr ἢ sl? 
arm}: 2. 4-¢ bo against the rest. In 218 >7a ἔργα cov καί (added 
by 046 al?! s? arm*) with ANC 025. 2020 and versions (—s? 
arm’ a): 6 πιστός μου AC 61. 69 Or® 52 against rest. These 
suffice to show the character of this cursive. This cursive shows 
some slight affinities with A, as in 11% 4* 5* 221! etc., and still 
more with &. Thus with the latter it agrees in 18 (+7 ἀρχὴ κτλ.), 
115 πεπυρωμένῳ (a correction), 117 ἐπέθηκεν, 270 420 etc. It agrees 
with 025 in 1! χάλκῳ λιβάνῳ, al : 239 τὴν λέγουσαν (also N° al?), ete. 

This cursive has a conflate reading in 257 καὶ συντρίψει 
αὐτοὺς ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται. Such a conflation is 
not found in any other MS or in any version. But gig arm* bo 
eth read συντρίψει αὐτούς. Is 2050 influenced by gig or some 
ancestor of these versions? In 116 2050 with g20. 2040 Tyc ἢ 
gig vg read δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ 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. 21} ἐδίδασκεν τ. Βαλαάμ, 5314 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς morews, 1419 
184 λάθητε. In 13° it reads κατοικοῦντας with 201 against 386. 
2019 οἰκοῦντας. 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? (:» πεπληρωμένα) : 3) 
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς πίστεως : τοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (also 1): I1* οἱ ἐνώπιον : 
1418 βοτάνας: 15° οἱ ἑπτὰ ayy. ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ οἱ ἔχοντες τ. ἑπτὰ 
πληγάς (also st bo): 1617 τοῦ θρόνου -- τοῦ Geod. This is a con- 
flation of τοῦ θρόνου, A 046 alP!, all versions ( -- 516) and & τοῦ 
θεοῦ, 187 εἰμὶ καθώς, 20% ἐδόθη κρίμα, 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 
219 they stand alone in reading χείρονα τῶν πρώτων, and in 17% 
ἃ εἶδες + καὶ ἡ γυνή : with 141. 242 in 6! in reading σωθῆναι. 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—ro® 178 188 22 yo%1-18 go12 276.27 
228-12. 18. 16. 20. 1 τὴς and 617 several times agree where 1934 
diverges: 181 τοῦ 20° 218 22° etc. and generally in conjunction 


CURSIVES COLLATED FOR THIS EDITION clxxv 


with the o25 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 κατά σου in 
25 and the marginal note ἐν ἄλλῳ B in 1439, in omitting καὶ 
ἐνώπιον . . . αὐτοῦ in 3° and ἔχων... τέταρτον ζῷον in 4’, in 
reading (325**) δῷ in 49 and χρόνον for ἔτι xp. μικρόν in 61, in 
omitting γεμούσας in 157. In very many passages these two 
cursives attest the same text in conjunction with a variety of 
others: cf. 617 75 82 929 148 etc. 468 agrees frequently (but 
apparently always in conjunction with others except in 15° οἱ ayy. 
ot ἑπτά) with 325. 456. See 1° καὶ ποιήσαντι ἡμῖν βασίλειον 
ἱεράτευμα and >eis τ. αἰῶνας, 222 βάλω, 32 τήρησον, 77 τοῦ θεοῦ 
ζῶντος. See also οὔ" 11 1414, 

35. 205. 205 may be directly derived from 35, though other 
links may have come between. They stand alone in 3? κυρίου τοῦ 
θεοῦ, 918 τῶν τριῶν τούτων πληγῶν. In conjunction with a variety 
of uncials, these two cursives agree in over 110 passages. This 
number would be still greater but that 1814-209 (=one page of 
205) was not photographed through an error of the photographer. 
Hence for the number 110 we should read 120 or thereabouts. 
But dealing with the passages actually given in the Apsar. Crit. 35. 
205 agree 20 times with each of AN 025 and ANC 025 ; 3 times 
with each of AX and ANC; 2 times with AC 025; 5 with A; 
1 with A 046. All these are first class groups, and nearly all the 
readings so attested areright. Zhus so far 35. 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 0251 is seen clearly in 
I. 35. 678 (?). 104(?). 205. 468**. 620(?). 632**. 1957. 2015. 
2019 (0). 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067, etc. I add here 
three examples of the intiuence of 025 on later MSS. 2° ἐκπέπ- 
twas (instead of wémrwxas) 025. 1. 35. 104. 205. 620. 1957. 
2015. 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067. 217+ ἀπό before τοῦ 
μάννα 025 (where the slip ξύλου in 025 is rightly corrected in 
later, MSS). 1. 35. 61™8. 104. 205. 468**. 620. 632. 2015. 2023. 
2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067. 2° βλασφημίαν ἐκ (>025) τῶν 
λεγόντων. Here this obvious correction is followed by 1. 35. 
ae 1957. 2015. 2019. 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067 

r. 
Of groups of the second or third class 35. 205 follow δὲ 


1 35, but not 205, adopts the correction of 046 in 31%, 2.6. ἣ καταβαίνει. 
Some 20 other cursives do likewise. 


clxxvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


025, 8 025. 046, δὲ 046 once each: & (or N°) C 025 3 times: 
δὲ 025. 11: 86. 

205 presents two conflate readings in 1.31} 14°. 

Thus group (35. 205) has quite the value of an uncial— 
superior in the main to 046, but falling short of 025. 

§ το. Origen’s so-called text—in this edition Or’.—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 roth 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 δὲ and o25, 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 37 Or® reads: τάδε λέγει ὃ 
ἄγγελός ἀληθινός... ὃ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει αὐτὴν καὶ κλείων 
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει, εἰ μὴ ὃ ἁνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίξει. 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* alone is conflate. It 
combines καὶ κλείων... ἀνοίγει (the text of A 025) and εἰ μὴ 
ὁ ἀνοίγων. . . ἀνοίξει (the text of ο46 and most cursives). Again 
Origen :» ἀκούσῃ τ. φωνῆς pov καί always when quoting 37%, but not 
so Or’. This may be an accident. In 5! Origen reads ἔσωθεν x. 
ὄπισθεν and also ἔμπροσθεν κ. ὄπισθεν, but Or® ἔσωθεν x. ἔξωθεν. 
In 55 Origen rightly reads ἀνοῖξαι, but Οτ᾽ ὃ ἀνοίγων with 046 and 
cursives. In 78 Origen reads μήτε τ. θάλασσαν, but Or* καὶ τ. 
θάλασσαν, and ἄχρι against Or® ἄχρις οὗ. In 16 Origen (c. Cedsum, 
viii. 5) has βασιλείαν where Or® 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® with the text of Origen.! 

But a more important task awaits us. We have to define 
the relations of Οὐδ and determine its position with reference to 
the main texts of J*?. We shall find that ¢his position is not high 
amongst the uncials, as Harnack would have it, dut /ow amongst 
the cursives. It will not be necessary to bring forward the entire 
evidence, but the following will suffice. 

(a) Or is full of corrections like 046, or rather in dependence 
on it—In 129 it reads ἀστέρων ὧν with 046. But our author 
never uses the attracted relative. After 046 it corrects 259 τὴν 

1 Naturally some points of agreement are found. Cf. the addition with 


Νὰ alp in 18 ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος and others, for any MS of J®P has of necessity many 
points of contact with every other. 


ORIGEN’S SO-CALLED TEXT clxxvii 


γυναῖκα. . . 9 λέγουσα into τὴν yu. ... ἣ λέγει, and 513 τῆς 
καινῆς Ἴερ. ἡ καταβαίνουσα into τ. καινῆς Ἴερ. ἣ καταβαίνει. With 
cursives only it corrects 108 λάλουσαν . . . λέγουσαν into λάλουσα 
. . . λέγουσα. 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. 51° βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς into βασιλεῖς κ. ἱερεῖς. 

(ὁ) Lt makes additions to the text with 0g6: “218- τὰ ἔργα σου 
καί: and with ἐξ 046: 29+74 ἔργα καί. 

(c) In 812 we have a conflation of A and 046: καὶ τὸ τρίτον 
αὑτῆς μὴ φάνῃ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα μὴ φάνῃ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς, where 
046 comes first and A second. Another conflation appears in 
48 (see (9) below). 

ad) A few of the passages where it follows 046 and some 
cursives.—1 φωνὴν ὀπίσω pov μεγάλην : 112 Kait ἐκεῖ : 210 παθεῖν : 
ἰδοὺ - δή. δή does not belong to our author’s vocabulary. 214+ 
καί before φαγεῖν : 44 τοὺς θρόνους -ἰ τούς : 47> ὡς before ἀνθρώ- 
που: 411 ἡμῶν - ὁ ἅγιος : 55 ὁ ἀνοίγων (where the text is ἀνοῖξαι) : 
9? καμίνου καιομένης. 

(6) Directly or indirectly it follows 025 in the following correc- 
tions.—2° τὴν βλασφημίαν τῶν λεγόντων : 217 δώσω aitd+t φαγεῖν: 
7? ὄχλος . . . περιβεβλημένοι. 

(f) Or is not unfrequently without any support but that of 
cursives.—16 δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ χειρί: 214 ὃς ἐδίδαξεν τὸν Bad.: 37 τοῦ 
before Δαυείδ : 4318 ἵνα ἐγχρίσῃ : 518 ὅσα ἐστίν : 69 ἐσφραγισμένων 
(for ἐσφαγμένων !): 104 γράφῃς with only 205: ττἴ}» καὶ ὅταν 
τελέσωσιν With 617. 920. 2040 arm?3: 137 πόλεμον ποιῆσαι. 

(g) 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 ts 
most intimately connected. These are 61 (xvi cent.) and 69 (xv 
cent.). With these cursives it agrees against all other authorities 
in the following: 4° καὶ (for ἅ éorw): 48 κυκλόθεν ἔσωθεν καὶ 
ἔξωθεν, where 61. 69 have κυκλ. ἔξωθεν x. érwev—conflations of 
κυκλ. Kk. ἔσωθεν AN etc., and κυκλ. x. ἔξωθεν 1957. 2050: 115 
ἐκπορεύσεταί : 13° πολεμῆσαι (instead of ποιῆσαι): 1315 ἀποκταν- 
θῆναι (instead of ἵνα... ἀποκτανθῶσιν). In 318 with 69 alone 
Or’ reads φανῇ for φανερώθῃ. 

Again with 61. 69 418 Or® agrees against all authorities in 16 
βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα: with 046 in 1216 ἐνέβαλεν (where ὅτ. 60, 
however, have ἀνέλαβεν) : in 3° γνώσει with 8 69 γνώσῃ. 

From (g) it follows that Οὐδ belongs to a very small and late 
group. So far as is known as yet, Or® 61. 69 are the only 
members of this group. It could not well have originated earlier 
than the oth or roth century. Hence it should be numbered as 
cursive 2293. 

m 


clxxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


§ 11. Some account of the Versions. 

(i.) Latin Versions: (a) Tyconius ; (ὁ) Primasius ; (¢) Codex 
Floriacensis (= fl) ; (4) Codex Gigas (=gig); (e) Vulgate. 

(a) Zyconius.—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,” /.Z.S., 
April 1913. 

(ὁ) Primasius (=Pr).—Haussleiter has published a critical 
edition of Primasius’ text in his work, Dée dateinische Apocalypse, 
1891, pp. 80-175. 

(c) Codex Floriacensis (=fl).—Only fragments of this Latin 
version made in Africa survive. These amount to 61 verses: 
1-21, 87-912, 1116-1414, 1415-165, 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 Pécole 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 1906, 7.7.S. p. 96 sqq. 

Pr and ἢ 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 ἢ differ, such variants as agree with vg are to be rejected 
and the remainder to be retained as the older text. 

(4) 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—Movum Testamentum Latine, Clarendon 
Press, 1911. In this edition the following seven MSS 
vg ο. ἃ. f. g. h. ἣ are used: 


a—Amiatinus (vii—viii) cent. g—Sangermanensis (ix). 
c—Cavensis (ix). h—Hubertianus (ix—x). 
d—Armachanus (812 A.D.). v—Vallicellanus (ix). 


f—Fuldensis (vi). 


ii. Syriac Versions: (a) Philoxenian, (6) Harkleian or Syriac 
Vulgate. 


THE VERSIONS clxxix 


(a) Philoxentan (=s1). 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‘ (see p. clxvisqq.). 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 54s! arm! Pr read λῦσαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ 
for βλέπειν αὐτό : in 13) 51 gig sa eth read ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀποκτανθή- 
σεται: in 9!’ s! Tyc Pr gig vg arm): 8:8 read rod στόματος : but 
this is found in oneGreek cursive—35. The presence of acommon 
Latin (Ὁ) element in 51 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 51 arm and other versions. 

s! exhibits conflations in 51° 6? 111! 1817 6 ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ἐπὶ 
τόπον πλέων. 

Gwynn puts forward two hypotheses to account for the form 
of the text of s!. 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. 

(ὁ) The Harkleian (=s*).—This version was made about 
616. 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 st. See above, p. clxviii, and 
Gwynn (οὐ. cit.), pp. Ixxi-]xxv, Ixxxi-Ixxxiv. 

ili. Armenian Versions. — The Armenian version was 
admitted into the Armenian canon in the rath 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}, arm?2, 
arm’, arm, which on the whole form, notwithstanding many 
differences, a homogeneous whole over against arm*. Arm}. 28 
represent the sources of the older and unrevised text, and 
arm¢ the Nersesian 12th century recension, which was based on 
arm! 28 etc. Arm* and arm!-?-8 represent, according to Cony- 
beare, “‘two independent renderings of a common Greek text.” 
But this statement needs drastic revision. The Greek source 
of arm‘ differed very much from that of arm!-28, Conybeare 
ascribes arm}? 8% to a 5th century text and arm‘ to a redaction 
of the early 8th. 

As in the case of 51, so here the Latin element is evident. 
In 19! arm? this influence is undeniable. Thus, where the 


clxxx THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


Greek has ὄχλου πολλοῦ, vg* *" have tubarum multarum, and so 
arm’, This corruption could only have arisen in Latin, 2.6. 
tubarum corrupt for turbarum. The same corruption reappears 
in τοῦ, where ὄχλου πολλοῦ is rendered by Pr vg**4¥ 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! bo sa and eth. 

It is much to be regretted that Conybeare did not print in 
its entirety arm* alongside arm!-?-%-4, seeing that it represents a 
more ancient type of Greek text than arm!:2%«, Arm‘ 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 1617-1918 are supplied. It is rather strange for a scholar, who 
is editing both a text and a translation, to translate two chapters 
(1617—19}8) from a text which hedoes not give, and print atext (arm?) 
of these chapters, which he does not translate save in the case of 
its variants. For the text of arm* 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*? 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. 

(4) Bohairic Version (=bo).—The Bohairic (or Memphitic) 
version has been edited with great care by the Rev. G. Horner. 
This editor prints J*? 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. 

(72) 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 
Polyglott. 

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. 


GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES clxxxi 


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 








A somewhat normalized and 
very corrupt form of text 
which replaces a whole class 
of the author’s constructions 
by more normal Greek 


Most primitive form 
(280-450 A.D.) of 
text, in which cor- 
rection has made 
some progress 


ἔπι BAe | awl 

gabe τς | 

TA Te ἠδὲ F? (4th cent.) 
(3rd to 5th cent.) | & (4th cent.) 





arm): 2.8 






ΠΕ STF | 
s! Tyc Pr fl gig arm ἡ 


(5th cent.) vg (4th cent. ) 


Pie 7 






C (5th cent.) 


i a 
025 046 
(8th cent. recension) 8th cent. 
many cursives 





| | 
2040 (119-20!!). 2050 35. 205 Main body of 
(roth cent. ) (10th cent.) cursives 





1 Possibly these three versions should be represented rather as | ΙΓ 
but the uncritical text of eth does not easily admit of this arrange- 58 bo 


ment. eth 


ΟἸΧΧΧΙΙ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


For the meaning of the above s: mbols and abbreviations of 
MSS and versions, see vol. ii. pp. 227 8qq., 234.sqq. For Fl-2-8.4 
(1:6. 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 Aw Fl2%4; also that, though C 
belongs to the family of A, it has been influenced by that 
of &, 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 x, or of the families of which these are representatives ; 
for 025. 046 preserve primitive readings lost in Ax. Thus in 
4* ἐπὶ τ. θρόνους (-Ἐτους 046) εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους is 
undoubtedly right where Ανδὲ are wrong and C is defective; for 
sl. 2 arm? 5-4 Pr gig vg bo eth here support 025. 046. In 68 
ὁ θάνατος of 025. 046 is right, where A is corrupt and Cx wrong. 
In 91° οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις of 025. 046 is again right against 
the greater uncials, and also in 1918 τῶν καθημένων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν. 
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 ANC. This connection is accordingly represented in the 
above table. But o25 and 046 are related differently to A and 
δ. 025 is more closely associated with the text of A, and 046 
with that of ἃ. 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 14!8 025 unites 
with C in reading κραυγῇ (a wrong reading) against φωνῇ of 
A® 046: in 148 in reading ἐν Χριστῷ against ἐν κυρίῳ of all other 
MSS. This connection is represented in the above table. 

Certain cursives, #¢. 35. 205. 2040 (118-20! only). 2050 
preserve some original readings lost wholly in & 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 
investigated. 

Turning from the Greek MSS to the versions, we enter on a 
more difficult task. Of the versions, Tyc sa eth and s? have not 
yet been critically edited. All the materials for such a critical 
edition of bo are given in Horner’s edition of the Bohairic N.T., 
but they are accessible only to Coptic scholars. ‘he internal 
relations of the Latin versions Tyc Pr fl gig which are still un- 


METHODS OF INTERPRETATION clxxxill 


determined, and likewise the influence of the Latin versions (or of 
the Greek MSS from which a large part of this peculiar (Ὁ) Latin 
element may be derived) on arm s! 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}, I have placed 
these versions in close connection on the above table. But the 
Latin influence on bo eth is not represented, nor is 52 even men- 
tioned. 


XV. 


Tue METHODS OF INTERPRETATION ADOPTED IN 
THIS COMMENTARY. 


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. 

§ 1. Zhe 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 17th 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. 11. 86, “πὸ great prophecy receives its 
full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. 
In fact, it may not be fulfilled at allin regard to the object against 
which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer. But if it 
is the expression of a 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 


clxxxiv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


not only with contemporary events but also with future events. 
So faras these future events arise naturally out of contemporary 
events their elucidation can to a certain extent be brought under 
δ 1. 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. Zhe Chiliastic Interpretation.—Strictly speaking, Chiliasm 
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 (cre. 
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 
Whiston. 

§ 4%. Zhe Philological Method in its earlier form. — This 
method was resorted to in the 16th cent. as a counsel of 
despair. The Church and World-Historical Methods which 
originated in the 14th 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 16th 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 ὃ g under the heading § 4°. 

§ 5. Zhe Literary-Critical Method.—If the methods just 


METHODS OF INTERPRETATION clxxxv 


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 zmpasse. 1» 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: 


(a2) The Redactional-Hypothesis. 
(4) 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. l-Iv, vol. 11. pp. 144-154. 

(ὁ) The Sources-Hypothesis.—Vhis theory assumes a series of 
independent sources connected more or less loosely together as 
1 Enoch. That this theory can be established to a limited 
extent, I shave: sought tovshow πὴ 7.8 τ 9.12: 15. 175118 
(see pp. lxii-Ixv). Some of these sources are purely Jewish, 
or Jewish-Christian in origin, and one at least of them—z.e. 
chap. 12—1is 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 
literature. 

(c) Fragmentary-Hypothesis.—From the above two forms of 
the Literary-Critical Method we turn to its third and most satis- 
factory form—the Fragmentary-Hypothesis—a most unhappy 
designation. This hypothesis presupposes an undoubted unity 
of authorship, though the author has from time to time drawn 


clxxxvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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. Zraditional - 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 71°, which in its Jewish source carried with 
it the thought of security from physical evil, is a pledge of God’s 
protection from sfirttual 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 12116 184), 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 ! 


BIBLIOGRAPHY clxxxvii 


§ 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°. Zhe Philological Method in tts 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 τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, 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 veguired. 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. 


XVI. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY.! 


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 is abbreviated as much as possible. For fuller biblio- 
graphies in various directions the reader should consult Liicke, Zzx/. in d. 


Offenbarung*, 518 sqq., 952 sqq. ; Bousset, Ofenbarung Johannis, 1906, pp. 
48-118 ; Holtzmann-Bauer’s Hand-Commentar, iv. 380-390; Walch, 476/ 


clxxxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


which are referred to by Jerome, De vir. illustr. ii. 9. The two 
earliest complete Commentaries by Melito (cf. Eus. AZ. iv. 
26. 2) and Hippolytus (Jerome, of. ci¢. 61) are lost. Clement of 
Alexandria (Eus. #.Z vi. 14. 1) commented on the Apocalypse, 
and Origen recorded his intention of so doing, Jn 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, ?.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, ?.Z. v. Haussleiter is engaged on a critical edition. 
Tyconius (iv-v cent. See Souterin /. Z.S. xiv. 338sqq. A critical 
edition is promised by Haussleiter); Primasius (vi cent., ed. by 
Haussleiter, Die Lateintsche Apocalypse, 1891); Apringius (vi 
cent. ed. by Férotin, Paris, 1900). Bede, Ansbertus, Beatus, 
Haymo, 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, r195 (ed. 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, Axnofa- 
tiones in NV.T., 1516; Bibliander, Comment. in Apoc., 1549 ; Bul- 
linger, Zn Apoc. Conctones, 1557; Ribeira, Zn sacram ὦ. Loannis 
. . . Apoc. Commentarius, Lyons, 1593; Pereyra, Disputationes 
selectissimae super libro Apocalypsts, Venice, 1607 ; Salmeron, Zn 
Johannis Apoc. Praeludia, 1614; Alcasar, Vestigatio arcant sensus 
in Apoc., Lyons, 1618 ; Juan Mariana, Scholiain ... 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 Afoc., 
1673; Marckius, Zz Afoc. . . . Commentarius, Amsterdam, 
1689; Vitringa, ᾿Ανάκρισις Afocalypsios*, 1719; I. Newton, 


Theol. selecta, iv. 760 544. ; Stosch, Catalogus rartorum in Apoc. Joannis 
Commentariorum; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, 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. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY clxxxix 


Observations upon ... the Apoc., 1732; Bengel, Offenbarung 
Johannis, 1740; Wetstein, 7. Graecum, 2 vols., 1751-52, 
Amsterdam ; Eichhorn, Commentarius in Afpoc., Gottingen, 1791. 
Amongst the Commentaries of the nineteenth century should be 
mentioned: Vogel, Commentationes vit. de Apocalypst, Erlangen, 
1811-16; H. Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. Joannts, 1828, die Johan- 
netschen Schriften, Gottingen, 1862; Lucke, see Studies, below; 
Zillig, Ofenbarung Johannis, Stuttgart, 1834-40; M. Stuart, 
Comm. on the Apoc.*, 1845; De Wette, Erklarung der Offenbarung, 
1848; Hengstenberg, Die Offendarung .. . erldutert, Berlin, 
1849-51; Elliott, Morae Apocalypiicae*, 4 vols., 1851; Ebrard, 
Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1853; G. Volkmar, Commentar sur 
(Ὁ Sele Zurich, 1862 ; C. Wordsworth, New T. estament, vol. 

, London, 1864 ; Kliefoth, Offenbarung des Johannis, Leipzig, 
18946 Gc: 1. Vaughan, Revelation of St. John, London, 1870; 
J.C. A. Hofmann, Offend. Johannis, 1874; A. Bisping, Erklarung 
der Apoc., Minster, 1876; C. H. A. Burger, Offend. Johannis, 
1877; J. P. Lange, Bzde/werk®, 1878; E. Reuss, LZ’ Apocalypse, 
Paris, 1878; W. Lee, Revelation of St. John, London, 1881; 
Diisterdieck, Offend. Johannis*, Gottingen, 1887; W. Milligan, 
Book of Revelation, London, 1889; Simcox, Revelation of St. John, 
Cambridge, 1893; Kubel, Ofendarung Johannis, Munich, 1893 ; 
Trench, Comm. on the Epistles to the Seven Churches’, 1897, 
Bousset, Offenbarung Johannis, Gottingen, 1896 ; new ed. 1906; 
Benson, Zhe Apocalypse, London. 1900; C. A. Scott, Revelation 
(Century Bible), Edinburgh, 1902; Crampon, L’ 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, Afpoc. of St. John, 1.—111., London, 1908 ; Holtzmann- 
Bauer, Ofenbarung des Johanntis* (Hand-Comm.), Tiibingen, 1908 ; 
J. M. 5. Baljon, Ofenbaring van Johannes, Utrecht, 1908; 
Moffatt, Revelation of St. John (Exposttor’s Gk. Test.), London, 
1910; E. C. 5. Gibson, Revelation of St. John, London, 1910; 
A. Ramsay (Westminster NV.T.), 1910; Diobouniotis und 
Harnack, Der Scholien-Kommentar des Origenes zur Apokalypse 
Johannis, Leipzig, 1911 ; J. T. Dean, Edinburgh, 1915. 

Studies, Exegetical and CriticaltLicke, Versuch einer voll- 
stindigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis*, Bonn, 1852; 
F. Bleek, Vorlesungen tiber d. Apocalypse, Berlin, 1859; Ἐς 9. 
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. Ὁ. 
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, Johannine Grammar 


cxc THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


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. V6lter, 
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, L’ Origine de [ Apocalypse, 
Paris, 1887; Spitta, Offenbarung des Johannes, Halle, 1889; 
Erbes, Offenbarung Johannis, Gotha, 1891; Schmidt, Die Kom- 
posttion der Offenbarung Johannis, Freiburg, 1891 ; Bousset, Zur 
Texthritik der Apokalypse, (Textkritische Studien zum N.T.), 
Leipzig, 1894; Rauch, Ofenbarung des Johannes, Haarlem, 1894 ; 
Hirscht, Die Apokalypse und thre 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, Δ. Ζ: Graec, 1910; Moffatt (Zxpositor’s 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) 8 18 31-714 is τῷ ἀγγέλῳ 
τῷ, though among the uncials A has preserved it only in three 
passages and Cin one. Souter follows A in 21:38 but not in 218, 
Von Soden has rejected the right reading in the seven passages, 
and branded it (p. 2070) as a “ Willktrlichkeit” on the part 
of the scribe of A. A knowledge of John’s grammar would 
have made the adoption of τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν... ἐκκλησίας 
impossible on the part of any editor. 

Verstons.—See vol. i. pp. clxvi-clxxi, vol. ii. 234 sq. 


SOME OF THE ABBREVATIONS USED IN THIS WORK. 


Versions.} 

Aq. ora’ . . . . Version of Aquila or a. 
A.V.. . + »« « « Authorized Version. 
LXX oro’. . . . Septuagint. 


1 For those used in the Greek text see vol. ii. 227-235. 


Rees 

Symm. or σ΄ 

Theod. or θ΄ 

Abbott, Gram. 
sy Vee. 

Blass, Gram. . 


DAC... 
D.B. 

I. 2. 3 1. 
=P . . 
oO a 


M.-W.’s Gram. . 
Moulton, Gram. . 


cl oe 
Robertson, Gram. 
δ 5... 

Thackeray, Gram. 
ΝΡ 
Weber? τς ς is. ς 


WH . Φ . e 
Volter i.. : 


ΠΈΔΟΝ 

AV ees. oe 
ZR We MMs 
ZSEN.T.W. 
Ζκα or ZEW.L. 


ABBREVIATIONS cxci 


Revised Version. 

Symmachus. 

Theodotion. 

Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 1906. 

» Johannine Vocabulary, 1905. 

Blass, Grammar of 'V.T. Greek (transl. 
by Thackeray), 1898. 

Hastings’ Dictionary of the Apostolic 
Church. 

Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. 

The Fourth Gospel. 

Johannine Epistles. 

The Apocalypse. 

Schrader’s Die Keilinschriften und das 
alte Testament, edited and rewritten by 
H. Zimmern and H. Winckler, 1903. 

Moulton’s edition of Winer, 1882. 

Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek’, 
vol. 1., 1906. 

Massoretic Text. 

New Testament. 

Old Testament. 

Robertson, Grammar of the Greek of the 
ἍΤΕ 1914, 

Sacred Books of the East (edited by Max 
Miller), Oxford. 

Thackeray, Grammar of the O.T. in 
Greek, vol. i., 1909. 

Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

Weber’s Jidische Theologie, 1897. 

Westcott and Hort, Zhe V.T. in Greek. 

See above under the Section “ Studies 
mainly Critical.” 

3) ” 
3) 3) 


3) ” 

Lettschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wis- 
senschaft. 

Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fiir die Neutesta- 
mentliche Wissenschaft. 

Lettschrift fiir Kirchliche Wissenschaft 
und Kirchliches Leben. 

Lettschrift fir Wissenschaftliche Theologie. 


ADDENDA ΕΟ ΟΘΝΕΙΘΟΒΝΙΘΑ.: 


VOLUME I. 


Page 215, line 22 abimo. After “ unexampled” add “except 
perhaps in Aq. Ex. xxiv. 16.” 

Page 224, footnote, line 11. 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°—7 should be restored after 
ΧΙΣ, 4: 

Page 297, line 8. De/ete “A slip for the dative.” See also 
text in vol. 11. 306: 415, 416 footnote. 


ge oR Ele ΑἸ LAIN 
OF ST. JOHN. 


es 
CHAPTER I 
§ 1. 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,? 
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 272 loc.). 
VOL. I.—I 


2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. § 2. 


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 bidden 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 (17°20) recurs in li.—ili. to which it forms 
an introduction, just as x. does to xi. 1-13. 

In 17°18 the Son of Man declares who He is (even as God 
does in 8), 2.4. 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. δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ, ἃ Set γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. This 
clause recurs as a whole in xxil. 6 and in part ἴῃ ἵν. 1. δείκνυμι 
is characteristic of our author in its apocalyptic sense. 

τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννηι. Cf. xi. 18, τοῖς δούλοις σου τ 
προφήταις. 

2. ἐμαρτύρησεν. Cf. xxii. 16, 18, 20. 

τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ καὶ τ. μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ. Cf. i. 9, vi. 9, xii. τα 
(τ. λόγον τ. μαρτυρίας), 17 (τ. μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ only and in xix. 10), 
XX. 4. 


I. § 2.] DICTION AND IDIOM 3 


8. μακάριος... τ. λόγους τ. προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες. Cf. 
xxii. 7, 10. We have here the first of the seven beatitudes in 
this Book: cf. xiv. 13, xvi. 15, xix. Ὁ, Xx. 6, Xxil. 7, 14. 

ὃ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς. Cf. ΧΧΊΙ. IO. 

5. ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός. Cf. ii. 13, lil. 14. 

6. ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς. Cf. ν. το. 

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας [τ. αἰώνων]. Cf. i. 18, iv. 9, 10, V. 13, Vil. 12, 
x. 6, etc. But in Gospel and 1 and 2 John always εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 

8. τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Q... ὃ dv Kal ὃ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, 6 παν- 
toxpdtwp. Cf. i. 8, iv. 8, xi. 17, XVI. 5, XXi. 6, XXxil. 13. 

Κύριος ὁ θεὸς. . . 6 παντοκράτωρ. Cf. iv. 8, xi. 17, xv. 3, 
XVl. 7, 14, xix. 6, 15, xxi. 22. Παντοκράτωρ 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. ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. Cf. iv. 2. 

12. βλέπειν. 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. 

18. ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπους Only elsewhere in xiv. 14, in this 
form in all literature. 

ἐνδεδυμένον ποδήρη Kal περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς ζωνὴν 
χρυσᾶν. Cf. xv. 6. 

14. οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρός. Cf. 11. 18, xix. 12. 

15. ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὑδάτων πολλῶν. Cf. xiv. 2, xix. 6. 

16. ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὃ ἥλιος. Cf. x. 1. 

ἔχων ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτά. Cf. ii. 1, ili. 1. 

ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαία δίστομος ὀξεῖα. Cf. ii. 13. 

17. ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. Cf. il. 8, xxii. 13. 

19. οὖν. Here used (probably owing to its fourfold occur- 
rence in ii.—ti.) of logical appeal, never of historical transition 
as in the Fourth Gospel: cf. ii. 5, 16, ili. 3, 19. In the later 
chapters our author uses διὰ τοῦτο instead: cf. vii. 15, xii. 32 
[xvili. 8]. Thus this extire chapter is most closely connected 
by its distinctively Johannine phraseology with ii.—vi., x.—xi., 
XiV.—xVi., XIX.-xxil. Let us now turn to the most striking idioms 
in this chapter. 

(ὁ) Zdiom.—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 
author. 

I. 4. ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. On this wholly 
abnormal construction with ἀπό, which is nevertheless quite 
intelligible in our author and yet not in any other, see note zz Joc. 
As regards ὁ ὧν... épxouevos—this title recurs wholly or in part 
1Π1 Θ᾽ τν: 8: Xt. 17, Xvi. 5. 

5. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς πιστός. This anomalous con- 


4 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1. § 8. 


struction of the nominative in apposition to an oblique case 
recurs li. 13, 20, Ili. 12, vil. 4, Vill. 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 Kowy and the LXX, in the latter of which it is clearly, as in 
our author, a Hebraism. 

5-6. τῷ ἀγαπῶντι.. . . καὶ ἐποίησεν. This Hebraism recurs 
frequently in our author: cf. i. 18, il. 2, 9, 20, 111. g, Vii. 14, Xiv. 
2-3, XV. 3. 

10. φωνήν. . . ὧς σάλπιγγος λεγούσης. Here we should 
expect λέγουσαν. But cf. iv. 1. 

18. ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου. Cf. xiv. 14 for this otherwise 
unexampled construction. See Additional Note, p. 36. 

16. ἔχων τε εἶχε or ἔχει as elsewhere in our author: cf. x. 2, 
xii. 2, xxl. 12, 14. Moreover, ἐκπορευομένη is used as ἐξεπορεύετο 
in this same verse. In our author these are Hebraisms, though 
this usage is found occasionally in the Kowy. Again, the 
Hebraism % ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς 6 ἥλιος φαίνει though not found else- 
where in this Book, is closely akin to our authors many 
Hebraisms, especially in connection with ὡς τα Ξ. See p. 36. 

20. τὰς ἑπτὰ Auxvias—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.—xil., XIV.-Xvl., 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 (16). These facts are in keeping 
with our author’s style. 


᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Ιωάννου. 


The word ἀποκάλυψις 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. 1 Cor. xiv. 
26. So far as the word itself goes it is found in Sir. xi. 27, xxii. 
22 (μυστηρίου ἀποκαλύψεως), xlil. 1, while ἀποκαλύπτειν i is found i in 
Amos ill. 7, ἀποκαλύ wn παιδείαν πρὸς τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς 


11 51 THE SUPERSCRIPTION 5 


προφήτας, 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 ἀποκαλύπτειν is used exactly in the sense of the noun 
ἀποκάλυψις, in the title: cf. il. 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 47, x. 1. 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 ; 
etor mit τ: Galiiy τ ΘΟ). Inn Pet. 7p rgoiv. 13, Luke-ii 
32, etc., this word is not used in quite the same sense, but means 
rather, manifestation, appearance. ἀποκάλυψις is found also in 
Classical Greek in the sense of to lay bare, to disclose, in Plato, 
Protag. 352 D, Gorg. 460A; while ἀποκάλυψις is found in Plutarch, 
Paul. Aemil. 14, Cat. Maj. 20, Quom. Adul. ab Am, 32 (amok. 
ἁμαρτίας) 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 ἀποκάλυψις in Greek and vevelatio in Latin 
was unknown to the heathen world. 

ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου 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 ἀποκάλυψις cannot safely be inferred from Tertullian, 
Adv. Mare. iv. 5, or Irenaeus, v. 30. 3 (τοῦ καὶ τὴν ᾿Αποκάλυψιν 
éwpaxortos) ; 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,” would be more relevant 
here ; but even this passage is wholly indecisive, since the author- 
ship of the Apocalypse is stated in v. 26. τ. 


I. 1-3. THE SUPERSCRIPTION. 


1-8. The Superscription, which sets forth (1) the source of 
the Apocalypse, (2) its contents, and (3) the blessedness of those 
who receive its teachings. (1) 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—ddwxey αὐτῶ 6 θεὸς δεῖξαι τ. δούλοις 
αὐτοῦ... ἐν τάχει (cf. the declaration of God in xxi. 6-8), and 
the statement as to God’s sending the angel, in δεῖξαι. . . ἐν 
τάχει ἴῃ xxii.6. Next, Christ sent and signified it through His angel 
to John—éonpavey ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ 
αὐτοῦ Iwavvy (cf. the declaration of Christ in xxii. 6--7, 16, 13, 
12, 10, 188). Thirdly, John bare witness to this Apocalypse 
accorded by Christ to him, z.e., the word of God and the truth 


6 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN {ΠῚ ῚΤ| 


attested by Christ—rov λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, ὅσα εἶδεν (cf. the testimony of John in xxii. 8-9, 
20-21). This correspondence between i. 1-2 and xxi. 6-8, 
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. ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The genitive here is subjective. 
The revelation is given by Jesus Christ to John as God gave it to 
Him. Cf. John vii. 16, ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὴ ἀλλὰ τοῦ 
πέμψαντός με, and iii. 35, v. 20 sqq., 26, xvi. 15, etc. The title 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is found only here and in verses 2, 5: [ησοῦς 
alone nine times; Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς twice (xxii. 20, 21); Κύριος 
once only, xiv. 13; 6 Κύριος αὐτῶν (xi. 8). Χριστός, when used 
alone, always has the article (xx. 4, 6, - αὐτοῦ, xi. 15, xil. 10. In 
the Johannine Epistles Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs nine times, Ἰησοῦς 
six, 6 Χριστός three times. 

ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ. Cf. Amos 
iii. 7, οὐ μὴ ποιήσει Κύριος ὃ θεὸς πρᾶγμα ἐὰν μὴ ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν 
πρὸς τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς προφήτας. In our text the servants, 
who are God’s servants (αὐτοῦ), are the Christian prophets. Cf. 
x. 7, xi. 18, xxii. 6. δεῖξαι. This word is characteristic of our 
author when it means to communicate a divine revelation by 
means of visions. 

ἃ Set γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. The δεῖ denotes not the merely hasty 
consummation of things, but the absolutely sure fulfilment of 
the divine purpose. That this fulfilment would come “soon” 
(ἐν τάχει: 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. ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι is drawn from 
Dan. ii. 28 (ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν), 29. a... 
ἐν τάχει recurs in Xxil. 6. 

ἐσήμανεν---ἃ Johannine word: cf. John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 
19. Itis Christ that is the subject of the verb here. 

ἀποστείλας. Cf. xxii. 16, where Christ sent (ἔπεμψε) His 
angel, and xxii. 6, where God sent (ἀπέστειλε) His angel. Once 
again this verb is used in v. 6, ἀποστέλλειν διά =I now, Ex. 


I. 1-3. ] THE SUPERSCRIPTION Ἵ 


iv. 12; Matt. xi. 2, πέμψας διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ: Acts xi. 30, 
ἀποστείλαντες... διὰ χειρὸς Βαρνάβα. 

2. ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν. μαρτυρεῖν, which is found four times and 
always with the acc. 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. (ze. 33 + 10=43 
times). The aorist ἐμαρτύρησεν is epistolary: the author trans- 
ports himself to the standpoint of his readers. 

τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ‘Inco’ Χριστοῦ = the reve- 
lation given by God and borne witness to by Christ (subjective 
genitive). It means the Christian revelation as a whole ini. 9, vi. 
9, xx. 4, but in the present passage the expression is limited by the 
words that follow ὅσα εἶδεν---ἰο the revelation made in this Book. 
Kindred expressions occur in xii. 17, Tas ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ. . . 
τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ, and xix. 10, τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ: but in the 
last passage the phrase may have a different meaning in the tradi- 
tional text, and Ἰησοῦ be the objective genitive. The λόγος τοῦ 
θεοῦ is not to be limited in our text tothe O.T. It embraces 
the entire revelation of God which now in its fulness is attested 
by Christ. 

ὅσα εἶδεν. These words limit, as we have said, the scope of 
the two preceding phrases. On the significance of εἶδεν in our 
author, see note on iv. 1. We should observe how the ministry 
of angels (14) and the visions of the Seer are here closely com- 
bined, as also later. 

8. 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, ΧΙΧ. 9%, xx. 6, xxil. 7, 14. The last beatitude, which 15 pro- 
nounced by Christ and is givenin xxii. 7 (for the present text of 
XX. 4—XxXil. is in disorder), reaffirms the beatitude here pronounced 
by John. 

ὁ ἀναγινώσκων. This is not the private student but the 
public reader, the ἀναγνώστης or lector, as the sing. ὁ ἀναγινώσκων 
as opposed to the plural οἱ ἀκούοντες 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 
mentioned 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 (Aol. i. 67), τὰ 
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν 
ἀναγινώσκεται. 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. iil. 15. Amongst the Jews the Scripture 


ὃ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 8, 4. 


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’, ii. 456. 

οἱ ἀκούοντες. . . καὶ τηροῦντες. 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, μακάριοι οἱ 
ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες. Cf. also John xii. 
47, ἐὰν τίς μου ἀκούσῃ τ. ῥημάτων καὶ μὴ φυλάξῃ. But our author 
does not use φυλάσσειν, and replaces it with the familiar Johannine 
word τηρεῖν. Ps. i. represents on a large scale this combination 
of faithful reading and faithful living. 

τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας. Here as in xxil. 7, 10, 18 the 
Seer claims for his Book a place in the forefront of prophetic 
literature. 

ὁ yap καιρὸς ἐγγύς. 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. 113; 1 Cor. vii. 29, ὃ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν. 
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. 


4-8. INTRODUCTION. JOHN’S GREETING TO THE 
SEVEN CHURCHES. 


4. ᾿Ιωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις. This is the usual form for 
beginning a letter (cf. Gal. i. 1, etc.) Indeed the whole Book 
from i. 4 to its close is in fact an Epistle. 

ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν TH Aoia. The article before ἑπτά 
refers proleptically to ver. 11, 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. 1), 
Hierapolis (Col. iv. 13), Troas (Acts xx. 5 sqq.), Magnesia 
(Ignatius, Ad Magn. i. 1), Tralles (Ignatius, Ad Trad. i} 
Why the particular seven Churches mentioned in 1. 11 were 
chosen by our author cannot now be determined (see, however, 
note oni. 11); 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, 


I. 4. INTRODUCTION 9 


but particularly in our Author: cf. i. [47] 12, 16, iv. 5, v. 1, 6 
[ΠῈΣ 12 [51 3} ἘΠ| τὸ συν" ὁ; 7, 8. ΣΝ 1; Xvi. 1; 
etc. 

ἐν τῇ “Acia. According to the usage of the Maccabean Books 
(@ Mace.) vin 6. xis 13), xi) “Sgyuxtieg2 372) Mace. ii. 3).x.22 5 
3 Mace. iii. 14; 4 Macc. iii. 20), Asia embraces the empire of the 
Seleucids. In the Sibylline Oracles, 111. 168, 342, 350, 351, 
353-4) 367, 381, 388, 391, 450, 599, 611, iv. 1, 71, 76, 79, 145, 
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 111. 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. Ἢ ᾿Ασία in the N.T. is all but universally 
(contrast Acts 1]. 9) identified with Proconsular Asia. 

Χάρις ὑ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος 

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων τῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ]. 

5. καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός. 

In these three lines the second is beyond question an inter- 
polation of a later hand (probably early in the znd cent.). 
Since xxii. 8-9, and (possibly) xix. gQ—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 χάρις 4°, and ending 7° αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. Thus in 4>-5@ 
as in 5°-6* only God and Christ are mentioned. 

4", χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη. 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 
χάρις here is the favour of God and of Jesus Christ. It is only 
found once again in our author, 2.6. in xxii. 21, where this spiritual 
endowment is derived from Jesus Christ. See notes on χάρις 
and εἰρήνη in Sanday’ 5 Romans, 10 sq., 15 sq-; Milligan, 1 Zzhess. 
i. 1. The εἰρήνη is the harmony restored between God and man 
through Christ. In all the Pauline Epistles these are said to 
proceed from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, just as in 
the original text here. In τ and 2 Timothy we have the fuller 
form χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη. Moreover, in nine of the Pauline 


IO THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 4. 


Epistles the phrase is exactly as here, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, 
while in 1 and 2 Timothy it stands as in the preceding 
sentence, 

ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν Kal ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Cf. 1. 8, iv. 8, and ὃ ὧν x. ὁ 
ἣν 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, te. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὦν. 
But our author shows no knowledge of this construction. But 
there are other irregularities—as, for instance, ὃ ἦν. The ἦν is 
said to have been used because there was no past participle of 
ciué. But this does not really explain ἦν nor yet 6. Besides he 
could have used 6 γεγονώς (cf. xvi. 17, xxi. 6) or 6 γενόμενος (i. 18). 
I offer, therefore, the following explanation. Our author could 
have written here 6 ὧν καὶ ἦν, in keeping with a Hebraism which 
he frequently avails himself of; for ὁ ὧν καὶ ἦν would be an exact 
reproduction of the Hebrew nm nina. See noteon 5°. Herein 


we have a probable explanation of ἦν. It is harder to explain 
the ὃ which precedes it. The article here may be inserted before 
the ἦν since it accompanies the other two elements in the divine 
name: 6 ὦν... Kal ὃ ἐρχόμενος. 

As for 6 ἐρχόμενος, where our author returns to the participia! 
construction, it is clear that he uses ἐρχόμενος, instead of ἐσόμενος, 
with a definite reference to the contents of the Book and 
especially to the coming of Christ, i. 7, 11. 5, 16, ili, 11, 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 (TAN WN Any, 
where the LXX has ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ὦν, and Aquila and Theod. 
ἔσομαι < Os > ἔσομαι) has 99 TAY NINTT 87 NIN = “Ego sum, 
quisum et futurus sum,” and Deut. xxxii. 39, NNT) NTT NIT NIN 
yd TDayT Nin NIN = “Ego sum qui sum, et fui, et ego sum qui 
futurus sum.” Also Shem. rab. iii. f. 105", “ Dixit Deus . . . ad 
Mosen: Ego fui, et adhuc sum et ero in posterum ” (this last from 
Wetstein). Inthe Greek we find analogous titles of God. Cf. 
Pausanias, x. 12. 5: for the songs of the doves at Dodona, Ζεὺς 
ἦν, Ζεὺς ἔστιν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται: in the inscription at Sais (Plutarch, 
De Iside, 9), ἐγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ὃν Kal ἐσόμενον Kal τὸν ἐμὸν 
πέπλον οὐδείς πω θνητῶν ἀπεκάλυψεν : in the Orphic lines, Ζεὺς 
πρῶτος γένετο, Ζεὺς ὕστατος ἀρχικέραυνος, Ζεὺς κεφαλή, Ζεὺς μέσσα, 
Διὸς δ᾽ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται. Finally, in reference to Ahurarnazda it 
is stated in the Bundahis, i. 4 (S.B.Z. v. 4), “‘Afharmazd and 


1. 4.} JOHN’S GREETING TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES II 


the region, religion and time of Aflharmazd were and are and 
ever will be.” 

[καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων KTA. | 

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- 
tion. 

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, πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς : τ Cor. xii. 10, διακρίσεις 
πνευμάτων: XIV. 32, πνεύματα προφητῶν: Apoc. xxii. 6, ὁ θεὸς τῶν 
πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν. ‘ 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. 1 Enoch lxi. 11; Targ, 
Jon. on this passage; also the LXX; Justin, Déal. 87, ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν 
πνεῦμα θεοῦ, πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως, πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος, 
πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας, καὶ ἐμπλήσει αὐτὸν πνεῦμα φόβου 
θεοῦ : also 39; Cohort. ad Gentiles, 32, οἱ ἱεροὶ προφῆται τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ 
αὐτὸ πνεῦμα εἰς ἑπτὰ πνεύματα μερίζεσθαί φασιν. 

But that we have here to deal, not with impersonal energies 
but with concrete beings, may be inferred from iii. 1 of our text, 
where the seven spirits and the seven stars are regarded as 
parallel conceptions. Further, the scribe who interpolated 4° 
between 4° and 5* 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; 1 Enoch xx. 7, xc. 21 (‘the seven 
first white ones”); T. Levi viii. 2. This number, it is said 
(cf. Gunkel, Schépfung und Chaos, 294-302; Zimmern, in 
Schrader’s X.A. 7.5 i1. 620-626; Bousset, Offenbarung, 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 (S.B.Z. v. τὸ γι; 
XXxlil, 291; xxxi. Introd. pp. xviii, xxiv, 77, 179 sq.), which in 
their turn were derived from the Babylonish cult of the seven 


[2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 4. 


star deities.! 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, Aol. i. 6, quoted on xxii. 9. As 
furnishing parallel trinities, Luke ix. 26, 1 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 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 τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα in ili. 1, 6 ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ 
θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας, is ἃ redactional addition of our Seer. 
It is therefore our task to define, if possible, the nature of these 
spirits. Now the conjunction of the πνεύματα and the ἀστέρες in 
ill. 1 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 ἀστέρες and πνεύματα in our author. 
Happily this we can do in part. First, in i. 20 the ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες 
are definitely stated to be the ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν, 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, ἐνέφαινον δ᾽ ol μὲν ἑπτὰ λύχνοι τοὺς πλανήτας : 
Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres (ed. Cohn), 221 sq., τῆς κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν τῶν 
ἑπτὰ πλανήτων χορείας μίμημά ἐστιν ἡ ἱερὰ λυχνία Kal οἱ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἑπτὰ λύχνοι. 
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. 


I. 4, 5. | JOHN’S GREETING TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES 13 


Christ is said to hold these ἀστέρες, 2.6. ἄγγελοι, in His right hand 
in i. 16: that is, to have supreme authority over them. Hence 
in iii. 1 the seven πνεύματα of God and the seven ἄγγελοι 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 1 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. 1, 3 stars are 
used to symbolize angels. 

So much for the ἀστέρες. Now as to πνεύματα. Over these 
also Christ has supreme authority, 111. 1. In v. 6 these πνεύματα 
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 
πνεύματα are angelic beings. In Jub. ii. 2 the chief orders of 
spirits are called angels: cf. Heb. 1. 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. 

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου. Cf. iv. 5, 6, το, vil. 9, etc. 

5. ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 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 παρά instead of ἀπό in a like 
context. This is the last passage where the title Ιησοῦς Χριστός 
occurs. From this onward Ἰησοῦς stands alone save in xxii. 20, 
21, where we have κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς. 

ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός. Cf. ill. 14; also 1]. 13. This anomaly, 
which recurs not infrequently—cf. ii. 13, 20, 11]. 12, ix. 14, xiv. 
12, 14, xx. 2, 1s 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; ze. 6 μάρτυς in apposition to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
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. 11. 13, 20, 11]. 12, 


14 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (I. 5, 6. 


vil. 4, Vill. 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 acc. (Cf. il. 20, iii. 12. 

μάρτυς 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, eis τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν 
κόσμον ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. The phrase 6 papros ὃ πιστός, 
when taken in connection with the words that follow, ὃ πρωτό- 
Tokos . . . τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς, furnishes strong evidence that 
our author had Ps. Ixxxix. in his mind; for the former phrase is 


κἀγὼ προτότοκον (i232) θήσομαι αὐτόν, 

ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν τῆς γῆς. 
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. 1184, 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, Co/. 
i. 15). 

ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν. See preceding note on Ps. Ixxxix. 
28. In Col. i. 18 we have ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή. πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν 
νεκρῶν, and in 1 Cor. xv. 20, ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ τῶν 
κεκοιμημένων. 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. 1. 15 πρωτότοκος πάσης 
κτίσεως 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 
ἐκκλησία πρωτοτόκων emphasizes wholly this latter idea. Even 
God Himself was called aby Sw y21 (= πρωτότοκος τοῦ κόσμου). 
(See Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.) Our present context appears to 
require the secondary meaning of πρωτότοκος, and accordingly 
Christ is here said to be “the true witness of God, the sovereign 
of the dead, the ruler of the living” (14. the kings of the earth 
and their subjects). See note on iii. 14. 

ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. Cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 28; also Isa. 
lv. 4. 

5°-6. We have here the second of the three stanzas which com- 
pose 4"-|. The second line is to be taken as forming a perfect 
parallelism with the first ; for in the τῷ ἀγαπῶντι. . . καὶ ἐποίησεν 


1In Ps. lv. 4, David is given as a witness (1) to the nations. 


1. ὅ, 6] JOHN’S GREETING TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES I5 


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 (1. 18, 11. 2, 9, 20, ili. 9, vil. 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 
οἵτινες iN XX. 4, TOV πεπελεκισμένων. . . Kal οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύ- 
vyoav, as anaddition by John’s literary executor in order to make 
the text better Greek. John’s words were most probably τ. πεπε- 
λεκισμένων. .. καὶ ov προσεκύνησαν. In i. 18 the failure to 
recognize this idiom has led most scholars to mispunctuate the 
text, and the rest, like Wellhausen and Haussleiter, to excise 6 
ζῶν. The ἐγώ εἰμι... ὁ ζῶν is to be taken closely with καὶ 
ἐγενόμην νεκρός (cf. Amos vi. 3 for this Hebrew construction) = I 
am... He that liveth and was dead.” Hence the first two 
lines = 

PINT PWN IN 
ΠΡ a ΠΠῚ 


τῷ ἀγαπώντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι. As Swete well remarks, the 
two participles bring out “the contrast between the abiding 
ἀγάπη and the completed act of redemption.” 
λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ κτλ. This is by far the best attested reading. 
With the idea in λύσαντι we might compare the somewhat kindred 
ἀγοράζειν in ν. 93 the Pauline ἐξαγοράζειν, Gal. ili. 13, ἵν. 5 3 ἀπολύ- 
τρωσις, Romi! Π|5 2. γ11}}..21} το 15. 29; phe i017; tv: 30; Col. 
i. 14. The weakly attested reading λούσαντι. . . ἀπό is not 
really supported by vil. 14, ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν... ev 
τῷ αἵματι τοῦ ἀρνίου, 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 λούσαντι. . . ἀπό denotes God’s part in man’s 
salvation, 2.6. 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. 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; Tit. 
11 τ Heb. x. 22. 
Swete aptly compares Plato, Craz. 405 B, where the two verbs 
are brought together in a similar connection, οὐκοῦν 6 καθαίρων 
θεὸς καὶ 6 ἀπολύων τε καὶ ἀπολούων τῶν τοιούτων κακῶν αἴτιος ἂν εἴη : 


16 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 5, 6. 


WH explain the corruption of λύσαντι into λούσαντι as “due 
to failure to understand the Hebraic use of ἐν to denote a price 

. and a natural misapplication of vil. 14.” 

ἐν τῷ αἵματι. Here as in v. 9 ἐν denotes the price by means 
of which a thing is bought: cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 24. 

6. καὶ ἐποίησεν. As we have shown in the note on 5°-6 
above, this is a Hebraism for καὶ ποιήσαντι. Christ not only 
delivers men from sin—the negative side—but also makes them 
a kingdom and priests. 

βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς. These words go back to Ex. xix. 6, n>2n 
pnd. This the LXX renders βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (see τ Pet. 1]. 
9); Aquila, βασιλεία ἱερέων : Symmachus and Theodotion, βασιλεία 
ἱερεῖς. The last rendering is that of our text and presupposes 
oyna nado. This last reading is in part supported by Jub. 
xvi. 18, 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 ‘l’heodotion. 

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 (xxil. 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). ἔσονται ἱερεῖς Tod θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν per αὐτοῦ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. 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 


—————<=— ee Oo πὰ πνΐς 


Ι. 6-7.] SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST 17 


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 ad/ 
the faithful: xxii. 5, βασιλεύσουσιν εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων. 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, κύριος 
ὁ θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς (see note 77 /oc.). 

τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. The αὐτοῦ is to be taken with τῷ 
θεῷ as well as with πατρί. 

αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα Kal τὸ κράτος, 2.6. τῷ ἀγαπῶντι TA. Similar 
doxologies addressed to Christ are to be found in v. 13, vil. 10, 
2 Pet. ili. 18, and most probably in 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. xiii. 21, 
and possibly in 1 Pet. iv. 11. In 4 Macc. xviii. 24 we have a 
good parallel in diction, as ᾧ ἡ δόξα eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων : in 
the Didache viii. 2, x. 5, ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας, 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. 1 Chron. xxix. 11, ‘‘ 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, Zora’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. 

ἡ. Here again we have a stanza of three lines—which are a 
reminiscence and an adaptation of Dan. vil. 13 and Zech. xii. ro. 
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 xii. =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. ro and Dan. vil. 13, but also in 
transforming the original meaning of Zech. xii. το. 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” (ex αὐτόν omitted in 
Matt.). 

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 


18 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Ez 7. 


vision of the Seer in xiv. 14, 18-20, in xix. 11-21, and most - 
probably in xx. 7-10. 

ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν. Cf. Dan. vii. 13, *22Y7DY FN) 
NYT NON WIN 12D νου Here Theodotion renders καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ 


(Bee ἐπί Ξὸν: cf. xiv. 14 544α.; Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64; Didache 
xvi. 8 (ἐπάνω), Justin, Afol. i. 51 56. (ἐπάνω) ; ἐν -- Ὧν, Mark xiii. 
26; Luke xxi. 27: cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, 242). But the 
ἐπί in xiv. 14 of our text is due to our author's use of καθήμενον 
in this connection) τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχό- 
μενος (LXX, ἤρχετο). Cf. Mark xiv. 62, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου... 
ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ: 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. 

ἔρχεται. The idea of the impending Advent is resumed 
in ili: 12, xi¥. 7; XVi. 15, ΧΗΣ 7: 22) 20. 

ὄψεται αὐτὸν. .. καὶ ἐξεκέντησαν... καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν 
πᾶσαι at φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. These words, with the exception of the 
last four, are based on Zech. xii. ro and agree for the most part 
with the versions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus against 
the ΕΧΧ. The ΤΧΧ reads Kal ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μέ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν 
κατωρχήσαντο (ΞΞῚΡῚ) καὶ κόψονται er αὐτόν. Theod. and 
Aquila, καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μέ, εἰς ὃν (σὺν ᾧ, Aquila) ἐξεκέν- 
τησαν καὶ κόψονται αὐτόν. Symmachus, ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεξεκέντησαν 
κτλ. Here the three latter translators support the Massoretic 
pt by ἐξεκέντησαν. 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 é&exévryoav! marks his independence of 
the LXX; and the fact that ἐκκεντεῖν is the stock rendering in 
the versions of 1p7, 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 ὄψεται αὐτόν, where the versions 
have ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μέ. Our author, it is true, does not use 
ἐπιβλέπειν, but he uses βλέπειν frequently in the sense required 
here. Moreover, the last words, πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς (found 
also in Matt. xxiv. 30), are a free adaptation of the Hebrew in 
Zech. xii. 12, where the LXX gives the literal rendering, ἡ γῆ 
κατὰ φυλὰς φυλάς. 

1 Τῇ Justin, Afo/. i. 52, we find, κόψονται φυλὴ πρὸς φυλήν, καὶ τότε ὄψονται 


els ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν : Dial. 14, 32; 64, ἐπιγνώσεσθε els ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε : 126, 
The reference in all these passages is eschatological. 


I. 7. | SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST 19 


It is noteworthy that in John xix. 37, the passage in Zechariah 
is rendered in a way closely akin to that in our text ὄψονται eis ὃν 
ἐξεκέντησαν. 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 (/ohan- 
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, καὶ τότε 
φανήσενται TO σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν οὐρανῷ Kal τότε 
κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τ. νεφελῶν. 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, 9-14, 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 ὄψεσθαι in both, as well as the phrase 
πᾶσαι at φυλαὶ τῆς yys—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. 

vat, ἀμήν. 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 ἀββὰ 6 πατήρ 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 ἀμήν is used (a) at the close 
of one’s own doxology or prayer: i. 6, vii. 12 (ad fin.). (ὁ) It 
is used for the purpose of adopting as one’s own what has just 
been said: v. 14, vil. 12 (ad init.), xix. 4, xxii. 20. (ὦ) It is used 
at the close of a solemn affirmation: i. 7 (ναί, ἀμήν). (4) It is 
used as a designation of Christ: iii. 14, 6 ᾽᾿Αμγήν. Here Christ 
is represented as the personalized divine Amen, the guarantor in 
person of the truth declared by Him. Cf. Isa. lxv. τό, ON ‘78, 


20 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 8-9. 


“God of the Amen,” which, however, is by the best critics 
emended into a8 νὸν =“ God of truth.” 


The meaning of ναί in this context is difficult to determine: 
It occurs four times in all. In xxii. 20 it denotes a divine 
promise, where the ἀμήν expresses the trustful acceptance of 
this promise (cf. 2 Cor. 1. 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,” ete. 

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 
vai “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. 

τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ 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, n&. Thus (Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in loc.) Adam trans- 
gressed the whole law from aleph to tau (/a/kut Rud. f. 174); 
Abraham observed the whole law from aleph to tau (f. 484); 
when God blesses Israel, He does it from aleph to tau (f. 1288). 
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: θεὸς Σαβαώθ" ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ 
ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα (ns NT PWN IN Minay MM: cf. xl. 4, 
xlili, To). 

κύριος ὁ Beds... ὁ παντοκράτωρ (=MINa¥ ‘nox mm, 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, κύριος 6 θεὸς ὁ ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος ὃ 
παντοκράτωρ, save that the ὃ παντοκράτωρ precedes the ὃ ὦν. 
ὃ παντοκράτωρ is not found in the N.T. outside our author save 
in 2 Cor. vi. 18 in a quotation. 

ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν κτλ. See note on i. 4. 


9-20. JOHN’S CALL AND COMMISSION. HIS VISION OF 
THE SON OF MAN—RISEN AND GLORIFIED. 


9. Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης. Cf. xxii. 8; Dan. vii. 15, 28, viii. 1, ix. 2 
(ἐγὼ Δανιήλ) ; 4 Ezra 111. 1; 1 Enoch xii. 3, etc. The insertion 
of the name is required after 8. 


I. 9.] JOHN’S CALL AND COMMISSION 21 


ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συνκοινωνὸς ἐν. The absence of the article 
before the second noun shows that the two nouns are to be 
taken closely together. Cf. vi. 11, of σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ 
ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ avroi: Xii. το. 
Here, as in its pagan use, ἀδελφός means a fellow-member in the 
same religious society. With 6 ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν cf. 2 Pet. 11]. 15, 
ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος. With συνκοινωνός cf. συνκοινω- 
νεῖν in xvill. 4; and for ἐν after κοινωνός cf. Matt. xxiii. 30. 
Fellowship in suffering naturally was an essential mark of early 
Christianity. Cf. 2 Cor, i. 7, κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων : Phil. 
lil, 10, κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων : iv. 14, συνκοινωνήσαντές μου τῇ 
θλίψει. 

ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ὑπομονῇ ἐν Ἰησοῦ. The θλίψις 
here is the tribulation of the last time: cf. vii. 14, τῆς θλίψεως τῆς 
μεγάλης. It is the same as the τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ τῆς μελ- 
λόυσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης in iii. το. This last great 
tribulation necessarily precedes the Millennial Kingdom—hence 
καὶ βασιλείᾳ: but to have part in the kingdom faithful endur- 
ance throughout the tribulation is necessary—hence καὶ ὑπομονῇ: 
cf. il. 2, 3, 19, lil. 10, xill. 10, xiv. 12. ὑπομονή being the 
spiritual alchemy, which transmutes those who share in the θλίψις 
into members of the βασιλεία, can only achieve its end in 
fellowship with Jesus (ἐν “Ijoot)—a Pauline conception which 
recurs in xiv. 13, but is set forth under another figure in iii. 20, 
ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, εἰσελεύσομαι 
πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς per ἐμοῦ. It is 
a question whether ἐν ᾿ησοῦ should be connected with all three 
nouns or with ὑπομονή only. Probably the latter is best: cf. 
2 Thess. iil. 5, τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, though the idea here is 
somewhat different. 

ἐγενόμην ev=“I 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, HJ. 
iv. 12. 23, the last of whom states that it was used as a penal 
settlement by the Romans, as were other islands, 2.6. Pontia, 
off the coast of Latium, to which Domitian banished Flavia 
Domitilla (Euseb, H.£. iii. 18. 5), and Gyara and Seriphus in 
the Aegean (see Eucyc. Bib. 111. 3603). 

διὰ τὸν λόγον Tod θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ. These words 
define the ground for his presence in Patmos, ze. his preaching 
of the Gospel and his loyalty to it in a time of tribulation. The 
phrase τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ καὶ τ. μαρτυρίαν “I, here give the contents 
of his preaching, whereas in 2 they describe the Apocalypse 
itself: cf. ὅσα εἶδεν. It has been urged by many scholars that 


” 


22 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 9-10. 


John had gone to Patmos for the purpose of receiving this 
revelation, z.¢. that mentioned in 2. But this interpretation 
appears to be inadmissible on several grounds. 1. In our 
author διά never means “for the sake of” ( = ἕνεκα) receiving the 
word of God, etc., but “ because of,” “in consequence of” the 
word of God which he had preached. In other words, διά 
denotes the ground and not the purpose in this Book: cf. 11. 3, 
iv. II, Vi. 9, Vii. 15, Xii. 11, 12, xill. 14, etc. 2. In two passages 
our author speaks of death by persecution in connection with 
these very phrases, #.¢. vi. 9, ἐσφαγμένων διὰ τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ καὶ 
διὰ τ. μαρτυρίαν, 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 συνκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει... καὶ ὑπομονῇ suggests that he 
has in ἃ 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 Ioannes.. . 
in insulam relegatur”; Clem. Alex. Quis dives, 42, ἐπειδὴ yap τοῦ 
τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν 
‘Edecov: Origen, Zn Matt. τ. xvi. 6, ὁ δὲ Ρωμαίων βασιλεύς, ὡς 7) 
παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς 
ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον. If we combine this tradi- 
tion with the fact cited above that Patmos was a penal settlement 
(Pliny, 4... iv. 12. 23), as well as 1, 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. 

10. ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. Not merely “I was in,” but “I fell 
into.” These words denote the ecstatic condition into which 
the Seer has fallen, just as ἐν ἑαυτῷ γενόμενος (Acts xii, 11) 
describe the return to the normal condition. We have equivalent 
phrases in Acts xi. 5, εἶδον ἐν ἐκστάσει, and xxii. 17, γενέσθαι με ἐν 
ἐκστάσει. Apart from extraordinary ecstatic experiences, all 
Christians could be said to be εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι (Rom. viii. 9) as 
opposed to the faithless, who were ἐν σαρκί. 

In this passage, then, ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι 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. 

ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. This is the first place in Christian 
literature where the Lord’s Day is mentioned. Some scholars 


I. 10. | HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 23 


have proposed to take this phrase as meaning “‘in the day of the 
Lord,” 2.6. “the day of Yahweh,” the day of judgment—in the 
LXX, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου, and elsewhere in our text, 7 ἡμέρα ἡ 
μεγάλη, 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,” ze. the day con- 
secrated to the Lord. We might compare an analogous phrase 
in 1 Cor. xi. 20, οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν. In the 2nd 
cent. we have the following undisputed testimonies to the use of 
this phrase for Sunday: Didache xiv. 1, κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου 
συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον : Evang Petri, 35, ἐπέφωσκεν ἡ κυριακή: 
tb. 50, ὄρθρου δὲ τῆς κυριακῆς : Ignatius, Ad Maga. ix. τ, μηκέτι 
σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ἣ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν 
ἀνέτειλεν : Melito of Sardis—the title of one of his writings, περὶ 
κυριακῆς, preserved in Euseb. .£. 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. AZ. iv. 23. 11, τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν ἁγίαν 
ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν : 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 (Bidb/e 
Studies, 218 sq.; Lncyc. Bib. iii. 2815 sq.). It appears that the 
first day of each month was called ‘‘ Emperor’s Day ” (Σεβαστή) 
in Asia Minor and Egypt before the Christian era, Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers, τ. 11. 714; nay more, according to two inscrip- 
tions from Ephesus and Kabala—to which might be added an 
Oxyrhynchus papyrus (εἴγε. 100 A.D.)—it is inferred by Buresch 
(Aus Lydien, 1898, pp. 49-50) and Deissmann that Σεβαστή 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. 

ἤκουσα φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄπισθέν pou. Our author has probably 
Ezek. iii. 12 in his mind, καὶ ἀνέλαβέν pe πνεῦμα, καὶ ἤκουσα 
κατόπισθέν pov φωνὴν σεισμοῦ μεγάλου. Wetstein quotes a good 


24 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (I. 10-11. 


parallel from Plutarch, Zycurg. 54 C, ἀκοῦσαι δὲ φωνὴν ὥσπερ 
ἀνθρώπου twos ἐξόπισθεν ἐπιτιμῶντος αὐτῷ... ὡς δὲ μεταστρα- 
φέντος οὐδαμοῦ φανερὸς ὁ φθεγξάμενος ἦν, θεῖον ἡγησάμενον. 

φωνὴν μεγάλην. .. ὡς σάλπιγγος. Cf. iv. 1 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 ὃ βλέπεις γράψον eis βιβλίον (11), and at the 
close of this theophany repeats the command in 19, γράψον οὖν 
ἃ εἶδες. This is the natural interpretation. Diusterdieck and 
Alford take the voice to be that of an unnamed angel. 

ὡς σάλπιγγος. In ὡς 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 ὡς and ὅμοιος. 

λεγούσης. We should expect λέγουσαν. But this is no 
oversight of our author; for the same construction recurs in 
iv. 1, ἡ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη. .. ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης, when we 
should expect λαλοῦσα. 

‘This connection of the participle with the dependent genitive 
instead of with the governing nouns we find also in vi. 7, ἤκουσα 
φωνὴν τ. τετάρτου ζῴου λέγοντος, 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. βλέπεις. Our author, like most of the N.T. writers 
(including Johannine Gospel and Epistles), uses βλέπειν and not 
ὁρᾶν in the present tense, except in the case of ὅρα in the in- 
perative = “beware.” For the future of βλέπειν he uses 
ὄψεσθαι, and for the passive aorist ὀφθῆναι. 

γράψον eis. For other constructions with ἐν and ἐπί see i. 3, 
ii. 17, iil. 12, xiv. 1, xvii. 5, etc. The Seer is repeatedly bidden to 
write down his visions, except in the case of the Seven Thunders. 

ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις. According to Ramsay (Lefters 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 (af. cf? 
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 


Ι. 11-18. ] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 25 


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 4o miles north of Ephesus, Pergamum 
4o north of Smyrna, Thyatira 45 S.E. of Pergamum, Sardis 
30 nearly due S. of Thyatira, Philadelphia 30 E.S.E. of Sardis, 
and Laodicea 40 S.E. of Philadelphia (see map in Ramsay). 

12. βλέπειν τὴν φωνήν. Cf. Aesch. Zhed. τού, κτύπον δέδορκα. 
The voice is here used for the person from whom it comes. 

ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. The ἥτις here represents an indirect 
question, and accordingly the construction is classical. On 
ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, see note on iv. I. 

12>, ἑπτὰ λυχνίας χρυσᾶς. On the position of ἑπτά 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 (Avxva=i17)29), which was said to stand 


outside the second veil of the Tabernacle. The candlestick or 
lampstand carried seven lamps (λύχνοι -- ΤΥ 2). 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 (Gunkel, Chaos, 294 sqq.; Zimmern, K.A. 7.3 
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. 


26 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 13-18. 


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. 1, 6 κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας 
ἐν τῇ δεξίᾳ (cf. i. 16%), and iii. 1, 6 ἔχων. . . τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας. 
Again, that the titles were intended to have some connection 
with the letters in which they respectively appear is clear in most 
of the cases. Thus in the letter to the Church in Ephesus the 
title, 6 περιπατῶν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τῶν χρυσῶν (ii. 1), is at 
all events related verbally to the words of warning in ii. 5, εἰ δὲ 
μή. - - κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ Tod τόπου αὐτῆς. In the letter 
to the Church in Smyrna the title, ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς καὶ ἔζησεν 
(ii. 8), may contain a reference to ii. 104, γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου, 
καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς. In the letter to the Church 
in Pergamum ὃ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον (il. 12) is antici- 
patory of the words in ii. 16°, πολεμήσω μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ 
τοῦ στόματός pov. In the letter to the Church in Thyatira the 
title, 6 ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὡς φλόγα πυρός (ii. 18), may be 
chosen with reference to the claim in ii. 23, ἐγώ εἰμι 6 ἐραυνῶν 
νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας. 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, ὁ ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ (iii. 1), 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, ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν Δαυείδ, 6 
ἀνοίγων κτλ. (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, ὁ μάρτυς ὃ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός (iii. 14), may have reference 
to the testimony given against the Laodicean Church in iil. 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 


I. 18.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 27 


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. 

18. ὅμοιον υἱόν. Cf. xiv. 14. Here, as I have shown in 
the Additional Note (p. 36) on ὡς and ὅμοιος, ὅμοιος is used 
as the equivalent of ὡς, not only in meaning but in construc- 
tion. 

ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου. Cf. xiv. 14. The fact that the articles 
are absent (1.6. τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) 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 1 Enoch xxxvii.—lxxi. 
(also Ixxxili._xc.), used the term “man” in their vzstons to 
symbolize an angel, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου would most naturally bear the 
same meaning in this passage. Thus ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου would 
= “like an angel.” Hence the Being so described is a super- 
natural Being, Ae an angel and yet not an angel. Cf. 1 Enoch 
xlvi. 1, where the supernatural Messiah is described as a “ being 
whose countenance was as the appearance of a man” (=ANID5 
wie). 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” (W38 725) in Dan. vii. 13 


was taken as a Messianic designation. Thus ὡς vids ἀνθρώπου 
in Apocalyptic is the exact equivalent of 6 vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in 
the Gospels and Acts vii. 56. 

ἐνδεδυμένον ποδήρη. Cf. Dan. x. 5, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ εἷς ἐνδεδυμένος 
βύσσινα (LXX: βαδδείν, Theod.), 1.6. OD οὐ ; Ezek. ix. 2, εἷς 
ἀνήρ. .-. ἐνδεδυκὼς ποδήρη (also in 3, 11)—a rendering of the 
same Hebrew phrase. Since in xv. 6 we have ἐνδεδυμένοι 
ἵ λίθον ἡ. .. καὶ περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στήθη used in reference to 
angels, there is not necessarily any reference here to the priestly 
character of Christ. In Ex. xxviii. 4, xxix. 5, ποδήρης is used 
as a rendering of the high priestly robe (yp). Cf. Josephus, 
Ant, iil. 7. 4, ὃ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς. . . ἐπενδυσάμενος δ᾽ ἐξ ὑακίνθου 
πεποιημένον χιτῶνα, ποδήρης δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ οὗτος, μεεὶρ καλεῖται τὴν 
ἡμετέραν γλῶσσαν, ζώνῃ περισφίγγεται : 111. 7. 2, where the linen 
vestment of the priests is called ποδήρης χιτών. See also Wisd. 
XVili. 24, ἐπὶ yap ποδήρους ἐνδύματος ἣν ὅλος ὃ κόσμος. But even 
if ποδήρης was in the mind of the Seer a rendering of δ᾽, the 
priestly reference is still doubtful; for the Sys was commonly 
used by men of high rank (cf. 1 Sam. xviii. 4, xxiv. 5, 12; Ezek. 
xxvi. 16, εἴς.) The long robe is used here simply as an Oriental 


28 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1.18-14. 


mark of dignity, though it may have had originally a very 
different meaning and origin: cf. Gressmann, L£schatologte, 
346 sq. 

περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς ζώνην χρυσᾶν. This phrase 
recurs in a slightly different form in xv. 6. Both this and the 
preceding phrase were suggested by Dan. x. 5, ἐνδεδυμένος βαδδείν, 
καὶ ἡ ὀσφὺς αὐτοῦ περιεζωσμένη ἐν χρυσίῳ Ὥφαζ, where there is no 
connection of any kind with the priestly dress) The golden 
clasp or πόρπη was worn by the king and his chosen friends 
(φίλοι), τ Macc. x. 89, xi. 58. The high priest also wore a girdle 
(njax), but it was a loosely-woven scarf: cf. Ex. xxvill. 4, 
xxxix. 29; Lev. xiii. 7. This priestly girdle was worn on the 
breast a little above the armpits: cf. Josephus, Amz. ill. 7. 2, 
ποδήρης χιτών... . ὃν ἐπιζώννυνται κατὰ στῆθος ὀλίγον τῆς μασχάλης 
ὑπεράνω τὴν ζώνην περιάγοντες. πρός in local sense with dative 
is rare in the N.T. Here only in the Apocalypse: cf. Mark v. 11; 
John xviii. 16, xx. 11, 12. 

14. ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν [ὡς 
χιών]. Our text presupposes Dan. vii. 9 and 1 Enoch xlvi. 1. 
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 1 Enoch xlvi. x 
Ξε ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἔριον λευκή (or λευκόν). Thus in the first 
place we explain the combination of 7 κεφαλή and αἱ τρίχες in 
our text. But our text diverges clearly from Theodotion’s 
version and the Massoretic of Dan. vil. 9; for the latter read 
“the hair of his head like pure (1.6. 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 
τὸ τρίχωμα τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον λευκὸν καθαρόν (“spotless 
as white wool”), it is clear that our author had either it or the 
Aramaic text presupposed by it before him. 1 Enoch xlvi. 1 
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 1 Enoch here against the Massoretic of Dan. 
vii. g. It should be observed that the description which in 
Daniel and 1 Enoch belongs to the Ancient of Days, is here 
transferred to the Son of Man. The term κεφαλή may refer to 
the hair. 

[ὡς χιών.) This was manifestly a marginal gloss. It is 
extremely awkward in its present context. Moreover, in Dan. 
vii. g it is the raiment that is “white as snow,” not the hair of 
his head. 

ot ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρός. 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” (λαμπάδες 


1 14-16.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 29 


πυρός); 2 Enochi. 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. οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ. Here again our author 
has drawn upon Daniel. Cf. x. 6, “His feet like in colour to 
burnished brass” (LXX, ὡσεὶ χαλκὸς ἐξαστράπτων : Theod. ὡς 
ὅρασις χαλκοῦ στίλβοντος (op nwny PyD): Ezek. 1.4, 27, Vili: 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, ὡς ἐξαστράπτων xadKds—fP YI DY) 
Sp nwmy). χαλκολίβανος (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 εἶδος ἠλέκτρου τιμιώτερον χρυσοῦ" 
ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἤλεκτρον ἀλλότυπον χρυσίον μεμιγμένον ὑελῷ Kai λιθείᾳ 

. « ἤλεκτρον, ἀλλοίωσις χρυσίου, μεμιγμένον ὑέλῳ καὶ λιθίοις. 
The word, which is of uncertain derivation, is rendered in Latin 
by aurichalcum. Pliny, H.V. xxxill. 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, “4671. vill. 402, “Electrum.. . 
quod fit de tribus partibus auri et una argenti.” Eustathius on 
Od. iv. p. 150. 13, ἥλεκτρος. . . μίγμα τι χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου. 
(These last three quotations are drawn from Wetstein.) 

ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ fT πεπυρωμένης 7. So AC. But, if this is 
original, it can only bea slip for πεπυρωμένῳ 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 πεπυρωμένης 
is explained by χαλκολιβάνου understood, is too prosaic and 
intolerable, z.e. “like burnished brass as in a furnace of burnished 
brass.” Hence I assume that our author intended to write 
πεπυρωμένῳ---ἃ correction which was early and rightly introduced 
into the text as the following authorities testify: ze. δὲ, some 
cursives, 51: 2, vg., Sah., Eth. Vict. Thus we have the vigorous 
and fitting conception: ‘like burnished brass as when it is 
smelted (or ‘refined’) in the furnace.” πυροῦν 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 ἢν (in Ps. xii. 6, Ixvi. 10; Dan. 
xii. 10; Zech. xiii. 9), of which it is the stock translation. 

ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὑδάτων πολλῶν. ‘The voice of the Son 
of Man is described in exactly the same terms as the voice of 
God in Ezek. xlili. 2, D937 Ὁ bi ip (so the Heb. but not the 
LXX). Here our author rejects the corresponding simile in 
Dan. x. 6—}107 bps “like the voice of a multitude.” 

16. ἔχων -Ξ εἶχε, a Semitic idiom, though the participle is used 
in the Κοινή occasionally as a finite verb. The reading of A, καὶ 


30 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 16. 


ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρες ἑπτά, seems to assimilate the text to 
the adjoining clauses, but it may be original. 

ἔχων ἐν τῇ δεξίᾳ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτά. Cf. ii. τ (where the 
clause is probably an interpolation), iii. 1. 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 ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ 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 (Zine Mithrasliturgie, p. 14, line 16sq., 
pp. 72, 76 sq.), where the God Mithras is represented as appearing 
to the mystic . . . κατέχοντα ἐν δεξιᾷ χειρὶ μόσχου ὦμον χρύσεον, 
ὅς ἐστιν ἄρκτος ἡ κινοῦσα. .. τὸν οὐρανόν. 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 τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας and not ἀστέρας ἑπτά. 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 tm Neuen Testament, 
24-26. But the seven stars may be the seven planets. 

ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαία δίστομος ὀξεῖα ἐκπορευομένη. 
Cf. ii. 12, 16. These words go back to Isa. xi. 4, ‘‘ He shall smite 
the earth with the rod of his mouth” (here the LXX has τῷ λόγῳ 
τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ), xlix. 2; ‘He hath made my mouth like a 
sharp sword” (ὡς μάχαιραν ὀξεῖαν). 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. 

ῥομφαία δίστομος. Cf. Ps. cxlix. 6 (ῥομφαῖαι δίστομοι = 2ἼΠ 
NYO); Sir. xxi. 3. 

ἐκ τ. στόματος . . . ἐκπορευομένη. Che iixs:2y, mix; 15. 

ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ, ds 6 ἥλιος φαίνει ἐν TH δυνάμει αὐτοῦ. ὄψις -- 
“face”; ὄψις 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 ἥλιος and ἐν τ. δυν. αὐτοῦ goes back to Judg. v. 31, 
‘Let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in 
his strength” (ὡς ἔξοδος ἡλίου ἐν δυνάμει αὐτοῦ -- ΦΌΦ Π NNYD 
333). 

ὡς ὃ ἥλιος. Cf. Matt. xvii. 2, ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς 
ὁ ἥλιοςς The faces of the righteous are also to shine like the 
sun, Matt. xiii. 43; as do also those of the angels: x. 1; 
2 Enoch i. 5, xix. I. 


I.16-18.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 31 


ὡς ὃ ἥλιος φαίνει. We have here a Hebrew construction, 
the same as in Deut. xxxii. 11; Job vii. 2, ix. 26, xi. 16; Isa. 
Ixi. 10; Jer. xxili. 29. Hence our text =1N11232 ἽΝ" wins. The 


clause should be rendered, ‘And his face was as the sun 
shining in his strength.” See Additional Note on ws, p. 36. 

17. καὶ ὅτε εἶδον αὐτόν κτλ. The Seer had in his mind Dan. 
X. 7, 9, (LXX), καὶ εἶδον ἐ ἐγὼ Δανιὴλ τὴν ὅρασιν Sarai λας pO MOLE. ς 
ἐγὼ ἤμην πεπτωκὼς ἐπὶ πρόσωπόν μου ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. Cf. also Josh. 
W145. zek;, 1.28, il.) 23,, li, 2. 

καὶ ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξίαν αὐτοῦ. . . Μὴ φοβοῦ. Cf. Dan. x. 10, 
12,19. The μὴ φοβοῦ 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 
(Spitta). 

From μὴ φοβοῦ to the close of this verse there is a stanza of 
four lines. 

ἐγώ εἶμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ 6 ἔσχατος. 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, 28 MiN3¥ mn... WN TD 


AN 28) fiw, 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, οὕτως λέγει. . . θεὸς 
σαβαώθ' "Ey® πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα: xlvill. 12, ἐγώ εἰμι 
πρῶτος καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Cf. also Isa. xli. 4 and xliii. το. 

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. 

καὶ 6 ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρός. 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 i. 5—6, where it 
is shown that the line should be rendered 


“And He that liveth and was dead.” 


Most recent commentators connect the καὶ 6 ζῶν with the pre- 
ceding words. But in every instance, whether in Isaiah or in 
the Apocalypse, the phrase oa am. the first and the last” is 
complete in itself, and the phrase καὶ 6 ζῶν would simply i τ παῖ; 
the fulness of the claim made in these words. On the other 
hand, when taken with καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρός they are full of signifi- 
cance in the contrast between the ever abiding eternal life which 
He possesses and the condition of physical death to which He 
submitted for the sake of man. 


32 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1. 18. 


ὁ ζῶν. This designation is based on the O.T. phrase ὙΠ $x, 
θεὸς ζῶν, in Josh, iii. to; Ps. xlii. 3, Ixxxiv. 3, ete. 

{av εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 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 (adiya ‘n), and Sir. xviii. 1; 1 Enoch 
we'd, 

ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ adov. θανάτου and ἅδου can 
be taken as objective genitives, ze. the keys that lock or unlock 
Hades ; oras possessive genitives, seeing that they are personified 
in vi. 8, Ze. the keys held by death and Hades.! 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. r1. In our 
author Paradise (cf. ii. 7) has no connection with Hades: nor 
yet in Luke xxiil. 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. ro. Hades or Sheol, however, bears 
many different meanings in Jewish literature ; see my Zschatology?, 
under “Sheol” in the Index, p. 482 sq. Buttoreturn. 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 1 Pet. iii. 18 sqq.? 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 


1Sheol and death are personified in Hos. xiii. 14. They are classed 


together in Ps. xviii. 6; Prov. v. 5 
2 Loofs, in 2.2. Ε΄. 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). 


I.18-20.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 33 


in the system of Manes (see Bousset, Offendarung?, p. 197 sq.; 
Gunkel, Zum... Verstandniss d. NTs, p. 72; Clemen, Religions- 
gesch. Erkldrung d. NT, 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. 

κλεῖς τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ adov. The power over these keys, 
according to the Targ. Jer. on Gen. xxx. 22 (cf. also on Deut. 
XXVill. 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% According to 
the Midrash Tehillin on Ps. xciii. the Messiah is called Jinnon 
because he will awake the dead (Weber?, 368). 

19. οὖν resumes the command given in 11, enforced with 
the authority of One who has power over death. This particle 
occurs only here and in ii. 15, 16, ill. 3, 19, in our author, but 
195 times in the Fourth Gospel. 

ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. These 
words summarize vough/y the contents of the Book. The ἃ εἶδες 
is the vision of the Son of Man just vouchsafed to the Seer: ἃ 
εἰσίν refers directly to the present condition of the Church as 
shown in chaps. il.—iii., and indirectly to that of the world in 
general; ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα to the visions from chap. 
iv. unwards, 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 : δείξω σοι ἃ det γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα (iv. 1). 

ἃ εἶδεςς (2. γ01- 

ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. On μέλλει, 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 τὸ μυστήριον : in the 
second we have an accusative tas ἑπτὰ λυχνίας where we should 
expect a genitive dependent on τὸ μυστήριον. 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 acc. absolute in the N.T.: cf. Acts xxvi. 3, γνώστην 
ὄντα σε: I Tim. li. 6, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις : Rom. viii. 3, τὸ 
ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. ΤῸ 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 


34 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 20. 


stars, which thou sawest in (lit. “upon ἢ my right hand, and of 
the seven golden candlesticks, the seven stars are,” etc. τὸ 
μυστήριον = “the secret meaning.” We have analogous interpre- 
tations of mysteries in xiii. 18, xvii. 7, 9. 

οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσί. See note 
on i. 4. Various explanations of these ἄγγελοι 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 (Ofenbarung Johannis, iv. 159) and others con- 
nect them with some prominent officials of the Churches. Zahn 
(Zin/. ii. 606) and J. Weiss (Offenbarung Johannis, 49) identify 
them with the bishops of the Seven Churches. But the use of 
ἄγγελος in Apocalyptic in general and also in our author is wholly 
against making ἄγγελος represent a human being. If used at all 
in Apocalyptic, ἄγγελος can only represent a superhuman being. 

Hence the only interpretation that can be accepted is one 
which does justice to the term dyyeAos. From this standpoint 
two interpretations are advanced. 1. 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. 1, xii. 1. 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. τὸ, “I have seen thy face, as though I had seen 
the face of thy angel”: also on xlviii. 16; Chag. 16%. 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 


I. 20.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 35 


author. Christ holds in His hand (1.6. His power) these ideals: 
that is, only through Him can they be realized. αἱ λυχνίαι ai 
ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσίν. Here, since the Seven Churches have 
been definitely enumerated in i. 11, we should probably with 
WH regard ἑπτὰ ἑπτά as a primitive error for érrd. 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, ili. 17. See 
Robertson, Gram. 768. 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON ὡς AND ὅμοιος, 


Our author uses ὡς 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. φωνήν... ὡς σάλπιγγος τ- “ἃ 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: zt was only like it (as). The 
construction here is a pregnant one = \w3= Dw pd as in Isa. 
xxix. 4, lxili. 2; Jer. 1. 9. This pregnant construction recurs in 
iv. I, 7, ὡς évOpdrov=DINI=DIN 53, and in xiii. 2, of πόδες 
αὐτοῦ ὡς GpKkov: XVi. 3, αἷμα ὡς νεκροῦ. The same idea is con- 
veyed by ὡσεί in τ Enoch xvii. 1, xxiv. 4, xxxii. 4, and by ὡς 
in Xlv. 10, 11, 13, xvii. 1; but in none of these cases have we 
the pregnant construction. In xiv. 18, τροχὸς ὡς ἡλίου, it is a 
pregnant one. 

2. ws is used in a certain sense as the subject or the object 
of the verb as=3 in Hebrew, and yet zt does not affect the case of 


the noun which follows tt. It is used as the subject or, if the 
student prefer, in connection with the subject in ix. 7, ἐπὶ ras 
κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν ὡς στέφανοι. Here ὡς στέφανοι = ΤΥ 2}}3 =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” (ὡς εἶδος πυρός) ; also in Dan. x. 18: “ then 
there touched me again, one like the appearance of aman.” Here 
DIX MY 23 (rendered by the versions ὡς ὅρασις ἀνθρώπου) 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 ὡς is connected 
with the accusative, to which we shall now turn. Thus we have 
in vi. 6, ἤκουσα ὡς φωνήν, and also in xix. 1, 6—the heavenly 


36 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [L 20. 


equivalent of an earthly voice. Inv. 11 the ὡς is omitted; for 
there the voice is definitely said to be that of angels. In xv. 2, 
εἶδον ὡς OaXacoav —‘‘the likeness of a sea”; xviii. 21, λίθον ὡς 
μύλινον wéeyav— the likeness of a great millstone.” 

3. ws 15 used simply as a particle of comparison in xii. 15, 
Kili. 2;°11, xxi. 11. 

4. In vi. 1 our author has rendered ips, which was in his 
mind, literally and inadvertently by ὡς φωνή (ACQ); but since 
ΡΞ in this context =5ypaz, it should here have been rendered by 
ὡς φωνῇ. Possibly, however, our author wrote φωνῃ, which was 
subsequently corrupted into φωνή. 

5. ws is used with the participle as in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. xl. 
10, “It was as though it budded” (nm52 x). Cf. in our 
text, ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, V. 6, xiil. 3. 

6. Finally, ὡς is followed by a finite verb where the Greek 
idiom requires the participle: cf. i. 16°, ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος 
φαίνει, where we should expect φαίνων. 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 (- ὧς). Cf. Isa. Ixii. 1, spb3 


aya’ (LXX, ὡς λαμπὰς καυθήσεται), “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, 
yop yyby wens (LXX, ds πέλεκυς κόπτων πέτραν) ; Ps. Ixxxiii. 15 ; 
Job vii. 2, ix. 26, xi. 16. 

ὅμοιος. 


That our author uses ὅμοιος as synonymous in meaning with 
ws we learn from iv. 6, ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ, as compared with xxii. 1, 
ws κρύσταλλον, and iv. 3, ὅμοιος. . . λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι, as compared 
with xxi. 11, ὡς λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι. In 1 Enoch also ὡς and ὅμοιος are 
equivalent in meaning: cf. xviii. 13, ἴδον ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ws ὄρη 
μεγάλα, and xxi. 3, τεθέαμαι ἑπτὰ τῶν ἀστέρων. . . ὁμοίους ὄρεσιν 
μεγάλοις. 

ὅμοιος is used also like ὡς in our text in a pregnant sense (see 
I under ws): cf. ix. 10, οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις : also Xxiil. 11. 

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 ὅμοιος as to ws. These are i. 13, xiv. 14, where we have 
ὅμοιον υἱόν where we should expect ὅμοιον υἱῷ. We have seen 
that he regarded ὅμοιος 85 -- ὡς in respect of meaning, but these 
two passages exhibit an identification of ὅμοιος with ws not only 
in respect of meaning but also of construction; and thus as ὡς 
does not affect the case that follows it, neither does ὅμοιος. That 
our author knew quite well that ὅμοιος was followed by the dative 


11.-1τ|. § 1-2.] THE SEVEN LETTERS 37 


is shown by his universal usage outside these two passages, which 
stand alone in all literature in making ὅμοιος as the absolute 
equivalent of ws alike in construction and meaning. 


CHAPTER II. ITI. 


§ 1. Zhe Seven Letters—their Authorship, their present and 
their original meaning. 


These two chapters, to which the great vision in 1. 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 (ὃ 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 
οὖν (see il. 5 below), but arise naturally from the nature of the 
subject. 


38 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [II-III § 2. 


II. 1. τάδε λέγει seven times in ii.—iii. and only once else- 
where in N.T., ze. Acts xxi. 11. 

ὁ περιπατῶν. Cf. iil. 4, ix. a XVI. 15, XXi. 24. 

Ὁ: οἷδα. Cf. 9, 17, το. 11 3) 8, Soe 14, - Rey 
ΧΙ͂Χ. 12. 

τὸν κόπον. Cf. ων 13. τὴν ὑπομονήν (not in Fourth 
Gospel). Cf. i. 9, 1 ii. 3, 19, ili, 10, Xili, 10, Xiv. 12. peudeis. 
Cf. xxi. 8. Only once elsewhere in N.T. 

4. «ἀλλά, Ch ib: δὲ τὸ, (225), 14, 20, All, Ay ὍΣΣ. Ὁ; Marys Oy 
XVil. 12, xx. 6. 

5. οὖν. Used of logical appeal. Cf. 11. 16, iii. 3 (075), 9 
Also in i. 19, probably owing to its occurrence in 11.—1ii. 

πόθεν. Cf. vii. 13. 13 times in Gospel. δέ (also in τό, 24); 
σας, 2,/xax. 12. ee: 

κινήσω. Cf. vi. 14. Here only in our author. 

7. ὃ ἔχων ots ἀκουσάτω. Cf. 11, 17, 29, 111. 6, 13, 22, ΧΙ]. 9 
(Matt. xi. 15, xili. 9, etc.). 

τὸ πνεῦμα, λέγει... Cf. 11, 17, 29, iil. 6, 13, 22, xiv. 13, 
«sh de 

τῷ νικῶντι δώσω. Cf. 17, lll. 21, Xxi. 7, ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει 
ταῦτα. 

τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ἱωῆς, XXll. 2, 14 [19]. 

8. 6 πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. Cf. i. 17, KX, £3) 

ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς Kal ἔζησεν. Cf. i. 17 and xiil, 14, xvii. 8 
(47s), where the demonic Nero is somewhat similarly described. 

9. θλίψιν. Cf. i. g, 11. 10, 22, Vil. 14. 

βλασφημίαν. Cf. xiii. 1, 5, 6, xvii. 3. 

συναγωγὴ Tod Σατανᾶ. Here only and in iii. 9. In xi. 8 we 
have the same attitude towards Judaism, though the diction 
differs. 

10. ἄχρι; cum. gen. Cf. ii. 25, 26, xii. 11, xiv. 20 [xviii. 5]. 
Not in Gospel, which uses ἕως ὅτου (or οὖ) and ἕως. ἕως only 
found in Apoc. ΤΟΣ ΤΙ: 

11, οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου. Cf. xx. 6, ἐπὶ 
τούτων ὃ δεύτερος θάνατος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν. Observe that ἀδικεῖν 
is a favourite word with our author, but is not found in Fourth 
Gospel or Epp. 

12. ὁ ἔχων τ. ῥομφαίαν τ. δίστομον τ. ὀξεῖαν. Cf. 1. τό, xix. 
15. ῥομφαία is found six times in the Apoc. and only once 
outside it in the N.T. 

13. ὅπου without complementary ἐκεῖ. Cf. xi. 8, xx. To. 

15. οὕτως, Cf. iii. 5, 16, ix. 17, xi. 5, XVi. 18, XVIil, 21. 

16. ἔρχομαί σοι tax’. Cf. ili. 11, ΧΧΙΪ. 7, 12, 20 ; also ii. 5. 

πολεμήσω per αὐτῶν. Cf. xii. 7%, xiii. 4, xvii. 14. Also 
xii. 7°, xix. 11, and Jas. iv. 2 without μετά and nowhere else in 


11.-ἼΙ. ὃ 2.] DICTION AND IDIOM 39 


τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός pou. Cf. 1. 16, xix. 15. 

17. ὄνομα. . . γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἷδεν εἰ μὴ 6 λαμβάνων. 
Cf. xix. 12, ὄνομα γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός. 

18. τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὡς φλόγα πυρός. Cf. 1. 14, ΧΙΧ. 12. 

οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολίβανῳ. Cf. i. 14. 

20. ἐμούς. Here only in Apoc. but 37 times in Gospel. 

21. μετανοῆσαι ἐκ. This construction is nowhere else found 
in the N.T. nor yet in the LXX (where ἐπί or ἀπό follow), yet it 
recurs in our author in ii. 22, ix. 20, 21, xvi. 11. 

23. ἐν θανάτῳ = ‘by pestilence,” as in vi. 8. 

κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. Cf: xx. 13. 

94. τοῖς λούποῖς: © Ch iu. 2; ἸΧ. 26, ΣΙ: 13, ΧΙ 17, ΧΙΧῚ 27; 
xx. 5. Not in Gospel. 

26. ὁ νικῶν. .. δώσω αὐτῷ : see note on il. 26. 

δώσω . . . ἐξουσίαν. On the meaning of this phrase see note 
on 11]. 26 as distinguished from δώσω... τὴν ἐξουσίαν. 

27. ποιμανεῖ = “will destroy” (see note zx /oc.). Cf. xix. 15 
(xii. 5). 

ὡς κἀγώ. Cf. iii. 21 and vi. 11, ὡς καὶ αὐτοί, [xvili. 6]; Gospel 
uses καθὼς ἐγώ frequently. 

etAngpa. This perfect recurs in ili. 3, v. 7, Vili. 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 περικοπή]; 1 Cor. x. 13. 

28. τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωινόν. Cf. xxii. τό. 

III. 2. γίνου γρηγορῶν. For this combination of γίγνεσθαι 
with a participle, cf. xvi. 10, ἐγένετο... ἐσκοτωμένη. Gospel 
i. 6 only. 

εὕρηκα . . . πεπληρωμένα. For combination of εὑρίσκειν with 
part. or adj., cf. 11. 2, v. 4, xxi. 15. For πεπλήηρ. alone, cf. vi. 11. 

τοῦ θεοῦ pov. Cf. ili. 12, 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°. 

4. ἀλλά. See note on ii. 4 above. 

ὀνόματα -- “ persons.” [Cf. xi. 13.] ἐμόλυναν. Cf. xiv. 4. 
περιπατήσουσιν. Cf. xxi. 24. ἐν λευκοῖς. Cf. vi. 11, vil. 9, 13, 
xIx. 14. ἄξιοί εἰσιν. Cf. [xvi. 6], where the clause recurs. 

5. περιβαλεῖται ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς. Cf. iv. 4, vil. 9. ἐξαλείψω. 
Cf. vil. 17, xxi. 4 (in a different connection). τῆς βίβλου τῆς 
ζωῆς. Cf. xxi. 15, xiii. 8, and βιβλίον τ. ἵ. in xvii. ὃ [xx. 12]. 

7. ὃ ἅγιος ὃ ἀληθινός. Cf. vi. το, where the same epithets are 
applied to God. Observe that ἀληθινός = “faithful,” a meaning 
confined to the Apoc, within the N.T. 


40 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11.-1|]. ὃ 2. 


8. θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην. Cf. iv. 1. 

μικρὰν. . . δύναμιν. Cf. xx. 3, μικρὸν χρόνον, for this order, 
and contrast vi. 11. 

ἐτήρησας . . . τὸν λόγον. Cf. xxii. 7, g—a frequent phrase 
in the Gospel. 

μου τὸν λόγον kal... τὸ ὄνομά pov. Cf. x. 9 for the same 
remarkable yet intelligible order of the pronouns. 

9. ἥξουσιν Kal προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ποδῶν σου. Cf. 
xv. 4, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπίον σου: 
ΧΧΙΙ; 8. 

10. ἐτήρησας τὸν λόγον. Cf. iii. 8, xxii. 7, 9; also i. 3, ii. 26, 
Kil, 17, ΧΙ 22. 

τῆς ὑπομονῆς μου, 7.6. “the endurance practised by Me.” GE 
xiii. 10, xiv. 12, ἡ ὑπομονὴ τ. ἁγίων, “the endurance practised 
by the saints.” 

τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης. Cf. xii. 9, xvi. 14, where the nature of 
the trial is described as demonic in connection with this phrase. 

τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Cf. vi. το, viii. 13, xi. τὸ (note). 
This phrase has throughout our author a technical sense. 

11. ἔρχομαι ταχύ Cf. ii. τό, xxi. 7, 12, 20. 

12. 6 νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτόν. See notes on ii. 7, 26. 

ἐξέλθῃ : in later chapters 13 times. 

γράψω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα. Cf. xvii. 5, 8, xix. 16. 

τῆς καινῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ καταβαίνουσα κτλ. Cf. xxi. 2. 

τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ καινόν. Cf. xix. 12, 16. 

15. oUte . . . οὔτε. Cf. ix. 20, 21, xxi. 4. Our author uses 
ovdé . . . οὐδέ, V. 3, Vii. 16, ix. 4; also od. . . οὐδέ, vii. 16, 
xii. 8, XX. 4, XXi. 233 μή... pare, Vil. 1, 33 Even οὐδὲ py. . 
οὐδέ, vii. 16°, ix. 4, but never μηδέ. . . μηδέ. 

17. οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω. Cf. xxii. 5. 

18. ἀγοράσαι (metaphorical sense). Cf. v. 9, xiv. 3, 4. 

ἱμάτια λευκά. See on ill. 5 above. 

20. εἰσελεύσομαι. Cf. [xi. 11], xv. 8, xxi. 27, xxii. 14. 

21. καθίσαι. Cf. xx. 4 and note on 11]. 21. 

ὡς κἀγώ. See note on il. 27 above. 

μετὰ τοῦ πατρός pou ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. Cf. xxii. 3. 

(ὁ) Zdiom.—Here we nave idioms and solecisms which, 
though they may appear aénxormailly in other writings, are in our 
author a zorma/ means of expressing his thoughts. 

II. 2. τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. This 
resolution of the participle into a finite verb is characteristic of 
our author. See note on i. 5>—6, p. 14 sq. 

8. ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας. . . καὶ Kexomiaxes. For similar 
combinations of tenses cf. ili, 3, εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας : ν. 7 56.» 
vii. 13 Sq., Vill. 5. 

5. ἔρχομαι -- ἐλεύσομαι. Our author frequently uses the 





II.-III. ὃ 2.] DICTION AND IDIOM 41 


present of this verb as a future: cf. i. 4, 7, 8, il. 16, ili. 11, iv. 8, 
ix. 12, Xi. 14, XVi. 15, Xxil. 7, 12, 20, but never the future itself 
except in compounds ἐξελεύσεται, xx. 8: εἰσελεύσομαι, 111. 20. 

7. τῷ νικῶντι... δώσω αὐτῷ. See notes on il. 7, 26. 

9. τῶν λεγόντων ᾿Ιουδαίους εἶναι καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. See above on 
li. 2 and note on i. 5°-6. 

10. βάλλειν ἐξ ὑμῶν -- ‘some of you.” Cf. iii. 9, δίδωμι ἐκ τ. 
συναγωγῆς : V.9, Hyopacas . . . ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς : ΧΙ. 9, βλέπουσιν 
ἐκ τῶν λαῶν : Χχὶ. 6, δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς. 

18. ὅπου ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶς. For this omission of the 
copula in relative or dependent clause, cf. v. 13, xx. Io. 

ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντίπας, ὃ μάρτυς pou. On this frequent 
solecism in our author, see p. 3 ad fin. 

20. τὴν γυναῖκα “I. ἡ λέγουσα. See preceding note. 

λέγουσα καὶ διδάσκει. The frequently recurring idiom already 
found in ii. 2, 9 above: see note on i. 5"-6. 

22. βάλλειν αὐτὴν eis κλίνην. A phrase unintelligible in 
Greek unless retranslated into Hebrew. See note on ii. 22. 

23. ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ : cf. vi. 11, αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ. Elsewhere only 
once in N.T., Acts i. 8. 

26. ὃ νικῶν... δώσω αὐτῷ. See note on ii. 7. 

δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν. On the technical sense assigned to this 
phrase by our author, see note zz Joc. It is here rightly used. 

Thus chap. 11. is connected by the same diction or idioms or 
both with portions of iv.-ix., xi.—-xvii., xIx.-xxil. 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. ποίαν ὥραν. This acc. of a point of time only here in 
our author. 

7. ὃ dvolywv καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσε. A Hebrew idiom. See note 
in loc. 

8. δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν σου θύραν ἠνεῳγμένην, ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται 
κλεῖσαι αὐτήν. We have here two Hebrew idioms in these 
words: 

TD? WAN ODND WE MMB rye) WB) AN? 


For other instances of oblique forms of the personal pronoun 
added pleonastically to relatives (in reproduction of a Hebrew 
idiom), cf. vii. 2, ots ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς : 9, ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτόν : xii. 6, 14, 
Kill, 6, 12. Xx. ὃ. 

9. ἰδοὺ διδῶ ἐκ τ. συναγωγῆς. Most probably a Hebraism. 
OWA ΓΡΘΣΞῸ jN3 In, “Behold I will make certain of the 
synagogue,” etc. Here διδῶ anticipates ποιήσω. 

τῶν λεγόντων ἑαυτοὺς. .. Kal οὐκ εἰσίν. The same Hebrew 
idiom as in ii. 9. 

ποιήσω. .. ἵνα ἥξουσιν. . . καὶ γνῶσιν. ἵνα cum. ind. occurs 


42 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11.-Ἴτῖ. § 2-3. 


g times in the Apoc., here (iii. 9) and 8 times in the rest of the 
Book (see note on ili. 9, p. 88): only once in the rest of the 
Johannine writings, and only ro times in all in the N.T. outside 
the Apocalypse. Again, ἵνα μή cum. ind. occurs twice in the 
Apoc. and only twice elsewhere in the N.T. Thus ἵνα cum. 
ind. is characteristic of our author. Next, ἵνα cum. subj. occurs 
6 times in ii.-iii. and 17 times in the rest of the Book, and 
ἵνα μή cum. subj. once in ii.-iii. and 7 times in the rest of the 
Apoc. 

iva ἥξουσιν. .. καὶ γνῶσιν. Cf. xxii. 14 for the same com- 
bination of moods. 

12. ὃ νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτόν. See notes on ii. 7, 26. 

τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, ἣἧ καταβαίνουσα. See Introd. to I. 
8.2 (δ), p. 3 ad fin. 

16. μέλλω. .. ἐμέσαι. Cf. iii. 2, xii. 4. Elsewhere in our 
author ro 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 (1.6. Acts). 

17. οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω. Cf. xxii. 5, ἔχουσιν χρείαν... φῶς 
ἡλίου. 

20. ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ... καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι. This Hebraic καί 
introducing the apodosis recurs in x. 7, xiv. το. It is found 
also in Luke ii. 21, vil. 12; Acts i. 10; 2 Cor. ii. 2; Jas. iv. 15 

21. ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ: 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. rade λέγει) or to the fact that the Letters in some form were 
written by our author long before 95 a.p.—the date of the 
completed work: cf. οὖν (also in i. 19), πλήν, ἐμός. A com- 
parison of the points of agreement in diction and in idiom shows 
that 11.--11. are connected very closely, and in most cases essen- 
tially, with iv.—x., parts of xi., xiil.—xvil., xix.—xxil. 


§ 3. Order of Words and omission of Copula in 
relative sentences. 


Though the diction and idioms of 1i.-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, 11, 17, 26, iii. 5, 12, 21, where 
the same phrase τῷ νικῶντι or ὃ νικῶν 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 


11.- 1]. § 3-4. | LETTERS WRITTEN AT EARLIER DATE 43 


number of passages in 11.-- 1]. where the object precedes the verb : 
ii. 1, τάδε λέγει (and at the beginning of each Letter): 3, ὑπομονὴν 
ἔχεις : 4, τὴν ἀγάπην. .. ἀφῆκες: 5, τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον: 6, 
τοῦτο ἔχεις: 23, τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς ἀποκτενῶ: 25, ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε: 
lil. 1ο, σε τηρήσω. 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 ἄλλο prepositive in 11. 24 as always in our author and 
generally in the N.T. though it is post positive in Hebrew. In 
111. 4, ὀλίγα ὀνόματα : cf. xii. 12, ὀλίγον καιρόν : in iii. 8, μικρὰν 
.. « δύναμιν : οἵ, Xx. 3, μικρὸν χρόνον, and contrast χρόνον μικρόν, 
ὙΠΟ ἀπ 

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. Zhe 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 thei 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. 
li. 25, ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε ἄχρι ov ἂν ἥξω, and ili. 3, ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης. 
The Second Advent is here referred to as in 1 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 


44 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [II-III § 4-5. 


unto death! 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 
ili. το, 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 
ili. το. 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. 11, 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- 
ism 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 11]. το 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 ili. ro is a later addition 
made by our author. But we cannot stop here. The endings 


1 Special visitations are threatened (ἔρχομαί σοι, 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. 113 in iii. 19 chastisement but not 
martyrdom is foretold. 

? The Churches have already suffered persecution in a limited degree. 
Thus the Church of Ephesus is praised for its faithfulness therein: cf. ii. 3, 
καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις kal ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες. 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, ili. 9. 


es i Es et 


1.-ΤΙ1. ὃ 5.] ENDINGS AND BEGINNINGS OF LETTERS 45 


of the Letters are indeed from our author’s hand,! 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-xxli. 2, 14 (τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς) ; 
ii. 11—xxi. 8 (where ὃ θάνατος ὃ δεύτερος is first explained) ; 1]. 17- 
xix. 12 (ὄνομα καινὸν... ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν κτλ.); 11. 26— -20, ΧΠ 5; 
Rik: ES (ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ κτλ. ); ΧΧΙ 16 (6 ἀστὴρ - - - ὃ 
πρωινός) ; ili, 5—-vi. 11 (ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή) ; Xili. 8, 
Mii. 27 Gs βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς) ; ill. 12--ΧΧ]. 22, which shows that 
the term vads in iil. 12 is to be taken metaphorically) ; 3 XXl. 2 (τὴν 
πόλιν. .. Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν... καταβαίνουσαν κτλ.) ; XIX. 12 
(ὄνομα ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν : Cf. ὄνομα . . . καινόν in 111. 12}; ill. 21--ΧΧ. 4. 

But another characteristic of these Letters is that they all 
use the phrase ὃ νικῶν, That this expression designates one who 
has passed victoriously through | the martyr’s death to the life 
eternal, is clear from xii. 11, αὐτοὶ ἐνίκησαν . . . Kal οὐκ ἠγάπησαν 
THY ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι Reuven XV. 2, εἶδον... TOUS νικῶντας ἐκ 
τοῦ θηρίου. .. ἐστῶτας ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ὑαλίνην : xxi. 7. 
Now that 6 νικῶν bears the same meaning at the close of the 
Letters is to be inferred from 111. 21, 6 νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι 
pet ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ pov, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ 
πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. As Christ witnessed to the truth 
by His death, so should His servants. Now, if ὃ νικῶν 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 111. το, 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 ἔχων ots ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις : 
lig FAT τῆ τ 20, 111: 6, 152. 22 By sthis.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- 
ingly: 11. 7, 11, 17, 26-20, 111. 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 inthe Letter to Smyrna, οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου 
τ. δευτέρου, ii. 11, declares the reward of him who is πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου, ii. 10 ; 
in the Letter to Pergamum, δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ μάννα, ii. 17, sets forth the true food 
in contrast to the εἰδωλόθυτα, ii. 14; and in the Letter to Sardis, οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω 
τ. ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τ. βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς, ili. 5, may refer in the way of contrast to 
ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς καὶ νεκρὸς el, iii. I. 


46 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [II.-III. ὃ 5-6. 


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 
Ρ. 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. ro 
and others at the close of the Letters, as ii. 7, 11, 17, 26-29, iii. 
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 
conflict. 

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. 
48,50,52,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 


II.1.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS 47 


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. 


II. 1-7. THE MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS. 


1. τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας. The city of Ephesus 
lay on the left bank of the Cayster. In many inscriptions it is 
designated, ἡ πρώτη καὶ μεγίστη μητρόπολις τῆς ᾿Ασίας. It was, 
according to Strabo, the greatest emporium in Asia (xiv. 24, 
ἐμπόριον οὖσα μέγιστον τῶν κατὰ THY ᾿Ασίαν τὴν ἐντός τοῦ Ταύρου). 
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, ἀνθύπατοι), 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 (στρατηγοί), a senate (βουλή), and a 
popular Assembly (ἐκκλησία). 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 
times 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 (ypappa- 
τεὺς τῆς πόλεως Or τ. δήμου). 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 va 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 (βουλή) 
elected from the six tribes into which the population was divided ; a senate 
(γερουσία) 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 
(ἐκκλησία). Each had its γραμματεύς. 


48 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Im. 1. 


Ephesus appropriated to itself the title Temple Warden (νεωκό- 
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,! the second to Hadrian, and the 
third to Severus. A 2nd century inscription (Wood, 422. 
Inscr. vi. 6, p. 50) speaks of Ephesus as being warden of two 
imperial temples as well as of that of Artemis (dis νεωκόρος τῶν 
Σεβαστῶν καὶ νεωκόρος τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος). Ephesus was also a hot- 
bed of every kind of cult and superstition, Its works on magic 
(Ἐφέσια γράμματα) 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 
East. Hence it is rightly named first ini. 11, il. 1. 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 1 Tim. 1. 7 (θέλον- 
Tes εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι), iv. I-3, etc., and Ignatius, Ad Ephes. 
Vil. x, εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα 
τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια θεοῦ" οὺς δεῖ ὑμᾶς ὡς θηρία ἐκκλίνειν" εἰσὶν 
γὰρ κύνες λυσσῶντες, λαθροδῆκται, οὺς δεῖ ὑμᾶς φυλάσσεσθαι ὄντας 
δυσθεραπεύτους. The presence of such elements testified to the 
danger of schism. See the articles on Ephesus in Hastings’ 
D.B., and the Zucyc. Bib. with the literature there quoted. 

τάδε λέγει. This clause occurs eight times in the N.T., seven 
of these being in 11. and iii. of our Book. ὅδε occurs only twice 
elsewhere in the N.T. This sparing use has been observed 
also in the Κοινή. 

ὁ κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ δεξίᾳ αὐτοῦ. This clause 
has no organic connection with the letter to the Church in 
Ephesus, and, moreover, it is repeated in iii. 1 in a slightly 
different form. The use of κρατῶν, which here means to hold 
fast, while in i. 16, 111. 1 we have ἔχων, is strange. In the case 
of the Son of Man ἔχων expresses all that is needed. His 
character is a guarantee that the ἔχων contains the κρατῶν. Τῇ 
it were a man that was in question here, the use of κρατεῖν (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, and not by the Synod of Asia (κοινὸν ᾿Ασία5). 


II.1-2.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS 49 


1. apy. in, “to lay. hold, of? χα 2,.and 511. 14,15, 25, iil. τὰ 
where both words occur) would be intelligible. 

ὃ περιπατῶν ἐν μέσῳ τ. ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τ. χρυσῶν. Christ’s 
vigilance is not localized but coextensive with the entire Church. 
The idea of the λυχνιῶν returns in 11. 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. 


x 4 ” 4 7 , A ΝῚ c , 
2. oida τὰ ἔργα σου, Kal τὸν κόπον καὶ Thy ὕπομονήν σου 
καὶ ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς, 
’ 
καὶ ἐπείρασας τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν, 
καὶ εὗρες αὐτοὺς ψευδεῖς. 
Ἂν ε A ” Ἂς > , A | μὲ 
8. καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου 
καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες. 


Here the theme is τὰ ἔργα cov. These consist of τὸν κόπον 
Kal τὴν ὑπομονήν cov. These two subordinate themes are then 
rehandled, the κόπον in φ δὰ and the ὑπομονήν in 3. There 
are two paronomasias which cannot be accidental: τὸν κόπον and 
ov κεκοπίακες, and ov δύνῃ βαστάσαι and ἐβάστασας. 

2. The phrase otda τὰ ἔργα σου recurs, but with the pronoun 
preceding the noun, in ii. 19, 11]. 1, 8,15. Abbott (Johannine 
Gram., pp. 414, 422, 601- 607) calls the latter the vernacular or 
unemphatic possessive. In 11. 19 we have a combination of 
both. See note. οἶδα. Christ knows everything (John xxi. 17) 
-—alike the good (2- -3, 6) and the bad (4-5) qualities. 

τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου. 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 (25°), and its steadfast endurance on behalf 
of the name of Christ (3). We might compare I ΤΏΉΕ655. 1. 2, 
μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν. τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης 
καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος, but here κόπος and ὑπομονή are CO- 
ordinated with and not subordinated to ἔργον. κόπος with its 
cognate κοπιᾶν is closely associated with Christian work in the 
N.T. alike in our text (cf. also xiv. 13) and in the Pauline 
Epistles. ὑπομονή, as Trench (Syzon. 191) points out, is used to 
express patience in respect of things, but μακροθυμία in respect of 
persons. But the patience is of a high ethical character. ‘In 
this noble word ὑπομονή there always appears (in the N.T.) a 
background of ἀνδρεία icf Plato, Zheaet. 1776, where ἀνδρικῶς 
ὑπομεῖναι is opposed to ἀνάνδρως φεύγειν) : 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 


50 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (II. 2-4. 


and outward world” (Ellicott on 1 Thess. i. 3, quoted by Trench, 
op. cit., p. 190). 

οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι. δύνῃ for δύνασαι 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. (S¢vom. ii. 18) 
well defines ὑπομονή as the knowledge of what things are to be 
borne and what are not (ἐπιστήμη ἐμμενετέων καὶ οὐκ ἐμμενετέων). 
The need of testing the claims of itinerant teachers who claimed 
to be prophets and apostles was early felt: cf. 1 Thess. v. 20 sq.; 
1 John iv. 1. They were not to be acknowledged unless they 
brought with them “ commendatory letters” (2 Cor. iii. 1). 

That the Church in Ephesus shunned such false teachers we 
learn from Ignatius, Zp%. ix. 1, ἔγνων δὲ παροδεύσαντάς τινας 
ἐκεῖθεν, ἔχοντας κακὴν διδαχήν" ods οὐκ εἰάσατε σπεῖραι εἰς ὑμᾶς, 
βύσαντες τὰ ὦτα εἰς τὸ μὴ παραδέξασθαι τὰ σπειρόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν. 
In the Didache xi. 8, 10, the ultimate test of such teachers was 
conformity of their lives with that of Christ. In Hermas, AZand. 
xi, 11-15, the two types of teachers are contrasted, and in xi. 16 
the excellent advice is given: δοκίμαζε οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τῶν 
ἔργων τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν πνευματοφύρον εἶναι. 

καὶ ἐπείρασας. The verb points to some definite occasion. 
πειράζειν may be compared with δοκιμάζειν in τ John iv. 1. 

τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους Kal οὐκ εἰσίν. The οὐκ εἰσίν 
is here ἃ Hebraism for οὐκ ὄντας. (See note oni. 5>—6, p. 14 sq.) 

ἀποστόλους. ‘These persons have been identified: (1) 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® (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 ἔργα in 2 (1.6. the vigorous action 
against the false teacher and the endurance under affliction) from 
the πρῶτα ἔργα in 5, which are identical with the ἀγάπην... 
τὴν πρώτην, or brotherly love, in 4. The Church in Ephesus 
still hates, 6, the evil members, the false apostles which it had 
tried and rejected. 

8. This verse returns to the positive element in the praise 
given in 2: it explains τὴν ὑπομονήν σου, and refers to τὸν κόπον 
in οὐ κεκοπίακες, “thou hast not grown weary.” Here we have 
ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας just as in the preceding verse, δύνῃ. . . καὶ 
ἐπείρασας. In both cases an ethical characteristic is brought 
forward which had manifested itself in some act of the immediate 

ast. 
c 4. But, though the Church in Ephesus has preserved its 
moral and doctrinal purity and maintained an unwavering loyalty 


11.4-5.}] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS 51 


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. 
12 (διὰ τὸ πληθυνθῆναι THY ἀνομίαν ψυγήσεται ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν), 
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. 
37): 

ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ. Cf. 14, 20. Is this an echo of Matt. v. 23, 
Mark xi. 25? 

ἀφῆκας. A common usage of this verb in John: cf. iv. 3, 
28; 5 2px 1.2.5 Εἴ: 

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, “ μνημόνευε, 
μετανόησον, ποίησον answer to three stages in the history of 
conversion.” 

μνημόνευε οὖν. Cf. ill. 3. 

εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαί σοι, καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου 
αὐτῆς [ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς]. Since the εἰ δὲ μή here declares that 
if the Church does not fulfil the triple command given in μνημόνευε 

. Kal μετανόησον ... Kal... ποίησον, judgment will ensue, 
it is manifest that the clause ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς is really a weaker 
repetition of εἰ δὲ μή. This is not in keeping with our author's style. 
After εἰ δὲ μή we must understand μνημονεύεις... καὶ μετανοήσεις 
καὶ ποιήσεις. Accordingly εἰ δὲ μή or ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς must be 
excised as an intrusion; and clearly it is the latter, as ἃ comparison 
of ii. 5 andii. 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 μετανόησον οὖν᾽ εἰ δὲ μή, 
ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ, kal πολεμήσω. Here there is no otiose repeti- 
tion of the idea conveyed in εἰ δὲ wy. After εἰ δὲ μή here we 
have only to supply μετανοήσεις. In ii. 22 we have the second 
possible construction, ἰδοὺ βάλλω αὐτὴν εἰς κλίνην... ἐὰν μὴ 
μετανοήσουσιν. 

When the interpolated gloss is removed we find that 5 con- 
sists of two couplets, the second of which is 

ei δὲ μή, ἔρχομαί cou, 

καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς. 

ἔρχομαί σοι. Cf. 11.16. The dative here may be the dativus 
incommodi, or an incorrect rendering of 2, as in Matt. xxi. 5 (so 


Blass, Gram. 113). ἔρχομαΐί σοι refers here as in ii. 16 to a special 


52 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [II. 5-6. 


visitation or coming, though reference to the final judgment is 
not excluded. ἔρχεσθαι is practically used as equivalent to 
ἐλεύσεσθα throughout the Apocalypse. 

κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου, z.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 ἀξιομακάριστος : and ini. 1, where he declares, μιμηταὶ ὄντες θεοῦ, 
ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ, τὸ συγγενικὸν ἔργον . . . ἀπηρτίσατε. 
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 (Ze/fers, 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 (2.6. Ayasaluk τε ἅγιος θεολόγος) 
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. 

τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν. These Nicolaitans have been identi- 
fied from the time of Irenaeus (i. 26. 3, ill. 11. 1) 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 (/aer. xxv.) 
deals with the Nicolaitans mentioned in our text. In Clem. 
Alex. (ii. 20. 118, iii, 4. 25), the Constit. Apost. (vi. 8, οἱ viv 
ψευδώνυμοι Νικολαῖται), 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 ὅτι παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ, and 
according to Hippolytus (Philos. viil. 36), Νικόλαος... ἐδίδ- 
ασκεν ἀδιαφορίαν βίου te καὶ βρώσεως. 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=oy yba=“he hath consumed the people” (a 
derivation found in Sanh. 105%, where ὮΝ mba is an alternative 
reading), while Νικόλαος = νικᾷ λαόν. Such a play on the etymo- 


II. 6-7.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS 53 


logy of words is thoroughly Semitic. There is, it is true, no 
exact equivalent to νικᾶν 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 
11. 14, 20. They transgress the chief commands issued by the 
Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 29). 

7. ὃ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω κτλ. Cf. Matt. xi. 15, xill. 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°, ταῦ, 17>, 26-27, iii. 5, 12, 21, 
appear to have been added at the same time. Such a phrase as 
πᾶσαι ai ἐκκλησίαι in 11. 23 is no evidence to the contrary. 

τὸ πνεῦμα. Cf. the closing words of all the Letters; also 
Xiv. 13, ΧΙΧ. 10, xxii. 17. The Spirit here is the Holy Spirit 
which inspires the prophets, but also the Spirit of Christ, since 
in ii. t Christ is the Speaker. The Spirit here has nothing to 
do with the seven spirits in iii. τ [i. 4], iv. 5. 

τῷ νικῶντι. .. τοῦ θεοῦ. Added probably by our author 
when he edited the visions as a whole (see Pp. 45). 

τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷς We have here a well-known Hebraism. 
Cf. TX of Josh. ix. 12, οὗτοι of ἄρτοι... ἐφωδιάσθημεν αὐτούς. It 
is found sporadically in the Kown, but the Kowy usage 1s 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 iil, 24, 27: cf. Abbott, Gram. 32 sq., 309. In ii. 26, 
ὁ νικῶν... δώσω αὐτῷ is more Hebraistic than the expression 
in il. 7. νικᾶν is a word characteristic of our author, and is used 
of the faithful Christian warrior in ii. 11, 17, 26, 111. 5, 12, 21°, 
xil. II, xv. 2, xxi. 8; of Christ Himself in iii. 21°, v. 5, xvii. 14. 
In the remaining passages it is without this moral significance, 
vi. 2, xi. 7: ΧΙ]. 7. It is found once in the Fourth Gospel and 
six times in 1 John. Elsewhere in the N.T. only four times. 
Cf. τ Enoch |. 2. The word νικᾶν 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 


54 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11 7. 


prove victorious. But the word νικᾶν 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, ‘fas I also have overcome,” 
saith Christ, iii. 21 (cf. John xvi. 33). The participle τῷ νικῶντι 
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 ὁ νικῶν -- 
ὃ νενικηκώς. 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.” 

δώσω... φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς. dwow.. . φαγεῖν 
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. 11, καὶ 
δώσει τοῖς ἁγίοις φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς : 1 Enoch xxiv. 4, 
καὶ ἣν ἐν αὐτοῖς δένδρον ὃ οὐδέποτε ὥσφρανμαι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος 
αὐτῶν εὐφράνθη, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ὅμοιον αὐτῷ: ὀσμὴν εἶχεν εὐωδε- 
στέραν πάντων ἀρωμάτων, καὶ τὰ φύλλα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄνθος καὶ τὸ 
δένδρον οὐ φθίνει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα : χχν. 4, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ δένδρον εὐωδίας, 
καὶ οὐδεμία σὰρξ ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης 
κρίσεως. .. τότε δικαίοις καὶ ὁσίοις δοθήσεται: 5, ὃ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ 
τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς εἰς ζωὴν εἰς βοράν, καὶ μεταφυτευθήσεται ἐν τόπῳ 
ἁγίῳ παρὰ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ. Thus as early as the 2nd 
cent. Β.6. 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 Vew 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—xxil. 

τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς. Cf. xxii. 2, 14. The tree of life is the 
symbol for immortality in our author. None can eat of it save 


II. 7-8.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SMYRNA ἘΝ 


those who have proved victorious in the strife with sin and evil. 
The ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς is to be carefully distinguished from the ὕδωρ 
τῆς ζωῆς. 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). Ifa man is faithful to the obligations entailed 
by these graces he becomes a victor (νικῶν) 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. 

τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 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 84., 316-318, 357, 473 56. 


8-ll. THE MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SMYRNA. 


8. ἐν Σμύρνῃ. 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 μητρόπολις. 
With Ephesus and Pergamum it strove for the title πρώτη ᾿Ασίας 
—a strife which continued till it was settled by the Emperor 
Antoninus (Philostr. Of. 231. 24, ed. Kayser); and of all the 
Asiatic cities that in a.p. 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, Zgnatius, i. 467) and a third by Severus. Of the 


56 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [II. 8-9. 


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 folycarpi, 2, St. Paul visited 
Smyrna on his way to Ephesus. According to Acts xix. Io, 
“All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of God.” See 
the Bible Dictionaries on ‘f Smyrna,” and Ramsay, Leféers, in loc. 

ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. Repeated from i. 17. 

ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς καὶ ἔζησεν. These words also go back to 
i. 17 Sq., καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρός, καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμὶ εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας τῶν 
αἰώνων. Compare the demonic caricature in the case of the 
Antichrist: xiii. 14, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν. 
The word ἔζησεν refers to Christ’s resurrection: cf. Rom. xiv. 9, 
Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ. 
This part of the title, ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς καὶ ἔζησεν, points forward 
to 10%, γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς 
ζωῆς. The divine title, 6 πρῶτος καὶ ὃ ἔσχατος, 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. οἶδά σου τὴν θλίψιν... ἀλλὰ πλούσιος et The un- 
emphatic or vernacular use of the pronoun here throws the 
emphasis on the context, “I know the affiiction and poverty thou 
endurest, but thou art not poor but rich.” With this we may 
contrast the words addressed to Laodicea, iii. 17, λέγεις ὅτι 
Πλούσιός εἰμι, . . . καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶδ... πτωχός. On the 
combination of material poverty and spiritual riches cf. 2 Cor. 
vi. 10, ὡς πτωχοί, πολλοὺς δὲ πλουτίζοντες : Jas. il. 5, οὐχ ὃ θεὸς 
ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ πλουσίους ἐν πίστει : also Luke 
xii. 21; 1 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, 
τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς προσεδέξασθε. 

τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων ᾿Ιουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτούς. Here 
ἐκ 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 (C/G. 3148, οἱ ποτὲ Ἰουδαῖοι) 
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. 11, 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 


11.9.1] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SMYRNA 57 


Christians (Scorp. 10, “Synagogas Judaeorum, fontes perse- 
cutionum”): cf. Euseb. #.Z. 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, 
eis τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ, εἴτε ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίοις εἴτε ἐν ἔθνεσιν). 
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’” (ὃ τῶν ἡμετέρων θεῶν καθαιρέτης, ὃ 
πολλοὺς διδάσκων μὴ θύειν μηδὲ προσκυνεῖν). 

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 (μάλιστα Ἰουδαίων προθύμως, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, eis ταῦτα ὑπουρ- 
γούντων) (op. cit. xii. 1). 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 xiil. 45, of Ἰουδαῖοι... ἀντέλεγον τοῖς ὑπὸ Παύλου 
λαλουμένοις βλασφημοῦντες). But the Christians are reminded 
that these Jews are Jews in name only—after the flesh and not 
after the spirit: cf. Rom. 11. 28, od yap ὃ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖός 
ἐστιν. .. ἀλλ᾽ 6 ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ᾿ἸΙουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν 
πνεύματι οὗ γράμματι: Gal. vi. 15sq. 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 Ἰουδαῖος shows that he is himself 
a Jewish Christian. In such a connection the Fourth Evangelist 
would have used the term Ἰσραηλίτης (cf. 1. 47), whereas he 
represents the Ἰουδαῖοι as specifically and essentially the 
opponents of Christianity. See Westcott, Join, p. ix sq. 

καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. On this Hebraism for καὶ οὐκ ὄντων see note 
on i. 5-6. 

συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ. ( iii. 9. The Jews were, as their 
actions showed, a Synagogue of Satan though they claimed to be 
a Synagogue of the Lord: Συναγωγὴ τοῦ Κυρίου (Num. xvi. 3 
(Snp), xx. 4, xxvi. 9 (ΠῚ}), xxxi. 16. Cf. Pss. Sol. xvii. 18, 
συναγωγὰς ὁσίων). The nobler word ἐκκλησία was chosen by the 
Church as a self-designation, συναγωγή being used only once in 
the N.T. of a Christian assembly (Jas. 11. 2). συναγωγή was 


58 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11. 10. 


gradually abandoned to the Jews, and thus we find such an 
expression as συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ 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 διάβολος (cf. 
xii. 10, 6 κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν) 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 συναγωγὴ τοῦ 
διαβόλου in 9. 

ἐξ ὑμῶν. 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. 

εἰς φυλακὴν iva πειρασθῆτε. This phrase defines the character 
of the trial awaiting the Church in Smyrna, and therefore the 
meaning to be attached to πειρασθῆτε. πειράζειν and πειρασμός 
in 111. το 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 πειράζειν 
is used in the sense of testing by persecution. Against such 
πειρασμός Christ does not shield His own: rather they must face 
it and be faithful under it even unto death (104), 

θλίψιν ἡμερῶν δέκα. The round number here points to a 
short period: cf. Dan. 1. 12, 14. The number is used in this 
sense also in Gen. xxiv. 55; Num. xi. 19. See in Pirke Aboth, 
v. I-g, on the various things connected with the number ro. 

πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτουΓ͵ Here the supreme trial of martyrdom 
is referred to: cf. xii. 11, οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι 
θανάτου: Heb. xii. 4, οὔπω μέχρις αἵματος ἀντικατέστητε: also 
Phil. ii. 8. 

τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς. The figure appears to be borrowed 
from the wreath awarded to the victor in the games. Cf. 1 Cor. 
ix. 25; Phil. 111. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 5; 1 Pet. νυ. 4 (τὸν ἁμαράντινον 
τῆς δόξης στέφανον). Smyrna was, according to Pausanias (vi. 
14. 3, cited by Lxcyc. Bid. 4662), famous for its games. In the 
Test. Benj. iv. 1 we have the oldest reference to such crowns in 
Jewish literature: cf. Jas. i. 12; Asc. Isa. vil. 22, vill. 26, 1x. 
10-13, etc.; Herm. Sm. vill. 2, 3; Polycarp, Ad Pfil. 1. 1; 
Martyr. Polye. xvii. 1. But it is possible, as has been suggested 
by Dieterich, Wekyvia, 41-45; Volz, 344; Gressmann, Ursprung d. 
israel, 74. Eschat. 110, 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. 1 with 
a crown of fire. Dieterich (of. cit, p. 41) states that in works of 
art the Greek deities were very frequently represented with 


II. 10-11.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SMYRNA 59 


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 τῆς ζωῆς 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, xxil. 2, 14) is a symbol of the blessed immortality 
in Christ, so the crown of life appears to symbolize its full 
consummation. 

11. ὁ ἔχων... ἐκκλησίαις. Cf. 7%. 

11°. Like 7, τὴ 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 τοῦ. 

ὃ νικῶν οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ. οὐ μή with the future or aorist con- 
stitutes “the most definite form of a negative assertion about 
the future” (Blass, Gram. 209). οὐ μή is always (15 times) 
followed by the aorist subjunctive in our author except in 
xvilil. 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 (Pro/. 190sqq.) tries 
to show, notwithstanding, that the N.T. and the papyri are here 
in harmony. 

ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ. ἀδικεῖν is always used in the sense of “to hurt” 
in our author: see xxii, 11, note. The agent or instrument is 
expressed by ἐκ after a passive verb. Cf. 111. 18, ix. 2, 18, xviii. 1. 
In this promise there may be a reference to 10, γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι 
θανάτου. He that is ready to submit to physical death for his 
faith will not be affected by the second death. 

τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου. 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 (Ν 5") δι) )}02) 
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° (on Num. xiv. 37), “they died the second (?) death” (An‘D 
mwa). See Wetstein for further examples. The idea is found 
also in Philo, De Praem. et Poen. ii. 419, θανάτου yap διττὸν εἶδος, 
τὸ μὲν κατὰ τὸ τεθνάναι... τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν, ὃ δὴ κακὸν 
πάντως. Though the expression is not found in 1 Enoch the 


60 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _ [II. 11-12. 


idea probably is in xcix. 11, cvili. 3, where the spirits of the 
wicked are said to be slain in Sheol, though their annihilation is 
not implied thereby. 


12-17. THE MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN 
PERGAMUM. 


12. τῆς ἐν Περγάμῳ. This city appears as 4 Πέργαμος in 
Xenophon and Pausanias, but as Πέργαμον 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 1. in 241 B.c. The last of 
this dynasty—Attalus 111.—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,! 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: εἰώθασιν πολλοί. . . ἐν τῷ βίῳ λέγειν" 
μὰ τὸν ἐν Περγάμῳ ᾿Ασκληπιόν, μὰ τὴν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ Αρτεμιν, μὰ τὸν 
ἐν Δελφοῖς ᾿Απόλλωνα, and Philostratus (Vita Apollonii, iv. 34), 
ὥσπερ ἡ Acta εἰς τὸ Πέργαμον, οὕτως εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦτο ξυνεφοίτα 
ἡ Κρήτη (both passages quoted by Wetstein): Mart. ix. 17, 
PO ΡΕΥΡΑΤΩΒΟ, α - + EDs: 

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 ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶ 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 (2.6. Satan: cf. xii. 9) was 
universally associated with him. 


ae Ee a σαν 


II. 12-18. | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PERGAMUM ΟἹ 


Synod (Κοινὸν ᾿Ασίας) ;1 cf. Tac. Amn. 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 θρόνος rod 
arava, in 13. Behind the city in the 1st cent. A.D. arose a huge 
conical hill, tooo feet high, covered with heathen temples and 
altars, which in contrast to “the mountain of God,” referred to 
in Isa. xiv. 13; Ezek. xxvili. 14, 16, and called “the throne of 
God” in 1 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, Le¢fers 
to the Seven Churches, 281 sqq. 

ὁ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν kth. Cf. i. 16. This title is connected 
with 16 that follows. See p. 26. 

13. ὅπου 6 θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶ. 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. ΧΙ]. 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 Polycarp, likewise the chief 
priest of this cult. 

κρατεῖς τὸ ὄνομά pov. Notwithstanding all these difficulties 
thou “holdest fast My name.” 

οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὴν πίστιν pou κτλ. These words refer to some 
definite persecution of which nothing is at present known. In 
πίστις μου the pov is the objective genitive, ze. ‘faith in Me”: 
cf. xiv. 12. In il. 19, xill. 10, πίστις = “ faithfulness.” 

1 That the temple was actually the seat of the imperial cult in the province 


is proved by an inscription from Mytilene: ἐν « τῷ ναῷ τῷ κατα > σκευαζο- 
μένῳ αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐν ἸΤεργάμῳ (quoted by Bousset). 


62 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11.18-14. 


ν ταῖς ἡμέραις TAvtimasy. If with the best MSS we accept 
᾿Αντίπας, 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 ᾿Αντίπα into the nom. ᾿Αντίπας owing to the nominative ὃ 
μάρτυς (Zahn). The former explanation is to be preferred. For 
early attempts to emend the text see critical notes 27: loc. ᾿Αντίπας 
is an abbreviated form of ᾿Αντίπατρος, as Κλεόπας for Κλεόπατρος. 
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. HZ. iv. 15). 

6 μάρτυς pou. On this solecism, which is really a Hebraism, 
see note on i. 5. The R.V. is right essentially in xvii. 6 in 
rendering μαρτύρων Ἰησοῦ 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 μάρτυς 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, Στεφάνου τοῦ μάρτυρός σου, and 1 Tim. vi. 13; 
Clem. Cor. 5. ‘hough the technical distinction between μάρτυς 
and ὁμολογήτης (“ 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 μάρτυς, μαρτυρεῖν, were used absolutely to signify martyr- 
dom; Martyr. Polyc. 19 sq.; Melito in Euseb. ALZ. iv. 26; 
Dionys. Corinth. 20. 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. 
Hf. Ti, 20; 32:” 

ἀπεκτάνθη. The passive form of ἀποκτείνω, 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. 11, ix. 18, 20 [xi. 5, 13, 
xiii. 10, 15], xix. 21; whereas ἀποθνήσκω is only used strictly as a 
passive in viii. 11, xiv. 13. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other 
hand, whereas the passive of ἀποκτείνειν does not occur, we find 
ἀποθνήσκειν used as its passive, xi. 16, 50, 51, XViil. 14, 32, Xix. 7. 

14. ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα, 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 ὀλίγα only one thing is meant, though the 
writer speaks of that one thing generically: cf. WM 219. 


II. 14-15.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PERGAMUM 63 


ἐκεῖ -- παρ᾽ ὑμῖν in the preceding verse. 

ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὅς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ 
Βαλάκ κτλ. On the relation of this verse to the next see 15. 

The reference is to Num. xxxi. 16 (cf. xxv. 1, 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 Moys. i. 53-55; cf. Joseph. Anz. iv. 
6.6; Origen, Zz Mum. Hom. xx. 1. 

The construction ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλάκ is, according to WM, 
p. 279 (note 2), found in some late writers. It is unjustifiable to 
explain it as a Hebraism, since this construction in the case of ΠῚ" 
and 7192 is exceptional in the O.T. In ii. 20 διδάσκειν takes 
the acc. 

φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι. 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. 1 Cor. vill. 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 εἰδωλό- 
θυτα as a matter of moral indifference, because of the decree 
issued by the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (cf. Acts xv. 29, 
ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων : cf. xv. 20, ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν 
εἰδώλων), 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 (1 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 the 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 wth the past, we expect a further defini- 
tion of their affinities with the present. This we findin 15, where 


64 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN  [II. 15-16. 


we should render: “Thus in like manner thou too (ze. as well as 
the Ephesian Church: cf. 6) hast some who hold the teaching 
of the Nicolaitans.” οὕτως and ὁμοίως are not to be taken as 
referring to one and the same thing. οὕτως justifies the state- 
ment made in 14, whereas the ὁμοίως refers to the Ephesian 
Church. Thus the καὶ σύ and the ὁμοίως belong together: 
“Thou too (as well as the Ephesian Church) in like manner” 
(with the Ephesian Church). The ἔχεις in 15 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 καὶ ov 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 καί beyond question belongs to the ov. Bousset represents 
the meaning of 14-15 to be: ‘‘So wie Bileam durch Balak die 
Israeliten verfiihrte, so haben die Pergamener die Nicolaiten als 
Verfuihrer.” But if any such comparison was intended, we should 
have had something like ὥσπερ Βαλαὰμ ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν 

. . οὕτως κρατοῦντες τὴν διδαχὴν Νικολαϊτῶν βάλλουσι σκάνδαλον 
ἐνώπιόν gov. But this interpretation fails, as it leaves wholly out 
of sight the definitive phrase καὶ σύ. Besides, if, as some scholars 
suppose, the construction is irregular and the οὕτως presupposes 
a preceding ὥσπερ in this context, then not Βαλαάμ but οἱ υἱοὶ 
Ἰσραήλ would be the subject with which καὶ σύ would be com- 
pared: ὥσπερ οἱ viol Ἰσραὴλ εἶχον κρατοῦνας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ 
κτλ., οὕτως ἔχεις καὶ σὺ κρατοῦντας κτλ. 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 καὶ ov 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 Βαλαάμ and Νικόλαος 
(see note in ii. 16). 

16. μετανόησον οὖν. The whole Church of Pergamum is called 
upon to repent and purge itself from these Nicolaitans, in the 


II. 16-17.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PERGAMUM 65 


hope that they will ultimately come to a better mind and return 
to her (cf. 1 Cor. v. 4-5), else Christ will visit the Church (ἔρχομαί 
σοι) and deal drastically with these corrupt teachers (μετ᾽ αὐτῶν). 
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. 

εἰ δὲ μή. Here equivalent to εἰ δὲ μὴ μετανοήσεις as in ii. 5°, 
where see note. εἰ δὲ μή is always elliptical in our author. 

πολεμήσω pet αὐτῶν. This construction, which is frequent in 

the LXX, is confined to the Apocalypse (cf. xii. 7, xili. 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, /roleg.? 106)—twice or more—in the Papyri is no 
evidence to the contrary. See Abbott, Gram., p. 267. 

ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός pou. Cf. i. τό, ii. 12, xix. 15. 
The phrase suggests a forensic condemnation, but in xix. 15 this 
word is conceived as an actual instrument of war. 

17. τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ μάννας On τῷ νικῶντι. .. 
αὐτῷ see 7. τοῦ μάννα is the only instance in the N.T. of 
δοῦναι with the partitive genitive (see 111. 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. 12” (Tanchuma; Piqqudi, 6; 
Beresh. rab. 19; Bammid. rab. 13), where it is said that in the 
third heaven (O’pnv’) 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 ” (1.6. 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. : 


> 
κλήματα δ οὐκ ἔσται οὐδὲ στάχυς, ἀλλ᾽ ἅμα πάντες 
μάννην τὴν δροσερὴν λευκοῖσιν ὀδοῦσι φάγονται. 


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, and other passages cited 
by Wetstein 27 Joc. 

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. IL—5 


66 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1 17. 


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 
belonged. 

As the context shows, as well as a comparison of the other six 
promises, the promise here refers to the future.) 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 
εἰδωλόθυτα 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. 

ψῆφον λευκήν. Stones or pebbles were variously used by the 
ancients, and each usage has been applied to the interpretation 
of the present passage. 1. The white stone used by jurors to 
signify acquittal; cf. Ovid, Jes. xv. 41: 


“Mos erat antiquis niveis atrisque lapillis, 
His damnare reos illis absolvere culpa.” 


2. The ψῆφος which entitled him that received it to free enter- 
tainment to royal assemblies. Cf. Xiphilin, Zp7z¢, Dion., p. 228, 
where it is said of Titus: σφαίρια yap ξύλινα μικρὰ ἄνωθεν εἰς τὸ 
θέατρον ἐρρίπτει σύμβολον ἔχοντα τὸ μὲν ἐδωδίμου τινός. . . ἃ ἅρπά- 
σαντάς τινας ἔδει πρὸς τοὺς δωτῆρας αὐτῶν ἐπενεγκεῖν καὶ λαβεῖν τὸ 
ἐπιγεγραμμένον. 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, Zf. vi. 11. 3, “O diem 
laetum notandumque mihi candidissimo calculo.” 

But each of these explanations is unsatisfactory ; either the 
ψῆφος 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, 2m amen Jesu, 128-265). The new name in such 
a connection would naturally be not that of the person who 
received the ψῆφος, but of some supernatural being. The white 


1 Philo (Quzs rerum divin. 39, Leg. allegor, iii. 59, 61), on the other hand, 
uses manna as signifying ‘‘ the spiritual food of the soul ” in the present life. 


II. 17-18.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 67 


stone was simply an amulet engraved with some magical formula 
or name, such as we find in Makk. 114 (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 ψῆφος. The man himself may be regarded 
as the ψῆφος; and since he is λευκός, as his victory in the final 
strife has proved, he is inscribed with the divine name,! 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 ii. 12, 6 νικῶν... γράψω 
ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ μου... Kal τὸ ὄνομά pov τὸ καινόν. 
This inscription designates him as God’s own possession, as the 
σφραγίς in vii. 2 544. (see note zx Joc. and parallels). But the 
ψῆφος with the divine name inscribed on it may be 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 (1.6. the hidden 
manna) and powers (the stone inscribed with the divine name) 
of a transcendent character. 

ὄνομα καινόν. See preceding notes. 

ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ 6 λαμβάνων. 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, ἔχων ὄνομα 
γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός, where, however, the general 
meaning is different, and the clause is probably an interpolation. 


18-29. THE MESSAGE TO THE ANGEL OF THE 
CHURCH IN THYATIRA. 


18. τῷ ἐν Θυατείροις. 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 ὁ νικῶν has 
already shown by his faithfulness that he possesses this new character; he is 
already a καινὴ κτίσις. 


68 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _ [I1. 18-19. 


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, Θυάτειρα. . . ἣν Μυσῶν ἐσχάτην 
τινὲς φασίν). 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 κατοικία Μακεδόνων 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, A/V. 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 (τὸ ZapBaGetov), 
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, /aer. li. 33). See Ramsay, Lefters, 
and the Bible Dictionaries 7% doc. 

ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. This title may have been suggested to our 
author by Ps. ii. 7, seeing that later in this letter he quotes Ps. 
ii, g in its entirety and a phrase from ii. 8. But the title is 
presupposed in i. 6, 11. 27, iii, 5, 21, xiv. 1, 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. 16), and formed the ground for the indictment brought 
against Him before the Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 63 ; John xix. 7). 

ὁ ἔχων. . . χαλκολιβάνῳ: From i. 14 sq. The presence of 
the first clause, 6 ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὡς φλόγα πυρός, appears to 
be explained by 23, 6 ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας κτλ., and ot 
πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ possibly by 27% Here the 
divine title seems to have been added by our author when 
editing his visions as a whole: see p. 45 sq. 

19. οἷδά σου τὰ ἔργα. Here as in x. g the vernacular 
possessive genitive introducing a group of nouns is followed by 


II, 19-28.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 69 


the ordinary possessive, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην... Kal THY ὑπομονήν σου 
καὶ τὰ ἔργα gov. Here Abbott, Gram., p. 606, remarks: “ (τ) 
The writer could not well have said καί σου, and (2) the twofold 
repetition . . . shows that emphasis is intended—the patience 
that you shew and the deeds that you do.” Fora similar case cf. 
x. 9. ‘The two passages show that the unemphatic gov is not 
likely to be used after an unemphatic word.” 

kal τὴν ἀγάπην κτλ. The καί here introduces an explanatory 
description of the ἔργα. On ἀγάπην cf. ii. 4, and on ὑπομονήν cf. 
ili. 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). πλείων 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 τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν we have the two dynamic Christian 
forces which issue in the two Christian activities that follow τὴν 
διακονίαν καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν. 

20-23%. The dangers which threatened Thyatira were in- 
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 
prescribed in each case, but the trade guilds that formed the 
problem in Thyatira. In the former case there could be no 
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. 10 the morally sound amongst this 
class there could be no diveigence 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 (ἐργασίαι, συμβιώσεις, συνεργασίαι) 
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 


70 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [II. 20. 


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 had 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. ἀφεῖς. Cf. John xii. 7 for this use of ἀφιέναι. On the 
form see Blass, Gram. 51; Robertson, Gram. 315. 

τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ. 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 (1 Kings xvi. 31; 2 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 Schiirer (Zheol. 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 τὴν γυναῖκα cov 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. 

ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν. On this Hebraism see note on 
i. 5. We might compare Zeph. i. 12, ἐκδικήσω ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας 
τοὺς καταφρονοῦντας... οἱ λέγοντες (ὩΣ ΝΠ). 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. 

καὶ διδάσκει kal mAavd. 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 : “O° ANI STD NIDA, 

πορνεῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν. Our author appears here to emphasize 


11. 20-22. | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 71 


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 petavoyoyn. The iva here has its final force: in ix. 20 
a consecutive. 

μετανοῆσαι ἐκ. Always so with the noun in our author: 
cf, ii, 22, ix. 20, 21, xvi. 113; probably a reflection of jd δὴν ; 


for in Symmachus (though only occasionally in the LXX) pera- 
νοεῖν is a more frequent rendering of the Hebrew phrase: cf. Job 
Xxxvi. 103 Isa. xxxi. 6, lv. 7; Jer. xviii. 8; Ezek. xxxiil. 12. 

22. ἰδοὺ βάλλω αὐτὴν eis κλίνην. 

καὶ τοὺς μοιχεύοντας μετ᾽ αὐτῆς εἰς θλίψιν μεγάλην. 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 κλίνη 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, 2.6. asvind Sa) = “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 1 Macc. i. 5, ἔπεσε ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην, and Jud. 
Vill. 3, ἔπεσε ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην, 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” } 
ine, a3vind ANK DDD I 
nba mya ARS DYANIOT ΠΝῚ 


Furthermore, it is to be observed that in ἰδοὺ βάλλω (late 
MSS PQ βαλῶ) the βάλλω 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 ἀποκτενῶ 
(237), it refers, of course, to the future. This idiomatic refer- 


2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I 22-28. 


ence to the future in a present verb is to be found also in i. 7 
(ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται), ii. 10, iii. g (where our author has both ἰδοὺ διδῶ 
and ἰδοὺ ποιήσω referring to one and the same thing), ix. 12, 
XVI 15, CLC. 

22°-23. τοὺς μοιχεύοντας pet αὐτῆς... 28. καὶ τὰ τέκνα 
αὐτῆς. The text (μοιχεύοντας. . . τέκνα) 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 μοιχεύοντας 
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 τέκνα 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 
τέκνα, the case is different. They have embraced the Nicolaitan 
teaching unreservedly and unconditionally. They are one with 
their spiritual mother in aim and character. For them, therefore, 
there is nothing but the doom of destruction (235). In this 
interpretation the difference in the dooms threatened is wholly 
natural. 

ἀποκτενῶ ἐν Savard. Cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 27, θανάτῳ ἀποκτενῶ, 
where θάνατος = 12, “pestilence,” as here and in vi. 8 (note). 

γνώσονται πᾶσαι at ἐκκλησίαι κτλ. The doom of the offenders 
was to be known as widely as the scandal had been. The 
γνώσονται ὅτι is an O.T. form of expression: 2.6. know by reason 
of experience, as in the case of the Egyptians, etc. Cf. Ex. 
ΨΠ: δὴ RVs 12, Xxix. 46, etc. 

ὁ ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας. This phrase is from the O.T., 
but it is an independent rendering of Jer. xi. 20, aby ἊΝ na 
where the LXX has δοκιμάζων νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας. The LXX 
does not use ἐραυνᾶν at all as a rendering of ᾿Π2, nor apparently 
does any other Jewish version save Aquila in one instance 


II. 23-24.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 73 


(Ezek. xxi. 18). The same phrase, though the order of the 
words is different, is found in Ps. vii. ro. Cf. other variations in 
Jer. xvii. το, xx. 12. St. Paul uses the phrase θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι 
τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν (1 Thess. ii. 4) and ὁ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας in 
Rom. viii. 27. νεφρός 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. xil. 2), and the heart of the thoughts. 
ἐραυνᾶν is, according to Blass (G7. 21), an Alexandrian form. 

δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. This phrase recurs in 
xxii. 12. Cf. Matt. xvi. 27, ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. . . ἀποδώσει 
ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ. 

24. οὐκ ἔχουσιν. This may mean “are free from” in contrast 
to those who “hold fast” κρατοῦσιν, but a comparison of 1. 16 
and ii. 1 is not in favour of this view, if text of ii. 1 is right. 

οἵτινες is here generic; indicates a class. Its use is therefore 
classical, as in 1. 7, ix. 4, xx. 4. Elsewhere our author uses 
ὅστις 45 practically the equivalent of os: cf. 1. 12, xi. 8, ΧΙ]. 13, 
Xvii. 12, xix. 2. See note on xi. 8. 

oitwes . . . τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Latava. Two interpretations are 
here possible, and both are forcible. (1) Since the persons 
referred to in ὡς λέγουσιν are the libertine section in the Church 
of Thyatira, the above words, οἵτινες... Σατανᾶ, 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” (ef. 
Iren. Haer. ii. 22. 3) even as St. Paul (cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10, τὸ γὰρ 
πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ: Rom. xi. 33; Eph. 
ili. 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 τὰ Baby: cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. il. 22. τ, ‘qui profunda 
Bythi adinvenisse se dicunt”; 22. 3, ““profunda Dei adinvenisse 
se dicentes” ; Hippol. Philos. v. 6, ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς γνωστικούς, 
φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν : Tertull. Adv. Valent. 1, 
“ EFleusinia Valentiniani fecerunt lenocinia, sancta silentio magno, 
sola taciturnitate caelestia. Si bona fide quaeras, concreto 
vultu, suspenso supercilio, A/tum est, aiunt.” ‘This phrase (ra 
βάθεα) 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 (Offend. 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 


74 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11. 24-26. 


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 (2.6. the Gnostic of later times) 
he remained inwardly unaffected by it and so asserted his 
superiority over it. 

The insistence on the knowledge of in¢edlectual 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. 

οὐ βάλλω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος. 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 κρατῆσαι 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, ἔδοξεν... 
μηδὲν πλέον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμῖν βάρος πλὴν τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες, 
ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων... καὶ πορνείας. 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—dméyeoOat . . . αἵματος καὶ 
TvikT@v—are not re-enacted. But this is not all. The use of 
the word ἄλλο 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 (xparjoare) on these 
duties incumbent on you, and shun absolutely the sacrificial 
feasts of the heathen and the moral evils that attend on them. 

ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε. Cf. iii. 11, κράτει ὃ ἔχεις. Ew is to be 
taken as a subjunctive of the aorist ἥξω since ἄχρι in our author 
elsewhere is followed by the subjunctive: cf. vii. 3, xv. 8, xx. 
3, 5. In xvil. 17 it is followed by the indicative; but our 
author is here using a source. 

26. 6 νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν κτλ. 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. 

ὁ νικῶν... δώσῳ αὐτῷ, the nominative resumed in a subse- 
quent pronoun in the dative. 

To this xominativus pendens or accusative we have an exact 
parallel in ili. 12, 21. A more normal construction occurs in 
ii. 7, 17, and the normal in vi. 4, xxi. 6. 

δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν. A free rendering of Ps. 


11. 26-27.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 75 


ii. 8, non Ds) MAS ; LXX, δώσω σοι ἔθνη τὴν κληρονομίαν cov. 
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 1st 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 ἐξουσία 
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 defined in the context is implied: cf. ix. 19, xiii. 
4, 12, xvi. 9, xvii. 13. When a limited authority is implied, 
ἐξουσία stands without the article: cf. ii. 26, vi. 8, ix. 3, xiii. 2, 
5) 7, Xlv. 18, xvil. 12, xviil. 1, xx. 6. There are three cases 
which do not come under this rule, 2.6. 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 
ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν in these passages appear to be equal simply to 
ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν. 

27. 27» imply the actual destruction of the heathen nations 
as in xix. 15, and apparently in their destruction the triumphant 
martyrs (cf. ii. 26, xvil. 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 
(συντρίβεται), 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 
character. 


καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ 
ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται. 


From Ps. 11. 9. Our author here agrees partly with the LXX: 


a“ 3 Ν 3 (Prd -“ 
ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ 
ὡς σκεύος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς. 


Instead of ποιμανεῖς Symmachus renders συντρίψεις (5. συν- 
θλάσεις), and instead οἵ συντρίψεις Aquila renders προσρήξεις. 
Two important questions arise here. 1. Has our author simply 
borrowed his rendering ποιμανεῖ from the LXX? 2. What 
meaning does our author attach to ποιμανεῖ Now as to 1, 


76 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Π. 27. 


since it is our author’s usage elsewhere to translate the Hebrew 
text independently, there is no reason to infer that he is here 
siply 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 oynn from Ay and 
so vocalized it DyyA and rendered it ποιμανεῖς, whereas they 


ought to have derived it from yyn and vocalized it ΜΠ, “thou 


shalt break” (as Symmachus). We have now to deal with 2— 
what meaning did our author attach to ποιμανεῖ A comparison 
of xix. 15, where ποιμανεῖ is parallel to πατάξῃ, and of the present 
text, 11. 27, where it is parallel with συντρίβεται (cf. also xii. 5), 
is strong evidence that our author attached two distinct meanings 
to ποιμαίνειν. The ordinary meaning is found in vii. 17 (ποιμανεῖ 
= “will pasture”), the other and unusual meaning “will de- 
vastate, lay waste,” in il. 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 ποιμαίνειν is the ordinary translation of Ay. But 
whereas ΠΡ generally means “to shepherd,” it means sometimes 
“το 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 MY by ποιμαίνειν. Hence ποιμαίνειν should here mean 
“‘to lay waste” or ‘‘to destroy.” But, even if the LXX failed to 
grasp the right rendering of ny 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, 
ποιμαίνειν and πατάσσειν in xix. 15 are parallels, just as ῥομφαία 
ὀξεῖα and ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ in the same clauses are likewise parallels. 
It is noteworthy that in Latin asco developed this secondary 
meaning also. 

Hence it is highly probable that our author assigned to 
ποιμαίνειν a secondary sense that attaches to myn (as he does 
to other words: cf. πόδες, x. 1 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 ποιμαίνειν 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 then. 


II. 257-111. 1.1 MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 77 


ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται. Here we have a free 
rendering of Ps. ii. οὔ : cf. also Isa. xxx. 14; Jer. xix. 11. It is 
best to regard συντρίβεται as=3¥B3) 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 
συντριβήσεται. We should not here, with the R.V., take the 
words as follows: “85 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 
συντρίβεται! to be taken as a principal verb, as it is in Ps. ii. 9. 
Even Isa. xxx. 14, Jer. xix. ΤΊ support this view. 

ὡς κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου. These words recall, of 
course, ἘΘΘῚ; Κύριος εἶπεν πρὸς μέ Υἱός μου εἶσύ. Cf. Actsi il. 33; 
τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ Tvevpatos . . . λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, for 
the phraseology. 

28. In this letter to abla only do we find a double 
promise—here and in 27%». On this and other grounds Selwyn, 
Wellhausen, and others would omit 27%» 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 quem 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 
ὁ ἀστὴρ 6 λαμπρὸς ὃ πρωϊνός. Hence the words combined with 
27 mean simply: ‘‘when thou hast won through the strife I will 
be thine.” 


III.1-6. THE MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS. 


1. ἐν Σάρδεσιν. Sardis (see the Bible Dictionaries zm Joc.: 
also Ramsay, Letters, 375-382) was situated about 30 miles 
S.E.S. of Thyatira. In Ionic its form was Σάρδιες, in Attic 
Σάρδεις, while in later Greek it was written Σάρδις. 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 
συντρίβεται here must agree either with τὰ σκεύη or, as I take it, with ra 
ἔθνη supplied from 26°. For other instances of the sing. verb and plural 
noun cf. i. 19, ἃ μέλλει, Vili. 3, xili. 14, xiv. 13, xix. 14, xx. 3, 5, xxi. 12. 


78 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΠῚ 1. 


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. Ava. 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 πόλις μεγάλη by Strabo (625), and it contended, 
though unsuccessfully, with Smyrna for the privilege of raising a 
temple to Tiberius (Tac. Anm. 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 
seven. 

ὁ ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας. 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 ra ἑπτὰ 
πνεύματα 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. 

οἶδά gow τὰ épya. On this vernacular genitive (contrast 
ii. 2) see notes on ii. 9, 19; Abbott, Gram., pp. 605, 607; also 
414-25, 601. Here as in iii. 8, 15 the emphasis is laid on the 
épya—‘the works thou hast wrought are known to me”—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). 

ὅτι ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς kal νεκρὸς et. For the construction cf. 
Herod. vii. 138, οὔνομα εἶχε, ὡς ἐπ᾿ ᾿Αθήνας ἐλαύνει, κατίετο δὲ ἐς 


111. 1-2.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 79 


πᾶσαν τ. Ἑλλάδα. Contrast 2 Cor. vi. 9, ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες, καὶ 
ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν, and cf. Jas. il. 17, ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα, νεκρά ἐστι 
καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν, and 2 Tim. iil. 5, ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ 
δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι. 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. γίνου γρηγορῶν. For this construction cf. xvi. 10, ἐγένετο... 
ἐσκοτωμένη. γρηγορεῖν 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), ypyyo- 
ρεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν ἔρχεται. There 
are very Close affinities in diction between 2-4 here and xvi. 15, 
which show indubitably our author’s hand. With γίνου γρηγορῶν 
1+ + 3, Kal τήρει καὶ μετανόησον᾽ ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, ἥξω ὡς 
κλέπτης. .. . 4, ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, καὶ περιπατή- 
σουσιν. .. ἐν λευκοῖς, cf. xvi. 15, ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. 
μακάριος ὃ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς 
περιπατῇ. But on the high probability that xvi. 15 originally 
stood between 3° and 3°, see note on this verse and also on 
XVl. 15. 

Ramsay (Zef¢ters, 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.” 

τὰ λοιπά. This word is found eight times in our author, but 
not in the other N.T. Johannine writings. As Swete points out, 
τὰ λοιπά 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. 

ἃ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν. We have here the epistolary imperfect. 
In the plural verb (contrast i. 19) we have a constructio 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 111. 16, xil. 4, after μέλλειν. μέλλειν 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, li. 10, ili, 10, vi. τὰ; Vill. 13, x. 4, 7, 
xii. 5, xvii. 8. In classical Greek μέλλειν is followed most 
frequently by the future inf., but in vulgar Greek this was dis- 
placed by the present. 

σου τὰ (< AC) ἔργα. Here as at the beginning of the verse 
we have the vernacular possessive. The emphasis is thrown 


80 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [III. 2-3. 


strongly on the noun: ‘The works wrought by thee I have found 
wanting before my God.” Cf. Dan. v. 27. Here the cov 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 ἔργα against AC. οὐ---σου 
ἔργα τε “ΠΟ works of thine,” cannot be maintained in the face 
of 4. 

πληρωμένα. Only found once again in our author in vi. 11. 
It is a favourite Johannine word in the Fourth Gospel, occurring 
13 times (cf. especially xvi. 24, xvii. 13), and twice in 1 and 2 
John. Cf. also Col. ii. 10, ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι. 

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ pou. 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 τοῦ θεοῦ pov cf. 
il. 12; Rom. xv. 6, τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ : also Mark xv. 34; John xx. 17. 

3. μνημόνευε οὖν (cf. ii. 5, the advice to the Church of 
Ephesus) πῶς εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας. The change of tenses is here 
significant. ἤκουσας points to the time when they heard the 
Gospel: cf. 1 Thess. i. 5, 6, li. 13. εἴληφας concedes that they 
still possess this gift of God. 

τήρει καὶ μετανόησον. The Church is to keep fast hold of 
what it has received and heard, and, repenting forthwith, recover 
its former spiritual attitude (aor.). 

ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς. 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 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης οἵ 
ἥξω ws κλέπτης would be jejune. But the latter seems more 
definite. And yet in ii. 5, 16, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαι, the present 
ἔρχομαι appears to be used under exactly the same conditions as 
ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης here. But it is probable that in the clause ἰδοὺ 
ἔρχομαι ws κλέπτης we have a general description of the nature of 
Christ’s Advent. It is to be unexpected, whereas in the clause 
ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης 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. ἰδοὺ ἔ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. 
μακάριος ὃ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, 
ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ, 
καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτοῦ. 


III. 8-5.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 81 


III. 8°. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς; 
ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης, 
καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς 
ποίαν ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ. 


ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης kTA. An obvious echo 
of Matt. xxiv. 43 sq. (= Luke xii. 39 sq., cf. Mark xiii. 35). εἰ de 
ὃ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὃ κλέπτης ἔρχεται ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν... 
γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι, ὅτι ἣ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται. 
The Second Advent is referred to in our text: it will come as ἃ 
thief in the night, because they are not on the watch ; cf. 1 Thess. 
V2 4. 

οὐ μὴ γνῷς. The subjunctive follows od μή without excep- 
tion in our author, and all but universally in the rest of the N.T. 
In WH text ov μή 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. 

ποίαν ὥραν. For ὥραν in the acc. when apparently referring 
not to the duration but to a point of time, cf. Moulton, Gram.?, 
p. 63. Blass, Gram. 94 sq., points out that this usage began in 
classical times where ὥραν -Ξ- εἰς ὥραν ; cf. Robertson, Gram. 
470 sq. Acts xx. 16, 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 
corruption. 

ὀνόματα. Cf xi. 13; Actsi.15. Deissmann (Lrb/e Studies, 
196 sq) has proved that in the 2nd cent. A.D. ὄνομα 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 ὀνόματα is used in Num. i. 2, 20, ili. 40, 43, as a 
rendering of ΠῚ where this word means “ persons” reckoned 


by name. 

ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν. See note on 18. The 
moral stains here referred to especially include πορνεία (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 27 /oc.). 

περιπατήσουσιν pet ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς. We have here the first 
eschatological promise, which is not preceded by the words 
ὃ νικῶν. 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. 

ἄξιοί εἰσιν. Contrast the use of this phrase in xvi. 6. 

5. See note on ii. 11°. 

VOL. 1.—6 


82 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (III. 5. 


περιβαλεῖται ἐν. περιβάλλεσθαι takes two constructions in 
our author. It is followed either by ἐν with the dat. as here and 
in iv. 4, or by the acc. in the remaining passages. 

ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς, These garments! 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. 1, 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, τότε οἱ δίκαιοι 
ἐκλάμψουσιν ws ὃ ἥλιος, that is, they shall have a body of light 
(cf. Ps. civ. 2, “who coverest thyself with light as with a garment ἢ), 
t 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 (τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ). 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. x Cor. vi. 18). In the Asc. Isa. iv. τό (ci7c. 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 (civ¢c. 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” (ἐνδεδυμένοι ἦσαν ἔνδυμα ἀγγέλων 
φωτινῶν). Next, in Hermas, Sim. viii. 2. 3, the faithful are 
rewarded with white garments: ἱμάτισμον δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν πάντες 
εἶχον λευκὸν ὡσεὶ χιόνα οἱ πορευόμενοι εἰς τὸν πύργον. 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. 


I1I.5.] | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 83 


in the Odes of Solomon we have three references to these 
heavenly bodies: xi. το, ‘And the Lord renewed me in His 
raiment (cf. Ps. civ. 2) and possessed (? ‘formed,’ 2.6. ἐκτήσατο, 
corrupt for ἐκτίσατο) . . . 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, Zarly Eastern Christiantty, p. 215 ; 
Moulton, Journal of Theol. Stud. 111. 514-527. In its present 
form 4 Ezra iii. 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 11. 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 1 Enoch lxii. 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, JZichae/, 122 sq.; Boklen, Verwandschaft 
a. jiudisch-christlichen mit d. Parsischen Eschatologte, 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°, 5%, vi. 11 (see note), vil. 9, 13, 14, xix. 85 (where 8° is a 
gloss). In iii. 4> (note), 18 (note), xvi. 15, the ἱμάτια 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. 
XxVill. 3; Acts i. 10. The very bodies of the angels are white, 
composed of light; cf. 2 Enochi. 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. 


84 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ IIL. 5-7. 


ἐξαλείψω. .. ex. Cf. vii. 17, xxi 4. The Sardians had 
a name to live and yet were dead (iii. 1); if they awake 
(iii. 2) to righteousness and show themselves victors, then their 
name will be preserved in the book of life. τῆς βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς. 
Cf. xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, 15, XXL 27. 

“The idea underlying this phrase can be traced to the O.T. 
There the book of life (or its equivalents, Ex. xxxil. 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 ¢emporal blessings of the Theocracy, Isa. iv. 3, while 
to be blotted out of this book, Ex. xxxii. 32, Ps. lxix. 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 ¢emporal blessings 
only, save in Dan. xii. 1, 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 τ Enoch xlvii. 3. Α further reference to it is to be found 
in 1 Enoch civ. 1, 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 in 
heaven,’ is its practical equivalent.” The above is quoted with 
a few changes from my note on r 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. lvi. 8; Mal. iii. 16; Neh. xiii. 14; Jub. xxx. 22; the evil 
in Isa. Ixv. 6; 1 Enoch Ixxxi. 4, Ixxxix. 61-64, 68, 70, 71, εἴς. ; 
2 Bar. xxiv. 1; both the good and the evil in Dan. vii. 10; 
2 Enoch lii. 15, liii. 2 ; Rev. xx. 12; Asc. Isa. ix. 22. See Weber, 
Jiid. Theol. 242, 282 566. ; Dalman, Worte Jesu, i.171; K.A.7.8 
li. 405; Bousset, Rel. d. /udenthums, 247. 

καὶ ὁμολογήσω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ kth. We have a clear reminis- 
cence of our Lord’s words in Matt. x. 32 (Luke xii. 8), πᾶς οὖν 
ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω 
κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (τῶν 
ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ, Luke xii. 8). 


7-18. THE MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN 
PHILADELPHIA. 


ἡ. τῆς ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ. This city (see Bible Dictionaries # Joc.) 
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, 


III. 7.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA 85 


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 1. Philadelphus, and named after 
its founder (159-138 B.c.). Under Caracalla it received the title 
of Neocoros or Temple Warden, and thenceforward the Κοινόν 
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, Zefters, 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 11. 
and the Turkish Sultan Bayezid 1. Since that time it has been 
known as Ala-Sheher,—the reddish city,—a designation due to 
the red hills in its rear. 

ὁ ἅγιος ὁ ἀληθινός. “The Holy, the True.” This asyndetic 
use of two divine designations is to be found in 1 Enoch 
i. 3, xiv. 1 (cf. also x. 1, xxv. 3, Ixxxiv. 1), 6 ἅγιος ὃ μέγας. 
ὃ ἅγιος was familiar to the Jews as a title of God; cf. Hab. 
fig; | isa. xl 25 5% Enoch τ 2.) xxxvit. .2,°xciil, rx, etc; 
Acts iil, 14. The two words ἅγιος and ἀληθινός, which are com- 
bined as epithets of God in vi. 10, are in our text applied 
to Christ: cf. iii, 14, 6 πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός : xix. I1, πιστὸς 
[καλούμενος] καὶ ἀληθινός. As regards the meaning of ἀληθινός, 
Hort has rightly urged that “it is misleading to think (here) only 
of the classical sense, true as gexuine. . . . ‘Not only vi. το, but 
lil, 14, 6 μάρτυς 6 πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός (cf. xix. 11), and what is said 
of His ‘ways’ or ‘judgments’ (xv. 3, xvi. 7, xix. 2), ἀληθινός 
coupled with δίκαιος, show that the Apocalypse retains the O.T. 
conception of truth, expressed, eg. in cxlvi. 6, ‘which keepeth 
truth for ever,’ 2.6. 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 
ἀληθής is never used of God, but ἀληθινός is used a few times: 


86 THE REVELATiUN OF ST. JOHN [1πἰ. 7-8. 


cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6; Isa. lxv. 16; Ps. Ixxxvi. 15, where the Hebrew 
is either NDS or JX, Hence ἀληθινός 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, ἀληθινός = “ genuine” as opposed to 
unreal rather than to untruthful. Hence in our author Trench’s 
(WV. 7. Synonyms, 29) admirable differentiation of the words ἀληθής 
(not used in our author, but 14 times in the Fourth Gospel) and 
ἀληθινός does not hold: “ We may affirm of the ἀληθής, that he 
fulfils the promise of his lips, but the ἀληθινός, the wider promise 
ofhis 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 ἔχων Thy κλεῖν Δαυείδ, 6 ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει κτλ. The 
passage points back to i. 18, but it is based on Isa. xxii. 22, 
where QT with the Mass. read, with reference to Eliakim, δώσω 
τὴν κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαυεὶδ ἐπὶ τοῦ Gov αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνοίξει Kal οὐκ 
ἔσται ὃ ἀποκλείων καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀνοίγων. 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 te 
him, and what appears in Isa. xxil. 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, Ze. ὁ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς 
κλείσει καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγε. This is not Greek, but 
a Hebrew idiom often used by our author, 1307) 13D ἡ ΠΙΒΠ 
MND 7s). 

The expression τὴν κλεῖν Δαυείδ has apparently a Messianic 
significance. Cf. v. 5, xxii. 16, ῥίζα Δαυείδ, 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. 
iil. 6. 

8. Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα. 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 


ΤΙ. 8.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA 87 


follow, ἰδοὺ δέδωκα... αὐτήν, aS a parenthesis, and connect 
οἶδα. . . ἔργα directly with ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις κτλ. οἶδα is followed 
by ὅτι in iii. 1, 15. 

ἰδοὺ δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν cou θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην. δέδωκα apparently 
is used Hebraistically here, ‘I have set.” In θύρ. ἀνεῳγμένην we 
have a Pauline metaphor: cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9, θύρα γάρ μοι ἀνέῳγεν 
μεγάλη καὶ ἐνεργής : 2 Cor. il. 12, θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης ἐν κυρίῳ: 
Col. iv. 3, ἵνα ὁ θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου (2.6. 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, ἤνοιξεν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν θύραν πίστεως, 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. τ, αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ πατρός, δι᾿ ἧς 
εἰσέρχονται ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ κτλ.) connects the phrase with 
Christ and compares John x. 7, 9, where Christ describes 
Himself as ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων. 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, 
z.é. that the open door is for the entrance of the community 
into the Messianic glory. 

ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὐτήν. On this Hebraism cf. vii. 
27) Ὁ. MUM Sih 2, Xx5 92 Ch ΧΙ ΠΟΤᾺ Bevin οἱ: alsoul),7,, 17% 

ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν. This clause, as pointed out above, 
depends directly on οἷδά cov τὰ ἔργα, the intervening clause 
being a parenthesis. The Church had little weight in Phila- 
delphia so far as concerned its external circumstances. 

καὶ ἐτήρησάς pou τὸν λόγον. The καί has here an adversative 
force (= ‘and yet”), as frequently in the Fourth Gospel (Abbott, 
Gram. 135 sqq.), 1. 5, ill. 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 érypyoas . . . λόγον see note 
On xiv. 12. καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω. Cf. ii. 13. These clauses point to 
some period of faithfulness under trial in the past. 

μου τὸν λόγον. . . Td ὄνομά μου. “With the position of the 
pronoun here cf. x. 9, πικρανεῖ σου τὴν κοιλίαν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ στόματί 
σου ἔσται γλυκύ. The first unemphatic (or vernacular possessive) 
μου throws the emphasis on ἐτήρησας and τὸν λόγον : ‘ And yet 
the word I gave you thou didst keep, and didst not deny My 
name.” 


88 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11]. 9. 


9. The conversion of the Jewish element in Thyatira 
promised. 

ἰδοὺ διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς tod Σατανᾶ, In διδῶ (for 
the earlier δίδωμι---566 Robertson, Gram. 311 sq.) we have 
a transition from -μὲ to τω forms. Cf. xvii. 13 (διδόασιν). As 
regards διδῶ two interpretations are possible. First, it may be 
rendered literally : “T give men of the synagogue ... as thy 
converts.” Otherwise διδῶ is to be taken Hebraically, “I make 
(1.6. I will make) men of the synagogue . . . behold I will make” 
(ποιήσω). 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 ἰδοὺ διδῶ is decidedly in favour of the 
latter view; for it is a pure Hebraism, jn} 3), with a future 


sense. With the construction διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς Compare 
li. 17, δώσω . . . τοῦ μάννα. 

τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ Σατανᾶ. In the LXX min’ dnp is rendered 
ἡ συναγωγῆ τοῦ κυρίου (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, ἐὰν δέ τις ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἑ ἑρμηνεύῃ ὑμῖν, μὴ 
ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ" ἄμεινον γάρ ἐστιν παρὰ ἀνδρὸς περιτομὴν ἔχοντος 
Χριστιανισμὸν ἀκούειν ἢ παρὰ ἀκροβύστου ἰουδαϊσμόν. 

τῶν λεγόντων ἑαυτοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους εἶναι. The τῶν λεγόντων i is in 
apposition to τῆς συναγωγῆς. On the whole clause cf. 11. 9. In 
classical Greek the usual construction would be τῶν λεγόντων 
(αὐτῶν) ᾿Ιουδαίων εἶνα. But even in classical Greek the acc. with 
inf. is found where the nom. would have been usual. In the 
κοινή Moulton (Gram. 212 sq.) shows the same usage active. In 
fact, as Robertson writes (Gram. 1039), “the acc. 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 77 doc.) : 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 ᾿Ιουδαῖοι is 
by no means an honourable designation. 

τῶν λεγόντων. . . καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. An unmistakable Hebraism. 
Cf. ii. 9 and i. 5—6, note. 

ποιήσω ἵνα cum Sut. or subj. Cf. xiii. 12 (fut.), 16 (subj. ?); 
John xi. 37 (subj.); Col. iv. 16 (subj.). The ἵνα clause is 
one of consequence; cf. ix. 20, xiii. 13. The fut. ind. after 


III. 10] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA 89 


iva is frequent in our author: see Introd. to ii—ili. § 2 (6), 
p. 41 sq. 

iva ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ποδῶν gov. Cf. 
XV. 4, xxll. 8. The language is based on Isa. Ix. 14, where the 
Gentiles are described as submitting to the Jews: πορεύσονται 
πρός σε δεδοικότες viol ταπεινωσάντων σε: XIV. 14, διαβήσονται πρός 
σε καὶ προσκυνήσουσίν σοι. 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. lx. 14 than the LXX, for καὶ 
προσκυνήσουσιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἴχνη τῶν ποδῶν σου is found only in ΟἿ 
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 rdle of the heathen and acknowledge the 
Christians to be the true Israel. 

ἐγὼ ἠγάπησά oe. From Isa. xlili. 4. 

προσκυνήσουσιν. . . Kal γνῶσιν. Cf. xxii. 14, ἵνα ἔσται... 
kal... εἰσέλθωσιν. 

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. 11. 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. il. 25, iii. 3 (0), τι. It 
will be observed that the demonic trial spoken of, while world- 
wide, was to affect only “those that dwell upon the earth,” 2.6. 
the non-Christians. 

ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν λόγον... κἀγώ σε τηρήσω. Cf. John xvii. 
6, II, 12, τὸν λόγον σου- τετήρηκαν.. .. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον 
αὐτούς... ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτούς. 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. 

τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς pou, 2.6. ‘the word of my endurance.” 
The phrase ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων (xill. 10, xiv. 12), 2.6. “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, 
τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ : Ignat. Ad Rom. x. 3, ἔρρωσθε eis τέλος 
ἐν ὑπομονῇ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

τηρήσω ἐκ. Only found elsewhere in the N.T. in John 
xvii. 15 (cf. Jas. 1. 27, τηρεῖν ἀπό), where the thougl t is quite in 


[919] THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [III. 10-12. 


keeping with that of our Seer: οὐκ ἐρωτῶ iva ἄρῃς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου 
ἀλλ᾽ iva τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Here τοῦ πονηροῦ 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., ὃ 5, p. 194sqq. Unreserved loyalty to Christ carries 
with it immunity from spiritual anguish and mental trouble. 

τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ. 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 πειρασμός (cf. πειράζειν 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). πειράζειν in 1]. to means “to afflict,” 
but the affliction is limited to “ten days.” On πειράζειν as 
meaning to inflict evils upon one in order to test his character, 
of: Cor. x0213)3) debit: 18;-1y. 15: 

τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. These are the heathens or 
non-Christians. See note on xi. τὸ and § 4 of the Introd. 
to ΧΙ. Thus the coming πειρασμός, 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. ἔρχομαι taxd. 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 ὃ 1 of the Introd. to xv., and ὃ 1 of the 
Introd. to xvi. 

κράτει ὃ ἔχεις. Each Church is to preserve its own inherit- 
ance. Cf. li. 25. See note on ii. 1 on κρατεῖν. 

iva μηδεὶς λάβῃ τὸν στέφανόν σου. 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. 11, 

ὃ νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτόν A Hebraism. Cf. ii. 7, 17, 26, iii, 21. 

στύλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ θεοῦ pov. With θεοῦ pov cf. 11]. 2, 5. 
Here the phrase occurs four times. The expression στύλος is 
used metaphorically as elsewhere in the N.T. and in Judaism. 
Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15, ἐκκλησία. . στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀλη- 


111. 19.} MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA ΟἹ 


θείας : also Gal. ii. 9. In Clem. Rom. v. 2, Peter and Paul are 
called of μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι. In Judaism, R. Johanan 
ben Sakkai was called ‘32.7 yy, “the right pillar,” with refer- 
ence to 1 Kings vii. 21 (Ber. 28>), and Abraham the pillar of the 
world in Exod. rab. 2 (see Levy’s /Veuhebraishes Worterbuch, 
111. 660; also Schoettgen, Aor. 1. 728 sq.). The metaphor is 
current in most languages: cf. Pind. Οἱ ii. 146; Eur. 2}. I. 
57, στύλοι yap οἴκων εἰσὶ παῖδες ἄρσενες : Aesch. Agam. 897; Hor. 
Od. i. 35. 13. Since στύλος is thus used metaphorically, it 
follows that ναός 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. 1o—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. 

ἔξω οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἔτι. The subject is ὃ νικῶν. 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. 217, ἵνα πάντες ἕν Gow: 22, ἵνα dow ἕν 
καθὼς ἡμεῖς ev: 21", ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν. Isa. xxii. 25, 
which speaks of the removal of “the nail fastened in a sure 
place” (z.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. 

οὐ (or μή) . . - ἔτι, frequent in our author but not in Fourth 
Gospel. 

καὶ γράψω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα κτλ. So far as the Greek goes 
the words ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν could refer to (1) στύλον, or (2) to ὃ νικῶν. 
1. 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, 1. 116), we find: 
Oida σε, Ἑρμῆ . . . οἶδά σου καὶ τὰ βαρβαρικὰ ὀνόματα Kai τὸ 
ἀληθινὸν ὄνομά σου τὸ ἐγγραμμένον τῇ ἱερᾷ στήλῃ ἐν τῷ ἀδύτῳ ἐν 
ἝἝρμουπόλει. 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 


92 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [III. 12. 


priests of God in the next world. Ignatius, 4d Phi/ad. vi. 1, has 
been thought to refer to the present text when he writes in 
reference to those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ, οὗτοι 
ἐμοὶ στῆλαί εἰσιν καὶ τάφοι νεκρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ols γέγραπται μόνον ὀνόματα 
ἀνθρώπων. 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. 
lvi. 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. 1, xxii. 4 (cf. vii. 3, note, 
xvii. 5). See also ii. 17, note. 

τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ pou. 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. 

τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως τοῦ θεοῦ pou. 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. 

τῆς καινῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ. 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 ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, but the Fourth 
Gospel Ἱεροσόλυμα. 

ἡ καταβαίνουσα κτλ. Cf. xxi. 2, το. On this Hebraism see 
note on i. 5. 

τὸ ὄνομά pou τὸ καινόν. Cf. xix. 12, 16. 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. Lsrael. για. 
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°, “‘ 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). 


III. 14-22.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA 93 


14-22. MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA. 


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 Λαοδίκεια ἡ πρὸς (or ἐπὶ) τῷ 
Avxw (Strabo, 578). In the N.T. it was written Λαοδικία, but in 
inscriptions and literature Λαοδίκεια. It was founded on the 
south bank of the Lycus, 6 m. south of Hierapolis and τὸ 
west of Colossae, by Antiochus 1. (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 (1) a banking centre (thus 
Cicero proposes to cash there his treasury bills of exchange— 
Ad Fam. ili. 5, Ad Att. v.15), and very opulent; for when it 
was overthrown by the great earthquakes of 60-61 a.p. (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. 11]. 17, 
πλούσιός εἶμι. .. Kal οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω : 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,—rw os καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ yupvds,—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. 1. 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 Zncy. 
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, Zef/ers, 


94 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [III. 14. 


413 sqq., and the articles on Laodicea in Hastings’ D.&. and 
the Zucy. Bib.—especially in the latter. 

14. ὁ ᾿Αμήν. The explanation of this phrase is uncertain, 
but it may possibly be found in Isa. Ixv. 16, }fOx ‘ids = “the God 


of Amen.” But, as modern scholars recognize, the LXX (τὸν 
θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν) implies "Ὁ ‘rik = “the God of truth,” instead 
of jON τον, “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 τῷ θεῷ, ἀμήν, and 
Aquila (τῷ θεῷ) πεπιστωμένως. In any case our author, as 
Symmachus, found js in Isa. lxv. 16. 


ὃ μάρτυς πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός. For the first three words cf. i. 5, 
and for the meaning our author attaches to ἀληθινός, see note on 
ὙΠ 5. 

ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, ze. “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 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ we should 
compare Col. i. 18, ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή (where dpy7y—the active 
principle in creation Ξε αἰτία, cause—has the same meaning as in 
our text), and i. 15, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (= “sovereign 
Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture”—Lightfoot). 
It is to be observed that πρωτότοκος bears the same meaning 
in our author in i. 5, πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν = “sovereign Lord 
of the dead” (1.6. the secondary meaning of πρωτότοκος). In 
Col. i. 18, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν is not quite parallel owing to 
the presence of the ἐκ, which brings out the primary meaning of 
πρωτότοκος, #.é. priority in time. 

2. With iii. 21, δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι per’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ pov, ὡς 


III. 14-15. | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA 95 


κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός pov ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, 
compare Col. iii. 1, εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ X., τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ 6 
Χ. ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενος. (Cf. Eph. il. 6, συνήγειρεν 
καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ.) In our text 
the victors are to be seated on Christ’s throne as He is seated 
on God’s throne. In Col. iii. 1, 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. 8, 18, 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 Zaodiceans that they may be 
brought unto “all riches of the full assurance of understanding,” 
even “‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden” in 
Christ. 

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 (ili. 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 
undone. 

ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἧς. ὄφελον 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. 1 we have ὄφελον with the past ind. to express a 
possibility though in the present still unrealized. Moulton 


96 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11]. 15-17. 


defines these as instances of the “unreal” indicative. See Blass, 
Gram. 206 sq., 220; Moulton, Gram. i. 200. 

feoros. 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 (τῷ πνεύματι Céovres, Rom. xii. 11). 

16. χλίαρος, 2.6. “lukewarm ”—here only in Biblical Greek. 

μέλλω. . . ἐμέσαι. Our author as a rule uses the pres. inf. 
after μέλλειν : see note on ill. 2. ἐμέσαι. 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. 1 Cor. iv. 7-8). This, no doubt, is true, but the 
allusion to the material conditions of the city cannot be ignored. 

πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ πεπλούτηκα, “I am rich, and have gotten 
riches.” Our text here is a free and direct rendering of Hos. 
SIL; Ὁ hi ΝΥ Του. The LXX renders ix under the 
influence of the kindred Arabic root, πεπλόυτηκα, εὕρηκα ἀνα- 
ψυχὴν (ἀνωφελὲς, Aquila) ἐμαυτῷ, 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 οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω the οὐδέν is an acc. of limitation or refer- 
ence. Blass (Gram. g1, note) thinks it cannot be right. But it 
recurs in xxii. 5 (note). Our author uses χρείαν ἔχειν either with 
the gen. (xxi. 23, xxii. 5) or with the acc. (iil. 17, xxii. 5). As 
Swete points out, there is a parallel expression and construction 
in Petr. Ev. 5, ὡς μηδὲν πόνον ἔχων. But our author does not 
always keep to the same construction. Thus yéuw has a gen. in 
iv. 6, 8, v. 8, xv. 7, xvii. 4, xxi. 9, but an acc. in xvii. 3, 4. 

καὶ οὐκ οἶδας. Contrast this with οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα in 111. 15. 

σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος κτλ. The ov 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- 


III. 17-18.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA 97 


dicate cf. Luke xviii. 13 ; Matt. v. 13, ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς, 
z.e. the only salt that deserves the name (cf. Blass, Gram. 157). 
ταλαίπωρος occurs only here and in Rom. vii. 24, where it is used 
respectively of the extremes of unconscious and conscious 
wretchedness. ἐλεεινός, “pitiable,” as in Dan. ix. 23; 1 Cor. 
XV. 10. ᾿ 

πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός. 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 πτωχός 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—arwyxds καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός. 
Since the Laodiceans are all but spiritually destitute (πτωχός), 
they are exhorted to buy for themselves a new and disciplined 
spirit (χρυσίον πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός). 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- 
mént 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°), 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. 11), 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. 

συμβουλεύω oot. This construction here and in John xviii. 14 
only in N.T. Occasionally in the LXX. 

ἀγοράσαι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ χρυσίον. Cf. Isa. lv. 1, “Ho, every one 
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money ; 
come ye... buy (ἀγοράσατε) wine and milk without money 
and without price.” For the metaphorical use of this verb cf. 
Vv. 9, xiv. 3, 4; Matt. xxv. 9, Io. 

The words παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ are emphatic. Cf. Matt. vi. 19, 20 for 
the thought. As regards the construction ἀγοράσαι παρά, cf. 
2 Esdr. xx. 321. Inv. 9 of our author this verb is followed by ἐκ, 
and in xiv. 3, 4 by ἀπό: but the sense is different. On the 

VOL. I.—7 


98 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [111. 18. 


symbolic meaning of χρυσίον here see note at beginning of 
verse. 

πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός. Cf. τ Pet. 1. 7, τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς 
πίστεως πολυτιμότερον χρυσίου... διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζομένου. 
Other parallels may be found in Ps. xviii. 31, Prov. xxx. 5, 
where the word of the Lord is said to be “tried” (AD¥, in the 
LXX πεπυρωμένοι), or in Pss. Sol. xvii. 47, πεπυρωμένα ὑπὲρ 
χρυσίον. See also Ps. Ixvi. ro. From these parallels it is clear 
that the meaning of πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός is that ¢his 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 fons οὐ 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. 18°), Interpreted thus, the ἱμάτια λευκά 
and the κολλούριον are not separate and independent gifts, but 
gifts that are subsidiary to or rather springing out of the chief 
gift—the χρυσίον πεπυρωμένον ἐκ mupds—t.e. the new heart. 

ἱμάτια λευκά. See the preceding note; also the note at 
beginning of verse, and on iii. 5. 

μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός σου. See xvi. 15, note. 
For the diction, cf. Ezek. xvi. 36, ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ἡ αἰσχύνη 
σου (qn din): also xxiii. 29; Ex. xx. 26. The soul of the 
faithless will appear naked in the next world. Cf. 2 Cor. 
V. 2, 3, τὸ οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπενδύσασθαι ἐπιποθοῦντες, 
εἴ ye καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. According to xx. 
11-15, 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. 

κολλούριον ἐγχρῖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς κτλ. The κολλούριον was 
shaped like ἃ κολλύρα (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. 34, vii. 10°, viii. 11°) (see Levy’s Weuhebrdishes 
Worterbuch, iv. 293) as NADP and prdsp in the general sense 
of an eye salve, and in Latin as Collyrium: cf. Hor. Saz. 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. 156%: “ Verba legis corona sunt capitis, 


III. 18-19. ] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA 99 


torques collo, collyrium oculis.” ἐγχρῖσαι. 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 thei 
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. 1. 27), “‘in whom are all 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden” (Col. ii. 3). 
In the note on πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός above I have taken the 
spiritual gift symbolized by κολλούριον as a gift springing out of 
the chief gift symbolized by χρυσίον πεπυρ. ἐκ πυρός, and not as a 
separate and independent gift. On the other hand, the κολλού- 
ριον 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 ἐλεγμός (John xvi. 8sqq.) of the Holy 
Spirit (so Diusterdieck 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. ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω. Cf. Pss. Sol. x. 2, 
xiv. 1; Heb. xii. 6. The text is remarkable here. It is drawn 
from Prov. iii. 12, Mai “Ὁ ANNYAWS NN 3, which the LXX 


renders, ὃν yap ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος ἐλέγχει, (B; idl Sees NA). Here 
first of all we observe that our author uses φιλεῖν and not ἀγαπᾶν 
as inthe LXX. This is further remarkable, since in 1. 5, ili. 9, 
ἀγαπᾶν and not φιλεῖν is used of Christ’s love for man. φιλεῖν 
is not used in the LXX or the N.T. (except in John xvi. 27) of 
God’s love for man, but ἀγαπᾶν. Moreover, men are bidden 
ἀγαπᾶν τὸν θεόν but never φιλεῖν τὸν θεόν save in Prov. viii. 17. 
This last passage is instructive ; for here the LXX renders 37s 
which is twice used by the two words: ἐγὼ τοὺς ἐμὲ φιλοῦντας 
ἀγαπῶ. The two Greek words differ in that ἀγαπᾶν ‘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.8). See, however, M. & M.’s 
Voc. of Gk. T:, p. 2. In John xi. 3, 36, xx. 2, οἰλεῖν» is used 
of Christ’s love for Lazarus and John, but elsewhere in the 
Gospel ἀγαπᾶν is universally employed in this connection. 
Hence there is no perfect parallel in the N.T. to the use of 
φιλεῖν here. The exceptional use of the emotional word (con- 
trast iil. 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, ἐλέγχω and παιδεύω call for attention. Here Swete 


100 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN  [III. 19-20. 


observes that these two words may be duplicate renderings of 
M3}', or that παιδεύω may have been suggested by the preceding 


verse in Prov. iii. 11, μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου. The latter 
view is to be preferred, since παιδεύειν never appears in the LXX 
as a rendering of M3° except in Prov. iii. 12 (in NA, etc.), but is 
a normal rendering of 1D‘, whereas the stock translation of m5’ is 
ἐλέγχειν. 

Reproof and chastisement are evidence not of Christ’s 
rejection of the Laodiceans, but of His love (φιλῶ) 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. 

ζήλευε οὖν καὶ μετανόησον. Here zeal is enjoined as a per- 
manent element in the Christian character—hence ζήλευε and 
not ζήλευσον, while repentance is required as a definite change 
once and for all from their present condition—hence μετανόησον. 
They are to begin by one decisive act, the life of Christian 
enthusiasm as opposed to their former life of lukewarmness and 
indifference. 

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; asa friend in this verse He does more: 
He comes to each individual and seeks an entrance into his 
heart. Here the words (ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου) have a 
personal and individual character not applicable to the Church 
of Laodicea as awhole. If 20 were addressed to the Church we 
should expect ἐὰν σὺ ἀκούσῃς τ. φ. pov. Cf. ζήλευε καὶ μετανόησον 
in 19. Hence with De Wette, Alford, Weiss, and others this 
verse is to be interpreted as referring to repentance in the 
present. 

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), 
γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις : Luke xii. 36, ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι 
ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον... ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρού- 
σαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ: Jas. v. 9, ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν 
θυρῶν ἕστηκεν. It is shown further that in Luke xxii. 20 56.» 
κἀγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν, καθὼς διέθετό μοι 6 πατήρ μου βασιλείαν, ἵνα 
ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, καὶ 
καθῆσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, 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 


111. 20-21. ] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA IOI 


text. But though the parallels in diction are indisputable, the 
thought differs. For whereas in Mark xili. 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 φωνὴ 
ἀδελφιδοῦ μου, κρούει ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν" ἄνοιξόν μοι ἀδελφή pov. 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, il. (1st ed.) 47 54. etc. 

ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς pou... καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι. I have 
with some hesitation followed XQ, a considerable body of 
cursives, s' and Prim. in retaining the καί before the apodosis. 

ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς pov. Cf. John x. 3, τὰ πρόβατα φωνῆς αὐτοῦ 
ἀκούει: XVill. 37, πᾶς 6 ὧν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς. 
Obedience to Christ leads to fellowship with Him. 

kat ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω pet αὐτοῦ. Cf. John 
XIV. 23, πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμεθα καὶ μονὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ποιησόμεθα. 
For εἰσέρχεσθαι πρός τινα 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. 1 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 1 Cor. vi. 13% and Ber 174, “In 
the world to come there is neither eating nor drinking . . . but 
the righteous . . . find their delight (0°99) in the glory of the 
Shechina.” 

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 seer. 


102 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [III. 21-IV. § 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, 11°, 17°, 26-27, iii. 5, 12, this verse is a later 
addition of our author when he edited his visions as a whole. 

ὁ νικῶν. . . αὐτῷ. See note on this Hebraism on ii. 7; also 
on διδόναι followed by the inf. 

δώσω. .. καθίσαι per ἐμοῦ ἐν τ. θρόνῳ pou. The Seer 
witnesses in a vision the fulfilment of this promise in xx. 4, εἶδον 
θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς. .. καὶ 
ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη. The promise 
relates to the Millennial Kingdom. To the same period should 
probably be referred Luke xxii. 30, κἀγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν καθὼς 
διέθετό μοι 6 πατήρ pov βασιλείαν iva... καθῆσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων 
τ. δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (cf. Matt. xix. 28), and like- 
wise 2 Tim. ii. 11-12, εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συνζήσομεν. εἰ ὑπο- 
μένομεν, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν, 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. 

bs κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα. Cf. John xvi. 33, θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν 
κοσμον. 

καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τ. θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. Cf. xxi. 2, 
xxii. 3, notes, and Col. ili. 1, οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ. 
Our author appears to use καθίζειν in the finite tenses (cf. xx. 4) 
and the infinitive, but never the participle καθίζων, in place of 
which he uses καθήμενος. Finite tenses of καθῆσθαι are found 
in sources used by our author (xvii. 9, 15, xviii. 7). 


CHAPTER IV. 
§ 1. Zhe 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.-iiii 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 


Iv. §1-2.] CONTENTS AND AUTHORSHIP OF CHAPTER 103 


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°-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 ὃ 3). iv. 1, 2% (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 ts indisputably from our Author's 
hand, as the diction and idioms testify. 


(a) Diction. 

1. μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού. See note 7m loc. ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. 
So always in the sing. in our author except in xii. 12. δείξω: cf. 
i, I, XVii, I, ΧΧΙ- 9, 10, xxii. 1, 6, 8. ἃ Set γενέσθαι. Cf. i. 1, 
Xxli. 6. 

2. ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. Cf. i. το. 

4. περιβεβλημένους ἱματίοις λευκοῖς. Cf. iii. 5. In vii. 9, 13, 
X. I, xix. 8, 13, the noun follows in the acc. instead of in the 
dat. 

5. ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταί. Cf. xi. 19, xvi. 18, but 
in Vili. 5 in a different order. 

6. ὡς θάλασσα δαλίνη. Cf. xv. 2 (d75). ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ : cf. 
XXli. I, ποταμὸν... ζωῆς... ὡς κρύσταλλον. 

8. ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν κτλ. recurs in XIV, 11. κύριος 6 θεός. 


104 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _[IV. § 2-3. 


This divine title occurs 10 times elsewhere in our author (cf. i. 
8, iv. 11, xi. 17, xv. 3, xvi. 7, etc.), and only twice in the rest 
of the N.T. (ze. in St. Luke) except in passages quoted from the 
O.T. κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Cf. 1. 8, xi. 17, XV. 3, XVi- 7, 
xix. 6, xxi. 22. ὃ παντοκράτωρ 6 ἦν καὶ ὁ dv καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Cf. 
ἘΠ 5. ΖΕ 17, Xvi. 5. 

9. δώσουσιν. . . δόξαν. Cf. xiv. 7, xvi. 9, xix 7 (xi. 13). 
Cf. 4th Gospel ix. 24, xvil. 22. τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων : 
ἘΠ τὸ, 1 τϑ ας 6G, Ἀν}. (ΟΣ, vill a): 

11. λαβεῖν . . . τὴν δύναμιν; Cf. v. 12, xi. 17. 

(ὁ) Zdiom. 

1. ἡ φωνὴ... . σάλπιγγος λαλούσης. . . λέγων. See note in 
Joc. on this Hebraism, and cf. xvii. 1, xxi. 9. 

2. ἐπὶ τ. θρόνον καθήμενος. 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 
use. 

7. ἔχων ΞΕ εἶχε : cf. 8, ΧΙ 2, xix. 12, ΧΣΙ. 12, 14. 

8. τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα... λέγοντες. A frequent construction 
in our author. 

9. ὅταν cum fut. ind.: cf. vill. 1, where ὅταν is followed by aor. 
ind., though elsewhere in our author by the swdj. For ὅταν with 
the fut. ind. see Robertson, Gram. 972. 

10. προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ ζῶντι. On the technical sense attached 
by our author to this construction see note on vii. 11. 


§ 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. 


2>—3, 5, 6—88°4® appear to have been written by our author 
as an independent vision. The grounds for this conclusion are 
given in the notes 7 /oc., some of which may be stated here. 
First of all, iv. 1, 2* is a prose introduction to the chapter, 
which serves to connect the preceding visions on earth with those 
that follow in heaven, iv. 2*-ix. The rest of 2°-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 (θρόνοι not θρόνους, 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 


Iv. ὃ 3.] RECAST OF AN EARLIER VISION 105 


reverse order—angels, Elders, Living Creatures, as in vii. 11, 
xix. 1-4. 

How then are we to explain iv. 4? Two explanations are 
possible. 1. 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. 1, 25, 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 acc., owing not improbably to εἶδον in iv. 1. 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°. Thus 
we should have had a description of the throne and of Him that 
sat thereon (2°-3), next of the Living Creatures (6-8), and 
finally of the Elders (4). In that case 8° would have read καὶ ra 
ζῷα ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν κτλ. 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 καὶ ἰδού: 


IV. 1. Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον 
2. καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος, 
8. καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι και σαρδίῳ, 
καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγ- 
δίνῳ. ᾿ 


II. 


5. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ 
καὶ βρονταί, 
Ν ε Ἁ λ ad AQ , tL ΑΗ͂ΡΥΣ A l4 
καὶ ἑπτὰ λαμπάδες πυρὸς καιόμεναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, 
6. καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ὡς θάλασσα ὑαλίνη ὁμοία 
κρυστάλλῳ, 
καὶ κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου τέσσαρα ζῷα γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν 
ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν.1 


Ti: 
7. καὶ τὸ ζῷον τὸ πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι, 
καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῷον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, 


1 Τῇ 5» is a later addition, as it may be, then 6° would form lines 3 and 
4 of the stanza. 


106 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN {τὺ..1, 


καὶ τὸ τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου 
καὶ τὸ τέταρτον ζῷον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετομένῳ. 


Ιν. 


8. καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυ- 
γας ἕξ, 
καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες, 
ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, 
ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. 


1. μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού. The clause with or without the καὶ 
ἰδού always introduces a new and important vision in our 
Apocalypse.!. Compare vii. 1 (μετὰ τοῦτο), 9, XV. 5, XViii. 1, xix. I 
(μετὰ ταῦτα ἤκουσα). Sometimes the same note of emphasis and 
unexpectedness is conveyed by the clause καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδού: cf. 
vi. 2, 5, 8, xiv. 1, 14, or by καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα, viii. 13. Gener- 
ally similar and closely related sections, paragraphs, and clauses 
are introduced by καὶ εἰδον, as in v. 1, 2, 6, 11, 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 pera ταῦτα εἶδον, or its linguistic equivalent, is found in 
t Enoch lIxxxv. 1, Ixxxix. 19, 30, 54, 72, xc. 2; T. Joseph xix. 5; 
2 Bar. xxxvii. 1, liii. 8, 11. 

καὶ εἶδον, or its equivalent in Hebrew, Aramaic, or 
Ethiopic is found in Dan. vii. 4, 9, 11, 21, Vili, 2, 4, 73 
1 Enoch xvi. 3, 6, 7. 8, ΧΨΠΙΡ 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0, £0, 12, ἢ. ΣΙΝ 5, 
ΧΙ. 2, [xxxy. 7, IXxxix, 47, 90, XC. 1, 4.5, Ὁ, etc. = ἢ evi Wil τ᾿ 
T. Joseph xix. 1, 3, 7, 8. We find frequently with the same 
connotation the clause, ‘‘ And again I saw,” in 1 Enoch Ixxxvi. 
Ey 25 ἸΣΧΣΨΙΙ. Uy RXR, 3, EA, 

But the fuller form in our text frequently appears in this 
literature, pera ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού. See vii. 9, or its linguistic 
equivalent, Dan. vii. 6, 7 (78) NA AIM AIT AINSI); 1 Enoch 
Ixxxvi. 2; T. Joseph xix. 5; 4 Ezra xi. 22, 33, xiil. 5 (‘vidi post 
haec et ecce”), ὃ, and the somewhat shorter form 737) 778) (or 
the like) in Ezek. i. 4, ii. 9, viii. 2, 7, 10, x. I, 9, xliv. 4; Zech. i. 
8, vi. 1; Dan. iv. 10, vil. 2, 13, vill. 3, xX. 5 ; 1 Enoch xiv. 14-15; 
2. Bar, xxxvi.- 1-2, 9, 111. ΟἽ 3 4) Kara. κε 1,43, .6, ἡ. cones, 
XX. Ὁ, etc. 

In all the above passages in Ezekiel, Zechariah, Danie), 


1 The occurrence of this clause in xv. 5 shows that a new vision is being 
introduced : hence xv. 1, which deals with the same vision, is an interpola- 
tion, 


IV. 1.] SEER’S VISION OF GOD 107 


1 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 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι in the next verse. If the Seer is 
already in a spiritual trance, what is to be made of the words 
ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι in 2? 

καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεωγμένη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. As we shall see later, 
καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα... ἐν πνεύματι is an addition of our author whereby 
he connects the preceding visions on earth, i. 1o-ili., with those 
that follow in iv.-v., which are in heaven. The phraseology is 
apocalyptic. Cf. 1 Enoch xiv. 15, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄλλην θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην. 
It is possible to explain this expression in two ways. 1. 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 1 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 ἄλλην θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην 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.! This is the view underlying 
T. Levi v. 1, ἤνοιξέ μοι ὁ ἄγγελος τὰς πύλας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 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 Macc. 
vi. 18, τότε 6 μεγαλόδοξος Beds . . . ἠνέῳξεν τὰς οὐρανίους πύλας, 
ἐξ ὧν δεδοξασμένοι δύο φοβεροειδεῖς ἄγγελοι κατέβησαν. This 
seems to be the right explanation. That the door, moreover, is 
not on a level with the Seer, as in 1 Enoch xiv., is clear from 
the words that follow ἀνάβα ὧδε. 

With the expression “a door opened in heaven” for the 
admission of the single Seer, we might contrast the words in 
xix. 11, “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 i. 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, W2¢thrasiiturgée, 11 sqq. 

On the ideas of doors in heaven through which the sun, moon, planets, 
and winds pass, see I Enoch xxxiii.-xxxvi., lxxii. sqq. See also Schrader’, 
K.A.T. 619, for the occurrence of such ideas in Babylonian writings. 


108 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 1, 


ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Throughout the entire Apocalypse οὐρανός 
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 οὐρανός, T. Reub. i. 6, v. 7, vi. 9; T. Levi xiv. 3 (8), xviii. 
3, 4; T. Jud. xxi. 4 (8), etc. ; sometimes οὐρανοί, T. Levi ii. 6, 
ili. 1 (a), 9 (8), v. 4 (8), xiii. 5; T. Jud. xxi. 3, ete. 

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 θρόνος. .. 
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ iN 2. 

But the passage, καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα. .. ἡ φωνὴ . .. ἐν πνεύματι, is, 
as we shall see presently, an addition inserted by the writer with 
a view to linking together this vision with that which precedes: 
καὶ ἣ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης per ἐμοῦ, 
λέγων. Render, “and the former voice.” ἡἣ φωνή depends on 
ἰδού. This voice appears to be that referred to in i. 10, ἤκουσα 
φωνὴν μεγάλην... ὡς σάλπιγγος λεγούσης. 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 ἣ φωνὴ. .. λέγων 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 1-111. In 
this first edition of his visions the above inconsistency escaped 
him. If, however, we could, with some scholars, take the voice 
in i. τὸ to be that of an unknown angel, there would be no such 
inconsistency. 

ἡ φωνή. . . ds σάλπιγγος Aadovons per ἐμοῦ λέγων. Here ἡ 
φωνή is dependent on ἰδού no less than ἡ θύρα. There are two 
explanations possible of λέγων. Either λέγων is to be construed 
κατὰ σύνεσιν with φωνή and hence to be taken 85 -- λέγουσα, 
—for similar constructions cf. xi. 15, xix. 14. Cf. Gen. (LXX) 
xv. 1,—or the phrase λαλούσης per’ ἐμοῦ λέγων is to be taken as a 
Hebraism (risk ‘AN VDD), as in xvii. 1, xxi. 9. Cf. x. 8. 

ἀνάβα (-- ἀνάβηθι: cf. μετάβα, Matt. xvii. 20. See Robertson, 
Gram. 328). 


IV. 1-2.] SEER’S VISION OF GOD 109 


ὧδε (= “hither”: cf. John vi. 25, x. 27. See Blass, Gram. 
p. 58). Cf. 1 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, Vili. I. 
From heaven he can behold what takes place on earth: cf. vi. 
12, 15 sqq., vil. 1, 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. 1. Hence 
xv. I (see note z# Joc.) is an interpolation. In xvii.—xviii. the 
scene is again changed, and the Seer is on earth again: cf. 
ΧΥΪ]. 3, XVill. I, 4, 21. In xix. I-10 the Seer is again in heaven. 
From xix. 11 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. 

δείξω. This verb has already occurred in the same con- 
nection on i. 1, 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 δείξω 
recurs in xvii. I, Xxi. 9, 10, xxii. 1, 6, 8, where the guide is an 
angel of the vision of the Bowls. 

δείξω σοι ἃ Set γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. As in i.—iii. the present 
(ἃ εἰσίν, 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. 1, 19. The phrase 
ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι (already in i. 1) is found in the LXX and Theo- 
dotion of Dan. ii. 28, 29, while in ii. 29, 45 the entire clause, 
ἃ det γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, occurs in Theodotion’s rendering of 
m7 nx wind vp. 

2. εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. These words create a great 
difficulty in the text. According to i. 10, where the expression 


110 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 2. 


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. 1 (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. 1, 5. But the parallel does not hold. For, whereas 
in Ezek. xi. 1 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. to 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.11. J. Weiss (p. 54 ἢ.) has 
therefore rightly urged that there is an inconsistency between 
iv. 1 and iv. 2, but he goes needlessly far in maintaining that 
whoever introduced the expression in iv. 2 no longer felt that 
εἶδον in iv. 1 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 ini. το. That he is still in this state in 
iv. 1 is proved both by the diction (εἶδον) and che fact that he 
hears the heavenly voice which addresses him anew. Ini. to 
the Seer is not addressed by Christ till he has fallen into a 
trance, that is, the words ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι 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. 1, 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. 1°°4, 2% three of which, 1%, iv. 2%, have already 
occurred in i-iiii 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. 1°, καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα 
ἠνεῳγμένη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, and iv. 14, dvéBa ὧδε, are indispensable, 
the former clause that the voice may issue from heaven (cf. 
Matt. iii. 17; Acts x. 11) 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 καὶ ἰδοὺ. . . ἐν πνεύματι as added here by the Seer in 
order to connect i.—iii. and iv.—ix. It must be confessed that the 


IV. 2.] SEER’S VISION OF GOD 11 


expression ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι is not what we expect here, since 
it expresses nothing more than what is already definitely implied 
in μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, 7.6. that the Seer was in the ecstatic state: 
cf. i. το. Since, as in xvii. 3, xxi. 10, there is here an actual 
translation of the spirit of the Seer, we should here expect 
ἀπηνέχθην ἐν πνεύματι, Or ἀπήνεγκέ με ἐν πνεύματι (or ἀνέλαβέν pe 
κτλ., or ἐξῆρεν με κτλ.). Cf. χν!!. 3, ἀπήνεγκέν pe... ἐν πνεύματι 
and xxi. 10, and Ezek. iii. r2 (MN NWN), 14 (“INPN) ΠΝ) ΠῚ), 
viii. 3, xi. 1, 24, xliii. 5. In 1 Kings xviii. 12, 2 Kings ii. 16, 
the same Hebrew verb is used of an actual bodily translation, and 
ἁρπάζειν in Acts viii. 39. For other instances? of bodily translation 
see Hebrew Gospel (Orig. Zz Joan, tom. ii. 6; Hermas, Vis. i. 1. 3, 
ii. 1.1; Sim.ix. 1. 4). For the same idea of a translation of the 
spirit see 1 Enoch xiv. 8, 9, lxxi. 1, 5-6. Whether a bodily or 
only a spiritual translation took place in his case St. Paul knew 
not: 2 Cor. xii. 2-4. 

καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο κτλ. Here the original vision of the 
Seer really begins. 

θρόνος. The throne of God in heaven is frequently referred 
to in the O.T. and later Jewish literature: cf. 1 Kings xxii. 19 ; 
Isa. vi. 13 Ezek. i. 26; Ps. xlvii. 8; Dan. vii. 9; 1 Enoch 
mv. 1S, τὸ (xl); YT. Levi v.13 Ass!’ Moses’ iv.” 2; 2 Enoch 
“xii, 2 (A). See also Weber?, γα. Theol. 164 sq. A throne of 
God on earth is described or mentioned in 1 Enoch xviii. 8, 
ΣΥΝ $y XXV. 7. 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 ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου, which is added 
asyndetically in xvi. 17 after ἀπὸ τοῦ ναοῦ, 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. 1, xviii. 6, and possibly also in the O.T.? 

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. Hebr., ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν μιᾷ 
τῶν τριχῶν μου, καὶ ἀπήνεγκέ με εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα θαβώρ. Cf. Bel 36. 

2Some scholars would discover this combination already in Ps. xi. 4, 
‘Yahweh is in His holy palace (or temple, 3"); 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. 1sqq., but elsewhere the 
earthly temple is the scene and subject of prophetic visions: cf. Amos ix. 1; 
Ezek. viii. 3, x. 48q.; 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. 

8 vii, 9-17 was 22 zts original form a description of the worship of the 
blessed faithful after the final judgment. See pp. 200-1. 


112 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 2. 


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, rod θυσιαστηρίου, vi. g (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 vili. 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 
elements. 

ἔκειτο = “‘stood.” Cf. John xix. 29, il. 6 (xxi. 9); Jer. xxiv. 1. 
See Blass, Gram. 51. 

ἐπὶ τ. θρόνον καθήμενος. He that sitteth on the throne is 
distinguished in vi. 16, vii. το, from the Lamb. In xix. 12 we 
have τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τ. θρόνου. In vil. 10, xix. 4, we have the 
full expression τῷ θεῷ τῷ καθ. ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ. The variations of 
case following on καθῆσθαι ἐπί 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 acc., and concludes that “the only rule that seems to be 
at all observed was that always at the jirst mention of the fact of 


IV. 2-8.] SEER’S VISION OF GOD 113 


the sitting, the acc. seems to be used, iv. 2, 4, vi. 2, 4, 5, xiv. 14, 
XVii. 3, XIX. II, XXIV. 4 (xx. 11 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. τό does not come 
under this rule, and no rule he admits “seems to prevail as 
regards the gen. and dat.” Bousset?, 165 sq., does not try to 
explain the variations, but brings them together. From him I 
draw the following classification slightly remodelled. 

Thus τοῦ καθημένου ἐπί is followed by the gez., iv. 10, v. 1, 7, 
vi. 16, xvii. 1, xix. 18 (PQ min fere omn.: acc. A 61. 69: dat. δ), 
XIX. 19, 21. 

τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπί with dat. iv. 9 (NA), Vv. 13 (AQ), Vii. 10 
(NACP), xix. 4 (sACQ). _Exception: with acc. vi. 4, ἐπὶ αὐτόν. 
In xiv. 15 with gen. ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης, but xiv. 15-17 is not from 
the hand of our author. 

ὃ καθήμενος ἐπί and τὸν καθήμενον ἐπί, with acc. ὁ καθήμενος, 
Οἱ ace: in) ivs<2:{P An with gen.), vi. 2, 5, xi. τὸ (AP), xix; 11 
Exceptions—with gen. vii. 15 (dat. Q min pl.), xiv. 16 (Ax 
but not from our author's hand), with dat. xxi. 5 (but this 
is due to editor). τὸν (τοὺς) καθ. with acc. in iv. 4, Xiv. 14, 
xvii. 3. Exceptions with gen. ix. 17, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν (but due pro- 
bably to interpolation of ix. 17°”), xiv. 6 (where, however, see 
note), xx. 11, but this is due to editor. Thus, in short, the 
participle in the nom. and ace. is followed by ἐπί and the acc., 
and the participle in the gen. and dat. by the gen. and dat. 
respectively. 

8. καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίῳ. 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: ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁμοιώματος 
τοῦ θρόνου ὁμοίωμα ὡς εἶδος ἀνθρώπου (DIN N13). 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. vil. 9 we have παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν (= “an 
ancient of days”) ἐκάθητο, where I cannot help believing that 
pow pny (1.6. παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν) is a primitive error for py p*nyo, 
Ζ.6. ὁμοίωμα παλαιοῦ ἡμερῶν. 2)" pny means song “an old 
man.” It is hardly possible to conceive a reverent Jew describ- 
ing God in such terms. In the rst cent. B.c. this title appears in 
a slightly different form as “the Head of Days” or “the Sum of 
Days,” 2.6. the Everlasting, in 1 Enoch xlvi. 1, 2, xlvii. 3, xlviii. 2, 
etc., and thereby the anthropomorphism is avoided. 

VOL. 1.—8 


114 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [IVv. 8. 


ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ «TA. Cf. Ezek. i. 4, 27, viii. 2, where it is 
amber to which the glory of God is compared in colour—ds 
ὅρασις ἠλέκτρου, ds ὄψιν ἠλέκτρου. In i. 28, Ezekiel concludes 
the vision with the words, ‘This was the appearance of the 
likeness of the glory of God.” 

ὅμοιος... ἰάσπιδι καὶ capdiw. It is difficult to determine 
with certainty what stone is represented by the jasper here 
(ἴασπις -- ΠΕ). There were several varieties of the taoms: (1) 
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 (=75v) partially translucent—possibly that referred 
to here and in xxi. 11, λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι κρυσταλλίζοντι: (3) a red 
stone (=1275, Isa. liv. 12, a yellow stone, and an opalescent 
stone). See Zucyc. 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 τιμιώτατος attached 
to it in xxi. 11. But owing to this epithet Ebrard thinks 
that the diamond is meant here. The sardius (=D78, Ex. 


XXVili. 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 Gemmits, πυρωπὸς τῷ 
εἴδει καὶ αἱματοειδής (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. 

καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει opapaydivw. This 
idea of a rainbow round about the throne is derived from Ezek. 
i. 28, ὡς ὅρασις τόξου, ὅταν 7 ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ ἐν ἡμέραις ὑετοῦ---οὕτως 
ἡ στάσις (corrupt? for φάσις) τοῦ φέγγους κυκλόθεν. The rainbow is 
said to be like a smaragdus. σμαράγδινος is apparently a az. λεγ. 

The smaragdus (=np 3) 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 Zucyce. Bid. iv. 4809 
attach the meaning of rock crystal to σμάραγδος in our text. 
But it is difficult to translate the line if this meaning is attached 
to opapaydivw. Perhaps it might be rendered: “ And there was 
a rainbow round about the throne like the appearance of rock 
crystal.” 


IV. 3-4, ] THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS 115 


But another view is generally taken of the text. The Zpis 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 δράσει 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, Vekyia, 41-43, who quotes largely from the Stephanus’ 
monograph on the subject, Vimbus und Strahlen-Kranz: 
Mémoires de l’académie impériale des sciences de St. Peters- 
bourg, 6 sér., tom. ix., 1859. It is claimed to be of Babylonian 
origin by Zimmern, X.A. 7.8, p. 353, who cites Ps. civ. 2 (“He 
clothes Himself with light as with a garment”); Dan. vii. 9; 
1 Enoch xiv. 18; Jas. 1. 17; Apoc. John iv. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 16, 
etc. 

In favour of the above we might cite Zucye. 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 
(χαλκηδών), were included generally under σμάραγδος." 

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. καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρες, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦς 
εἴκοσι τέσσαρας θρόνους πρεσβυτέρους καθημένους περιβεβλημένους 
ἱματίοις λευκοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν στεφάνους χρυσοῦς. 
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 εἴκοσι τέσσαρες stands before its noun except in 
xix. 4. We should observe that τέσσαρες is used not unfrequently as an acc, 
Cf. Moulton, Gram. 46; Blass, Gram. 20. On the orthography of τέσσαρες 
in the N.T., MSS, and the κοινή, see Robertson, Gram, 183. 


116 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 4-5. 


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. g-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 iz /oc.). Elsewhere, where 
these two orders are simply mentioned together, the Living 
Creatures are always mentioned first: cf. iv. g-10, v. 6, 8, 14, 
xiv. 3. The expression καὶ τῶν ζῷων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων seems 
to be a gloss in v. 11 (see note zx /oc.). 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, we 
discover that the description of the latter and their thanks- 
givings are so closely knit together from 6 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, θρόνους, πρεσβυτέρους, στεφάνους, 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 1 and borrow εἶδον. This is wholly 
unsatisfactory. On the possible origin of the conception of the 
twenty-four Elders see tro, 

5. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ 
βρονταί. The three nouns recur in the same order in xi. 19, 
xvi. 18, but in viii. 5 in a different order, βρονταὶ x. φωναὶ x. 
ἀστραπαί. wvai=n\>\p in Hebrew, and denote the “ voices” of 
the thunder; βρονταίτε Ὁ», 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—dyyeAor φωνῶν, βροντῶν καὶ ἀστραπῶν. We might also 
compare Ex. xix. 16, ἐγίνοντο φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαί: Ezek. i. 13, 
ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξεπορεύετο ἀστραπή. Both nouns are combined 
in Ps. Ixxvi. (Ixxvii.) 18, φωνὴ τῆς βροντῆς σου (OPI bp) ; Job 


Iv. 5-6.] AS IT WERE A SEA OF GLASS 117 


xxxvil. 4, ‘‘ He thundereth with the voice of His majesty ” (ny7 
wea Sypa). Cf. also xxxvii. 2, 3, 5. 

kat ἑπτὰ λαμπάδες πυρὸς καιόμεναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου [ἅ ἐστιν 
τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ]. We might compare 2 Bar. xxi. 6, 
“The holy beings . . . of flame and fire, which stand around 
Thy throne.” Cf. viii. ro of our text. 

The clause d . . . θεοῦ 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. 1, iii. 1. 
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, καὶ ἑπτὰ λαμπάδες... θρόνου, may bea 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%, ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου: 6%, ἐνώπιον τοῦ Op.: 6°, ἐν κύκλῳ 
tov Op. This holds also in iv. 2° and in the addition iv. 4. In 
iv. 3° there is a slight departure from this structure, but not the 
complete departure we find in iv. 5». Here, further, we have the 
awkwardness of ἐνώπιον rod θρόνου 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°, minus the explanatory gloss, to 
remain in the text. See Introd. to Chapter, § 3. 

6. καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ds θάλασσα ὑαλίνη ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ. 
It is to be observed that our author does not say that there was 
“ἃ sea of glass” here, but “‘as it were (ὡς) 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 τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ὑαλίνην (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 (8), “hanging between the first 
and second heaven.” The strange word “ hanging” = κρεμάμενον 
πὴ, which appears to be corrupt for »¥p7a—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 


118 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Iv. 6. 


firmament (ἐν δὲ τῇ δευτέρᾳ... ἐμερίσθη τὰ ὕδατα, τὸ ἥμισυ 
αὐτῶν ἀνέβη ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος---ἰῃᾳ Greek version preserved 
in Epiphan. /Yaer. ἴχν. 4). These waters were masculine, ac- 
cording to 1 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. 1, 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 oviginally 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. NT, 44, n. 5. 

καὶ [ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ] κύκλῳ Tod θρόνου τέσσερα ζῷα 
γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 

The Living Creatures are not bearers of the throne (ἐν μέσῳ 
τ. 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. 1 they “‘ overshadow ” 
it), and are free to move independently and singly: cf. xv. 7. 
If the text is right, we must suppose, with Zullig, De Wette, 
Diisterdieck, Bousset, Swete, that the Living Creatures stood 
round about (κύκλῳ) the throne, one in the middle of each side 
of the throne (ἐν μέσῳ). 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 religtons- 
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 ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καί is to be 
taken as (1) a gloss, or as (2) a mistranslation of the Hebrew. 
1. It is not impossible that ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου was added here 
from Ezek. i. 5, ἐν TO μέσῳ ὡς ὁμοίωμα τεσσάρων ζῴων (where ἐν τῷ 
μέσῳ refers to the fiery cloud which envelops the throne of God), 
just as some cursives and versions of the LXX add καὶ κύκλῳ 


Iv. 6.] THE CHERUBIM 110 


τοῦ θρόνου after ἐν τῷ μέσῳ 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. 1, v. 6, vii. 17. K6nnecke has 
also proposed the excision of this clause. 2. Bruston (quoted 
by Moffatt) thinks that the clause is a mistranslation of })n2 
D927, 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. 

τέσσαρα faa. To the writer of the Apocalypse these four 
Living Creatures, which are akin to the living creatures (nn) 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, 
2.6. the Seraphim and Ophannin, in 1 Enoch Ixxi. 7 (cf. Ixi. 10). 
And with others still in 2 Enoch xx. 1, xxi. 1, xxii. 2. In 
2 Enoch xxi. 1 (cf. xxi. 3) ten orders are mentioned. (See my 
note 77 Joc.) 

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 
hypotheses. 

I. In apocalyptic literature 200 B.C.-I0O A.D.—1. 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 (“ ἔκειτο," 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. 5. 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. 6. 
They move freely about, Rev. xv. 7, and act as intermediaries be- 
tween God and other orders of angels. In most of these respects 


120 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 6. 


the conceptions of the N.T. Apocalypse and of Jewish Apocalyptic 
between 200 B.c. and I00 A.D. are at one. As regards 1, 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. 1 Enoch Ixi. ro, lxxi. 7. 2. They have each six wings 
according to Rev. iv. 6, 2 Enoch xxi. 1, 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, 1 Enoch Ixxi. 7. In 
1 Enoch xiv. 11 they appear to be in the “roof” of heaven. In 
2 Enoch xxi. 1 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 1 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. 1, xviil. 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 ” (035i) into one of the highest orders 


of angels, z.e. Ophannim, as in 1 Enoch Ixi. το, 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; 1 Enoch xiv. 19. With this conception we might 
contrast Rev. xxii. 1, 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. 11?), but to guard it, τ Enoch Ixxi. 7, or more 
usually to sing the trisagion, as in our text. Thus in 1 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 1 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, 11 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. 1, the Cherubim and Seraphim with six wings and many eyes 
are described as standing before the throne, singing: “ Holly, 


IV. 6.] THE CHERUBIM 121 


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.Z. i. 377 sqq.), (1) “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 
occasion. 

1. The form of the Cherubim varies in the O.T. In 
Ezek. i. 6, το 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. 
το; indeed Winckler (Altor. Forsch. 11. 347 sqq.), as Zimmern 
notes, K.A.7Z., 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, 1 Kings vi. 24 sqq., and standing on their feet, 
2 Chron. iii. 13. The walls of his temple were also carved 
with figures of Cherubim, 1 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, 
Ext, σαν! 21. 

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. 1, 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 is no mention there of the Cherubim. In 


122 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 6. 


Ex. xxv. 18-21, 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 
a Kangs' ‘xix. 15; Ps. xviii. 10, lxxx, 1. ΧΟ ἘΠ Tea, ΕΚ 20, 
where the Cherubim are conceived as bearing God. 

In Gen. 111. 24 they guard Paradise. In 1 Enoch lxxi. 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 (X.A.7. 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,! and go back fundamentally to 
Babylonian ideas, though this has not yet been established. 
The 1st, 4th, 7th, and roth signs of the zodiac are especially 
significant as corresponding 7m space to the dividing limits of the 
four quarters of the heavens, and zm time to the dividing limits of 
the fourseasons. 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. Verstindniss 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. 


IV. 6.] THE CHERUBIM 123 


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. lxvi. 1, 
“The heaven is My throne, the earth is My footstool.” In 
Ezek. i. 22 the throne rests on a firmament ()*p9, 2.6. the heavenly 
vault, which is like crystal), borne, as we have seen, by the four 
Living Creatures. A very probable emendation of 1 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 zz doc. 

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, of. cz, p. 46). 
For our present purpose we may leave “the wheels”?! out of 
consideration, especially as they do not appear in the N.T. 
Apocalypse. 

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, ro 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,” 2.6. are bodies of stars or constellations. In the Veda 
(S.B.£. xlii. 212) the sun-god Surya is himself an eye. In the 
next stage Mitra and Varuna have the Sun as an eye (S.B.£. 
XXVi. 343, ΧΙ]. 408). And the seven planets are the seven eyes 
of Yahweh in Zech. iv. ro, and of the Lamb in our Apocalypse: 
see v. 6, also note on 1. 12. 

γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 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” 
(πλήρεις ὀφθαλμῶν κυκλόθεν, DID DY nbn). 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 


1In Dan. vii. 9, 1 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). 


[24 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 6-8. 


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 κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν 
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 thewheels, were full of eyes round 
about, even the wheels that they fourhad.” See Bertholet 7” Zoc., 
who proposes ON") OFAN pI WN, ‘and all their ‘naves, 


and their felloes, and their axle trees . . « were round about ful) 
of eyes.” 
7. καὶ τὸ ζῷον τὸ πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι, 
καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῷον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, 
καὶ τὸ τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου, 
καὶ τὸ τέταρτον ζῷον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετομένῳ. 


The order in Ezek. i. ro is man, lion, ox, eagle. The text 
in x. 14 is corrupt, as we have already pointed out. Irenaeus 
(iii. 11. 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. 1. 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 zx doc. ; Swete®, St. Mark, p. xxxvi sqq. ; 
Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 257 sqq. μόσχος is here, as it is over 40 
times in the LXX, the equivalent of 1iw—cf. Ezek. 1. 10, 
and therefore means an ox. In the LXX it is more frequently 
a rendering of 18, a bull, and occasionally of Ἴ3 and Ὁ, 

In line 3 ἔχων 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 Kowy. See note on 
xii. 2, where it recurs. 

8. καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα, ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ. 
On the form of the Cherubim in this passage see above, p. 110 sq. 
For ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν and ἀνά used distributively see N.T. Grammars, 


ΙΝ. 8.] THE CHERUBIM 125 


[κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν. Wellhausen (Analysed. 
Offenbarung Joh., p. 9) rightly regards this clause as an interpola- 
tion, though I can only in part accept his reasons: “κυκλόθεν 
steht bei Ezek. i. 18 fiir ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν zusammen. Denn 
ἔσωθεν bedeutet nach v. 1 ebenso viel als ἔμπροσθεν ; 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: 1. 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 
AV. (259; ‘5, 5, 7. We should expect καὶ κυκλόθεν. 2. κυκλόθεν καὶ 
ἔσωθεν is in reality a meaningless phrase. It has proved ἃ 
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, Latetnische Apocalypse, p. 94). These render- 
ings presuppose, as Bousset points out, the text κυκλόθεν καὶ 
ἔξωθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν, 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 κυκλόθεν 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 κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν from the LXX 
of Ezek. i. 27, ὅρασιν πυρὸς ἔσωθεν αὐτοῦ κύκλῳ, where, however, 
the text refers to a description of God. 

καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας Kal νυκτὸς λέγοντες. 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 1 Enoch xxxix. 12 sq., xl. 3 sq., Ixi. 9. 866.» 
lxix. 26, Ixxi. 11, εἴς. ; T. Levi iii. 8; 2 Enoch xvii. 1, xviii. 9, 


126 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 8. 


xix. 6, xx. 4; Ascension of Isaiah vii. 15, 19, 20, 27, 29, 30, 
36, viii. 3, τό, 17-18, ix. 28-29, 33, 40-42, x. I-3, 19, xi. 26, 
27, etc.; Chag. 12°; Apoc. Zephaniah (Clem. Alex. Strom. 
γα" 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. 120 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°, 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 ζῷα 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 (af cit, p. 
111). 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 


IV. 8-9.] THEIR DOXOLOGY 127 


vehicles of this praise in our text, but the twenty-four elders (see 
Ely P3980.) 

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 ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος, ὃ θεός, ὃ παντοκράτωρ, 
ὃ ἣν καὶ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. 


Cf. i. 8, xi. 17. The trisagion is borrowed here with modifica- 
tions from Isa. vi. 3, ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος σαβαώθ. Our author 
has not followed the LXX ; for in every instance ΠΊΝΩΝ is rendered 
by the translator of the LXX in Isaiah by σαβαώθ. On the 
other hand, ὃ παντοκράτωρ is the rendering of this Hebrew word 
in the rest of the prophets. Furthermore, our author has inserted 
κύριος ὃ θεός -- ΠῚ) *3IN—a phrase very frequent in Ezekiel (vi. 3, 
II, Vil. 2, 5, Vili. 1, etc.). For the second line, cf. i. 4, 8, xi. 17. 
For other doxologies, see note on 11. 

On ὁ ἣν καὶ ὃ ὧν κτλ. see note on i. 4. 

9. καὶ ὅταν δώσουσιν τὰ ζῷα δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν Kal εὐχαριστίαν 
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ, τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 
Commentators are practically agreed that ὅταν δώσουσιν] 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. ὃ, 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 (ὅταν), 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. 

δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν. The collocation δόξα καὶ 
τιμή is found in Ps. viii. 6 (177) 1)23), but not in the same 


1 For other examples of ὅταν with indicative in a frequentative sense see 
Moulton, p. 168. 


128 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _ [IV. 9-10. 


connection as in our text. A better parallel is furnished by 
Ps. xxix. I, XCvi. 7, ἐνέγκατε τῷ κυρίῳ δόξαν καὶ τιμήν (where, how- 
ever, τιμή is a rendering of ty. But the best parallels to our text 
are found in 1 Enoch Ixi. ro, 11, where the Cherubim and other 
angels are said to “bless and glorify and extol” {(-- εὐλογεῖν καὶ 
δοξάζειν καὶ ὑψοῦν) God. For similar statements cf. xxxix. 10, 
12, xlvii. 2, lxi. 12, etc. {-- δοξάσουσιν καὶ εὐχαριστήσουσιν). We 
might also compare Dan. iv. 34. 

τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. This phrase recurs in Το, x. 6, xv. 7 ; 
see also vii. 2. Cf. Dan. iv. 31 (Theod.), τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 
(NPY "Π) ἤνεσα καὶ ἐδόξασα; also Deut. xxxii. 40; Dan. xii. 7 
(odiyn "Π); Sir. xviii. 17; 1 Enoch ν. 1. This phrase repeats the 
idea in the second line of the trisagion. See Bousset, fe/. d. 
Judentums, 293. This divine attribute is applied to our Lord 
in 1. 18. ; 

10. οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι. 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 1 Kings xxii. 19 sqq., Job i. 6, ii. 1, which represent 
God as taking counsel with His angels; and in Dan. iv. 17, vii. 
g, where a certain order of angels is regarded as assessors of 
God and issuers of the divine decrees. Buta still closer parallel 
is found in Isa. xxiv. 23: 


βασιλεύσει Κύριος ἐκ Σειὼν καὶ εἰς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, 
καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν πρεσβυτέρων δοξασθήσεται. 


This passage has been, it is true, assigned by Duhm and 
Marti to the latter half of the 2nd century B.c., and the πρεσβύ- 
tepot (Opt) 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 rst 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 γερουσία. 

Who 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 πρεσβύτεροι (0°32). 
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 


IV. 10.] THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS 129 


creation ἢ). vi. The Seer addresses one of them, vii. 13, as 
κύριε. vil. They act as angeli interpretes, vil. 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. 
1115, Angelic representatives of the twenty-four priesily 
orders. 
III>. And in their present context Angelic representatives 
of the whole body of the faithful. 


I. Glorified men.—Thus (1) Bleek, 198 sq.; De Wette’, 72; 
Weizsacker?, 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 πρεσβύτεροι suggests in itself representatives of the 
community: cf. Isa. xxiv. 23, quoted above, and Ex. xxiv. 11. 
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. 11, it 
is pre-eminently fitting that their representatives should enjoy 
such kingly privileges. In the Ascension of Isaiah vii. 22, 
Vili. 26, ix. 10-13, 18, 24, 25, xi. 40, the idea of crowns (στέφανοι 
not διαδήματα) 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. 1. 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 


120 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 10. 


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., vill., ix. above. These 
we must now treat more in detail. The Seer addresses one of 
the Elders as κύριε, 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, vil. 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.; 1 Enoch xvii. 1, xix. 1, 
XXl. 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. 11. 

Furthermore, it is angels and not men that offer the prayers 
of the faithful in golden bowls, T. Levi iii. 7; Chag. 12°; 
Sebach, 62%; Menachoth, rro*, and so in our text, v. 8; it is 
angels that sing hymns, 2 Enoch xvili. 9, xix. 3, xx. 4, etc., and 
so in our text, v. 9, xiv. 3; but this last point must not be 
pressed. 

And again the fact that the elders sit on thrones Avior 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 j"7 M'3 38, 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 am order of angels. 

II. A College of angels—earlier angelic assessors—originally 
Babylonian star-gods.—Gunkel (Schopfung und Chaos, 302-308) 
and Zimmern (X.A. 7.8 633) 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, 


Iv. 10.] THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS 131 


and that the number twenty-four is no invention of the Seer, but 
that the whole conception has been taken over from apocalyptic 
tradition. 

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: μετὰ δὲ τὸν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον εἴκοσιν Kal τέτταρας ἀφορίζουσιν 
ἀστέρας, ὧν τοὺς μὲν ἡμίσεις ἐν τοῖς βορείοις μέρεσι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἡμίσεις 
ἐν τοῖς νοτίοις τετάχθαι φασί, καὶ τούτων τοὺς μὲν δρωμένους τῶν 
ζώντων εἶναι καταριθμοῦσι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀφανεῖς τοῖς τετελευτηκόσι προσω- 
ρίσθαι νομίζουσιν, ods δικαστὰς THs ὅλων προσαγορεύουσιν. With 
the Babylonian star-gods Gunkel (Zum Verstindniss des N. 
Testaments, 43) thinks the twenty-four Yazata of the Persians 
are related (Plutarch, De Jstde οἱ 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’, 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 στέφανοι and θρόνοι 
do not necessarily in themselves imply kingship. If διαδήματα 
were used instead of στέφανοι 2 the matter might be different. 
Nor need the possession of θρόνοι 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,’ 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. 

1115, Angelic representatives of the twenty-four priestly orders. 
—A great number of scholars in past times derived the number 

1 2 Enoch iv. 1 might be compared: ‘‘ And they brought before my face 
the elders and rulers of the stellar orders,” 

31 find, however, that στέφανος is used of the crown of the sun in 
3 Bar. vi., viii. 

8 In 1 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 
Him. 


132 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Iv. 10. 


twenty-four from the twenty-four priestly orders, such as Alcasar, 
Vitringa, Eichhorn, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Renan, Erbes; but it was 
Spitta (275 544.) who first recognized in the Elders the Aeavenly 
representatives of the twenty-four orders (1 Chron. xxiv. 7-18). 
The chief priests were designated not only ow, “ princes” (so 


angels are designated in Dan. x. 13, 20, 21), and Ove, “heads,” 
but also “elders of the priesthood,” 733 %2pt (Joma i. 5), and 


IN ΓΔ ‘pr, “ Elders of a father’s house” (Tamid i. 1); Middoth 
i. 8. See Schiirer’, ii. 236. They are also called oben by, 
“princes of God,” in 1 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! 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, 1 Chron. xxv. 9-31, whose duty was to ‘prophesy with 
harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals” (1 Chron. xxv. 1). 
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, ‘t 
is natural to find the archetypes of the twenty-four priestly orders 
there also. 

These angels Spitta identifies with the θρόνοι mentioned in 
T. Lev. iii. 8, where their duty, as in several passages in our text, 
is to offer praise to God (ἀεὶ ὕμνον τῷ θεῷ προσφέροντες). 

That they sat on thrones is clear from the Ascension of 
Psaiah vil. 14, 15, 2%) 2720). 310 a3y05 bs Xie: 

Finally, this view of the Elders is preserved in the writing, αἱ 
διαταγαὶ ai διὰ Κλήμεντος (Lagarde, Juris ecclesiastici antiguissima, 
1856, 74 Sqq.): εἴκοσι yap καὶ τέσσαρές εἰσι πρεσβύτεροι, δώδεκα 
ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ δώδεκα ἐξ εὐωνύμων. . . οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ δεξιῶν δεχόμενοι 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων τὰς φιάλας προσφέρουσι τῷ δεσπότῃ, οἱ δὲ ἐξ 
ἀριστερῶν ἐπέχουσι τῷ πλήθει τῶν ἀγγέλων (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- 
ception. 

III>. And in their present context the Elders may be the 


1The priestly character of the Elders may be hinted at in their great 
hymn in ν. 9-10, where the Elders dwell on the se/f-sacrzfice 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. xxxili. 10; Chag. 16°; 
Ber. 60°, and particularly “the little ones,” Matt. xviii. το. 
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. βαλοῦσιν τοὺς στεφάνους αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου. For this 
act of homage familiar in the East, Wetstein compares Tacitus, 
Ann. xv. 29, “Placuit Tiridaten ponere apud effigiem Czesaris 
insigne regium. . . ad quam(sc. effigiem Neronis) progressus Tirid- 
ates... sublatum capiti diadema imagini subjecit,” and Eichhorn, 
Plutarch, Zucul?. p. 522, Τιγράνης τὸ διάδημα τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀφελό- 
evos ἔθηκε πρὸ τῶν ποδῶν : and in the Jalkut Shimoni, i. fol. 55>, 
“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. 
Pompelius, quum in suis castris supplicem abjectumque vidisset 
erexit, atque insigne regium, quod ille de suo capiti abjecerat 
reposuit. ᾿ 

11, ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ 6 θεὸς ἡμῶν, 

λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, 
ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα, 
καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν [καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν]. 


ἄξιος εἶ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν. The nominative is used 
here as the vocative: see Blass, Gram. p. 87; Moulton?, 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 ἄξιος . . . λαβεῖν recursin v.9, 12. In x 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, ΧΧΧΙΧ. 9-13, xlViii. 10, Ixxxi. 3, Ixxxiii. 11, 
Ixxxiv., xc. 40. The same rule can be traced in the doxologies 
ol-our text: chirvaira;. τ. ΜΙ ΠΣ. 

As the doxology of the Cherubim in 8 has for its theme 
the holiness, omnipotence, and everlastingness of God,—i.e. che 
essential nature of God,—so the doxology of the four and twenty 


134 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1V. 11-V. 81. 


Elders has for its theme ¢he glory of God in His works; for that 
all things were created by Him. 

τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν. Cf. τ Chron. xvi. 
27-28. 

διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν [καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν]. Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 5, 
“He commanded, and they were created.” 1 Enoch Ixxxi. 3, 
“1 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 ἐκτίσθησαν καὶ ἦσαν. 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 
ἐκτίσθησαν καὶ ἦσαν, or to omit καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν with A as an 
explanatory gloss added by a scribe who misunderstood ἦσαν. 
Then we should have 


‘For Thou didst create all things, 
And because of Thy will they had their being ”— 


t.e. to Thy will they owed their existence. 

But, if the text is correct, there are two possible interpreta- 
tions. 1. Because of Thy will they had their being (2.6. 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: “Tbe 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. 1, 
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, vil. 11; 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. Zheol.? 
208 sq. 


CHAPTER V. 
§ 1. 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 


V. § 1-2.] DICTION AND IDIOM 135 


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 (ἐνίκησεν, v. 5, and ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, 
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 (11 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, 11, 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. ἄγγελον ἰσχυρόν : again in xX. 1, xvill, 21. ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ : 
again in xiv. 7, 9, 15. Without ἐν in v. 12, vi. 10, Vil. 2, 10, 
Vili. 13, x. 3, etc. Contrast the non-Jchannine ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ 
in xvii. 2. 

8. ὑποκάτω. Cf. 13, vi. 9, xii. 1. Elsewhere in NT 7 
times. 

4. ἄξιος εὑρέθη. For εὑρεῖν with part. or adj. cf. ii. 2, 11]. 
Cee ea ἘΠ: 

6. ἀρνίον. This word is applied to Christ 29 times in our 
author and not elsewhere in the N.T., where ἀμνός is used 
(Fourth Gospel, Acts, 1 Pet.). 

9. ἄδουσιν ὠδὴν καινήν: cf. xiv. 3, xv. 3. ἐσφάγης : cf. 6, 
12, xiii. 8. ἠγόρασας:: cf. xiv. 3, 4. ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου : cf. 1. 5. 
φυλῆς κι γλώσσης kK. λαοῦ K. ἔθνους : cf. vil. 9, ΧΙ. 9, ΧΙ]. 7, 
xiv. 6. 

10. βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς : οἵ. 1, 6, βασιλεύουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς: 


136 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Ta 


cf. xx. 4, ἐβασίλευσαν... χίλια érn—both statements referring 
to the Millennial Kingdom. Contrast xxii. 5. 

12. ἄξιόν ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον. .. λαβεῖν τ. δύναμιν : cf xi. 17, 
εἴληφας τ. δύναμιν. τὴν δύναμιν κ. πλοῦτον κτλ. For the same 
seven, save in the case οἱ πλοῦτον, cf. vil. 12. 

18. τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τ. θρόνῳ x. τῷ dpviw. Cf. vi. 16, vii. 10, 
SIV, A, ἈΧΙ ἃ, 3. 

(ὁ) Ldtom. 

1. τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τ. Opdvov. Cf. 7, 13, and the note on 
iv. 2, for the unique use of these phrases in our author. 

4. ἔκλαιον. The past imperfect is not frequently used in our 
author, and its use is very forcible (except in v. 14): cf. i. 12, 
li. 14, ΣΑΣ τὴν Vie 8, Oy Rs ΤΟΙ RIK 145M ee: 

5. εἷς ἐκ. Seven times elsewhere in our author: twelve times 
in Fourth Gospel : ten times in rest of NT. 

ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς. For this use of the art. connecting the 
noun with a following phrase, cf. 1. 4, ii. 24, viii. 3, 9, xi. 19, Xiv. 
L7, ἜΝΙ ἀπ αὶα Ig, ΧΕ 8. ee 

6. ἐν μέσῳ - -. ἐν μέσῳ -- 2)... P2=“in the midst of 
.. . and”—a Hebraism. 

ὡς ἐσφαγμένον: A frequent idiomatic use of ὡς in our 
author. dpviov... ἔχων. This breach of concord in gender 
frequent in our author. Cf. πνεύματα. . . ἀπεσταλμένοι, which 
follows. 

7. ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν: cf. viii. 3, xvii. 1, 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 εἴληφα is characteristic of our Seer. 

11. ὁ ἀριθμός. . . λέγοντες. Another instance of this breach 
of concord common in our author occurs in 13, πᾶν κτίσμα. .. 
λέγοντας. 

18. τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα. πᾶς precedes its noun in our author 
except here and in vill. 3, xiii. 12. 

V. 1. καὶ εἴδον ἐπὶ thy δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου 
βιβλίον γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν, κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν 
ἑπτά. For the construction ἐπὶ τὴν δεξίαν compare xx. 1, ἐπὶ τὴν 
xetpa. 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 βιβλών. 

i. Zhe form.—(a) Grotius (ii. 1160), Zahn (Zin/ett. ii. 596), 
Nestle (Zext. Crit. of VT, 333), take it to be not a roll but a 
codex ; for (1) it is said to be ἐπὶ τὴν δεξίαν. Had it been a roll 
it would have been ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ. This argument is already 
answered above. (2) “The word used for opening the Book is 
ἀνοῖξαι (v. 4) and not, as in the case of rolls, ἀνελίσσειν, ἀνειλεῖν 


WT] THE SEVEN-SEALED BOOK 137 


or ἀναπτύσσειν." But this is not so. ἀνοῖξαι is used in Isa. 
XXXViil. 14 (ἤνοιξεν αὐτό-- τὸ βιβλίον) as a rendering of wns, the 
word which Ezekiel uses in ii. 10, and which the LXX renders 
there by ἀνείλησεν. 

ἀνοῖξαι is used of unrolling a book also in Luke iv. 17, where 
8D correct the ἀνοίξας into ἀναπτύξας, against ABL and most 
Versions. In Luke iv. 20 πτύξας 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 γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον, 
taking the two latter words together. ΤῸ 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 
inside. 

(ὁ) Spitta, 281, supposes that the βιβλίον is a book consisting 
of parchment leaves, each pair of which is fastened with a seal. 

(c) But with most scholars we take the βιβλίον to be a book- 
roll. In Ezek. iii. 1, Ezra vi. 2 this is simply called κεφαλίς 
(nd), in Ezek. ii, 9 and Ps. xxxix. 8 κεφαλὶς βιβλίου (nda 
78D). The roll was ὀπισθόγραφον, written on the back also as 
in Ezek. ii. το. In the latter passage it is described as “ written 
before and behind”—yeypappéva . . . τὰ ἔμπροσθεν καὶ τὰ ὀπίσω 
(INN) DD 733), but in our text as “written within and with- 
out "—yeypappévov ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 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 ὀπισθόγραφα 
amongst the Greeks and Romans, Wetstein quotes Lucian, Viz. 
Auct. 9, ἣ πήρα δέ σοι θέρμων ἔσται μεστὴ καὶ ὀπισθογράφων 
βιβλίων ; Juvenal, i. 6, “Summi plena jam margine libri scrip- 
tus et im fergo necdum finitus Orestes”; Martial, viii. 62, 
“Scribit in aversa Picens Epigrammata charta,” 

ii. Zhe contents.—(a) According to Huschke (Das Buch mit 
den steben Siegeln, 1860), Zahn (of. cit.), and J. Weiss! (Die 
Offend. 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 (of. cz¢. 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. 


138 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ 


parchment (see Smith, Dict. 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. 

(4) The roll contains the divine decrees and the destinies of 
the world. It deals with the things ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι. 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., Benge], Disterdieck, 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. 11; Dan. vill. 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” (ai πλάκες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) 
which is found in the Test. XII Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, 
andin1 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, wherea 
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 1 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 1 Enoch Ixxxi. 1 sq., xciii. 
I-3, Cvi. 19, cvii. 1; and the blessings in store for the righteous 
ciii. 2. They are apparently called the Book of the Angels, 
clii. 2 (gm, 8), 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 


V. 1-5.] TO BE OPENED ONLY BY THE LAMB 139 


ideas are closely related. See my notes on 1 Enoch xlvii. 3 and 
Jub. iii. 10. 

2. καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. Α 
“strong angel” is referred to again in x. 1, xvili, 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 ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (see note on x. 3) recurs in xiv. 7, 9, 15 ; 
κηρύσσοντα ἐν is ἃ Hebraism. 

τίς ἄξιος ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ λῦσαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ. 
ἄξιος here το ἱκανός. Matt. viii. 8: cf. 2 Cor. ii. 16, πρὸς ταῦτα τίς 
ἱκανός ; In John i. 27 it is combined with iva. The “ worthi- 
ness” (ἀξιότης) is the inner ethical presupposition of the ability 
(ἱκανότης) to open the Book. In ἀνοῖξαι καὶ λῦσαι there is a 
hysteron proteron, or else we may take λῦσαι as defining more 
nearly the preceding word ἀνοῖξαι. 

8. καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὕπο- 
κάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βι βλίον οὐδὲ βλέπειν adté. Our author 
uses ἐδύνατο, never ἐδυνήθη. 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. 11; 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 (apsw= water 
under and around the earth: see Zimmern, X.A. 7.3 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. το. On a fourfold 
division of creation see note on 13. 

4. καὶ ἔκλαιον πολύ, ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον 
οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτόόφ 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 εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγει μοι Μὴ κλαῖε" ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν 
ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς ἸΙούδα, ἡ ῥίζα Δαυείδ, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ 
τὰς ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, εἷς ἐκ is found twelve times in the 
Fourth Gospel and eight times in the Apocalypse. One of the 
Elders here, as again in vil. 13, intervenes, as elsewhere do other 
angels, x. 4, 8sqq., XVil. I, XIX. 9, xxi. 9, xxii. 8, in order to inform 
or guide the Seer. μὴ κλαῖε: cf. John xx. 13. The actual phrase 
is used by Christ in Luke vil. 13, vill. 52. 


140 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 5-6. 


ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν. The ἰδού serves to introduce vividly the scene 
represented in the next verse. ἐνίκησεν 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. ili. 21, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα, 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 ἀνοῖξαι is to be taken as an infinitive of 
purpose. The victory has been won through His death and 
resurrection. The Victor is designated as ὃ λέων 6 ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς 
᾿Ιούδα in dependence on Gen. xlix. 9, σκύμνος λέοντος Ἰούδα... 
ἀναπεσὼν ἐκοιμήθης ὡς λέων, and as ἣ pila Δαυείδ in dependence 
on Isa. xi. 1, ἐξελεύσεται ῥάβδος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης (YR) Ἴεσσαί, καὶ 
ἄνθος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης (80) ἀναβήσεται, and xi. 10, καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ 
ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἡ ῥίζα (0) τοῦ Ἰεσσαί The first passage was 
interpreted Messianically in the 1st 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 οἵ. his 
mouth,” is applied to the Messiah in Pss. Sol. xvii. 39, we may 
conclude that Isa. xi. 1-10 was interpreted Messianically in pre- 
Christian times. In xxii. 16 of our text the author returns 
to these designations of the Messiah: ἐγὼ εἰμὶ ἡ pila καὶ τὸ 
γένος Δαυείδ. 

6. καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἐν 
μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον. The position 
of the Lamb, in the scene depicted, depends on the rendering 
assigned to ἐν μέσῳ. .. ἐν μέσῳ. 1. 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=}'2) 3. The LXX constantly translate in 
this way the Hebrew preposition literally, and not idiomatically, 
as in Gen. i. 4, 7, 18, 111. 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 ἐν μέσῳ 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, τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου. 
If this view is correct it would imply that the Lamb is stand- 
ing in immediate closeness to the throne. But v. 7, καὶ 
"ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν, 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 dpviov as applied to our Lord is peculiar to the 
Apocalypse—elsewhere in the N.T. it is ἀμνός that is used: John 


V. 6.] VISION OF THE LAMB 141 


i, 29, 36; 1 Pet. i.) τὸ; Acts will)//32: This last passage is a 
quotation from Isa. lili. 7, os πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη καὶ ὡς 
ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν ἄφωνος. 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, ἐγὼ 
δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον Tod θύεσθαι οὐκ ἔγνων κτλ 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 ἀρνίον 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.” ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, Ζ.6. 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 ὡς 
ἐσφαγμένον, because in very truth He is not dead but alive: 
ef. i. 18; 11: ὃ: 

ἔχων κέρατα ἑπτά. The horn first of all symbolizes power in 
free OMe ACh. Num.xxiny 22); Ἰθ 6110. ΧΥΧΙΠ τ 9 1 Samy 11.) τ; 
1 Kings xxii. 11 ; Ps. Ixxv. 4, Ixxxix. 17, etc. Next it marks kingly 
dignity, Ps. cxil. 9; exlvili. 14; Zech. i. 18; Dan. vii. 7, 20, viii. 
geass Apoc./ ΣΙΠ2; Xiiz, TX; AVIS: Int τ Χο. 9 the 
Maccabees are symbolized by “horned lambs”: “ And I saw till 
horns grew upon those lambs”: and in Test. ἐμδ αι ΧΙΧ. ὃ 56.) 
one of this family is designed under the term ἀμνός, which 
destroys the enemies of Israel. While the idea underlying ἀρνίον 
ὡς ἐσφαγμένον is clearly derived from Isa. 111]. h it is very 
probable that the conception underlying ἔχων κέρατα ἑπτά is 
sprung from apocalyptic tradition. It is probable also that it is 
the Jewish Messiah that is designated ἀμνός in the above passage 
of the Test. Joseph; and such is certainly the case in 1 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. 1, 2. Over against the Christ so 
represented we have His counterpart in the Beast with the seven 
heads in xiii. 1. 

καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, ot εἰσιν τὰ [ἑπτὰ] πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεστ- 
αλμένοι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. 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. 10, ἑπτὰ οὗτοι ὀφθαλμοί εἰσιν κυρίου οἱ ἐπιβλέποντες (DDD) 
ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. The clause οἵ εἰσιν... γῆν has been 
rejected by Weyland, Spitta (p. 67), Volter, iv. p. 12, Wellhausen 


[42 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 6. 


(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. 1. 
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°(?), but not against its insertion, when he edited his 
visions as a whole. Furthermore, since ἀπεσταλμένοι or ἀπεσταλ- 
μένα seems to be a very loose but independent translation of 
opuiw0y (LXX, ἐπιβλέποντες), 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 ἀπεσταλμένοι, ἀπεσταλμένα, and ἀποστελλόμενα. 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 ὀφθαλμούς and 
ἀπεσταλμένοι. 

B. Weiss (p. 442) decides definitely for this view and accord- 
ingly reads: ἀπεσταλμένοι. On the other hand, the context is 
rather in favour of connecting πνεύματα and the participle. In 
this case Bousset thinks we should read ἀποστελλόμενα or 
ἀπεσταλμένα. But there is no necessity whatever for so doing. 
Such a construction as πνεύματα... ἀπεσταλμένοι 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, iil. 1. The conception of spirits 
being sent forth as the agents of Divine Providence is easier of 
comprehension than that in Zech. iv. ro. 

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 far excellence of this tribe; the Root of 


Vv. 6-7.] THE LAMB TAKES THE BOOK 143 


Jesse,! is, of course, the plant springing from the root of Jesse (cf. 
Isaeylii2;¢ Deut. xxix.: 18), 

Thus in xxii. 16 ἡ ῥίζα and τὸ γένος 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 ἀρνίον ws ἐσφαγμένον. 
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 Verstandniss 
ΜΖ, 60 544.) 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? 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. καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ 
θρόνους In ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν we have ἃ Semiticism (cf. viii. 3) 
not found in the Fourth Gospel; cf. viii. 3, xvii. 1, xxi. 9. See 
Dalman’s Words of Jesus, p. 21. But the ἦλθεν may not bea 
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, z.e. Jeremiah. 

2 Compare the magical oath in 1 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. 


144 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ν. 7-8. 


by Bousset and Swete, takes the perfect εἴληφεν 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. V.T. Greek, i. 145) and 
Blass (p. 200) regard εἴληφεν 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. 2). Other examples are found in 2 Cor. ii. 13, i. 9, 
vii. 5; Rom. v. 2*; Mark v. 15. It is characteristic of the 
Apocalypse. 

8-14. Adoration of the Lamb—first by the Living Creatures 
and the Elders, 10 ; next, by the countless hosts of angels, 11-12 ; 
next, by all creation, 13; whereupon the Living Creatures say 
“amen” and the Elders fall down and worship, 14. 

8. καὶ ὅτε ἔλαβεν τὸ βιβλίον, τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι 
τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίουι Spitta (p. 67) 
removes ἔπεσαν. . . ἀρνίου as a gloss, (1) 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 (Afocalypse und 
thre neueste Kritik, p. 47) adduces the Egyptian picture, in 
which Rameses I. 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 inv. 14. ‘This prostration removes, as 
Bousset points out, the difficulty alleged in (2). Besides, as 
Hirscht states, 11 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, z.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. 

ἔχοντες ἕκαστος κιθάραν Kal φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας θυμιαμάτων 
[ai εἰσιν at προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων]. The words ἔχοντες ἕκαστος 


Vv. 8.] WORSHIP OF THE LAMB 145 


appear to refer only to the Elders, though, so far as the 
grammar goes, the ἔχοντες. could refer to the τὰ ζῷα taken 
κατὰ σύνεσιν. Cf. ἔχων 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. Theairefers to θυμιαμάτων and not to piddas, 
Its gender is to be explained by attraction from προσευχαί. The 
prayers of the saints are symbolized by the i incense : Ps. cxl. 2; 
κατευθυνθήτω ἣ προσευχή μου ὡς θυμίαμα ἐνώπιόν gov. The ἅγιοι 
are those dedicated to God, 2.6. the Christians; for so the 
latter are frequently designated in the Apocalypse: cf. viii. 3, 4, 
ΧΙ 18) ΧΠΙ 7510, Σὶν: 12; xvi. 6; xvii 20, xx. Ὁ. Spitta (P. 67) 
and Vélter (iv., p. 13) bracketed the clause at... ἁγίων 
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. 1, and to the guardian angels in the 
Apoc. Pauli, 7-10. In 3 Bar. xiz, 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 ill. 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. 12, 15. Zhus in our text (except in 
Vili. 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. 11 on Tobit. In the O.T. and later Judaism, as I have 

VOL. I.—1I0 


146 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 8-9. 


shown in my notes on Test. Levi iii. 5, the angels acted as 
intercessors for mankind. But in the face of viii. 3-5 the réle 
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. kal ἄδουσιν ὠδὴν καινὴν λέγοντες. 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 φδὴ καινή (wIn Vv) 
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.) 1, xcvil. (xcviii.) 1, cxliii. 
(cxliv.) 9, cxlix. τ. But in Isa. xlii. τὸ the phrase has a fuller 
content, corresponding to the deeper sense of “ new things ” i 
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 (ἐσφάγης) by the Lamb, and the 
universal Church thereby established and drawn from every 
people and nation and language. The continuous song (adovew) 
is the note of continuous thankfulness and joy. 

The xatvérys—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 (νεός), but as regards quality (καινός). 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 οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν and the 
Ἰερουσαλὴμ. kaw7yv—the new universe created by God, who in the 
vision declares ἰδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα, xxi. 5, 2 (cf. iii. 12). Each 
citizen, moreover, of this New Kingdom is to bear a new name 
ὄνομα καινόν, ii. 17, iii. 12, and in praise of this kingdom the 
Elders sing the new song ὠδὴν καινήν, and likewise the angels, xiv. 
3, and the blessed company of the martyrs before the throne, xv. 2. 

ἤλξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον 


καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, 


V. 9.] BY THE CHERUBIM AND ELDERS 147 


ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου 
ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, 

10. καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς 
καὶ βασιλεύουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 


σφάζεσθαι 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, 
ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν Be and the death of the martyrs in 
Vi. 9, XViii. 24. ἀγοράζειν expresses the idea of salvation as one 
of purchase. Christ has bought the faithful for God by the 
shedding of His blood (cf. τ Pet. 1. 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. 
ἀγοράζειν is a Pauline word, 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 1. 
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 ἅγιοι. 

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. 

ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου. Here as in i. 5 év=the Hebrew 3, denoting 
price: ‘‘at the cost of Thy blood.” 

ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς κτλ. ‘This expression does not attribute the 
same universal scope to the redemptive power of Christ’s death 
as 1 John ii. 2, αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν... περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. 

φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους. These four words 
occur, but in different order, in v. 9, vii. 9, xi. 9, xiii. ἢ, 
xiv. 6. In no two instances is the order the same. They recur 
twice more, but not only in a different order but with βασιλεῦσιν 
instead of φυλαῖς in x. 11, and ὄχλοι instead of φυλαί in xvii. 15. 
But this last occurs in a gloss. There is a similar enumeration 
in 4 Ezra ili. 7, “ Gentes et tribus, populi et cognationes” (= ἔθνη 
καὶ φυλαί, λαοὶ καὶ συγγένειαι (?)). ΝΥ [Π8 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 ili. 31-32 were borrowed by Origen from 
Theodotion. Now, since the Massoretic has in all the above 
passages S2W21 NON NY and Theodotion λαοί, φυλαί, 


γλῶσσαι, 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 ἔθνος or ἔθνη, cannot be derived from 
either the Massoretic text or Theodotion. On the other hand, 
the LXX has ἔθνος or ἔθνη always as one member of the enumer- 
ations, and in 111, 4 there are four members in the enumeration 


148 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 9-11. 


---ὀὟθθνη καὶ χῶραι (= NNN ἢ), λαοὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι. In the remaining 
four passages iii. 2, 7, 29, vi. 25, only three are mentioned: in the 
first three of these ἔθνη καὶ φυλαὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι (in various cases), 
and in vi. 25, ἔθνεσι x. γλώσσαις καὶ χώραις. Here we observe 
that, whereas λαός 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 reiated 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. βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς κτλ. On the expression βασιλείαν 
καὶ ἱερεῖς see note on i. 6. The present βασιλεύουσιν, which is 
the harder reading, is also the right reading. It resumes the 
idea in βασιλεία and explains it. Jn the vision the Seer sees 
the saints already reigning. Thus the expression is proleptic, 
and refers primarily to the Millennial Kingdom in xx. Or 
βασιλεύουσιν may, like συντρίβεται in ii. 27, be a Hebraism for 
βασιλεύσουσιν. 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; 1 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. καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων πολλῶν κύκλῳ τοῦ 
θρόνου [καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν ἈΠΑΡ ΣΉ καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν 
μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων. The καὶ εἶδον intro- 
duces a new feature in the vision: see note on iv. 1. 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 καὶ τῶν ζῴων κ. τῶν πρεσβυτέρων as a gloss. 
Their special thanksgiving has already been recorded in g-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 μυριάδες. . . χιλιάδες is surprising, and 
Bousset therefore brackets μυριάδες μυριάδων καί as an addition. 
They are omitted by the Vulgate and Primasius. The com- 
bination is already found, but in its natural order, in 1 Enoch 
xl. 1, lx. 1, Ixxi. 8 -Ξ- χιλιάδες χιλιάδων καὶ μυριάδες μυριάδων, and 


V. 11-18.] BY THE ANGELS AND ALL CREATION [149 


these passages may have been in the mind of our author. The 
same combination is found also in Dan. vii. 10, though verbs 
intervene: χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες 
παριστήκεισαν αὐτῷ (Theodotion). For partial parallels, οἴ. 
1: Enoch xiv. 22; Ps. Ixvii. (Ixviii.) 18 (μυριοπλάσιον, χιλιάδες 
εὐθηνούντων), Deut. xxxii. 30; Gen. xxiv. 60, and our text, ix. 16. 
12. ἄξιός ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν 

καὶ πλοῦτον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν 

καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ εὐλογίαν. 
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, εἴληφας τὴν δύναμιν. .. καὶ 
ἐβασίλευσας. 

In iv. 9, 11 there are only three predicates over against 
four in v. 13, and seven in v. 12, vii. 12. Next, whereas in 
iv. 11, 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 
πλοῦτος IN v. 12 we find εὐχαριστία in vii. 12. The latter 
doxology, moreover, is addressed to God, as also those in iv. 9, 
11. The septenary number may indicate completeness. Two 
heptads of such titles of honour are found as early as 1 Chron. 
Xxix. 11, 12, though each member does not always consist of 
a single word, but in xxix. 11 of a-clause in two instances, and 
in three in xxix. 12. In the latter verse four of the members are 
the same as those in our text, πλοῦτος... δόξα... ἰσχύς... 
δύναμις (ANAT... Md... 99... wy). These are not the 
renderings of the LXX. If our author made any use of 1 Chron. 
ΧΧΙΧ. 11, 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. 11, 
Vv. 12, Vil. 12 is due to the wish of the writer to bring out more 
fully the contrast between τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον and the 
attributes δύναμις, πλοῦτος, σοφία, ἰσχύς. Thereupon follow the 
δόξα, τιμή, εὐλογία, which in the doxologies addressed to God, 
however, are at the beginning. 

18. καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 

καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐστίν, 
καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, ἤκουσα λέγοντας. 


[50 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [v. 18. 


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 (ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), 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 ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς. 

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 ὃ ἐν τῷ otpav@? (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 ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ have accordingly been offered. 
(ὁ) 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, 
1 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 (καὶ ra ἐν αὐτοῖς 
πάντα). 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. 1, οἱ 
ἀρχιερεῖς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Kal γραμματέων καὶ ὅλον τὸ 
συνέδριον. The phrase τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα is already found in 
Ex 5X, ΤΣ: ἘΞ CXIV. (CxiVvi.) Ὁ. 

ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ. So 8 and various Versions. ἐπί, cum gen. impos- 
sible here. 

τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ Kal TO ἀρνίῳ 
ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα 
καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 


V. 18-14.] THE AMEN OF THE CHERUBIM ISI 


τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπί (see note on iv. 2) τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ. 
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. 1, 3, lil. 21, and the worship 
offered to Each is also one and the same: cf. vil. 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. 11) 
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 vedemption 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, καὶ τὰ τέσσερα La ἔλεγον ᾿Αμήν. It is fitting that the 
Cherubim, the highest order of angels, should close the doxology 
of all creation with the solemn ἀμήν of confirmation, as at the 
beginning, iv. 8, they had pronounced the first doxology. Both 
Cherubim and Elders join in this ἀμήν in xix. 4. Cf. Deut. 
XXVll. 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: Vv. 14, Vil. 12, ΧΙΧ. 4, xxii. 20. 
The earliest instances of this use are found in 1 Kings i. 36; Jer. 
XXVill. 6, xi. 5. ii. ‘“‘The detached Amen, the complementary 
sentence being suppressed (Deut. xxvii. 15-26; Neh. v. 13).” 
Such may be the use in v. 14 of our text. This amen was used 
liturgically, in the time of the Chronicler, 1 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, G./. V. τι. 
il. 453-454, 458), whence the custom passed over to the Christian 
Church (cf. τ Cor. xiv. 16). This usage is vouched for by Justin 
Martyr, Apol. i. 65, ὃ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων ᾿Αμήν, 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 


152 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [v.14 


Psalter, xli. 14, Ixxil. 18, Ixxxix. 52, cvi. 48. iv. See note ¢ 

14. For other uses of this word see the article in πεν 

i, 136 sq., by Professor Hogg, which I have drawn upon 
above notes ; and that in Hastings’ D.Z. fox is rendered in u. 


LXX by γένοιτο in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalter, but 
by ἀμήν in the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Apocrypha. (See 
note on vat, ἀμήν, in i. 7.) 

With the doxology in 13° and the succeeding amen we should 
compare 1 Chron. xvi. 36, εὐλογημένος κύριος 6 θεὸς Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἐρεῖ πᾶς 6 λαός ᾿Αμήν. 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 7m /oc., “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 4. Apok. p. 512, “Wenn Plinius an Trajan schreibt, 
dass die Christen am Tag ihrer Zusammenkinfte 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. 
1o they had done before God. 


APPENDIX. 


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 ἀρνίον 

. ὡς ἐσφαγμένον in v. 6 and ἀρνίου in v. 8. Weyland, 148 sqq., 
from the same standpoint goes farther and assigns v. 6-14 to 
the Christian redactor, and X. (in 2.4.7. W., 1887, No. 1) is still 
more drastic and regards v. 2», 3-6, 8-14 as derived from a 
Christian redactor. Rauch, 79 sq., 121 sq., is content with 
excising v. 9°, 10, the explanatory relative sentences in v. 6, 8, 
and the phrase καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ in v. 13. 

Even critics who start from the basis of a Christian Apoca- 
lypse remove v. 11-14. So V6Olter’, 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° 


VI. § 1-2.] THE FIRST SIX SEALS 153 


because of the exalted view of the Lamb, and in v. 9° because of 
the contradiction existing between this universalistic conception 
and vii. 1-8, and in v. τοῦ where the final clause is added on the 
basis of xx. 4, xxil. 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 ἰδοὺ 
. . . αὐτοῦ in v. 5, and ἔπεσον . . . ἀρνίου 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. 


CHAPTER VI. 
The first six Seals—preliminary signs of the End. 


§ 1. 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, #.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, will 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 
book. 

§ 2. The entire chapter is from our author’s hand. Inde- 


1In 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 zmmediate heralds of the end, 
and are to be realized only partially. 


154 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. § 2-3. 


pendently of the fact that it forms an organic part of his work, 
the diction and idiom are obviously his. 

(a). Diction. 

1. καὶ εἶδον. See p. 106. jvogev—fassim. τὸ ἀρνίον : used 
twenty-seven times in our author, but not elsewhere in the N.T, 
of Christ. 

2. καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδού : also in 5, 8: see p. 106. 

8. θάνατος = λοιμός, as in il. 23. ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία : cf. ix. 3, 
xi. 5, 7, i. 26. 

9. τῶν ἐσφαγμένων : cf. v. 6, 9, 12, xill. 8, ΧΡ]. 24. Only 
once in restof N.T. διὰ τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ : cf. i. 2, note, 9, xii. 11, 
Xx. 4. διὰ τ. μαρτυρίαν : cf. 1. 2, note. 

10. ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ : cf. vil. 2, I0, x. 3, xix. 17, etc. 
ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός : cf. 111. 7, note. κρίνεις κ. ἐκδικεῖς. . . ἐκ: 
ch xix. 2/ 

11. ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα, cum fut: cf. ix. 4. χρόνον μικρόν : cf. 
XX. 3. οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν : cf. (xix. 10) xxii. 9. ὡς καὶ αὐτοί: 
cf. ii, 27, iii. 21. Not in other Johannine books of N.T. 

18. ἔπεσαν eis τ. γῆν : cf. ix. 1. 

14, πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τ. τόπων ἐκινήθησαν : cf. xvi. 20, 
where the same idea and in fact the same words recur. 

15. ot βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς : cf. xix. 18, 19, xxi. 24. βασιλεῖς. 
χιλίαρχοι. . . ἰσχυροὶ. . . δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος. These recur 
in xix. 18. 

16. ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη (ze. of judgment). Recurs in xvi. 14, 
and not elsewhere in N.T. save in Acts ii. 20, where it is a 
quotation from Joel. 

(ὁ) Ldiom. 

1. μίαν ἐκ : cf. ἑνὸς ἐκ in next clause: frequent in our author. 
ὡς φωνή---ἃ Hebraism for ὡς φωνῇ. See note zx Joc. 

2. 6 καθήμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν : cf. 5: also 16, τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ 
θρόνου. In 4 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν ἵ, the αὐτόν is corrupt for 
αὐτῷ ; see p. 112 sq. 

8. ἄλλος ἵππος πυρρός = “ another, ἃ 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. ἕτερος is used in this sense in 
Luke x. 1, xxill. 32. 

4. Wa... σφάξουσιν: cf. 11. ἵνα, cum inf, nine times in 
our author, fourteen in rest of N.T. 

6. ὡς φωνήν. See note on p. 35 sq. 

7. φωνὴν τ. τετάρτου Luou = “‘ the voice,” etc. 

11. αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ : 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, 


VI. ὃ 8.] THE FIRST SIX SEALS 155 


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 
Vologises, 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 Ephesus, 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. Amz. xvi. 13 ; 
Suet. JVero, 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. — Bousset 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 


156 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. § 8. 


horse cannot be explained from stereotyped eschatological ideas. 
(ὁ) 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. Zhe Traditional-Historical.—This method has been 
applied to the interpretation of the first four Seals by Gunkel 
(Zum religionsgesch. Verst. d. N.T. 53 s8q.), 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, ἵππος λευκός : cf. the white horse of the divine slayer of 
the dragon, xix. 11 ; the white horses of Mithras in the Avesta— 
Cumont, Mysteres de Mithra, p. 3). He carries a bow (so vi. 2, 
ἔχων τόξον) as the sun-god (Zimmern, X.A. 1.8 368, note 5): he 
wears a crown (50 Vi. 2, ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος) as Mithras (Cumont, 
op. cit. 84; Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, 11, 15), and is always 
victorious (sO Vi. 2, νικῶν καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ), and hence is called 
ἀνίκητος, “invictus” (Cumont, of. 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 


VI. § 8.] THE FIRST SIX SEALS 157 


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, 
θάνατος, 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 
moment. 

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 (civca 60 A.D.) which Weiss assumes, the following 
plagues were enumerated: “pestilence, war, famine, Hades, 
persecution, earthquakes”; or “war, famine, pestilence, Hades, 
persecution, earthquakes.”! 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. 


[58 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. § 3. 


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. 

I, 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. 

I. Wars. Seal 1. War. 

2. International strife. »» 2. International strife. 

3. Earthquakes. », 3: Famine. 

4. Famines. » 4. Pestilence. (Death and 

Hades.) 

5. Pestilence. », 5. Persecutions. 

6. Persecutions. »» 6. (vi. 12-vii. 3) Earthquakes, 

7. Signs in the sun, moon, and stars ; eclipse of the sun, ensan- 
men 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,? 


Even a cursory comparison of these lists shows that they 
practically present the same material.? 

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 ® woes of Luke by combining two woes, ze. the third 


1 This feature may have its parallel in Luke xxi. 25, where the nations are 
said to be distressed, ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἠχοῦς θαλάσσης καὶ σάλου. 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. ~ 

3 Other signs preluding the end are given in connection with the predicted 
fall of Jerusalem (cf. Mark xiii. 14sqq. 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. 11. Also Lev. 
xxvi. 21, “1 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 





VI. ὃ 3.] THE FIRST SIX SEALS 159 


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 7x Joc.) ; but independently of this 
fact it is postulated by our author’s plan, in which seven plays a 
predominant r6le—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 (of. ε72, ii. 30); earthquakes, 
famines, and pestilences (of. cé¢. iii. 4); falling of the star Gurzihar on the 
earth (of. εἶ. ; Bundahish xxx. 18); the sun losing its light (ii. 31). See 
Boklen, Verwandtschaft der Jiidischchristlichen mit der Parsischen Eschato- 
logie, p. 88 sqq. 


160 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. § 8. 


particulars. 1. 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! 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 Seals, which is derived from a 
pre-existing eschatological scheme, ts 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 fo contemporary events. 
Thus the first Rider wth 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 161 


historical references are, however, to be looked for, though 
primarily the subject-matter is traditional: cf. 1 John ii. 18. 

1. καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφραγίδων. 
The loosing of the Seals is ἃ 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 
καὶ εἶδον see note on iv. 1. In μίαν ék=“‘the first of,” we may 
have a Hebraism =} 3NN; but there is the possibility, of course, 
as Moulton, Gram. i. 95 sq., contends, that εἷς came in Byzantine 
Greek to be used as an ordinal, and that we have such an 
instance here. The partitive use of é« is frequent in the 
Apocalypse: cf. Blass, Gram. p. 97. But the fact that in μίαν 
ἐκ 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” =76 πρόσωπον τοῦ ἕνός = INN 3D, 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. 

καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς 
Ἔρχου. On ἑνὸς ἐκ Ξε “1ῃ6 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?, 264, 
Wellhausen, 10, and Holtzmann’, 444, have recognized. Others 
have taken the words as addressed to the Seer; but elsewhere 
xvii. I, xxi. 9, where the Seer is summoned, δεῦρο is used. 
Moreover, as J. Weiss observes, it is inconceivable that the ἔρχου 
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. 

ὡς φωνή. Nearly all the textual evidence is against reading 
φωνῇ, which in order to arrive at an intelligible text we must 
read. 

But ὡς φωνή is susceptible of explanation. The writer may 
have had 5\p> in his mind and rendered this as és φωνή, whereas 
idiomatically it=as φωνῇ, the 2 being suppressed after 3. Cf. 
ΠῚ σι 1: 1X. 3. 

2. καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός. On the apocalyptic phrase 
καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδού, which recurs in vi. 5, 8, xiv. I, 14, ΧΙΧ. II, 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 ΧΙ, 7 sqq.; Matt. xxiv. 6 
sqq.; Luke xxi. 9 sqq., 2.6. war, international or civil strife, famine, 
pestilence (1.6. death). 

The form of the Vision in vi. 2-8 is based on the vision of 


VOL, I.—II 


162 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (VI. 2. 


the four sets of horses and chariots in Zech. i. 8, vi. r-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. Apoél. 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. ili. 537, “ Quattuor hic, 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, 4.2. xlili. 14 (quoted by 
Swete), the four horses which drew the car in Julius Caesar’s tri- 
umph were white: τὰ ἐπινίκια τὰ προεψηφισμένα ἐπίτε λευκῶν ἵππων. 

Our author was at liberty to arrange the colours in any order 
that suited his purpose ; for in Zech. i. ὃ, 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 The passages in Zechariah call for treatment since they are manifestly 
corrupt. Zech. i. 8, oad) opw onw; LXX, πυρροὶ καὶ [ψαροὶ καὶ] ποικίλοι 
καὶ λευκοί. Here it is admitted that the text is defective and omits anv, 
which is found in vi. 2, 6. The LXX gives, it is true, four colours, but Wapol 
and ποικίλοι appear to be duplicate renderings ; for, according to Hesychius, 
they have the same meaning. So also Eustathius on the //zad, xvii. ad fin., 
ψαρὸς ἵππος 6 κατὰ τὸν ψᾶρα ποικίλος. Next, in vi. 2, 3 we have ἽΝ 
ospx boa... OD... . ONY. . ., LXX πυρροὶ... μέλανες. . . λευκοὶ 

. ποικίλοι [Yapol]. Here also it is admitted that the text is corrupt. 
p’y2x = ‘‘ 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 ὈΧΌΝΠ. .. O00... pada... ohn; LXX, ol μέλανες 
. .. οἱ λευκοὶ... of ποικίλοι. . . of Wapol (but Aquila has of πυρροί). 
Here o°sox is rightly taken to be a corruption of D'%s7x=‘‘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 d/ack horses rightly go towards the north, the ved should go to the 
south and not the spotted, the wzte to the east, and the ye//ow (‘‘ spotted” 
in text) to the west; for the four colours of the horses are said to symbolize 
the four quarters (Zimmern, Α΄. 4.7.8 339, 616, 633 ; Marti on Zech. i. 8). 
We can now reconstruct Zech. vi. 6, 7, 025m pps pox $x ORS’ OMNWA DYDIDE 
jonn pax Ox ORS DDIM < 3A PIX OX D> OS OMIM OPA ΡΝ ON OKs, 
Here I have with previous scholars emended the unintelligible on nx into 


VI. 2.] THE FIRST SEAL 163 


καὶ ὃ καθήμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχων τόξον, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος, 
καὶ ἐξῆλθεν νικῶν καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ. 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! 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. ἐξῆλθεν νικῶν would refer to past 
achievements of this empire, and ἵνα νικήσῃ to its ultimate 
conquest of the west. The gi/¢ of the στέφανος is equivalent to 
a promise of victory. Furthermore, as regards the στέφανος, 
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 Νικάτωρ. 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, 11; 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 1. 

4. Spitta, 290, interprets the text of Rome; but this view is 
generally rejected. 


ap pax, and changed 1xy° into o’xy’ three times (with Wellhausen). Next I 
have restored the lost 3iyn pox 2x, ‘to the west country,” and finally I have 
transposed O’xs’ O°D1NA before yon7 ΚΝ dx 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 0°773, vi. 2, 8=‘‘spotted.” In i. 8 
op ww = ‘‘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, Hzerozotcon, 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 xAwpés, ‘‘ pale” or ‘‘ pale yellow,” in our text, vi. 8. As 
regards 0971 I see no way of explaining it from an archaeological standpoint, 
nor of reconciling it with the apparently right word o’pw 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 
(Babylonisches im N.T. 24 54.. and in Das 44. 7. im Licht des alten Orients) 
on this question are often merely fantastic. See Miiller, ‘‘ Die Apokal. 
Reiter,” Z.V.7. W., 1907, 290-316. 

1 See Herod. v. 49, vii. 61; Ovid, 7 γΖ52. ii. 227; Ammianus Marcellinus, 
xxii. 8; and Wetstein ¢7 Joc. 


164 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 8. 


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. 11 sqq., Ze. 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 τόξον, the latter a ῥομφαία ; the former wears 
a στέφανος, the latter διαδήματα πολλά. 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.7., 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. ro 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 ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων (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. 

8. καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν δευτέραν, ἤκουσα τοῦ 
δευτέρου ζῴου λέγοντος Ἔρχου. 4. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἄλλος ἵππος πυρρός, 
καὶ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ T αὐτὸν { ἐδόθη [αὐτῷ] λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην [ἐκ] τῆς 
γῆς καὶ ἵνα ἀλλήλους σφάξουσιν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ μάχαιρα μεγάλη. 
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; 1 Enoch lvi. 7; 4 Ezra v. 9, vi. 24, 
xiii. 31; 2 Bar. xlvill. 32, Ixx. 3,6. The expectation that civil 
strife would herald the end of the world is found also in 
Babylonian literature. See Zimmern, X.A4.7:8 393. Since we 
have here to deal with a stereotyped prediction, which exhibits no 


VI. 8.] THE SECOND SEAL 165 


new elements pointing to historical events, there is no occasion 
to enumerate the various historical interpretations that have been 
advanced. 

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. 1, 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 ἐδόθη... μάχαιρα μεγάλη are found in 1 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 1 Enoch Ixxxviil. 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, μὴ 
νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν: οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν 
εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν (cf. Luke xii. 51), the symbol has the 
same eschatological force. Our text, λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην [ἐκ] τῆς 
γῆς. . . ἐδόθη αὐτῷ μάχαιρα, looks like a reminiscence of the 
words of our Lord just cited. The Massoretic text of Ezek. 
XXxvill. 21 seems to attest the same idea, but it is corrupt, and 
the text of the LXX (B) is to be followed here (see Marti zz 
loc.). 

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 


166 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 3-6. 


and life as opposed to the réle it was conceived to play by 
St. Paul. 

λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην [ἐκ] τῆς γῆς. 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 ἐκ. Cf. the kindred phrase “children of earth,” 
τ Enoch c. 6, cil. 3, over against “children of heaven,” ci. 1. 

For ἵνα with the fut. Ind. see Robertson, Gram. 998 sq. 

5. καὶ dre ἤνοιξεν τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν τρίτην, ἤκουσα τοῦ τρίτου 
ζῴου λέγοντος Ἔρχου. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος μέλας, καὶ ὁ καθή- 
μενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχων ζυγὸν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. Famine is here 
symbolized by the black horse, as we have seen (see p. 161). 
For the more detailed explanation see next verse. The ζυγός 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, φάγονται ἄρτον ἐν σταθμῷ καὶ ἐν ἐνδείᾳ, and Lev. 
XxVi. 26, ἀποδώσουσι τοὺς ἄρτους ὑμῶν ἐν σταθμῷ καὶ φάγεσθε καὶ 
οὐ μὴ ἐμπλησθῆτε. 

6. καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγουσαν 
Χοῖνιξ σίτου δηναρίου, καὶ τρεῖς χοίνικες κριθῶν δηναρίου" καὶ τὸ 
ἔλαιον καὶ τὸν οἶνον μὴ ἀδικήσῃς. On the peculiar use of ὡς here 
see note on p. 33 sq. We have the same use on xix. 1, 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 χοῖνιξ 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: vil. 187, εὑρίσκω yap συμβαλλόμενος εἰ χοίνικα πυρῶν 
ἕκαστος τῆς ἡμέρης ἐλάμβανε καὶ μηδὲν πλέον. Thucydides, iv. 16, 
mentions as the allowance made for the Spartans in Sphacteria 
—airov .. . δύο χόινικας ἑκάστῳ ᾿Αττικὰς ἀλφίτων καὶ δύο κοτύλας 
οἴνου καὶ κρέας, θεράποντι δὲ τούτων ἡμισέα. The quantity here 
stated was the ordinary allowance made at the Spartan mess, the 
allowance both of grain and wine being dowd/e of that which was 
supposed to be necessary. Similarly in Athenaeus, iii. 20, τὴν δὲ 
χοίνικα ἡμεροτρόφιδα, and Diog. Laert. Pythag. viii. 18, and 
Suidas under Pythagoras: ἡ yap χοῖνιξ ἡμερήσιος τροφή. For 
other references see Wetstein. 

The denarius, which was worth about 9}d. (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. .. tum iste 
pro tritici modiis singulis ternos ab aratoribus denarios exegit. 84, 
Cum esset H.S. binis aut etiam ternis . . . duodenos sestertios 


VI. 6.] THE THIRD SEAL 167 


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, 102 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 16 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 λιμοί 
predicted in Mark xiii. 8; Matt. xxiv. 7. 

But the words that follow, τὸ ἔλαιον καὶ τὸν οἶνον μὴ ἀδικήσῃς, 
when taken in conjunction with what precedes, may point to ἃ 
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. Ana. 
xv. 5; Joseph. Azz. xx. 9. 2); whilst Volter in his various works 
assigns this event to the latter half of Nero’s reign (Suet. Vero, 
45; Tac. Ann. xv. 18). But amore satisfactory explanation has 
recently been advanced by Harnack (7.Z.Z., 1902, col. 591 sq.) 
in a short notice on 5. Reinach’s “‘La mévente des vins sous le 
haut-empire romain,” Rev. Achéol., sér. 111. 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. τὸν οἶνον μὴ ἀδικήσῃς of our text)! 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, 


168 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 6-7. 


luxury, and was accordingly the more indignant when it was 
recalled. Accordingly, he predicts an evil time, when men will 
have oil and wine! 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 
Bousset 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°, “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 (AP1'3 fA) AMD [NN ἸΒΔΠ NIT APM) ; the empire of the 
world will become minaean: there will be nodiscipline . . . 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 ("δὲ AMoN2 ΠῸΞ ΠΝ AMP ΓΔ ax 52) 13 
IN (WIN w'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. c7% 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. 

ἡ. καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξεν Thy σφραγῖδα τὴν τετάρτην, ἤκουσα φωνὴν τοῦ 
τετάρτου ζῴου λέγοντος Ἔρχου. 8. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος χλωρός. 
The fourth horse is described as χλωρός, “pale yellow,” 
pallid,” or ‘‘ pale.” This appears to be an independent render- 
ing by our author of opi’ in Zech. i. 8 (see note on p. 162). 
The LXX has here ποικίλος. Now ποικίλος evidently pre- 
supposes O73, as in Zech. vi. 3, 7, and not Ὁ ῬΦ. But as we 
have seen in the note referred to, we require in Zechariah a word 
signifying “yellow” or “pale yellow.” Bochart (zeronzoicon, 
i. 50) gives good grounds for assuming this to be the meaning of 
paw, and holds that phy and py were related colours, since 
in Lev. xi. 18, Deut. xiv. 17, the same bird is called Spopy 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.] THE FOURTH SEAL 169 


Onkelos and xprprwin Ps. Jon. The Nisaean horses were some- 
what of this colour, as Phavorinus attests: Νισαῖος ἵππος 6 ἐστι 
ξανθός" ἡ yap Nica πάσας τὰς ἵππους ξανθὰς ἔχει (see Bochart, /oc. 
cit.). Now Aristotle (JZe/eor, 3, 4, 5) defines ξανθός as 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 O°) or Opp" 
instead of pnw in Zech. i. 8; for yAwpds is the most frequent 
rendering of this word in the LXX. ἢ η) means “ paleness,” 


“ lividness.” 
8>. ὁ καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος 1 
[καὶ ὁ adns ἠκολούθει μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ] 
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τὸ τέταρτον τῆς γῆς; 
[ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ 
καὶ ἐν θανάτῳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς]. 

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 θάνατος). 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 
earth.” 

Let us now study the text as it stands. First of all, Death and 
Hades are personified as in 1. 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 θάνατος here was in the original 
conception a personification of pestilence (=), 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 cannot accept this 


1 The irregular construction here is due to a Hebraism (cf. ix. 11). The 
line=‘ow mp Vy 3257. 


170 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 8. 


scholar’s explanation of the first Seal (see p. 163). How then 
are we to recover the original text? By a careful study of the 
details. 

1. There is only one horse mentioned under the fourth Seal : 
there could not be two; for there are only four horses altogether 
presupposed. Hades then cannot be riding a separate horse, as 
there is only one horse; nor can he be riding on the same horse 
as Death, for then we should expect οἱ καθήμενοι and not ὁ 
καθήμενος. Hence the clause καὶ 6 adys . . . αὐτοῦ introduces 
confusion of thought and diction, and looks like an intrusion. 

2. We should expect λοιμός here, as in Luke xxi. τ᾿. But 
θάνατος can be used in the same sense, as it frequently appears in 
the LXX as a translation of 135. In Sir. xxxix. 29 we have the 
combination 929)}<1>39; LXX, λιμὸς καὶ θάνατος: Vulg. “fames 
et mors ”; andalso in Pss. Sol. xiii. 2, λιμοῦ καὶ θανάτου. But the 
fact that θάνατος and not λοιμός is used is instructive. It forms 
an additional argument that our author is using not our Canonical 
Gospels, but the document behind Mark xiii., Matt. xxiv., Luke 
xxi. ; for the word in this Aramaic document would be wsnin ;1 


for this is the rendering in the Targum of Onkelos of 727 in 
Ex. ix. 15; Num. xiv. 12; Targ. Jon. of Jer. xiv. 12, xxi. 6, 7, 9, 
XXIV, TO, XXIX..17, Τὸ; αν. 13; Ezek. v.12, 17, xiv. 21, Xxxili. 27, 
etc. Now snip can mean either “ death ” or «pestilence.” Luke 
rendered it by the unmistakable word λοιμός in xxi. 11, but our 
author by θάνατος, which might mean either “death” or 
“pestilence.” Buttoreturn. We expect, as we saw in 1, asingle 
Rider: in the next place we expect him to be named “the 
pestilence,” as in the source used by ourauthor. And this, in fact, 
θάνατος could mean, and not only the source, but the context 
requires such a meaning ; for such a plague as “the pestilence” 
would be in keeping with what precedes and what follows ; for 
all these refer to plagues or evils which bring about death, but 
are not synonymous with death. Death conceived generally, 
according to the traditional text, as the lord of all kinds of 
destroying agents, and Hades do not belong to the present 
category of evils. 

3. The reading ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, strongly attested by the Versions 
and Q, is in favour of one figure only, 2.6. θάνατος, “ pestilence.” 

Accordingly we reject καὶ ὃ ἄδης ἠκολούθει per αὐτοῦ as the 
interpolation of a scribe who was familiar with our author’s 
combination of these two conceptions, Death and Hades. 
Cf. i. 18, xx. 13, 14. But his perverse industry did not stop 
here; for to him we owe the final clause, as will appear from the 
next paragraph. 


1 If the source were in Hebrew, 737 (Ξε λοιμός in Aq. or Sym., or θάνατος 
in the LXX) would account for the above facts. 


VI. 8-11.] THE FIFTH SEAL 171 


4. If the above conclusions are right that only one Rider is 
referred to and that his name is ‘ pestilence,” then the last 
clause of the verse, ἀποκτεῖναι. . . γῆς, can hardly be genuine. 
It cannot be said that power was given to “the pestilence” to 
destroy ‘‘ with the sword, and with famine, and with pestilence,” 
etc. Even if by any possibility θάνατος in the first instance 
meant death itself, the lord of destruction, it would have been 
culpably careless to use the same word again in the same sentence 
with quite a different meaning. 

It is further to be observed that the clause ἀποκτεῖναι... 
γῆς, which seems intended to resume the evil activities of the 
second, third, and fourth plagues, is clearly otiose here. The 
statement adds nothing to the weight of what is already 
better said, and the reference to θάνατος is extremely awkward, 
since it obliges us to assume θάνατος (=lord of all the plagues) 
controlling θάνατος (=a single plague), or θάνατος ( = pestilence) 
controlling its underling θάνατος (= pestilence). 

Hence I conclude that the clause is an interpolation. 
Furthermore, its subject-matter and, in fact, its diction are based 
on Ezek. xiv. 21, ῥομφαίαν καὶ λιμὸν καὶ θηρία πονηρὰ Kat θάνατον. 
This borrowing explains the presence οἵ ῥομφαίαν instead of 
μάχαιραν (cf. vi. 10) and the concluding phrase, 2.6. ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων 
τῆς γῆς, which has no connection with the context as the other 
three plagues have. The construction of ὑπό after an active verb 
is unexampled elsewhere in the N.T. and is found very rarely 
in classical Greek. With θηρίων τῆς γῆς (Gen. 1. 30; Ezek. 
xxxiv. 28), the only near parallel in the N.T. is Acts xi. 6. 

The fact that there are four plagues described in our text, 
and that Ezekiel in xiv. 21 speaks of ‘‘ four sore judgments,” may 
have led to the incorporation of this gloss in our text. 

9-11. In a certain mechanical manner the first four plagues 
are grouped together and the last three. The first four possess 
one characteristic in common—the impersonation of their 
leading features: another is their connection with the four 
living beings. But in another aspect the first five are more 
nearly related to each other as evils affecting man directly, 
whereas the two evils which are combined in the sixth Seal—the 
breaking up of earth and heaven—are in their first reference 
cosmic, and affect man zzdirectly. 

The fifth Seal.—Verses 9-11 deal with Christian martyrdom. 
In the corresponding sections in Mark xili. 9-13, Matt. xxiv. 
g—-10, Luke xxi. 12-18, persecutions and martyrdom are fore- 
told. In our text they are in part already accomplished. The © 
standpoint, therefore, is wholly changed. Instead of reproducing 
the stereotyped description of persecutions still to come carrying 
with them the sanction of Christ Himself, our author refers in 


172 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 9. 


unmistakable language to a great persecution in the past: nay 
more, with his own eyes—for he is in heaven—he beholds the 
souls of the martyrs already offered on the heavenly altar before 
God; hears them supplicating for judgment on the heathen 
world, and sees them being clothed with their heavenly bodies— 
a spiritual privilege limited exclusively to the martyred righteous ; 
for the rest of the righteous could not receive their heavenly 
bodies till the final resurrection. 

9. καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξεν Thy πέμπτην σφραγῖδα, εἶδον ὑποκάτω τοῦ 
θυσιαστηρίου τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐσφαγμένων διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ 
διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον. In this verse we have to deal with 
three questions: 1. The altar in heaven. 2. The souls under 
the altar—in Judaism and Christianity. 3. The reasons for 
which the faithful suffered martyrdom. 

1. The altar in heaven.—The fact that the altar, though not 
mentioned hitherto, is preceded by the article, points to a current 
belief in the existence of an altar of burnt-offering in heaven.} 
That, according to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic, there was 
only one altar in heaven, and that this altar had the character- 
istics partly of the earthly altar of incense and partly of the 
altar of burnt-offering, but mainly of the former, I have shown 
later on at some length. (See note on viil. 3.) How early 
this belief arose cannot be definitely determined. Since, 
however, according to Ex. xxv. 9, 40, Num. viii. 4, the earthly 
altar and tabernacle were to be made after the likeness of 
heavenly patterns or originals,—a view which recurs in Heb. 
Vili. 5, ix. 23,—the belief in question may be of very early origin 
—as early as Isa. vi. 1 sqq., though scholars are divided as to 
the scene of the vision in that chapter, Duhm, Whitehouse, 
Gray, Marti contending that it is in the earthly temple, while 
Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Jeremias maintain that it is in the 
heavenly. At all events it was current in the 2nd cent. B.c., as 
we have seen above. 

2. The souls under the altar in Judaism and Christianity.— 
The souls in our text are those of the martyrs. It has been 
generally supposed that our text is to be explained from the 
Jewish ritual, according to which the blood of the victim was to 
be poured on the base of the altar (Lev. iv. 7, τὸ αἷμα τοῦ μόσχου 
ἐκχεεῖ παρὰ τὴν βάσιν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου). Since the life was in 
the blood, the souls were thus conceived to be beneath the altar. 

1 Spitta, 296 sqq., argues strongly for the altar in Jerusalem ; but most of 
his arguments are beside the mark. On the other hand, the whole vision 
implies a heavenly scene, witnessed by our Seer ἐν πνεύματι. All the 
visions in iv. I—x. the Seer beheld while zz heaven (see p. 109). The 
white garments in which the martyrs were arrayed is a heavenly vesture. 


Furthermore, the situation implies the age of Domitian, when the Temple was 
no longer standing. 


VI. 9.] THE FIFTH SEAL 173 


But this is unsatisfactory. The souls are beneath the heavenly 
altar; for they have already been sacrificed thereon. Let us 
examine the evidence. That a sacrificial death of the martyrs 
is implied in our text is clear from the words θυσιαστηρίου and 
ἐσφαγμένων. Elsewhere in the N.T. the martyrs are regarded as 
victims offered to God, 2 Tim. iv. 6; Phil. ii. 17; and in later 
times cf. Ignatius, dd Rom. ii. 2, πλέον δέ μοι μὴ παράσχησθε 
τοῦ σπονδισθῆναι θεῷ, ws ἔτι θυσιαστήριον ἕτοιμόν ἐστιν : iv. 2, ἵνα 
«νον θεοῦ θυσία εὑρεθῶ. But the belief that the martyrs were 
a sacrifice was already current in pre-Christian Judaism, as 
appears from the passages quoted from 4 Maccabees below. 

These passages refer to martyrs. In later times the souls of 
the righteous are conceived by the Christians as well as by the 
Jews (see later) as offered in sacrifice. Cf. Questions of 
Bartholomew i. 29, 6 δὲ Βαρθωλωμαῖος ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν 
Ἰησοῦν" Κύριε, τίς ἔστιν ἡ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ἀναφερομένη θυσία; ὃ δὲ 
"Ingots λέγει ψυχαὶ δικαίων. Vita Pachomii abbatis tabennensis 
xxxvill. ‘ Multitudo sanctorum angelorum cum magna laetitia 
sumentes animam ejus velut electam hostiam Christi conspectibus 
obtulerunt.” 

In Judaism also we find the belief that the souls of the 
righteous were uader the altar in heaven. This in the Adoth 
RLM. xxvi., “ Rabbi Akiba declares . . . that whoever was buried 
in the land of Israel was just as if he were buried under the altar, 
and whoever was buried under the altar was just as tf he were 
buried under the throne of glory.” ; 

In Shabb. 152” it is stated that “the souls of the righteous 
are preserved under the throne of glory,” and in Debarim rabba, 
11, God says to the soul of Moses: “Go forth, delay not, and 
I will bring thee up to the highest heaven, and cause thee to 
dwell under the throne of My glory amidst the Cherubim and 
Seraphim and heavenly hosts.” But if the souls of the righteous 
were under the heavenly altar, they had first been offered upon 
it. Thus in the Tosaphoth on Menachoth, 110%, it is said, 
according to some teachers, that Michael sacrifices upon the 
heavenly altar the souls of the students of the law. In the 

1 According to 4 Macc. vi. 29 the martyr’s death was conceived to be 
a true sacrifice and possessed an atoning power. καθάρσιον αὐτῶν ποίησον τὸ 
ἐμὸν αἷμα καὶ ἀντίψυχον αὐτῶν λάβε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν. Cf. also of. cit. xvii. 21, 
22. Moed Qatan, 285, where the death of the righteous is said to atone asa 
red heifer. In Gittin, 57°, the mother of the seven martyrs exclaims: ‘‘ My 
sons. . . tell Abraham your father, Thou didst build an altar whereon to 
offer thy son as sacrifice. I have built seven altars.” Now, if the Jewish 
martyrs were regarded in pre-Christian times as an atoning sacrifice, it is 
more than probable that the belief in the abode of righteous souls under 
the heavenly altar avose first in connection with the martyrs, and that this 


privilege was afterwards extended to the righteous generally. See 1 Enoch 
xlvii. 4, which is quoted under 11. 


174 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ὕἹ. 9-10. 


jy j2 WD (ed. Jellinek, Bet ha Midrasch, iii. 137), “ And there 
stands . . . the great prince Michael and the altar before him, 
and he offers all the souls of the righteous on that altar (ΠῚ ἘΣ 55 
sian naron Sy pypyyn).” In the Jalkut Rub. f. 112” (Schottgen, 
Horae, i. 1220), “Εἰ ille (ze. Michael) stet et offert animas 
justorum” ; and similarly in Jalkut Chad. f. 118, col. 4. 

Again in Jalkut Rub. fol. 14, col. 3 (/orae, i. 1215), the 
souls of the righteous are offered (on the heavenly altar): ‘“ Ex 
quo tempore conditum est altare terrenum dixit Deus: Nolo ut 
mihi in altari caelesti oves aut boves offerantur nisi tantum 
animae justorum.” See, further, Lueken, A/ichae/, 48 sq. 

The above Jewish authorities are late, but they must repre- 
sent, when taken with analogous phenomena, a Jewish tradition 
—anterior at all events to Christianity; for it is not reason- 
able to suppose that it was borrowed from early Christian 
sources. 

We conclude, therefore, that by our author ¢he martyr was 
conceived first and chiefly as a sacrifice to God, and that though his 
body was slain on earth, the sacrifice was in reality made in 
heaven, where his soul was offered on the heavenly altar. Our 
text, therefore, has come to represent symbolically the con- 
summation of the idea expressed by St. Paul in Rom. xii. 1, 
where he exhorts his readers, παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν 
ζῶσαν ἁγίαν τῷ θεῷ εὐάρεστον, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν. Cf. 
Rom. vi.\133, ΡΠΠ 7; Col. & 28. 

3. The reasons for which the faithful suffered martyrdom.— 
The martyrs were put to death because of the word given by 
God and the witness borne by Jesus. The testimony no less 
than the word is an objective possession of the faithful. Many 
scholars have taken the witness to be that which the martyrs 
had borne to Christ ; but the expression εἶχον is against such a 
view, and implies a testimony that has been given them by Christ 
and which they have reserved. John iii. 32, ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ 
ἤκουσεν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ, Kal τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει" ὃ 
λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι 6 θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν. 
Thus the clause in our text is the exact equivalent of the fuller 
clause in xii. 17, xx. 4. The martyrs are incontestably Christian 
martyrs, to wit, the martyrs of the Neronic times.! 

10. καὶ ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγοντες Ἕως πότε, ὁ δεσπότης 
ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός, οὐ κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖς τὸ αἷμα ἡμῶν ἐκ τῶν 
κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ; 

ἔκραξαν. The aorist appears here to refer to a single definite 
prayer; the righteous souls made one appeal to God and it was 
immediately answered. ‘They are not represented as continuing 


1 Spitta, 300, is of opinion that only Jewish persecutions of the Jews are 
referred to here, 


VI. 10.] THE FIFTH SEAL 175 


to urge such supplications, as in the Jewish Apocalypses quoted 
below. 

ἕως πότε. Cf. Matt. xvii. 17= Mark ix. 19; John x. 24. 
The phrase is frequent in the LXX, especially in the Psalms. 
Cf. iv.72; vil! 3): xii. (xiii. 1,02, Axi. ((xii.)).g, ete: 4: δεσπότης = 
δέσποτα. On the vocative with the article see Moulton, Gram. 
70 Sq., 235; Blass, Gram. p. 87. δεσπότης (=}118 or "3198, Gen. 
xv. 2,8; Josh. v. 14; Isa. iii. 1; Dan. ix. 8,15, 16, etc.) is applied 
to God in only two other passages in the N.T., Luke ii. 29; 
Acts iv. 24. It is applied to Christ twice, in 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4. 
ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός. These epithets are used in reference to 
Christ in ili. 7 (see note). κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖςς. For this com- 
bination cf. xix. 2, ὅτι ἔκρινεν... καὶ ἐξεδίκησεν, and 1 Sam. 
Xxlv. 13 in the Hebrew, "29p3). .. DSW’. xix. 2 affords another 
parallel to our text in the epithets ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι which are 
applied to κρίσεις. In fact, xix. 2 describes the fulfilment of the 
prayer in our text. 

ἐκδικεῖς τὸ αἷμα... ἐκ (ΞΕ Ὁ WOT MS Opn). Cf. xix. 2, 
where this phrase recurs. ἐκδικεῖν is followed by ἐκ (Deut. xviii. 
19; I Sam. xxiv. 13) or ἀπό (Luke xviii. 3) in reference to the 
persons from whom the vengeance is exacted. Cf. also 2 Kings 
IX. 7, ἐκδικήσεις τὰ αἵματα τῶν δούλων pov. On the meaning of 
the phrase κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς see note on ili. ro. 

As regards the thought of the words, it has been maintained 
that they “‘only assert the principle of Divine retribution which 
forbids the exercise of personal vengeance (Rom. xii. 19).” It 
has been urged also that Luke xviii. 7, 6 δὲ θεὸς οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ τὴν 
ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν βοώντων αὐτῷ ἡμέρας Kal νυκτός, 
practically expressed the same view. 

The teaching of the Gospel passage and of our text is, 
however, different. In Luke the entire passage refers to the 
living elect (cf. xviii. 1), and the spirit of the teaching must 
be construed in keeping with the context. In our text, however, 
the departed souls are referred to, and the note of personal 
vengeance cannot be wholly eliminated from their prayer. The 
living pray to God to free them from unjust oppression and 
secure them their just rights. On the other hand, the departed 
pray for vengeance for what they have suffered or lost. The 
former is prospective and breathes the spirit of justice, the 
latter is retrospective as well as just. Both Luke xviii. 1-8 
and our text appears to go back to Jewish originals or 
Jewish traditional views. The former has several elements in 
common with Sir. xxxii. 15-22, where it is said that God is a 
just God, and hearkens to the prayer of him that is wronged, 
and to the supplication of the widow, and that He will not be 
slack in doing justice to them, nor will He be slow over them 


176 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN’ [VI. 10-11. 


(μακροθυμήσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς : cf. Luke xviii. 7, καὶ μακροθυμεῖ ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτοῖς), ‘till He have smitten in sunder the loins of the un- 
merciful.” Both Luke xviii. 1-8 and Sir. xxxii. 15-22 refer to 
the living ; and the former, at all events, when taken in conjunc- 
tion with Christ’s other teaching, postulates the surrender of all 
desire for personal vengeance. The same postulate cannot be 
said to hold for the Sirach passage ; for in Sirach, policy is laid 
down no less frequently than principle as the motive of action. 

We thus discriminate the temper underlying our text from 
that in Luke xviii. 1-8. 

The true forerunners of our text are to be found in 1 Enoch 
xlvii. 2, 4, “The prayer of the righteous (that the shedding of 
their blood) may not be in vain before the Lord of Spirits, That 
judgment may be done unto them, And that they may not have 
to suffer for ever.” 4, “And the hearts of the holy were filled 
with joy, Because . . . the prayer of the righteous had been 
heard, And the blood of the righteous been required before the 
Lord of Spirits.” In xxii. 5, 7 the spirits of the righteous, who 
are in Sheol and had suffered persecution or violent death, pray 
for vengeance. In a contemporary work, 2.6. 4 Ezra iv. 35, the 
souls of the righteous in the chambers of Sheol ask, ‘‘ How long 
are we to remain here? when cometh the fruit upon the thresh- 
ing-floor of our reward?” Prayer for vengeance is taught as a 
continuous duty in 1 Enoch xcix. 3, civ. 3, therefore it was the 
manifestation of a permanent attitude of mind. This is not so 
in our text. 

The prayer of the souls under the altar for a righteous 
vindication on their persecutors, made here once and for all and 
not uninterruptedly pressed as in Judaism, is represented as 
fulfilled in xviii. 20, xix. 2. Therein is reflected the temper that 
in part animated the Church in the persecutions of the rst 
century. We might compare the attitude of the martyrs towards 
their judges in Polyc. AZart. 11, or the later Acts of the Martyrs. 

11. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή. This white robe was 
their heavenly body (see note on iii. 5, and Additional Note at 
close of this chapter: cf. vii. 9). 

The martyrs have thus ina great degree attained their con- 
summation. Their reception of the heavenly body at this stage 
is a special privilege accorded to the martyrs, just as they ex- 
clusively are to return with Christ to reign for the 1000 years ; cf. 
xx. 4.1 To all the righteous these white robes are given finally. 

καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν. Augus- 
tine, Alcasar, Ribiera, Bengel, De Wette, Bleek, Holtzmann, 
Bousset, etc., explain these words as meaning that the martyrs 


1 Erbes, 42 sq., seeks to explain the text by the individual martyrdoms of 
Jews and Christians before 62 A.D. 


VI. 11.] THE FIFTH SEAL 177 


are to be patient and to abstain from their cry of vengeance ; 
but Hengstenberg, Diisterdieck, Kliefoth, Alford, Swete, and 
others, as meaning that they are to rest in blessedness, as in 
XiV. 13, ἵνα ἀναπαήσονται ἐκ TOV κόπων αὐτῶν. 

ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ 
μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτο. The martyrs are kept 
waiting until their fellow-servants also (2.6. καί), who with them 
have the same Master (δεσπότης, 10), and their brethren (i. 9), 
have also been slain. The σύνδουλοι and the ἀδελῴοί are the 
same persons viewed under different aspects. The repeated 
αὐτῶν can best be explained as an unconscious Hebraism. 

The above clause looks back to the martyrdoms under Nero, 
and anticipates a final and universal persecution under Domitian 
which would follow “in a little time.” In this persecution he 
expects the number of the martyrs to be completed. Then 
would ensue the end. 

Instead of either of the above explanations of ἀναπαύσονται 
ἔτι, the evidence of contemporary literature is perhaps in favour 
of the following: the souls of the martyrs, now clothed in 
spiritual bodies (cf. Asc. Isa. ix. 6 sq., where Abel, Enoch, and 
others are represented as being so clothed, and in the seventh 
heaven, but not yet in possession of their full privileges), are 
bidden to enjoy their present rest and quietness for a little while 
longer, when, on the completion of the roll of the martyrs, the 
judgment they demanded would ensue. In a much earlier work, 
1 Enoch c. 5, the righteous souls in the intermediate state are 
referred to: 


“And over all the righteous and holy He will appoint 
guardians from amongst the holy angels, 
To guard them as the apple of an eye.” 


In cil. 5 they are bidden “to wait for the day of the judg- 
ment of sinners,” and in civ. 3 (cf. xxii. 5-7, xlvil. 2, xcvii. 3-5), 
to pray for judgment on their oppressors. From the contrast of 
the conditions of the righteous and wicked in Sheol in xci.-civ., 
it is clear that, though the righteous demand vengeance on the 
evil-doers, they are enjoying peace and rest. 

In 4 Ezra vii. 85 part of the torment of the wicked souls 
after death will consist in seeing “‘ how the habitations of the other 
souls are guarded by angels in profound quietness,” whilst part 
of the blessedness of the righteous souls will consist in beholding 
the present evil condition of the souls of the wicked, and the still 
greater torments that await them (vii. 93), and in appreciating 
“the rest which they now, being gathered in their chambers, 
enjoy in profound quietness guarded by angels” (vii. 95). 

From the standpoint of the Gospels we cannot understand 

VOL. 1.-τ 12 


178 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 11. 


how the souls of the righteous could enjoy such rest in the 
presence of such suffering. 

The view that the end of the world would ensue when the 
roll of the martyrs was complete was current in pre-Christian 
Judaism. 

This thought is highly characteristic of later Judaism, which 
held that everything was carried out in the divine government of 
the world according to a certain predestined number, time, or 
measure. This appears in 4 Ezra iv. 36 sq.: 


“For He has weighed the age in the balance, 
And with measures has measured the times, 
And by number has numbered the seasons: 
Neither will He move nor stir things 
Till the measure appointed be fulfilled.” 


In 1 Enoch xlvii. the end will come when the number of the 
martyrs ts complete. 
Thus in xlvii. 1 it is said that 


“In those days (1.6. the last) shall have ascended the prayer 
of the righteous, 
And the blood of the righteous from earth before the Lord 
of Spirits.” 


In the next verse (xlvii. 2) the angels supplicate and intercede 


“On behalf of the blood of the righteous which has been 
shed, 
And that the prayer of the righteous might not be in vain 
before the Lord of Spirits, 
And that judgment should be done unto them, 
And that they may not have to suffer for ever.” 


Here clearly the souls of Jewish martyrs are referred to, 
which demand vengeance and pray against the further postpone- 
ment of it. In xlvii. 3 the books are opened and the Lord of 
Spirits seats Himself on the throne of judgment. In xlvii. 4 
reads : 


“ And the hearts of the holy were filled with joy, 
Because the number of the righteous had been offered, 
And the prayer of the righteous had been heard, 
And the blood of the righteous been required before the 
Lord of Spirits.” 


Here, as the context shows, the righteous are martyrs. This 
is the earliest form of this conception, and is reproduced in our 
text. A later development of it (see p. 173) is found in 4 Ezra 
iv. 35. ‘Were not these questions of thine asked by the souls 


VI. 11-12.] THE SIXTH SEAL 179 


of the righteous in their chambers? How long are we to remain 
here? When cometh the fruit upon the threshing-floor of our 
reward? And to them the archangel Jeremiel made reply and 
said: Even when the number of those like yourself is fulfilled !” 

And in 2 Bar. xxx. 2, “‘ And it will come to pass at that time 
that the treasuries shall be opened in which is preserved the 
number of the souls of the righteous.” 

From the above passages it follows that our author is follow- 
ing a current Jewish tradition. There is no need for supposing 
that he had any acquaintance with 4 Ezra; for the latter repre- 
sents a later development of this conception, as we have shown. 
Bousset, as Spitta, 298, had already done, regards our text and 
4 Ezra iv. 35 sq. as independent, but as derived from a common 
older source. He represents our author as transforming the 
current Jewish tradition, that the world would come to an end 
when the number of the souls of the righteous was completed, 
into the form given in our text; but Bousset’s view was due to 
the unintelligible text of 1 Enoch xlvii. 4, which, however, when 
retranslated into Hebrew, presents the same tradition as our text. 
The unintelligibleness was due to the Greek translator rendering 
27p as “had drawn nigh” (a possible meaning), instead of ‘had 
been sacrificed,” as the context here required (so in later Hebrew 
and Aramaic). See p. 172. 

11-VII. 8. Zhe sixth Seal—its plagues and the ensuing pause 
during which the faithful Israelites are sealed to secure their safety. 
—These woes are still in the future. _They are not in our author 
the immediate heralds of the end, as in the Gospels. The end 
cannot come till the great persecution and martyrdom of the 
faithful have taken place. With the text compare Mark xiii. 8, 
24-25; Matt. xxiv. 7, 29; Luke xxi. 11, 25-26, xxiii. 30. The 
woes, therefore, are not to be taken in their full literal signifi- 
cance. This is manifest from the fact that after the stars of 
heaven had fallen, the heaven been removed as a scroll, and 
every mountain and island had been removed out of their places, 
the kings of the earth and the mighty, the bond and the free, 
could hardly be described as hiding themselves in the caves and 
rocks of the earth and imploring the mountains to fall upon 
them. 

12. καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν Thy σφραγῖδα τὴν ἕκτην, 

καὶ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο, 
καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος τρίχινος, 
καὶ ἡ σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα. 


The earthquake here is not to be explained by that in 
Laodicea in 61, or at Pompeii in 63. It is rather a single great 
earthquake, which is a precursor of the end of the world. Thus 


180 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 12-18. 


the σεισμοὶ κατὰ τόπους (= Mark xiii. 8) has not only been trans- 
formed into a single world catastrophe, but also transposed from 
holding the third or fourth place in the list of woes to the sixth, 
as we have already pointed out. 

Earthquakes belong, of course, to the traditional eschato- 
logical scheme. Cf. Amos viii. 8, ix. 5; Ezek. xxxviii. 19; 
Joel ii. 10; Ass. Mos. x. 4; 4 Ezra v. 8, ix. 3; 2 Bar. Ixx. 8. See 
Gressmann, 12sqq. There are further references to an earth- 
quake in our text: vill. 5, xi. 13, xvi. 18. The darkening of the 
sun is also a constant eschatological phenomenon: Amos viii. 9 ; 
Isa. xiii. 10, 1. 3, ἐνδύσω τὸν οὐρανὸν σκότος Kal ὡς σάκκον θήσω τὸ 
περιβόλαιον αὐτοῦ : Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, 31 (= Mass. ili. 4), 
ὁ ἥλιος μεταστραφήσεται εἰς σκότος καὶ ἣ σελήνη εἰς αἷμα 
πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ἡμέραν κυρίου: Matt. xxiv. 29; Mark xiii. 24 ; Luke 
xxiii. 45 ; Ass. Mos. x. 5; Acts ii. 20 (quotation from Joel ii. 21); 
Rev. ix. 2. 

To Joel ii. 31 (see quotation above) and Ass. Mos. x. 5, 
“(luna) ¢ofa convertet se in sanguinem,” we have a very remarkable 
parallel in our text. The passage in Ass. Mos. appears to be 
directly dependent on the text of Joel save that it adds /ofa. 
Now our text, while it gives a free rendering of the Hebrew 
behind both passages (015 Jp), embodies the addition of ὅλη 
in the Ass. Mos. This might be a coincidence, but it seems to 
be more. Our author may not improbably have had the text of 
this book before him in some form; for the Ass. Mos. x. 4-5 
contains references to earthquakes, the eclipse of the sun, the 
ensanguining of the moon, and the disorder of the stars: “ Et 
tremebit terra... sol non dabit lumen... et (luna) tota 
convertet se in sanguinem et orbis stellarum conturbabitur.” In 
any case he is not dependent on the LXX. For the expectation 
in Babylonian literature that the sun and moon would be 
darkened, see Zimmern, Δ΄. 4.7.8 393. 

18. καὶ ot ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔπεσαν eis τὴν γῆν, ὡς συκῆ 
βάλλει τοὺς ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς ὑπὸ ἀνέμου μεγάλου σειομένη, 14. 
καὶ 6 οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον ἑλισσόμενον. This pas- 
sage appears to be based on Isa. xxxiv. 4, καὶ τακήσονται 
πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ἑλιγήσεται ὡς βιβλίον ὃ 
οὐρανός, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται ὡς φύλλα... ἀπὸ 
συκῆς. If this is so, then our author may seem dependent on 
the LXX, since the Massoretic has 513", “will fade,” and not yp 


-- πεσεῖται, but that Symmachus also has πεσεῖται. This clause 
is found also in Matt. xxiv. 29, καὶ ot ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ ; also in Sibyll. iii. 83, καὶ πέσεται πολύμορφος ὅλος πόλος 
ἐν χθονὶ diy, ii. 202, viil. 190; and the same expectation in the 
Bundehesh xxx. 18 (Boklen, p. 87). 

The world and its wellbeing depend on the faithfulness with 


VI. 18-15. | THE SIXTH SEAL 181 


which the luminaries of heaven fulfil their parts. The unvarying 
order and loyalty with which they do so was a favourite theme 
with apocalyptic writers: cf. 1 Enoch ii. 1, xli. 5, xliii. 2, 
Ixix. 16sqq.; T. Naph. iii. 2; Pss. Sol. xviii. 11-14; 4 Ezra 
vi. 45. When, then, the sun and moon and stars forsook this 
order, the end of the world was at hand. Cf. 1 Enoch lxxx. 5, 6; 
4 Ezra v. 4, 5; Sibyll. iii. 801 sq. 

The darkening of the sun and the ensanguining of the moon 
and the falling of the stars in our text, have a like significance.! 

The mention of the fig-tree appears to be due wholly to Isa. 
xxxiv. 4, and to have no connection with Matt. xxiv. 32 and its 
parallels. ὄλυνθος -- τὸ μὴ πεπεμμένον σῦκον (Hesychius). The 
figure in ἀπεχωρίσθη . .. ἑλισσόμενον is that of a papyrus rent 
in two, whereupon the divided portions curl and form a roll on 
either side. With this clause we might compare 2 Pet. iii. ro, 
οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, though the thought is here 
different. An excellent parallel appears in Sibyll. iii. 82, οὐρανὸν 
ἑλίξῃ, καθ᾽ ἅπερ βιβλίον εἰλεῖται. Cf. viii. 233, 413. In the O.T. 
the heavens are said to be “shaken” and “rent” (yp): cf. Isa. 
ΣΠ 13, Ixili. 19; Hagg. ii. Ὁ; 21. 

καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν. This 
statement recurs in xvi. 20, πᾶσα νῆσος ἔφυγεν, καὶ ὄρη οὐχ 
εὑρέθησαν. No real parallel has hitherto been found for these 
words. Nah. i. 5 is adduced by some, and Jer. iv. 24 by others, 
but neither is at all likely. Such cosmic phenomena must in 
their original context have been zmmediaze precursors of the end; 
but as they are not such in our author, the words are not to be 
taken literally. 

15. καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς Kal οἱ μεγιστᾶνες Kal οἱ χιλίαρχοι 
καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ ἰσχυροὶ καὶ πᾶς δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος ἔκρυψαν 
ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς πέτρας τῶν ὀρέων. With the 
above enumeration compare xiii. 16, xix. 18. The number of 
classes in our text is seven—a favourite number with our author. 
It includes every one from the emperor down to the slave. For 
similar enumerations see Jub. xxiii. 19 ; 2 Bar. Ixx. 3, 4, 6, though 
these are mentioned in connection with what is given in our text 
under the second Seal. 

With the thought of 15-16 cf. Luke xxi. 26, ἀποψυχόντων 
ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ φόβου καὶ προσδοκίας τῶν ἐπερχομένων τῇ οἰκουμένῃ, 
αἱ γὰρ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσοντα. The βασιλεῖς τῆς 
γῆς (cf. xvii. 2, 18, xvill. 3, 9; Isa. xxiv. 21) are the heads of 
the heathen nations. The μεγιστᾶνες are probably here to be 


1 Gressmann (Ursprung d. Isr.-Jiid. Eschat. 27-28) traces back the ideas 
in our text and such as underlie Isa, xxxiv. 4 to the mythical conception of a 
heavenly tree with the stars as its fruit and the sirocco which casts them to 
the ground. 


182 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 15-16. 


identified with the Parthian princes (cf. Mommsen, v. 343 sq.). 
So Holtzmann and Bousset. The word is used six times 
in Theodotion’s translation of Daniel as a rendering of 132, 


who were an order of great nobles and court officials under 
Belshazzar and Darius. Swete takes them to be civil officials, 
i.e. the persecuting proconsuls. As distinguished from the 
Parthian nobles we have the Roman military tribunes referred to 
in οἱ χιλίαρχοι. 

With ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτούς κτλ. cf. Isa. ii. 10, 18sq., εἰσέλθετε εἰς 
τὰς πέτρας καὶ κρύπτεσθε εἰς τῆν γῆν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου 


κυρίου. . +» καὶ τὰ χειροποίητα πάντα κατακρύψουσιν, εἰσενέγκαντες 
εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν. See also Isa. ii. 21; 
Jer. iv. 29. 


With 15-16 cf. 1 Enoch [ΧΙ]. 3, “And there shall stand up 
in that day all the kings and the mighty, | And the exalted and 
those who hold the earth, | And they shall see and recognize | 
How He sits on the throne of His glory”; lxii. 4, “Then shall 
pain come upon them as upon a woman in ‘travail . . Rade! > <1 Se: 
‘and they shall be terrified.” Cf. also Ixii. 9, Ixiii. 1. 

16. καὶ λέγουσιν τοῖς ὄρεσιν καὶ ταῖς métpats’ Πέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς 
καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ 
ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνιοῦ. These words are drawn from Hos. x. 8, 
where the LXX has ἐροῦσιν τοῖς ὄρεσιν Καλύψατε ἡμᾶς, καὶ τοῖς 
βουνοῖς Πέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς. Here our text differs from the LXX in 
its renderings, λέγουσιν, πέτραις, κρύψατε, and in the order of its 
verbs. This order is found also in Luke xxiii. 30, where this 
quotation is given: ἄρξονται λέγειν τοῖς ὄρεσιν Πέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, 
καὶ τοῖς βουνοῖς Καλύψατε ἡμᾶς. It may not be necessary to 
assume an independent translation of Hos. x. 8 here, but only 
the use of a current collection of eschatological passages, or 
a collection of the sayings of our Lord. Either of these hypo- 
theses would account for the inversion of the order of the verbs. 
The use of xpvWare and πέτραις could be accounted for by the 
occurrence of these words in 15. 

Against the genuineness of the clause, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ 
dpviov, Vischer, 40; Spitta, 78; Weyland, 150; Volter, i. 51, 
iv. 22; J. Weiss, 64, and others have variously urged that 
elsewhere in the Apocalypse the Lamb has always a peaceful 
réle, whereas the wrath of God is frequently spoken of: xi. 18, 
xiv. 10, 19, XV. 7, XVI. I, 19, xix. 15. Further, that six verses 
earlier, Z.¢. vi. 10, where the martyrs cry for judgment, God and 
not the Lamb is addressed ; and that this is so in the present 
passage is shown by the αὐτοῦ ἴῃ 17. Spitta urges that the words 
disturb the unity of the situation, since in iv.—vi. God is the Judge 
on the throne, whereas the Lamb appears elsewhere in these 
chapters before the throne, surrounded by angels. J. Weiss 


VI. 16-17.] THE SIXTH SEAL 183 


regards the clause as ἃ later addition of the final editor, according 
to whose view the enmity of the Beast is directed against the 
Lamb and His followers, xvii. 14-15. 

Two rejoinders have been made to the above arguments. 
1. The clause is to be retained ; for the Lamb is the central figure 
of this chapter. Since He opens the Sealed Book, He is ina 
certain sense the cause of the woes that follow: it is Christ that 
pronounces the great κατάρα in Matt. xxv. 41 544. on the wicked, 
and the irregular αὐτοῦ, where we should expect αὐτῶν, has its 
parallel in 1 Thess. iii. 11, where sing. verb follows ὁ θεός... 
καὶ ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν: moreover, God and Christ are set on 
an equality by our author, i. 17, 18, xxil..13. See Hirscht, 

8 sq. 
᾿ Ἴ The clause is to be retained; for the αὐτοῦ refers not to 
God, but to the Lamb only. So Bousset. 

It is perhaps best to accept the clause on the second ground. 
The Messiah was expected to be the judge of the world in 
Judaism, τ Enoch lxix. 27: our author, who took a far higher 
view of His Person, regarded Him in the same light, xxii. 12. 

17. dre ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, kal τίς δύναται 
σταθῆναι. The verse seems to be based on Joel il. 11, μεγάλη 
ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου... Kal ἐπιφανὴς σφόδρα, καὶ τίς ἔσται ἱκανὸς 
αὐτῇ (135">") : 11. 315, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ἡμέραν κυρίου τὴν μεγάλην. That 
our author had the Hebrew of these passages before his mind 
may be inferred also from the fact that in 12 he has already 
borrowed from Joel ii. 31% directly or indirectly. 

In Zeph. ii. 2 we have another close parallel, πρὸ τοῦ ἐπελθεῖν 
ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὀργὴν κυρίου, πρὸ τοῦ ἐπελθεῖν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡμέραν θυμοῦ 
κυρίου. ΤῸ the last clause in our verse, the original of which is 
probably in Joel i 11. τὰ (566 above), we have further parallels i in 
Nah. i. 6, ἀπὸ προσώπου ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται καὶ τίς 
ἘΠ ΕΞ ἐν ὀργῇ θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ “The great day” and 
equivalent phrases are very frequent in Enoch and later Jewish 
literature: see Bousset, Religion d. Judenthums, 246; Volz, Jud. 
Eschat. 188; 1 Enoch χὶν. 2 (note in my edition). 

This verse expresses the alarm of the conscience-stricken inhabt- 
tants of the earth, but not the thought of our author. 

The woes already past, which had hitherto been regarded as 
the immediate forerunners of ‘‘the great day,” might well have 
justified such a cry of despair; but our author teaches that the 
end is not yet; the roll of the martyrs is not yet complete; the 
unbelieving world has worse woes still to encounter. 

With τίς δύναται σταθῆναι; we might contrast the picture in 
vii. 9 sqq. of the innumerable host standing (ἑστῶτας) before 
God. 


184 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (VI. 11. 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON VI. 11. 


ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς στολὴ λευκή. It is best to give at the outset the 
interpretation of the στολὴ λευκή that can be justified by Jewish 
and Early Christian literature, and this is that the στολὴ λευκή 
signifies the spiritual bodies which were forthwith given to the 
martyrs, but not to the rest of the faithful departed till after the 
Final Judgment. Attempts have been made by Boklen (Ver- 
wandtschaft d. jiudisch-christlichen mit d. Parischen Eschatologie, 
pp. 61-62) to find this conception in the Zend-Avesta (Yasht 
ΧΙ. 49 sq.: see S.B.Z. xxiii. 192-1931), but it cannot be 
regarded as successful. In the Pahlavi literature (8th cent. a.D. 
or later) to which he appeals (p. 62), there is a doctrine approxi- 
mating, but only approximating, to that of our author: see 
Bund. xxx. 28 (S.B.Z. v. 127). “This too, it says, that who- 
ever has performed no worship, and has ordered no Geti-kharid, 
and has bestowed no clothes as a righteous gift, is naked there ; 
and he performs the worship of Atharmazd, and + the heavenly 
angels provide him the use of clothing 1. Cf. also Dadistan-i 
Dinik, xlili. 19 (S.B.Z. xviii. 149 sq.), and Sad Dar, Ixxxviii. 2-6 
(S.B.£. xxiv. 351). There is therefore no evidence to prove 
that Judaism or Christianity is beholden to the Zend religion 
for this doctrine. 

We now return to pre-Christian and later Judaism, where we 
find this view undoubtedly prevalent. 

In Ps. civ. 2, “Thou clothest Thyself with light as with a 
garment,” we find one of the sources of the conception with 
which we are dealing. Now as God was clothed in light, the 
risen faithful were likewise so conceived, as in 1 Enoch cviii. 12. 
“T will bring forth in shining light those who have loved My 
holy name, and I will seat each on the throne of his honour.” 
But since the light going forth from God was likewise the glory 
of God, the resurrection bodies of the righteous could be 
described as “ garments of glory.” Thus in 1 Enoch Ixii. 16: 


“ And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory, 
And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of 


Spirits ” ; 
and in 2 Enoch xxii. 8, “And the Lord said to Michael: Go 
and take Enoch from out his earthly garments... and put 


1 Here the departed souls revisiting the earth say: ‘* Who will receive us 
with meat and clothes in his hand and with a prayer worthy of bliss?” The 
clothes so given are supposed to clothe the soul in the next world. This idea 
is poles apart from that in our text, and yet Clemen (Ark/arung d. NT, 135) 
and many other Germans accept this view without any attempt to consult the 
SBE. 


ΑΙ. 111 ‘ADDITIONAL NOTE ON VI. II 185 


him into the garments of My glory.” The garments are “ white,” 
as the white garment is a symbol of the light streaming forth 
from a supernatural being. Thus the raiment of the angels is 
“white,” Mark ix. 3 (τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ... λευκὰ λίαν), XVl. 5 
(στολὴν λευκήν) ; Acts 1. 10 (ἐσθήσεσιν NaS or “ dazzling,” 
Luke ix. 29 (6 ἃ ἱματισμὸς αὐτοῦ λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων), xxiv. 4 (ἐν 
ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ). 

So far we see that the bodies οἵ the risen righteous were 
described as “garments of glory,” ze. the supernatural glory or 
light belonging to God Himself (2 Enoch xxii. 8), and that the 
garments of the angels in the N.T. are described in analogous 
terms as “white” or “dazzling.” The angels are then 
apparently to be conceived of as having spiritual bodies. But 
the identification of the “white garments” or ‘‘ white raiment” 
of the blessed with their spiritual bodies can be fully established. 
For in the Ascension of Isaiah (c?vc. 88-100 A.D., Or 100-120 A.D. 
according to Beer) we have a writing contemporary, or almost 
contemporary, with that of our author, which deals definitely with 
this question. ‘Thus in iv. 16 we read: “‘ 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 He will clothe (ze. reading ἐπενδύσει 
for ἐνισχύσει, which latter the Ethiopic presupposes) the saints 
who have been found in the body . . . in the garments of the 
saints.” Again in vill. 14 we find: “When from the body... 
thou hast ascended hither, then thou wilt receive the garment 
which thou seest.” For other references to these “ garments” or 
spiritual bodies see vii. 22, vill. 26, ix. 9, 17, 24-26, xi. 40. These 
garments were most probably termed ἐνδυμήματα in the lost 
Greek original, since this term is found in the Greek Legend, ii. 
35, which is based on the Asc. Isa. See p. 145 of my edition of 
this work. From the Ascension we may proceed to Hermas, 
Sim. viil. 2. 3, ἱματισμὸν δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν πάντες εἶχον λευκὸν ὡσεὶ 
χιόνα, and 4 Ezra ii. 39, “Qui se de umbra saeculi transtulerunt, 
splendidas tunicas a domino acceperunt . . . 42. Ego Esdras 
vidi in monte Sion turbam magnam, quam numerare non potui 

44-45. Tunc interrogavi angelum et dixi: Qui sunt hi, 
Domine? Qui respondens dixit mihi: Hi sunt qui mortalem 
tunicam deposuerunt et immortalem sumpserunt.” 

From the evidence given in the preceding paragraph we 
conclude that, in the circles best fitted to understand apocalyptic 
symbols, the symbolism of the white garments from 88 or there- 
abouts to 200 A.D. was clearly understood as given above. We 
may now return to the N.T., to the Pauline Epistles, and our 
author. That St. Paul held analogous beliefs though he ex- 
pressed them somewhat differently, is clear from 1 Cor. xv. 44, 


186 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 11. 


where he distinguishes the σῶμα ψυχικόν from the σῶμα πνευ- 
ματικόν, the latter of which is said (xv. 49) to be “the likeness 
of the heavenly” (τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου). This heavenly 
body he calls in 2 Cor. ν. 1 an οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ... οἰκίαν 
ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς : in the next verse he defines 
it as τὸ οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, being clothed with which 
we shall not be found naked (ἐνδυσάμενοι οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα). 
Finally he declares (Phil. iii. 21) that this body of our humilia- 
tion will be fashioned anew so as to be conformed to the body 
of His (1.4. Christ’ ’s) glory (σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ). 
Here the σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ! denotes the same thing as the 
“garments of glory” in 1 Enoch Ixil. 16, though the form of 
expression is different. 

Let us next examine the views of our author on this question. 
In this connection he uses two words, στολή and ἱμάτιον. Since 
the meaning is less clear with regard to ἱμάτιον we shall begin 
with στολή. 

First of all, in vi. 11, when the souls under the altar appealed 
for judgment on their oppressors, ἃ στολὴ λευκή (1.6. a spiritual 
body) was given to each, and they were bidden to rest till their 
fellow-servants on earth should suffer martyrdom even as they 
had. Here there is no definite answer given to their collective 
cry for retribution, but a definite boon is accorded—even the gift 
of spiritual bodies. But thereby their complete blessedness is 
not yet fulfilled. This cannot be accomplished till all the faith- 
ful have finished their warfare on earth. They are not to enjoy 
perfect blessedness till the roll of the martyrs is complete and the 
Millennial Kingdom established on the earth. In this kingdom 
they are to reign with Christ for 1000 years (xx. 4), sitting on His 
throne (1.6. sharing in His authority), iii. 21 (cf. Luke xxii. 29, 30; 
Matt. xix. 28), and to be crowned as victors in the strife on earth, 
ii, 10, 111. 11 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8). We might compare with our 


1 It is noteworthy that this idea of a resurrection body of glory or light is 
used in a purely spiritual sense in the Odes of Solomon : 


Cf. Ode xi. 9-10. “1 forsook the folly which is spread over the earth 
And I stripped it off and cast it from me: 
And the Lord renewed me in His raiment 
And formed me by His light.” 
Ode xxi. 2. “1 put off darkness and clothed myself with light, 
And my soul acquired a body 
Free from sorrow or affliction or pains.” 
Ode xxv.7-8, ‘‘In me there shall be nothing but light, 
And I was clothed with the covering of Thy Spirit, 
And I cast away from me my raiment of skin.” 


Rendel Harris (Odes of Solomon, p. 67) points out that according to Rabbi 
Meir, Adam was originally clothed with ‘‘ coats of light” ("ix man3), but that 
after the Fall he was clothed with ‘‘ coats of skin” (1!y mn), 


VI. 11.] ADDITIONAL NOTE ON VI. II 187 


author’s expectation Asc. Isa. ix. 9, where the Seer sees all 
the righteous from Adam onwards “‘stript of the garments of 
the flesh” (=7a τῆς σαρκὸς ἐνδυμήματα, cf. Greek Legend, ii. 33) 
and clothed in “‘their garments of the upper world,” and appear- 
ing “like angels.” το. ‘But they sat not on their thrones, nor 
were their crowns of glory on them. 11. And I asked the angel 
who was with me: How is it that they have received the gar- 
ments but not the thrones and the crowns? 12, 13. And he 
said unto me: Crowns and thrones of glory they do not receive 
till the Beloved” has descended into the world and reascended 
(17-18). Here, though the time limit differs, the idea is similar. 
The idea in our text is that of the solidarity of the Church of the 
Martyrs. That of the entire Church, Jewish and Christian, is well 
set forth in Heb. xi. 39-40, “These all . . . received not the 
promise, God having provided some better thing concerning us, 
that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” 

The στολὴ λευκή in vi. 11 is, then, clearly the spiritual bodies 
which are given by God to the martyrs, and according to our 
author to the martyrs only at this stage. This phrase used in 
connection with the glorified martyr host in heaven in vii. 9 
(ὄχλος πολὺς... περιβεβλημένους στολὰς λευκάς) and in vii. 13 
(οὗτοι οἱ περιβεβλημένοι τὰς στολὰς τὰς λευκάς) has, of course, the 
same meaning. 

There are two other passages, vii. 14, xxii. 14, in which this 
phrase occurs, and which at first sight seem to place considerable 
difficulty in the way of the above interpretation. But the 
difficulty is more seeming than real. To solve it, however, we 
must turn to our author’s use of ἱμάτιον 1 as a synonym of στολή, 
and likewise βύσσινος---ἃ second synonym for στολή. Faithful 
discipleship in Christ provides the spirit with a spiritual body: 
otherwise it is zaked, as we saw above in 2 Cor. v. 1-5. Now 
this spiritual body is the joint result of God’s grace and man’s 
faithfulness. It is, on the one hand, a divine gift: in 111. 18, where 
Christ declares in συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ Ὁ Σ ἱμάτια 
λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός ¢ σου 
τοῦ 2 Cor. v. 1-5), and most probably in iii. 5, ὃ νικῶν οὕτως 
περιβαλεῖται ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς, and again in xix. 8, ἐδόθη αὐτῇ ἵνα 
περιβάληται βύσσινον λαμπρὸν καθαρόν. On the other hand, the 
spiritual body is in a certain sense the present possession of the 
faithful, and can, therefore, only be preserved through faithful- 


1 Τῃ iv. 4 the ἱματίοις λευκοῖς are the spiritual bodies of the Elders, which 
they have as heavenly beings. In xix. 14, ἐνδεδυμένοι βύσσινον λευκὸν καθαρόν, 
and in xv. 6, ἐνδεδυμένοι λίθον καθαρὸν λαμπρόν, the heavenly bodies of the 
angels are referred to in any case, even if there is a secondary reference to 
their white garments. In xix. 13, 16 ἱμάτιον is apparently used in its literal 
sense. See footnote on p. 82. 


188 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN’ [VII.§ 1. 


ness : cf. ili. 4, ἃ οὐκ “ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν: ΧΥΪ. 15, μακάριος 
6... τηρῶν τὰ ἰμάτια αὐτοῦ ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ. The 
faithful disciple will walk with Christ in white (ἐν λευκοῖς, ze. 
will possess a spiritual body, 111. 4). These promises are eschato- 
logical and relate to the future. Christ may come at any hour 
(iii. 3), and according to the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of His 
disciples, so will they be clothed or naked hereafter. 

It must be confessed that iii. 4 (ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν) 
taken in and by itself could be interpreted as relating wholly to 
the spiritual experience of the Christian in the present; but the 
clause that follows is against this, being purely eschatological, καὶ 
περιπατήσουσιν pet ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς, and still more so is the next 
verse. The being clothed in white garments is the result of 
faithfulness unto death (6 νικῶν). The “nakedness” in iii. 18, 
xvi. 15, is, as we have seen, the same thing as in 2 Cor. v. 1-5, 
and denotes the loss of the spiritual body. 

Now let us return to vii. 14, xxii. 14 (of πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς 
αὐτῶν). If it is possible to defile the heavenly body (iii. 4), or 
even to destroy it (111. 18, xvi. 15), it is no less possible to cleanse 
it (vii. 14, xxii. 14) and make it white (λευκαίνειν, vii. 14) in the 
blood of the Lamb. 

Thus tosum up. The present life of faith has within it the 
promise and the potency of a blessed immortality of the soul 
endowed with an organism (symbolized in our author by στολὴ 
λευκή Or ἱμάτιον λευκόν) adapted to its spiritual environment. 
Every true Christian has potentially and actually this spiritual 
body, which he can defile (iii. 4) or cleanse (vil. 14, xxii. 14) and 
make white (vii. 14), or destroy wholly (iii. 18, xvi. 15). Every 
act of the present life is thus linked up inexorably with the future. 
Moreover, while it is true on the one hand that God bestows on 
us the spiritual body (iii. 18, vi. 11), it is equally true on the 
other that we have our share in the creation of this body (iii. 4, 
xvi. 15), through the fellowship of our spirit with that of Christ, 
and can destroy alike its possibilities and itself by unfaithfulness 
to Christ (iii. 18, xvi. 15). 


CHAPTER VII. 


§ 1. In the preceding three chapters there has been con- 
tinuous movement, and the Seer has placed before his readers 
a progressive drama, advancing in a series of visions, dealing in 
iv. with God the Creator of the world and the Source of all 
goodness and power and glory therein, and in v. with Christ 
the Redeemer, who, by undertaking the opening of the seven- 
sealed book, had thereby taken upon Himself the destinies of 


VII. §1-2.] SOURCES OF VII. I-8 AND 9-17 189 


the world and the fulfilment of God’s purposes; and in vi. with 
the opening of the first six Seals, which were followed by a 
succession of social and cosmic woes. But to this divine drama, 
moving onwards inexorably and ceaselessly, there comes a pause 
in vil. The preceding Seals (the first four and the sixth) had 
been purely physical and had affected all men alike; but the 
three Woes, each heralded by a trumpet blast, were to be of 
a demonic character and to affect only the inhabiters of the 
earth—“‘such men as had not the seal of God on their fore- 
heads” (ix. 4). Hence to secure the faithful against these 
impending demonic woes a pause is made (vii. 1-3), and during 
it the living faithful—Jew and Gentile alike—and so far the 
spiritual Israel, are marked with the seal of the Living God 
(vii. 4-8). There is thus a pause in the movement of the divine 
drama in vii. 1-8, but in vii. 9-17 there is more: there is an 
actual breach in that unity of time which has been so carefully 
observed in iv.—vil. 8. But this breach (and it recurs under like 
circumstances later) is purposeful. The faithful have indeed 
been sealed in vii. 4-8, but since this sealing does not secure 
them against physical suffering and martyrdom, to encourage 
and inspire them in the face of these impending evils the Seer 
recounts that wonderful vision in vii. 9--τ7 in which, looking to 
the close of the great tribulation, he beholds those who had 
been sealed and had died the martyr’s death already standing 
blessed and triumphant before the throne of God. 

§ 2. This chapter presents many difficult questions. Owing to 
the apparently Jewish or Jewish-Christian character of vii. 1-8, 
and the universalistic character of vii. 9-17, critics have for the 
most part decided against the unity of the chapter. While 
Spitta makes vii. 9-17 the immediate sequel and actual close of 
ivi. (1.6. of “the original Christian Apocalypse,” and assigns 
vii. 1-8 to J 1 (the first Jewish source), Volter, Vischer, Pfleiderer 
(tst ed.), Schmidt, regard vii. 9-17 as an interpolation in a 
Jewish-Christian or Jewish groundwork. Others again seek to 
reconstruct the original by making certain excisions. Thus 
Erbes removes vii. 4-8, 13-17, as additions from a Jewish source ; 
while Weyland strikes out certain phrases in vii. 9, 10, 14, 17; 
and Rauch deletes vii. 13, 14 wholly, as well as certain phrases 
in vil. 9, 10, as additions of a Christian reviser. 

But a more excellent way of dealing with the text is taken by 
Weizsacker, Sabatier, Schoen, Holtzmann, Bousset, Wellhausen, 
Porter, Scott, Moffatt, who maintain the relative unity of the 
chapter, and regard vii. 1-8 either as the work of our author or 
as incorporated by him in his text and adapted thereto. Sabatier, 
Holtzmann, Hirscht, and Bousset interpret vii. 1-8 as referring 
to Jewish, and vil. 9-17 to Gentile-Christians; while Reuss, 


I90 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VII. § 2-3. 


Bovon, Schoen, Porter, Wellhausen, and Moffatt interpret the 
two passages as describing the same body under different condi- 
tions. My own studies have led me independently to the same 
view, though with a difference. 

So far we have recorded in briefest form the conclusions ot 
scholars on the critical structure of this chapter. We must now 
proceed to discuss the questions in detail, and first of all the 
relation of vii. 9-17 to the rest of the Apocalypse, since this is 
the easiest. 

§ 3. vit. 9-17 is from the hand of our author. For (a) it pro- 
claims the absolute universalism of Christianity, as does the entire 
Apocalypse so far as it comes from his hand. (ὁ) Its diction and 
idiom are those of our author. Here the evidence is conclusive. 

9. μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού. So iv. 1 (see note zm loc). ὃν 

. adtév—Hebraism. Cf. iii. 8, xii. 6, xiii. 8, 12, xx. 8. ὄχλος 
πολύς. So xix. 1, 6, in same connection. ἔθνους x. φυλῶν κ. 
λαῶν k. γλωσσῶν. Cf.v.9. ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου (also vii. 15). So 
iv. 5, 6, 10, vii. 15, Vill. 3, etc. ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐν. τοῦ 
ἀρνίου (cf. vii. 10). So xxii. 1,3. περιβεβλημένους στολὰς λευκάς 
{also vii. 13). So vi. 11 (note). 

10. κράζουσι φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. So vi. 10, Χ. 3, xiv. 15 (xviii. 2), 
xix. 17. ἡ σωτηρία τῷ θεῷ. So xix. 1. 

καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ. (See exceptional use in 15.) So iv. 2 
(see note ix Joc.). The peculiar use of ἐπί after the participle is 
that of our author—ézi with dative after the dative participle and 
ἐπὶ with the accusative after the nominative participle. 

11. κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων 
ζῴων. So iv. 4 (note). 

ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον. Cf. iv. Το. 

ἔπεσαν... ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ. 

So xi. 16 (word for word). 

12, ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ δόξα κτλ. Seven members. Cf. the 
doxology addressed to the Lamb in v. 12, with seven mem- 
bers. 

18. περιβεβλημένοι Tas στολάς. See under 9. 

14. τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης. ΟΥ̓͂Σ 22: 

ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν. Here and in xxii. 14 only. 

τῷ αἵματι τοῦ ἀρνίου. Cf. xii. τα (i. 5, Vv. 9). 

15. ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου. See under ro, 

λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷς Cf. xxii. 3. 

ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τοῦ θρόνου ἡ. This construction is excep- 
tional—a primitive scribal error (Ὁ) ; see note on iv. 2. 

σκηνώσει ἐπὶ αὐτούς. Cf. xxi. 3, σκηνώσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. 

16. καῦμα. Here and in xvi. 9 only in N.T. 

17. τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου. Cf. v. 6. 

ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων. Cf. xxi. 6 (cf. xxii. 1, 17), 


VII. § 3-4.] VII. 1- ὃ FROM JEWISH SOURCES IQI 


ἐξαλείψει. . . πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν. So 
xxi. 4 (word for word). 

From the above evidence it follows that vii. 9-17 is from the 
hand of our author. 

§ 4. We have now to deal with vii. 1-8. 

vit. I-8 ts derived from independent Jewish sources, which have 
however, been recast in the diction of our author. 

I. Zhe diction ts that of our author. 

VII. 1.1 μετὰ τοῦτο εἶδον (see iv. 1, note). ἐστῶτας ἐπὶ tas... 
γωνίας. So ἵστημι with ἐπί and acc. in 111, 20, vill. 3 (AP An), 
xi, 11, xii, 18, xiv. 1, xv. 2; except when followed by ἐπὶ τῆς 
θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (on these see next clause): in xix. 17 
with ἐν, but in a different sense. πνέῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μήτε ἐπὶ τῆς 
θαλάσσης μήτε ἐπὶ πᾶν δένδρον. We should expect either accusa- 
tives throughout or genitives ; but our author uses εἰς τὴν γῆν 
or uses ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, and never ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, except in xiv. 16—an 
interpolation. Hence this clause exhibits a characteristic usage. 

2. καὶ εἶδον. See iv. r note. θεοῦ ζῶντος. See note on 
Ρ. 128. ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου : cf. xvi.12. ἔκραξεν φωνῇ peyddn—frequent 
in the Apocalypse, but only in xiv. 15 is it followed as here by 
the dative of the persons addressed. ots... αὐτοῖς, ἃ Hebraism; 
see on ov... αὐτόν, above. ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι. For this 
construction cf. ii. 7, ili. 21, xiii. 7, 15, xvi. 8. 

ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν -Ξ “ἴο Aurt the earth.” Outside the Apoca- 
lypse this use of ἀδικεῖν is not found elsewhere in the N.T. 
except Luke x. 19, but it is frequent in our text; cf. ii. 11, vi. 6, 
IX. 4, 10, 19, xi. 5 (25). 

8. τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Cf. Vii. 10, 12, ΧΙ]. I0, XIX. I, 5 (θεός pov, 
iii. 2, 12 (ii. 7 [?])). ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων. This phrase is character- 
istic. Our author uses ἐπί in this phrase with the genitive if 
the noun is in the plural: cf. ix. 4, xiv. 1, xxii. 4, but with the 
acc. if the noun is in the singular: cf. xiii. 16, XVil. 5, XX. 4, except 
in xiv. 9. 

11. Zhe subject-matter of vit. 1-8 is borrowed from Jewish 
sources. 

Behind vii. 1-8 there are possibly two independent traditions 
or documents—the one relating to the four winds and the other 
to the sealing of the 144,000. 

(a) vit. 1-3 from a Jewish source, which has not apparently 
undergone any essential transformation. ‘The letting loose by the 
four angels of these destructive winds ? was, as the text implies, 


1 κρατεῖν is used in the sense of ‘‘ holding in check” in 1—a meaning not 
elsewhere found in the Apocalypse. In ii. 13, 14, 15, 25, 111: 11, it means 
‘hold fast,” z.e. ‘keep carefully.” πνέῃ here only in our author. 

| Compare the onset of these winds on the sea in the little Apocalypse— 
Luke xxi. 25, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἠχοῦς θαλάσσης καὶ σάλου. 


192 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VII. ὃ 4. 


to take place after the sealing of the faithful had been accom- 
plished, or at all events shortly before the end. And yet these 
four angels and these four winds are not directly referred to 
again.! Hence we conclude, as already other critics have done, 
that our author has here used fragmentarily an older tradition. 
For the existence of the tradition in various forms, later evidence 
can be adduced. The various elements in our text can be 


1] have shown in the note on ix. 14 that there are many grounds for 
believing that in their original context these winds at the bidding of the four 
angels brought plagues of natural locusts from the corners of the earth. In 
ix. I sqq., however, a plague, not of natural, but of demonic locusts arises 
from the pit, and, as such, not subject to the four angels, but to the angel of 
the abyss. Thus vii. 1-3 prepares the way, though indirectly, for ix. 1-13. 

2 First of all we find analogous situations in Jewish Apocalyptic. In vii. 1-3 
we are told that a gawse in the judgments is commanded in order that during 
this pause the faithful may be sealed. Similarily in 1 Enoch a like pause 
takes place before the Deluge for the preservation of Noah and his family. 
Thus in lxvi. 1-2 it is said, ‘‘ And after that he showed me the angels of 
punishment, who are prepared to come and let loose all the powers of the 
waters, which are beneath in the earth, in order to bring judgment and de- 
struction on all who dwell on the earth. 2. And the Lord of Spirits gave 
commandment to the angels who were going forth, that they should not cause 
the waters to rise, but should hold them in check; for those angels are over 
the powers of the waters.” From Ixvii. it becomes clear that the object of 
this pause is to give time for the building of the Ark. For another like pause 
and, as regards the form of the tradition, a very remarkable parallel, we 
should compare 2 Bar. vi. 4 sqq., ‘‘ And I beheld, and, lo! four angels stand- 
ing at the four corners of the city, each of them holding a torch of fire in his 
hands.” 5. And another angel descended from heaven and said unto them : 
‘Hold your torches, and do not light them till I tell you.’” Here we have 
four angels standing at the four corners of Jerusalem, ready to destroy it, and 
a fifth angel bidding them pause and not destroy it till the sacred vessels of 
the Temple were secured and hidden away, vi. 7. 

Independent developments of traditions relating to the four winds or prob- 
ably independent traditions are to be found in later Apocalypses, as Bousset has 
pointed out; but these are not derived from our text. For the purpose of the 
four winds in our text is fo destroy the earth, and the life thereon, defore the 
judgment, whereas in the later Apocalypses the purpose of the four winds is 20 
cleanse the earth after thejudgment. Cf. the pseudo-Johannine Apoc. 15, τότε 
ἀποβουλλώσω (= “1 will unseal”) τὰ τέσσαρα μέρη τῆς ἀβύσσου καὶ ἐξέλθωσιν 
τέσσαρες ἄνεμοι μεγάλοι καὶ ἐκλείψωσιν ἅπαν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς, καὶ λευκαν- 
θήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὥσπερ χιών (MS F): the Syriac Apoc. Peter: ‘* Therefore 
I will order the four winds and they shall be let loose one in the direction of the 
other. And when the sea-wind is let loose, there arises brimstone before it ; 
and when the south wind is let loose, there arises a flaming fire before it ; and 
when the west wind is let loose, the mountains and the rocks are cleft in 
twain.” Cf. also Sibyll. viii. 204 544. : πολλῇ δέ τε λαίλαπι θύων γαῖαν 
ἐρημώσει" νεκρῶν δ᾽ éravdoracts ἔσται. (These quotations are from Bousset, 

. 280.) 
ἢ Now these latter passages do not appear to be based on our text, but all 
seem to be derived from an older tradition, which has its foundation in the 
O.T. and in 1 Enoch lxxvi. First of all, the sirocco or south-east wind (niyo 
mm, Jer. xxiii. 19, and mm miop, Hos. xiii. 15) was regarded as a special 
manifestation of God: Nah. i. 3; Zech. ix. 14. It is His chariot, Jer. 
iv. 13; Isa. Ixxvi. 15, it is His breath, Job xxxvii. 10. It rends the 


VII. ὃ 4.}] VII. I-8 FROM JEWISH SOURCES 193 


satisfactorily explained from the tradition as we see from foot- 
note 2 on preceding page. 

The episode in vii. 1-3 is introduced because a new order of 
plagues is about to ensue, and a pause must be made in order 
that during it the faithful may be sealed before this new order of 
plagues, 2.6. the demonic, sets in. 

(ὁ) vit. 4-8 is from a Jewish or Jewish-Christian source. 

(a) Zhe 144,000 were Jews or Jewish-Christians in the original 
tradition.—For since the tribes are definitely mentioned one by 
one, and the number sealed in each tribe is definitely fixed (even 
though symbolically), the twelve tribes can only have meant 
the literal Israel in the original tradition. 

Thus Jewish particularism was the central idea of this section.! 

(8) This tradition was thus originally a purely Jewish one, 
and recalls Ex. xtt. 7, 13, 23 sq.; Ezek. ix. 3 sq.; but if the 
order of the tribes in our text ts the same as that in the source used 
by our author, then this source was probably Jewish Christian and 
a recast of the original Jewish tradition.—In favour of this view 
might be adduced the remarkable order in which the tribes are 
given, Judah being put in the first place and Levi in the eighth.” 

Now in the twenty different arrangements of the tribes in the 
O.T. (cf. Encyc. Bib. iv. 5207 sqq.; Hastings’ D.B. iv. 810 sqq.) 
Judah is found first in two, 2.6. those in Num. ii, vii., x., and in 
1 Chron. il. 3-viil., xii. But Judah is first in the latter on purely 
geographical grounds (see Buchanan Gray, Encye. Bib. iv. 5204), 


mountains and the rocks, 1 Kings xix. 11; it withers up the grass, Isa. xl. 7, 
24 ; and dries up the stream and river and sea, Nah. i. 4; Ps. xviii. 15, ον]. 9. 
Next the sirocco becomes an element in the eschatological expectations of 
Israel: Ps. Ixxxiil. 14; Amos i. 143 Isa. xxxiv. 4: it is to destroy the 
enemies of God, Jer. xxiii. 19, xxx. 23; Hos. xiii. 14 sq. (See Gressmann, 
Isr.-ftid. Eschat. 20 sqq.) 

This conception of the sirocco prepares us for a similar conception of 
‘the four winds.” These are mentioned in a topographical sense in Zech. 
ii. 6, but in vi. 5 as God’s servants which present themselves before Him 
and execute His vengeance. 

In this sense it is already a technical conception; they come as His 
ministers of judgment from the four ends of heaven, Jer. xlix. 36; they break 
forth on the sea, Dan. vii. 2. In 1 Enoch xxxiv. 3, lxxvi. 4, they come from 
the four corners and are bearers of plagues, two from each corner. The 
winds are conceived as having “‘ spirits,” 1 Enoch lxix. 22 ; Jub. ii. 2. 

1 The omission of the tribe of Dan would also point to the Jewish origin 
of the tradition. According toa Ist cent. B.c. fragment, z.¢. Test. Dan v. 
6-7, Satan is said to be the prince of Dan. For other evidence on this con- 
nection of Dan with the Antichrist see my notes (of. czt. v. 6-7). 

2 Buchanan Gray (Zzcyc. Bzb. iv. 5209) conjectures that 5-6 should be 
transposed after 8. This transposition makes the text normal (see note 
under vii. 5-8 (Judah, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun from Leah, 
etc.)). There are still the two outstanding irregularities to which we have 
drawn attention, the omission of Dan (Jewish), and the setting of Judah at the 
head of the list (Jewish-Christian), 


VOL. I.—13 


194 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII. § 4-5. 


and in the former, because of its pre-eminence among the tribes, 
is assigned this leading position in the camp, Levi being omitted 
in this warlike disposition of the tribes.1_ But after the return 
from the Captivity Levi gradually acquired a predominant influence 
among the tribes, and after the Maccabean rising took the lead 
even of Judah. While, on the other hand, in Jub. xxviii. 11 sqq. 
the twelve sons of Jacob are enumerated in accordance with 
the date of their birth, and in xxxiv. 20 and in the order of 
the books of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs are grouped 
according to their respective mothers and the groups arranged in 
order of birth; on the other hand, in the rest of the Testaments 
when Judah and Levi are mentioned together, as they frequently 
are, Levi is a/ways placed first, unless in the Christian interpola- 
tions and the MSS manipulated by Christian scribes, where 
Judah is set before Levi (see my note on Test. of XII Patr., 
p. 13). The reason for this change is obvious from this stand- 
point: Christ was sprung from Judah. Since, therefore, in our 
text Judah is placed first, it is to be inferred either that the list 
of the twelve tribes had undergone a Jewish-Christian transforma- 
tion, and that it was this Jewish-Christian recension that our 
author made use of, or that our author made this change himself. 

§ 5. Zhe sealing of the faithful in our text does not mean (a) 
preservation from physical evil, nor (b) from spiritual apostasy, 
but (c) from demonic and kindred influences under the coming reign 
of Antichrist. 

(a) The sealing of the faithful in the original tradition meant 
preservation from physical evil and death, as in Ex. xii. 7, 13, 
22 sq., and Ezek. ix. 3 sq.2 This Judaistic conception of 
preservation from physical evil is found also in the Little 
Jewish Apocalypse in the Gospels: cf. Mark xiii. 17-20; 
Matt. xxiv. 20-22. 

That it was indeed a current Jewish expectation we see in 
part from the N.T. references just given, and we know that it 
was such from a Ist cent. B.c. authority. From Pss. Sol. xv. 8, 
1o—an eschatological psalm—we learn that “the sign of the 
Lord is to be upon the righteous unto their salvation ” (τὸ σημεῖον 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους εἰς σωτηρίαν), and that accordingly “ famine 
and the sword and pestilence were to be far from the righteous ” 
(λιμὸς καὶ ῥομφαία καὶ θάνατος ἀπὸ δικαίων μακράν). The contrast 
between the expectation in our text and in this psalm could not 


1 Except Num. ii. 17, where the Levites encamp in the centre. 

2 In Shabbath, 55%, we have an haggadic interpretation of this verse: ‘‘ God 
said to Gabriel: Go and impress on the forehead of the righteous a mark of 
ink, aban 3 9 ona woe xdw m9 Sy yn opr bw inso dy own, that the destroying 
angels may have no power over him ; and on the foreheads of the godless a 
mark of blood, that the angels of destruction may have power over them.” 


VII. § 5.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SEALING 195 


be greater. In the psalm the sign is placed on the brows of the 
righteous to secure them from the eschatological woes ¢hat 
Jollow ; in our text the sign is not placed /2// after these very woes 
had taken place. In xv. 6, 7 of the same psalm the righteous are 
promised immunity from all the evils which are sent against the 
ungodly in the last days. Moreover, as the psalmist expected a 
sign to be impressed on the brows of the saints, so he declares, 
xv. το, that ‘‘the sign of destruction will be set on the foreheads 
of the sinners” (τὸ yap σημεῖον τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου 
αὐτῶν), and that accordingly “famine and the sword and 
pestilence ” ‘would pursue and overtake the sinners ἢ (xv. 8, 9), 
and that they would ‘perish in the day of judgment of the Lord 
for ever” (xv. 13). 

If preservation from physical evil had been intended by our 
author, the sealing should have taken place before the first Seal} 
and not in the midst of the cosmic catastrophies of the sixth. 
Vitringa feels this so strongly that he maintains that vii. 1-8 
belongs essentially before vi. 12-17, while Hengstenberg would 
place it before vi. Holtzmann (3rd ed., p. 449), while maintaining 
that “die furchtbaren Plagen der Endzeit sie (die Versiegelten) 
nicht treffen, und sie daher vom Verderben verschont bleiben,” 
yet gives away his cause by admitting : ‘‘unerledigt bleibt allerdings 
die Frage, warum diese Versiegelung nicht vor das sechste 
Siegel . . . verlegt worden sei.” 

Yet Bousset (287 sq.) interprets the sealing in this sense, but 
admits the possibility of (ὁ) being right, or indeed of both being 
alike right.? 

(4) Now the consciousness of the wrongness of this interpreta- 
tion led Diisterdieck to propound the view that 22 zs not from 
physical evil but from spiritual apostasy under the last and greatest 
trials that should befall the world, that the sealing ts designed to 
secure the faithful, But that this is not the immediate object of 
the sealing appears to follow from ix. 4, where the implication of 


1 From the fact that the sealing does not take place before the first Seal, 
Erbes (p. 52) concludes that the first four Seals belong to the past and 
present, and that the sixth deals with the future. But even in that case the 
sealing should have taken place before the szxth Seal, if the sealing were 
intended to preserve from physical evil. 

2 The view that the 144,000 are Jewish Christians, can only be advo- 
cated on the ground that our author, asa Jewish Christian, believes profoundly 
in the spiritual prerogatives of this nation. But since our author holds also 
that martyrdom is the highest consummation of the Christian faith, and that 
the highest place in the future life awaits the martyrs, and that none but 
martyrs share in Christ’s reign of 1000 years, he cannot at the same time 
entertain the belief that the elect 144,000 Jewish Christians are to be excluded 
from the supreme privilege of the faithful. On these and other grounds (see 
section 5) we conclude that the sealing does not exclude the possibility of 
martyrdom, and that the 144,000 include Gentile as well as Jewish Christians, 


196 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VII. ὃ 5. 


the text is that it is from demonic agencies that the sealed are 
secured and not from physical evil in any form, from the visita- 
tions of nature, even the greatest at the end of the world. This 
last passage suggests the right interpretation of the text which 
follows in (c). 

(c) The sealing in our text secured the faithful against demonic 
agencies in the coming reign of Antichrist.—As this reign, so full of 
superhuman horrors, was about to begin, the sealing was carried 
out just then and not earlier or later. This sealing did not 
secure against social or cosmic evils, nor yet against martyrdom, 
XViii. 24, but only against diabolic or demonic powers, as we see 
from ix. 4.4 It is the special help that the faithful needed 
against the coming manifestation of Satanic wickedness linked 
with seemingly supreme power. With this help the weakest 
servant of God need not dread the mightiest of his spiritual foes. 
The seal of God engraven on his brow marked him as God’s 
property, and as such ensured him God’s protection. But it did 
not in itself secure him against spiritual apostasy. Against this 
Christ warns the elect in Matt. xxiv. 24, and requires of them 
unfailing endurance: Mark xiii. 13, ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας eis τέλος οὗτος 
σωθήσεται. If the elect bear with patience the natural trials inci- 
dent to their faithful discipleship of Christ, then He will preserve 
them from the superhuman trials which are about to come on the 
whole world, as He promises in iii. 10 of our text: ὅτι ἐτήρησας 
τὸν λόγον THs ὑπομονῆς pov, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ 
πειρασμοῦ τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης. The 
reasonableness of this view appears clearly from another 
standpoint. In the O.T., with its belief in a heathen Sheol, the 
righteous had to be recompensed on earth if they were to be 
recompensed at all—hence a long and happy life was the natural 
prerogative of the faithful. But in later times, and above all in 
the N.T., when the doctrine of a future life was fully and finally 
established, the centre of interest passed from things material to 
things spiritual. Protection not from physical death, but from the 
demonic and Satanic enemies of the spirit, became the supreme aim 
of the faithful. So far is it from being true that the faithful were 
secured by the sealing from physical death, that z¢ zs distinctly 
stated that they should all suffer martyrdom (xiii. 15). 

The idea in another form appears in a contemporary writer, 
Clem. Rom. ad Corinth. lix. 2: αἰτησόμεθα, ἐκτενῆ τὴν δέησιν καὶ 
ἱκεσίαν ποιούμενοι, ὅπως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν κατηριθμημένον τῶν ἐκλεκ- 
τῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διαφυλάξῃ ἄθραυστον ὃ δημιουργὸς τῶν 
ἁπάντων. 

1 As the sealing of the faithful secured them against demonic agencies and 


temptations, so the seal of the Beast on the brow of his followers made them 
the inevitable victims of the deceit of the second Beast: see xix. 20, 


VII. §5.] | SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SEALING 197 


The above interpretation has apparently been lost to 
Christendom for 1600 years or more.1 The reason seems in 
part to have been that at a very early date the term σφραγίς was 
associated with baptism (cf. Hermas, Sm. ix. 16. 2-4). To 
baptism there is, of course, no allusion in our text, but baptism 
combined the two ideas here present: (1) it marked the baptized 
as God’s (or Christ’s property) ; (2) it secured the baptized against 
demonic powers. A very significant passage is to be found in 
the Acts of Thomas, 26, Δὸς ἡμῖν τὴν σφραγῖδα" ἠκούσαμεν yap 
σου λέγοντος ὅτι ὃ θεός. . . διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ σφραγῖδος ἐπιγινώσκει τὰ 
ἴδια πρόβατα. Here baptism is a seal: it is also the mark which 
distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. For the passages 
designating baptism as e¢payis—see 2 Clem. vii. 6, vill. 5-6; Acts 
of Thomas (p. 68, ed. Bonnet), τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ . . . πάρασχέ μοι 
σφραγῖδα καὶ . . . τὸ λοῦτρον λάβω τῆς ἀφθαρσίας : Acts of Paul, 
28= Martyrdom of Paul, 7; Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 3. Other 
passages combine the ideas of a means of recognition and 
defence: Clem. £clog. Prophet. 12, πληρωθέντων yap τῶν κενῶν 
τότε ἣ σφραγὶς ἐπακολουθεῖ va φυλάσσηται τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἅγιον. 
Excerpt ex Theod. 80, διὰ γὰρ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος 
σφραγισθεὶς ἀνεπίληπτός ἐστι τῇ ἄλλῃ δυνάμει: 7614. 86; Cyrill. 
Cat. 1. 3, ἐκεὶ τὴν σωτηριώδη δίδωσι σφραγῖδα, τὴν θαυμασίαν, ἣν 
τρέμουσι δαίμονες καὶ γινώσκουσιν ἄγγελοι, ἵνα οἱ μὲν φύγωσιν 
ἐλασθέντες, of δὲ περιέπωσιν ὡς οἰκεῖον : 2014. ili. 12. See 
Heitmiiller, 2 Mamen Jesu, p. 334. In Lactantius the entire 
meaning attaching to the sealing in our text is attributed to 
Christian baptism. Thus in his /zstit. Divin. iv. 26 he speaks 
of “Christ being slain for the salvation of all who have written on 
their foreheads the sign of blood—that is, the sign of the cross ” 
(“signum sanguinis, id est crucis”). The presence of Christians 
bearing this sign when attending on their masters at a heathen 
sacrifice put to flight the gods of their masters, z.e. the demons 
(iv. 27: “cum enim quidam ministrorum nostri sacrificantibus 
dominis assisterent, imposito frontibus signo, deos illorum fuga- 
verunt”). ‘But since (the demons) can neither approach those in 
whom they have seen the heavenly mark, nor injure those whom the 
immortal sign as an impregnable wall protects, they harass them 
by men and persecute them by the hands of others” (“sed 
quoniam neque accedere ad eos possunt, in quibus coelestem 
notam viderint, nec iis nocere, quos signum immortale munierit, 

17. Weiss (Schriften des NTs. ii. 634, 1908) might at first sight appear 
to have rediscovered this ancient and true interpretation (‘‘der mit dem gdtt- 
lichen Namen Geweihte ist mit ihm gefeit, geschiitzt gegen alle Feinde, gegen 
Damonen und Teufel”) ; but this isnot so. On the next page he writes: ‘‘ Ihre 
Versiegelung bedeutet ... sie sollen. . . von dem Martyrium bewahrt 


bleiben.” Thus even J. Weiss holds that the sealing secures against physical 
death. 


198 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN’ [VII. 8 5. 


tanquam inexpugnabilis murus, lacessunt eos per homines et 
manibus persequuntur alienis’”’). Here the sign of the cross dis- 
charges the very same function as the seal affixed to the forehead 
of the faithful in our text. This passage thus indirectly attests 
the right interpretation of the sealing in the Apocalypse. 

An inroad of diabolic agencies on Israel and a special 
strengthening of Israel against this invasion by Michael is pre- 
dicted in Test. Dan vi. 1, 5, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ καὶ 
τῶν πνευμάτων αὐτοῦ... αὐτὸς yap ὁ ἄγγελος THs εἰρήνης ἐνισχύσει 
τὸν Ἰσραὴλ μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τέλος κακῶν. Cf. 2 Bar. xxvii. 9, 
where it is said that the final tribulation is to embrace “a 
multitude of portents and incursions of Shedim ” (2.6. evil spirits). 

The idea of sealing plays a large rdle in the Apocalypse. In 
vii. 2 564.) ix. 4, Xiv. I, xxil. 4 (here all the righteous are sealed) it 
is the servants of God who are sealed ; but in xiii. 16sq., xiv. 9, 
XVi. 2, Xix. 20, xx. 4, the followers of the Beast, where the mark 
is engraven on the brow or right hand of the latter. This 
practice was apparently frequent among the earliest Christians. 
But it was current also in Judaism, as we have already seen from 
the Pss. of Solomon (see above, and compare Heitmiiller, Jm 
Namen Jesu, 132 566.) 143 5464.) 153, 174, 234), and also in O.T. 
times: cf. Isa. xliv. 5, “ Another shall write on his hand: Unto 
the Lord”; Ezek. ix. 4. Even Yahweh Himself the prophet 
represents by an anthropomorphism as engraving Zion on the 
palms of His hands (Isa. xlix. 16), Yet this custom was strictly 
forbidden by the Law. Cf. Lev. xix. 28, xxi. 5,6; Deut. xiv. 1. 
Clearly Isa. xliv. 5, xlix. 16, Ezek. ix. 4, saw no evil in it, if 
used in connection with the right persons. See Gal. vi. 17.1 

1This practice was prevalent in heathenism. Slaves were branded 
occasionally (see Wetstein’s note on Gal. vi. 17), and soldiers sometimes 
branded themselves to show that they were in service and under the protec- 
tion of their lords. But the true analogy to the practice in our text is that of 
slaves attached to some temple (ἱερόδουλοι), or individuals devoted to the 
service of some deity, whose persons were so branded. Thus Ptolemy tv. 
Philopator had the Alexandrian Jews branded with an ivy leaf, the sign of 
Dionysus, 3 Macc. ii. 29; and Philo, De Monarch, i. 8, reproaches apostate 
Jews for allowing their persons to be so branded, ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν. . . κατα- 
orlfovres, There was a temple of Heracles at one of the mouths of the Nile, 
from which a fugitive slave who had once been branded with the sacred stig- 
mata could not be reclaimed: cf. Herod. ii. 113, ‘Hpaxdéos ἱρόν, és τὸ ἣν κατα- 
φυγὼν οἰκέτης ὅτεῳ ἀνθρώπων ἐπιβάληται στίγματα ἱρὰ ἑωυτὸν διδοὺς τῷ θεῷ, 
οὐκ ἔξεστι τούτου ἅψασθαι : Lucian, de Dea Syr. ὃ 59, στίζονται δὲ πάντες, οἱ μὲν 
εἰς καρπούς, οἱ δὲ ἐς αὐχένας, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦδε πάντες οἱ ᾿Ασσύριοι στίγματη- 
φορέουσι: Plutarch, Lucull. p. 507, Boes...’Apréusdos, ἣν μάλιστα θεῶν οἱ πέραν 
βάρβαροι τιμῶσιν. .. χαράγματα φέρουσαι τῆς θεοῦ λαμπάδα. See Wetstein 
and Lightfoot on Gal. vi. 17 ; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 3343 
Spencer, Leg. Rit. Hed. ii. 14. Heitmiiller (of. cz¢. 184q.) points out how 
closely related were such beliefs in Babylon, Egypt, and Judea ; and Giesebrecht 
(Schatzung, 86) regards the former as distinctly operative on Jewish beliefs 
(see Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des NT, 184). Heitmiiller 


a 


VII. § 5-7.] THE 144,000—THE CHURCH MILITANT 199 


Finally, we find references to this sign on the forehead in the 
Odes of Solomon (ed. Rendel Harris, 1909), iv. 7, “‘ For who is 
there that shall put on Thy grace to be hurt?” iv. ὃ, “For Thy 
seal is known, and Thy creatures know it, and Thy hosts rejoice 
(emended) in it; and the elect archangels are clad with it”; 
viii. 16, ‘‘ Before they came into being I took knowledge of them, 
and on their faces I set My seal.” The seal here does not seem 
to be used in an eschatological sense, but simply marks its bearer 
as God’s property. 

§ 6. Chapter vit. refers only to the present generation of 
believers, first as militant on earth, vit. 1-8, and next as triumph- 
ant in heaven, Vit. Q-I7. 

It is obvious that vii. 1-8 deals only with the present genera- 
tion of the faithful; for in the thought of the Seer it is only this 
generation that has to endure the last and greatest tribulation. 
To preserve it against the superhuman evils that are about to 
burst on the world, the progress of the plagues is stayed and the 
faithful are secured against such as are of a demonic character, 
being sealed as God’s own possession. 

It is no less obvious that the great host in vii. 9-17 does not 
embrace the whole Church, but oly those who had come ἐκ τῆς 
θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης. Not only on account of the definite article 
and the distinctive epithet τῆς μεγάλης, but also on account of 
the whole vision and its relation to the rest of the book, it is 
wholly inadmissible to interpret “the great tribulation” quite 
generally as any or every tribulation that is incident to the life of 
faithful discipleship.! ‘The great tribulation” is about to fall 
upon the present generation, and in vii. 9-17 are represented the 
great multitude which had come through it faithfully. 

§ 7. The 144,000 tn the present context are (a) Christians 
belonging not to Israel after the flesh, but to the spiritual Israel, 
(6) and are in this respect the same as the 144,000 in xtv. I-5. 

(a) We have seen above, ὃ 4, II. (4), that these 144,000 were 


(op. cét. 333 sq.) connects the ideas of baptism and sealing. The name of Jesus 
marked the baptized as the property of Jesus, placed him under His protec- 
tion, and assured him against alien powers. The name in this significance is 
a σφραγίς. Thence it becomes easy to designate baptism itself as a seal, 
though in this development the influences of the Greek Mysteries may have 
co-operated. But there is no reference to baptism in our text, although 
σφραγίζειν here and βαπτίζειν els τὸ ὄνομά τινος in the N.T. have practically 
the same meaning. The design of ‘‘ the sealing” and ‘‘ the baptizing into the 
name of” is to show that the person so affected was the property of God or 
Christ. 

1 The scribe of A may have been conscious of the difficulty of the text and 
so read ἀπὸ θλίψεως μεγάλης. But NPQ and all the cursives agree in reading 
as above. Cf. Hermas, Vzs. 11. ii. 7, μακάριοι ὅσοι ὑπομένετε τὴν θλίψιν τὴν 
ἐρχομένην τὴν jeryddnv—which is based partly on vii. 14 and iii. 10 of our 
book, and which testifies to the form of our text between 110-140 A.D. 


200 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII. ὃ 7. 


Jews or Jewish Christians in the original tradition. That they 
are Jewish Christians in their present context is maintained by 
Diisterdieck, Holtzmann, Bousset, and others. These scholars 
hold that the 144,000, vii. 4-8, and the countless host, vii. 9-17, 
are not to be identified ; for in the one case we have a definite 
number, in the other an indefinite one ; in the one a multitude of 
all nations and peoples, in the other a definite number of Jewish 
Christians ; in the one case the last great woe is still impending, 
in the other it is already surmounted and left behind. Now the 
last objection is of no weight. The vision in vii. 9-17 is pro- 
leptic. It prophesies the outcome of the present strife, and 
therefore the two visions presuppose different conditions—the 
one a phase of tha Church militant, the other a phase of the 
Church triumphant. From this standpoint no objection can be 
maintained against the identity of the two groups under different 
conditions of time and place. 

The other objections, when considered in the light of the 
thought which underlies the sealing of the faithful, lose forthwith 
any force they seemed to have. For since we have already seen 
that “the great tribulation” was about to come upon ¢he whole 
world (iii. 10), that the essential danger connected with this 
tribulation was its demonic character, and that the sole object 
of the sealing was to preserve the faithful against demonic 
powers, it follows inevitably that the sealing must be cvextensive 
with the peril, and must therefore embrace the entire Christian 
community, alike Jewish and Gentile. For the necessary grace 
of preservation from demonic influence cannot be accorded 
to the faithful descended from Israel according to the flesh 
and withheld from the faithful descended from Israel accord- 
ing to the spirit, in a work of so universalistic import as the 
Apocalypse. In other words, the 144,000 belong not to the 
literal but to the spiritual Israel, and are composed of all 
peoples and nations and languages.1 From this standpoint 
the number 144,000 presents no difficulty. It is merely a 
symbolical and not a definite number. The real explana- 
tion of its appearance here is that it is a part of a tradition 
taken over by our author, and a part to which he attaches 
no definite significance in its new context. The part of the 
tradition with which he is concerned is the sealing. This 
element is of overwhelming significance. It is the measure 

1 Here the spiritual Israel is intended, as in 1 Pet. i. 1. Cf. i. 14, 18, ii. 
9, 10, iv. 3, 4, and Jas. i. 1. This was the view of Hippolytus, περὶ τοῦ 
᾿Αντιχρίστου : vi. ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος σφραγῖδα τοῖς els αὐτὸν πιστεύουσιν, καὶ αὐτὸς 
(Ξ: ὁ ᾿Αντίχριστος) δώσει ὁμοίως. Here all the faithful are saved. In his 
commentary, however, on this passage preserved only in the Arabic (see 


articles, Hippolyt’s A/leimere Schriften, p. 231, ed. Achelis) he takes the 
144,000 to be Jewish Christians. 


VII. ὃ 7-10.] THE 144,000—CHURCH TRIUMPHANT 201 


adopted by God to secure His servants against the manifestation 
and for the time victorious self-assertion of the Satanic world. 
The other elements of the tradition, though taken into the text, 
are of the slightest concern, or of none at all, to our author. 
This is frequently his practice. We have already seen it in 
vii. 1-3, where the main idea is the Zawse which is commanded 
in the succession of the plagues in order to effect this sealing. 
As regards the four winds—another element in the tradition 
there used—our author never again refers directly to them. 

(ὁ) The 144,000 in vit. belong to the spiritual Israel as do the 
144,000 in xiv. I-5.—If what we have above contended is 
valid, there can be no question as to the identity of the two 
bodies—at least as regards their origin. This identity of 
spiritual origin helps to confirm the conclusion arrived at on 
other grounds. 

ὃ 8. vit. 9--17 ts the work not of a redactor, but of our author ,; 
jor every verse and nearly every phrase ts related in point of 
diction and meaning to the rest of the Apocalypse.—Since we have 
shown in our commentary an overwhelming amount of evidence 
in support of the above statement, we must refer the reader to 
the notes in question. 

89. Zhe ὄχλος πολύς in vit. O-17 ts identical with the 
144,000 in vit. g-8.—In § 6 we have seen that the ὄχλος πολύς 
embraces not the Christians or faithful of all time, but only 
the Christian contemporaries of the Seer—the faithful of the 
present generation. Since the 144,000 refer to the same body, 
it is clear that the ὄχλος πολύς and the 144,000 are identical 
qualitatively if not quantitatively. 

§ 10. Ln the original form of the vision of vit. 9-17 the ὄχλος 
πολύς (a) represented the entire body of the blessed in heaven after 
the final judgment, but does not do so in tts present context ; but (6) 
represents the martyrs of the last tribulation serving God in heaven 
before the final judgment, or rather before the establishment of the 
Millennial Kingdom in chap. xx. 

(a) The oviginad form of this vision represented the entire body 
of the blessed in heaven or in the New Jerusalem on the new 
Earth (as in xxi. 1-4) after the final judgment. (a) For the 
same phraseology is used of God and the blessed (cf. vii. 15 and 
ΧΧΙ. 3, Xxli. 3; Vil. 17 and xxi. 4) after the final judgment in the 
New Jerusalem. () There is no phrase in the section which in 
itself definitely limits the description to the martyrs. The phrases 
that demand such a limitation are, as we shall see, of an indirect 
though cogent character, and are due to our author’s adaptation 
of one of his independent visions to a new context. (y) The 
clause ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο cannot be rightly used of 
a section of the blessed, but fittingly describes the countless 


202 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VII. § 10, 


hosts of all the blessed. (8) Apart from the phrases οἱ ἐρχόμενοι, 
ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης, and ἐν τῷ vdw (not in xxii. 3), the 
whole impression of the vision is that it deals with the final con- 
dition of the blessed in heaven, in which they render perfect and 
ceaseless service to God, and all the sorrow and pain of the 
earthly life are in the past (vii. 17). (ε) After the final judgment 
all the faithful are to be clothed in white. 

(4) But this cannot be the meaning of the vision in its pre- 
sent context. (a) For in ὃ 6 above, we have seen that the ὄχλος 
πολύς embraces not all the faithful, but only the faithful that are 
to issue victoriously from the great tribulation. (8) Next, if we 
take οἱ ἐρχόμενοι" strictly as an imperfect participle, the great 
tribulation is still in progress,? the end of the world is not yet 
come, and all who belong to the great multitude are martyrs, for 
all are already clothed in white (vi. 9, 11). This vision in 
vii. 9-17 is proleptic, like that in xiv. 1-5. In both cases the 
multitudes are martyrs and martyrs only; for they are clothed in 
white, and the final judgment is not yet come. (y) Our inter- 
pretation receives support from the general theme of the Book— 
the glorification of martyrdom, and especially from the place of 
this section in the Book; for the time which it deals with forms 
the very eve of the last and greatest tribulation. 

Hence we conclude that the vision in its present form refers 
to the martyrs of the great tribulation, though it exhibits 
survivals of ideas and statements which show that originally it 


1 Τῇ the sentence, οὗτοί εἰσιν ol ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης καὶ 
ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, the καὶ ἔπλυναν κτλ. is to be taken along with οἱ 
ἐρχόμενοι as the predicate of the sentence: ζΖ.6. ‘‘ these are those who come 
through the great tribulation and washed,” etc. So the ancient Versions— 
the Vulgate, Syriac (}**), Ethiopic—rightly rendered the Greek. So also 
the A.V.; but the R.V. is quite wrong in making καὶ ἔπλυναν κτλ. a co- 
ordinate sentence with οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι, and translating: ‘‘ these are 
they which have come out of the great tribulation, and ¢hey washed,” etc. 
The R.V. always and the A.V. generally mistranslate this idiom in our 
author. We have here a Hebraism, in accordance with which Hebrew 
writers after using a participle or infinitive added other clauses not with 
participles or infinitives as we should logically expect, but with finite verbs. 
(See Driver, Hebrew Tenses*, § 117.) This Hebraism is occasionally repro- 
duced in the LXX. Thus Jer. xxiii. 32, O50" . . . pe modn nay Sy a= 
LXX, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς τοὺς... προφητεύοντας ψευδῆ ἐνύπνια. . . Kal διηγοῦντο 
αὐτά. The same construction both in the Hebrew and the LXX will be 
found in Amos v. 7; Gen. xlix. 17; Ps. xcii. 8, cv. 12 sq. (ἐν τῷ εἶναι. . . 
καὶ διῆλθον), etc. The Hebraism, therefore, which appears in our text (οὗτοί 
εἰσιν ol ἐρχόμενοι kal ἔπλυναν) Ξ- ἸΌΞΞῚ . . . O'RIN ADA AN. We have already 
had the same Hebraism in i. 5, 6, where see note. 

2 The question in vii. 13, πόθεν ἦλθον, might imply that the number is com- 
plete. In that case ol ἐρχόμενοι would strictly =ol ἐλθόντες, and we should 
expect ἐκ θλίψεως μεγάλης as in A (a mere correction). The text would then 
refer to all the blessed, whether martyred or not. So the text may have stood 
in the original vision. 


VII. 1.] PAUSE IN THE PLAGUES 203 


bore a very different meaning. One such is the clause ὃν 
ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο. 

§ 11. Whereas vit. 2:--δ'᾽ refers to the living faithful, vit. 9--17 
and xiv. I-5 are proleptic and refer to the martyrs. They embrace 
both men and women. 

The martyrs are represented in vii. 9-17 as arriving in 
heaven straight from the scene of martyrdom. In xiv. 1-5 the 
martyrs are represented as following the Lamb on the earthly 
Mount Zion during the reign of tooo years. This latter vision 
thus anticipates the scene described in xx. 4. 

Since the martyrs are alike men and women, παρθένοι in 
xiv. 4 must be taken metaphorically. This passage, therefore, 
deals with spiritual fornication. This is independent of the fact 
that our writer could not have spoken of Christians as having 
defiled themselves (ἐμολύνθησαν : cf. iii. 4) by holy matrimony. 

VII. 1-8.—A pause in the succession of the plagues. The 
destroying winds are to be held in check in order that during the 
pause the 144,000 of the spiritual Israel may be sealed. The 
plagues introduced by the four winds seem to be of a demonic char- 
acter, since the faithful must be sealed before they are let loose. 

1. μετὰ τοῦτο εἶδον τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὰς τέσ- 
σαρας γωνίας τῆς γῆς κρατοῦντας τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀνέμους τῆς γῆς, 
ἵνα μὴ πνέῃ ἄνεμος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μήτε ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης μήτε ἐπί τι 
δένδρον. The words μετὰ τοῦτο εἶδον introduce a new and im- 
portant division of the sixth Seal (see note on iv. 1). The angels 
of the winds, like those of fire, xiv. 18, and of water, xvi. 5 (cf. 
John v. 7), belong to the lower orders of angelic beings. They are 
set over the works of nature, and, as such, they could not keep the 
Sabbath as the highest orders do according to Jub. ii. 18 sqq. 
They were called the angels of service (mwn yond) in the 
Talmud, and were said to be inferior in rank to righteous 
Israelites (Sanh. 93). For other angels of this nature see 
1 Enoch lx. 11-21, lxv. 8, lxix. 22; Jub. ii. 2. An angel of 
this class might be described as στοιχεῖον---ἃ “spirit,” ‘‘demon,” 
or ‘‘genius.” See Deissmann, Zucyc. Lid. ii. 1261; Bousset, 
Religion des Judenthums, 317. On the destructive winds and 
the plagues introduced by them see the introduction to this 
chapter, p. 192. ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὰς τέσσαρας γωνίας. On ἵστημι 
with ἐπί and acc. see p. 191 sq. Our author regarded the earth 
as τετράγωνος, as Isa. xi. 12, Ezek. vii. 2 (ΝΠ M93), which the 
LXX render οἱ πτέρυγες τῆς γῆς. The idea recurs in xx. 8 and 
in xxi. 16, where the heavenly Jerusalem is described as a 
cubiform city, whose length and breadth and height are equal. 
Ultimately this view may go back to a Babylonian cosmogony. 
On this question see Warren, Zhe Eariiest Cosmologies, 38 sq., 


46 sq. 


204 THE REVELATION OF ST.JOHN [VII 1-2. 


κρατοῦντας. There is here the idea that at the end of the 
world (the) four destructive winds would be let loose to injure 
the earth and the sea andthe trees. Noreference is made to this 
expectation in the rest of the Apocalypse in this form, but vii. 1-3 
serves in part to introduce the plague of demonic locusts. See 
note on ix. 4. For this use of κρατεῖν as “holding in check,” 
cf. Luke xxiv. 16, where it is followed by rod μή. Its meaning 
in Acts ii. 24; John xx. 23 is related but not the same, while still 
another holds in Rev. ii. 13, 14, 15, 25, iil. 11, and yet another 
in ii. I. 

τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀνέμους. These four winds came from the four 
angles or corners of the earth, which was regarded as an actual 
square, ifnot a cube. They came from the four angles and not 
from the four sides; for according to Jewish conceptions the 
winds that blew from the four quarters, z.e. due north, south, east, 
and west, were favourable winds, whereas those that came from 
the angles or corners, as N.E.N. and E.N.E., N.W.N. and 
W.N.W., etc., were hurtful. The subject is dealt with at length 
in 1 Enoch Ixxvi. and xxxiv. 3. There are two differences 
between the conceptions in our text and that in Enoch. The 
first is on the surface and not essential. Enoch represents ‘wo 
hurtful winds as issuing from each corner, whereas our text 
reduces each pair to a single wind. This difference may be 
accounted for by the fact that whereas 1 Enoch lxxvi. represents 
an attempt at being full and scientific from the standpoint of the 
time, our text exhibits the same views in a popular and less 
precise form. The more important difference is that the winds 
which were characteristically injurious are here in our text 
assigned a special réle of destruction at the world’s close. But 
the way for this development was already prepared in the O.T., 
and Christian literature attests its further developments. See 
above, p. 191 sq. 

πνέῃ . .. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. . . μήτε ἐπί τι δένδρον. On the cases 
with ἐπί here see above, p. 191, § 4 

2. καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, 
ἔχοντα σφραγῖδα θεοῦ ζῶντος. Why the angel ascends from the 
east cannot be determined. Corn. a Lap., Hengstenberg, Ebrard, 
De Wette, Volkmar, Diisterdieck think that it is because the 
life-bringing sun comes from the east; VoOlter, iv. 24, because the 
revelation of divine salvation and glory were expected from the 
east (Ezek. xliii. 2): so also Swete ; similarly Holtzmann, quoting 
Isa. xli. 2. Erbes(p. 51, note) refers to the last passage and Sib. 
Or. iii. 652, and implies that it is because the Messiah comes 
from the east. 

θεοῦ ζῶντος. This is a very familiar expression in the N.T. 
Thus it is found once in Acts, six “mes in the Pauline Epistles, 


VII. 2-3.] FOR THE SEALING OF THE FAITHFUL 205 


four times in Hebrews, and twice in Matthew in the form τοῦ 
θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. In the Apocalypse θεοῦ ζῶντος does not recur, 
but we have the related forms, τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων, 
iv. 9, v. 10, x. 6, and a combination of the two in xv. 7, τοῦ θεοῦ 
τ. ζῶντος εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων (see note on iv. 9 ad finem). 
The Hebrew is Π 5x. ΟἿ, Josh. iii. 10 ; Ps. xlii. 3 ; Hos. i. 10 
(ii. 2); 2 Kings xix. 4,16; Dan. iv. 19 (LXX), v. 23 (27s), vi. 26; 
Jabs: 25, xxi, 4; 3 Mace. vi. 28. In 2 Mace. vii. 33, XV. 4 we 
have the form 6 ζῶν κύριος, and in Sibyl. Or. iii. 763 simply τῷ 
ζῶντι. The expression in all its forms brings out the contrast 
between the one eternal God and the numberless ephemeral gods 
of the heathen. 

καὶ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τοῖς τέσσαρσιν ἀγγέλοις οἷς ἐδόθη 
αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. 

οἷς. . . αὐτοῖς. On this Hebraism in our text see p. 87. 
On the construction, ἐδόθη. . . ἀδικῆσαι see p. 54. The 
angels injured the earth by letting loose the winds under their 
charge. The idea that the angels cause injury to the earth by 
withholding the winds, as Bengel, Herder, and Wellhausen 
maintain, is contrary not only to the text, but to the tradition 
regarding these winds which blow from the corners of the earth ; 
see pi 204: 

3. λέγων Μὴ ἀδικήσητε Thy γῆν μήτε τὴν θάλασσαν μήτε τὰ 
δένδρα, ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων 
αὐτῶν. On the meaning of ἀδικεῖν in our text see xxii. 11, note. 

σφραγίσωμεν. The sealing is to secure the servants of God 
against the attacks of demonic powers coming into open mani- 
festation (see ix. 4, note). The Satanic host is about to make its 
final struggle for the mastery of the world. In the past their 
efforts had in the main been restricted to attacks on man’s 
spiritual being, and had therefore been hidden, invisible, and 
mysterious, but now at the end of time they are to come forth 
from their mysterious background and make open war with 
God and His hosts for the possession of the earth and of man- 
kind. The hidden mystery of wickedness, the secret source of 
all the haunting horrors, and crimes, and failures, and sins of the 
past was about to reveal itself—the Antichrist was to become 
incarnate and appear armed, as it were, with all but almighty 
power. With such foes the faithful felt wholly unfit to do battle. 
With the rage and hostility of man they could cope, but with 
their ghostly enemy and his myrmidons about to manifest them- 
selves with soul- and body-compelling powers they dared not 
engage. And so just on the eve of this epiphany of Satan, God 
seals His servants on their foreheads to show that they are His 
own possession, and that no embodied (or disembodied) spirit of 
the wicked one can do them hurt. In its deepest sense this 


206 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII 38-4. 


sealing means the outward manifestation of character. The 
hidden goodness of God’s servants is at last blazoned outwardly, 
and the divine name that was written in secret by God’s Spirit 
on their hearts is now engraved openly on their brows by the 
very signet ring of the living God (σφραγῖδα θεοῦ ζῶντος). In the 
reign of the Antichrist goodness and evil, righteousness and sin, 
come into their fullest manifestation and antagonism. Character 
ultimately enters on the stage of finality.} 

τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. On the phrase τ. δ. τ. θεοῦ cf. i. 1, 
ii. 20, ΧΙΧ. 2, 5, ΧΧΙΪ. 3,6; and on τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν cf. vii. 10, 12, 
xii, IO, xix. 1, 5 (θεός μου, 111. 2, 12, li. 7). By the addition 
ἡμῶν the angel acknowledges that angels and men are fellow- 
servants in the service of God; cf. xix. το, xxii. 9. 

ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν. Our author always uses ἐπὶ τῶν 
μετώπων when he uses the plural: cf. ix. 4, xiv. 1, xxii. 4, and 
ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον ; cf. xiii. 16, xvii. 5, xx. 4, when he uses the 
singular (except in xiv. 9, ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου). The idea in odpayi- 
cope... ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν goes back ultimately to 
Ezek. ix. 4. See note on xiii. 16 with regard to the mark on 
the foreheads and right hand of the followers of the Beast. 

4. καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν τεσσερά- 
κοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. 
The Seer does not witness the sealing which is completed 
during the pause in the plagues, but he hears the number of the 
sealed and their description. The number of the sealed is 
purely symbolical. The number connotes perfectness and com- 
pletion, being 12x 12 taken a thousandfold (Alford). But it is 
not an infinite number; for it gives the number of the faithful 
in the present generation only (see p. 199, 209 sq.). 

πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. It is not believers descended from 
the literal Israel (1 Cor. x. 18) (though this was the original 
meaning of the tradition), but from the spiritual Israel that are 
here referred to (see p. 200). This transformation of meaning 
is found also in our text in xviii. 4. Cf. Rom. ii. 29, ὃ ἐν τῷ 
κρυπτῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖος : Gal. 111. 29, εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, dpa τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ 

1 Logically, or perhaps historically, we may connect the thought in Rom. 
viii. 19 with that in our text. The sealing, which shows outwardly that 
the faithful are God’s sons, marks the first stage of their manifestation as such 
(τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom. viii. 19). They, too, shall be mani- 
fested as their Divine Master (Luke xvii. 30, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀποκα- 
λύπτεται : 2 Thess. ii. 8, τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας). Opposed to this we 
have the manifestation of the Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 3, ἀποκαλυφθῇ : ii. 6, 
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι : ii. 8, ἀποκαλυφθήσεται). There is also the manifestation of his 
followers—at all events the first stage of it—in the sealing of the followers of 
the Beast (Apoc. xiii. 16 sq., xiv. 9, xvi. 2, xix. 20, xx. 4). 

The manifestation of the Messiah was a familiar expectation in Jewish 
Apocalyptic about this time and earlier: cf. 4 Ezra vii. 28, xiii. 32; 2 Bar. 
ΧΧΧΙΧ. 7. 





VII. 4-8.] SEALING OF THE 144,000 207 


σπέρμα ἐστέ: vi. 16, τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ ; Phil. iii. 3, ἡμεῖς γάρ 
ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν 
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; 1 Pet. 1; Jas. i. 1; Hermas, Sc. ix. 17. 


5. ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα δώδεκα χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Ῥουβὴν δώδεκα χιλιάϑες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Γὰδ δώδεκα χιλιάϑες, 


6. ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ασὴρ δώδεκα χιλιάδες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Νεφθαλὶμ δώδεκα χιλιάϑες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Μανασσῆ δώδεκα χιλιάδες, 


7. ἐκ φυλῆς Συμεὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Λευὶ δώδεκα χιλιάϑες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰσσαχὰρ δώδεκα χιλιάδες, 


8. ἐκ φυλῆς Ζαβουλὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ιωσὴφ δώδεκα χιλιάδες, 
ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμεὶν δώδεκα χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι. 


5-8. In the above list there are several irregularities. (2) 
Judah is placed first. (δ) Dan is omitted. (c) Manasseh is 
given, though Manasseh is included in Joseph. (d) The rest 
of the tribes are enumerated in a wholly unintelligible 
order. 

(a) Judah is mentioned first, because from him is sprung the 
Messiah (see p. 193 Sq.). 

(4) Before we ates the difficulties in (4) and (2) we must 
examine that under (4), since if this can be solved the rest come 
easier. Now the present unintelligible order of the tribes cannot 
be explained by any such irrelevancy as that of Grotius: ‘ Nullus 
servatur ordo, quia omnes in Christo pares.” The text zs unin- 
telligible as it stands, and it is unintelligible because it is dis- 
located. This dislocation Buchanan Gray has recognized 
(Encyc. Bib. iv. 5208 sq. ; Expositor, 1902, p. 225 sqq.) and set 
right by transposing Vii. 5° 6 after vii. 8. By this transposition, 
sanity is restored to the text. The order then becomes in- 
telligible and illuminating: first the sons of the first wife Leah— 
Judah, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun ; next, the sons 
of Rachel the second wife—Joseph and Benjamin; next, the 
the sons of Leah’s handmaid—Gad and Assher ; and, finally, we 
should have the sons of Rachel’s handmaid—Naphtali and 
Dan; but we have on certain grounds Naphtali and Manasseh 
instead. 

Thus we have first Leah’s sons, then Rachel’s, then the sons 
of Leah’s handmaid, and finally, those of Rachel’s handmaid. 
Let us now proceed to deal with the remaining difficulties, and 


208 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _ [VII. 5-8, 


to make these the more obvious we shall transcribe the list 
arrived at through Buchanan Gray’s suggestion.} 


Judah Joseph 
Reuben Benjamin 
Simeon Gad 

Levi Assher 
Issachar : Naphtali 
Zebulun Manasseh. 


The first difficulty (a) in this list arises from Judah being 
placed at the head of the list. But the reason for this order 
is obvious, as we have already seen (see p. 193 sq.). Christ 
is descended from Judah, therefore Judah comes first. The 
next difficulty (4) arises from the omission of Dan and the 
insertion of Manasseh (c) in his place. Here again the answer 
is, I think, of no questionable character. Manasseh is obvi- 
ously de trop here, since Manasseh is already included in 
Joseph; and Joseph is original, since the list obviously aims 
at giving the sons of Rachel, as it has given the sons of 
Leah, and not two of her sons and one grandson as it does in 
its present form. Manasseh then has been substituted for Dan, 
the missing son of Rachel’s handmaid. The substitution 
has, as we have remarked, made the list illogical. We have 
now to ask, Why was Dan omitted? and by whom? Various 
explanations of the displacement of Dan by Manasseh have been 
offered. Gomarus, Hartwig, Bleek, Ziullig, and Spitta propose 
that Ady stood originally in the text, but was early corruptly 
written Mav, and that hence Manasseh arose. But such abbrevia- 
tions are highly improbable, and very seldom occur in Uncial 
MSS. and the corruption of Ady into May is unlikely in the case 
of such a well-known list as that of the twelve tribes. Others, as 
Grotius, Ewald, De Wette, and Diisterdieck are of opinion that 
Dan was omitted because the tribe had long ago died out. But 
the same statement might be made of many of the tribes. 
Others think the omission due to the fact that Dan early fell into 
idolatry ; but this in itself would not distinguish Dan from the 
rest of the tribes. 

There is, however, another explanation, and that at once the 
most ancient and most satisfactory of all, which was first pro- 
pounded by Irenaeus. According to this: explanation Dan was 
omitted because the Antichrist was to spring from his tribe. 
Irenaeus writes, v. 30.2: “‘Hieremias . . . tribum ex qua veniet 


1 Another possible restoration of the text could be effected by transposing 
5°-6 after 88, We should then have Leah’s sons, the sons of Leah’s hand- 
maids, the sons of Rachel’s handmaid, Rachel’s sons. But the other 
restoration is better. 


VII. 8-17. | VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 209 


manifestavit dicens . . . et propter hoc non annumeratur tribus 
haec in Apocalypsi cum his quae salvantur.” Hippolytus, De 
Antichristo, 14, ὥσπερ yap ἐκ τῆς Ἰούδα φυλῆς 6 Χριστὸς γεγέννηται, 
οὕτως καὶ ἐκ τὴς τοῦ Δὰν φυλῆς ὁ ἀντίχριστος γεννηθήσεται. 
Andreas, ἣ φυλὴ τοῦ Δάν, ὡς ἐκ αὐτῆς τικτομένου τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου, 
ταῖς λοιπαῖς οὐ συντέτακται. That this tradition of the origin of 
Antichrist is pre-Christian and Jewish I have shown in the notes 
on Test. Dan v. 6-7, in my edition of the Test. XII Patriarchs ; 
and Bousset (Zhe Antichrist Legend, 171 sq.) has proved at 
length that this interpretation of our text was that which was 
generally accepted in the early Christian Church, ze by 
Eucharius, Augustine, Jacob of Edessa, Theodoret, Arethas, 
Bede, etc. This interpretation is maintained by Erbes (77-79), 
Bousset, Holtzmann’, J. Weiss, Swete, Anderson Scott, etc. 

9-17. Proleptic vision of the martyrs from the last great tribu- 
lation, blessed and triumphant tn heaven. 

In the preceding chapters, iv.—vil. 8, the order of time has 
been observed in the visions recounted. There has been no 
breach of unity in this respect; no anticipation of the far distant 
future followed by a return to the more immediate. But to such 
a proleptic vision we have now come. The visionary gaze of 
the Seer leaves for the moment the steady, progressive unveiling 
of the events of the future, and beholds the more distant 
destinies of the faithful, triumphant and secure before the throne 
of God in heaven. These are they who had been sealed in the 
vision just recounted, and had already by martyrdom won the 
martyr’s privilege of the immediate blessedness and perfection 
of being clothed in their spiritual bodies before the throne. 
They do not represent the entire Church of the redeemed, but 
only those who had come forth as martyrs from ‘the great 
tribulation.” Their number is still incomplete: their host is 
still growing with fresh accessions of the martyred saints. The 
time to which the vision points is still prior to the final judg- 
ment. (On all these questions see pp. 200—202, and notes below.) 
When the last martyr joins the throng of the blessed, the roll of 
the martyrs (vi. 11) will be complete, and the hour of the final 
judgment have struck. 

The vision is recounted to encourage and inspire the present 
generation, and confines itself to the destinies of the martyrs 
belonging to it; for the great multitude is composed of those 
who come from the last great tribulation (vii. 14) which, accord- 
ing to the belief of the Seer, is about to come upon the earth. 
The phrase τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης (vil. 14) cannot be taken 
loosely as meaning any or every tribulation that befalls the 
faithful in this life, but only as the final and greatest tribulation 
that was to come on mankind (see pp. 44, 212). Since there is 

VOL. IL.—14 


210 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VII. 9. 


no legitimate means of evading this conclusion, the clause ὃν 
ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο seems unjustifiable in its present 
context. And so indeed it is; but the explanation, as we have 
already seen (p. 201 sq., note), is that this clause belonged to 
the vision in its original form, in which its subject was the whole 
Church of the redeemed, triumphant in heaven after the final 
judgment. 

We might perhaps recover the original form of the vision, 
with its reference to all the redeemed after the final judgment, by 
reading in 14, 

οὗτοί εἰσιν ot ἐλθόντες ἐκ θλίψεως μεγάλης 
καὶ ἔπλυναν κτλ., 
instead of οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης κτλ. 
and omitting ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ in 15. 
9. Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον 
καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολύς, ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο, 
ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους καὶ φυλῶν καὶ λαῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν, 
ἑστῶτες ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου, 
περιβεβλημένους στολὰς λευκάς, καὶ φοίνικες ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν 
αὐτων. 

dv... ἐδύνατο. On this clause see the close of the pre- 
ceding note, and p. 202, note. 

The Seer is not looking here to the final blessedness of the 
faithful of all times, peoples, and countries, but, before the 
horrors of the last tribulation burst upon the faithful of his 
own generation, he shows them by way of encouragement the 
blessedness that awaits those who fall as martyrs in the great 
and closely impending catastrophe. 

No contrast with the 144,o00 is intended; for our author 
there is making use of traditional material, and is only concerned 
with the main thought of vii. 4-8, 2.6. the sealing, and here he is 
adapting to a new context an earlier vision of his own which had 
originally a different meaning. 

ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους κτλ. See note on v. 9. ἑστῶτες. The plural 
refers to ὄχλος. The construction is κατὰ σύνεσιν. Cf. xix. 1. 

περιβεβλημένους στολὰς λευκάς. Since this vision relates to 
the faithful before the final judgment (see p. 209), and since 
they are nevertheless clothed in white raiment, they are to be 
regarded not as the faithful generally, but as the martyrs who 
immediately received their white robes (cf. vi. 11) and entered 
on perfect blessedness. The faithful who died a peaceful death 
were not to receive these robes till after the final judgment. See 
note on iii. 5. The acc. περιβεβλημένους is best explained as a 
slip on the part of our author for περιβεβλημένοι. There are 
similar slips, which would have been removed if he had had the 


VII. 9-11.] VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 211 


opportunity of revising his MS. φοίνικες ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν. 
The palm branches are a symbol of victory and joy after war. 
Cf. 2 Macc. x. 7, φοίνικας ἔχοντες ηὐχαρίστουν: τ Macc. xiii. 51, 
εἰσῆλθεν eis αὐτὴν (1.6. Ἰερουσαλήμ) . . . μετὰ αἰνέσεως καὶ βαΐων 
. +. ὅτι συνετρίβη ἐχθρὸς μέγας ἐξ Ἰσραήλ: also John xii. 13. 
Tertullian, Scorp. 12, “ palmis victoriae insignes revelantur scilicet 
de Antichristo triumphantes” (Swete). There is no ground for 
seeing in the text a reference to a heavenly Feast of Tabernacles 
—a season of eternal harvest joy—with Vitringa, Eichhorn, 
Hengstenberg, and others; nor for discovering, with Deissmann 
(Bible Studies, 368-369), traces of the influence of the Greek 
cultus in the neighbouring Ephesus, a suggestion which betrays a 
complete misconception of our text. 


10. καὶ κράζουσιν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγοντες 
Ἢ σωτηρία τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ 
τῷ ἁρνίῳ. 


κράζουσιν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγοντες : cf. vi. 10, xviii. 2, xix. 17 
(vii. 2, x. 3, xiv. 15). ἡ σωτηρία τῷ θεῷ: cf. ΠΡ Π mim, Ps. 
ill. 9, where the LXX has τοῦ κυρίου 7 σωτηρία. The phrase 
recurs in xii. ro, xix. 1. Elsewhere (v. 13, xii. 10, xix. 1, etc.) 
there are many themes of praise; but here one theme only is 
dwelt on—victory, deliverance, salvation—by those who have 
just emerged in triumph from the strife; for though in one sense 
they have through martyrdom wrought out their own salvation, 
and now appear as victors before the throne, in another and 
deeper they know and proclaim that the victory, the deliverance 
(ἡ σωτηρία), is not their own achievement, but that of God and of 
the Lamb. 

On τῷ θεῷ ἥμων : cf. note on vil. 3; on τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ 
θρόνῳ, note on p. 113; and on τῷ ἀρνίῳ, note on ν. 6. 

11. καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι ἱστήκεισαν κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου 
ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ. In this verse the 
Seer enumerates the various concentric ranks of spiritual beings, 
beginning from without: first the angels, then the Elders, then 
the four Living Creatures (see note on iv. 4). We are possibly 
to infer that the great multitude of Martyrs (vii. 9) forms the 
outermost circle. ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον : cf. iv. το, v. 8. ἔπεσαν 

. ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν: cf. xi. 16. ἔπεσαν... καὶ προσε- 
κύνησαν : cf. iv. 10, V. 14, ΣΙ. 16, xix. 4, I0, xxii. 8. προσε- 
κύνησαν τῷ θεῷ. προσκυνεῖν takes the dative when it means “to 
worship.” Thus it is followed by τῷ θεῷ in iv. 10, vii. 11, xi. 16, 
xix. 4, 10, xxii. 9; by τῷ δρακόντι, xiii. 4. In xix. 10 (an inter- 
polation) when the Seer falls down to worship the angel 
(προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ) the angel forbids him. On the other hand, 


212 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII. 11-14. 


προσκυνεῖν takes the acc. when it means “to do homage to”: 
cf. xiii. 4, τὸ θηρίον (A 79), ΧΙ. 12 (ACQ min plq 30). In 
SIV. Orit, <= 4, it. 15 followed by τὸ θηρίον καὶ τ. εἰκόνα. We 
should, therefore, read τὴν εἰκόνα in xili. 15 (with A and some 
cursives), and in xix. 20. In xvi. 2, where it is followed by the 
dative, the clause is an interpolation. προσκυνεῖν with the acc. 
is the older and more classical usage, but it takes the dative as 
the regular construction in the LXX. In his use of this verb 
our author differs from that in the Fourth Gospel: see Abbott, 
Johannine Vocabulary, 138-142. In the Fourth Gospel the two 
constructions with the acc. and dat. appear, but in exactly the 
opposite meanings to those which they have in our author. 

12. λέγοντες ᾿Αμήν᾽ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ 4 δόξα καὶ a σοφία καὶ a 
εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἣ ἰσχὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν εἰς 
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων᾽ ἀμήν. By the first ἀμήν the angels adopt 
as their own and solemnly confirm the thanksgiving of the 
martyrs. On this doxology see note on v. 12. 

13-17. Interpretation of the foregoing vision. 

13. kal ἀπεκρίθη εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. λέγων μοι Οὗτοι οἱ 
περιβεβλημένοι τὰς ἰὼν, τὰς λευκὰς τίνες εἰσὶν καὶ πόθεν ἦλθον ; 

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη. . . λέγων = νος iy. This form οἵ 


diction, which is very frequent in the Fourth Gospel, is found 
only here in the Apocalypse. ᾿Αποκρίνεσθαι has been regarded 
as answering to the unexpressed question on the part of the 
Seer, but it is better to take it as a response to a certain fresh 
occasion or circumstance, as in Judg. xviii. 14; 2 Kings i. 11; 
Cant. ii. to. On the dialogue form which the text assumes 
cf. Jer. 1 It; Zech. iv. 2, 5, καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς pe τί σὺ βλέπεις; 
. s+ καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς μὲ λέγων Οὐ γινώσκεις τί ἐστιν ταῦτα; καὶ εἶπα 
Οὐχί κύριε: 4 Ezra ii. 44, “Tune interrogavi angelum et dixi; 
Qui sunt hi, domine?” This form of dialogue is very frequent 
in the Shepherd of Hermas. 

τίνες. . . ἦλθον: cf. Josh. ix. 8, ‘Who are ye, and whence do 
yecome?” (LXX, πόθεν ἐστέ, καὶ πόθεν παραγεγόνατε) ; Jonah i. 8. 
In classical literature see Virg. dem. vill. 114, “qui genus? unde 
domo?” See other parallels in Wetstein. The ἦλθον does not 
necessarily imply that the number is yet complete. Hence the 
ot ἐρχόμενοι in the next verse may be taken in its natural sense, 
“who are coming.” 

14. καὶ εἴρηκα αὐτῷ Κύριέ pou, od οἶδας. εἴρηκα seems to be 
used as an aorist here. Cf. v. 7, vili. 5, xix. 3. See Moulton, 
Gram. 145. In iii. 3, xi. 17, the perfects retain their proper 
force. This aoristic use of the perfect is not found in the 
Fourth Gospel. κύριος is used in addressing an angel in Gen. 
xix. 2; Dan. x. 16 sq.; Zech. i. 9, iv. 4, 13; and in addressing 
a man, Gen. xxiii. 6, xxxi. 35; John xii. 21. σὺ οἶδας (ef. 


VII. 14.] VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 213 


Ezek. xxxvii. 3, καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς μέ. . . ΕΠ ζήσεται τὰ ὀστᾶ ταῦτα; 
καὶ εἶπα Κύριε, σὺ ἐπίστῃ ταῦτα) expresses the speaker’s ignorance 
and his desire for information (Bengel, De Wette, Swete, etc.), 
and herein it differs from σὺ οἶδας in John xxi. 15 sqq. The 
response of the elders is in verse: 


καὶ εἶπέν μοι 

οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης 
καὶ ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν 

καὶ ἐλεύκαναν αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ ἀρνίου. 


We have already seen that ἐρχόμενοι is to be taken here as an 
imperfect participle. The martyrs are οὐδ arriving from the 
scene of the great tribulation. ἡ θλίψις ἡ μεγάλη is the last and 
final tribulation which the present generation is to experience. 
Cf. Dan. xii. 1; Mark xiii. 19, θλίψις ola οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη 
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως = Matt. xxiv. 21. It is quite wrong to take it 
as meaning generally the tribulation that the faithful must en- 
counter in the world. This great tribulation is still in the 
future. It consists first and chiefly in the actual manifestation 
of the Satanic powers on earth, and only in a secondary degree 
in social and cosmic evils. Against the first the faithful are 
secured, being sealed as God’s own. ‘The latter they had, like 
the rest of mankind, to endure, 

These blessed ones are martyrs who are coming from the 
great tribulation: martyrs—not the ordinary faithful—for the 
tribulation is still in progress and yet they have already received 
their white garments (see next verse and vi. 11), their spiritual 
bodies—a grace vouchsafed only to the martyrs. The rest of 
the faithful do not receive their white robes till or after the final 
judgment. 

That this verse read originally οὗτοί εἰσιν of ἐλθόντες ἐκ 
θλίψεως μεγάλης we have seen reason to believe (see p. 202, ἢ. 2), 
though it would be possible to take ἐρχόμενοι as = ἐλθόντες by 
a Hebraism. 

οἱ ἐρχόμενοι καὶ ἔπλυναν. On the Hebraism here and in 
i. 5, 6, ii. 20, see note on il. 20. 

The στολαί (cf. vi. 11, and Add. Note on vi. 11 at the close of 
that chapter) are the heavenly bodies which the martyrs receive 
immediately after death. On the one hand, it can be said that 
Christ or God gives the faithful ἱμάτια λευκά (111. 5) or στολαὶ 
λευκαί (vi. 11); for a man’s reception of the spiritual body is due 
not to works but to grace; yet, on the other hand, the faithful 
have their share in the acquisition or creation of this spiritual 
body ; for they co-operate with God: to their faithfulness is it 
owing that they have spiritual bodies at all, They “wash their 
garments and make them white through the blood of the Lamb.” 


214 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII. 14-15. 


The two ideas of God’s grace and man’s work are combined 
in the Pauline words: Phil. ii, 12 sq., τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν 
κατεργάζεσθε, θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν 6 ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ 
ἐνεργεῖν. ἐλεύκαναν is taken by some interpreters as an explana- 
tion of €rAvvav: by others ἔπλυναν is referred to man’s justi- 
fication, and ἐλεύκαναν to his sanctification. ‘The aorists,” as 
Swete observes, ‘look back to the life on earth when the 
cleansing was effected.” . 

ἐν τῷ αἵματι tod dpviov. This phrase has been taken as (a) 
“in the blood of the Lamb.” In this case the text refers to the 
forgiveness of sins through faith in the sacrifice of Christ. Cf. 
τ John i. 7; Rom. iit..25; \v. 93) Hebi! 145/a Peta. The 
expression éAevxavav ... ἐν τῷ αἵματι is then strongly para- 
doxical. “The O.T. is familiar with the idea of soiled garments 
(Isa. Ixiv. 6; Zech. 111. 3) as well as of the symbolism of the 
washing of the garments (Ex. xix. 10, 14), and the λευκαίνειν 
recalls especially Isa. i. 18. As here also for the judgment of 
the saving worth of Christ’s death the Pauline category of 
sacrifice is adopted, so it lies specially at the foundation of 
1 Cor. vi. 11, ἀπελούσασθε, as well as of 1 Cor. vi. 20” 
(Holtzmann). By such interpreters the great multitude is taken 
to include all the faithful and not merely martyrs, after the final 
judgment and before. (ὁ) ἐν τῷ αἵματι is to be rendered 
“through the blood.” So Bousset, who holds that the parallel 
expression, xii. 11, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου, 
demands this rendering. The great multitude is composed only 
of martyrs, who through the sacrifice of Christ have become 
endowed with power to become martyrs. Ewald and J. Weiss 
from different standpoints uphold the reference of the text (in its 
present form) to the martyrs. But, even if “through the blood” 
is the only right rendering of ἐν τῷ αἵματι, I do not see that this 
expression necessarily implies that the faithful here referred to 
are martyrs. The grounds for such a conclusion have been 
already given (see pp. 186 sqq., 213). 


15. διὰ τοῦτό εἶσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ 
~ 4 ~ 
καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ 
4 “A 
kat ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. 


διὰ τοῦτος The preceding verse explains their fitness for 
God’s service. 

With Aatpevovow αὐτῷ cf. xxii, 3. This λατρεύειν (= ἼΣΝ 
almost universally in the LXX) denotes the service rendered to 
Yahweh by Israel as His peculiar people: cf. Phil. iii. 3, of 
πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύουτες : Acts xxvi. 7, εἰς ἣν τὸ δωδεκάφυλον 
ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ νύκτα κ. ἡμέραν λατρεῦον : Rom. ix. 4; Heb. 
ix. 1,6, “It is,” as Lightfoot (on Phil. ili. 3) observes, “ the 


VII. 15. ] VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 215 


service not of external rites, but of spiritual worship”: see also 
Rom. xii. 1, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν. As such it belongs to the 
whole people, and is distinct from the priestly service. For the 
latter the appropriate word is λειτουργεῖν (=m). This priestly 
service was rendered not only in the earthly temple, Ex. 
XXVill. 31, Xxix. 30 and fasszm, but also in the temple in heaven, 
according to Jewish conceptions : cf. Test. Levi ili. 5 (on which see 
my notes), where the priestly office is discharged by the archangels. 
But in the Christian heaven no such exclusive priestly functions 
are discharged, and there is no room for any exclusive priestly 
caste. All the blessed are priests unto God, and it is their part 
λατρεύειν NOt λειτουργεῖν. 

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός. Cf. iv. 8 on the never-ceasing praise 
of the angels. This time division exists only for earth dwellers: 
cf. xxil. 5. ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ On the combination of the 
ideas of the throne of God and the Temple in heaven, see 
note on iv. 2. This heavenly Temple stands in the existing 
heaven (xi. 19), but there will be no temple in the heavenly 
Jerusalem, xxi. 22, καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ. In the original 
form of the vision, vil. 9--τ7, which dealt with the whole body of 
the blessed after the final judgment, the phrase ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ 
was probably absent. Cf. xxi. 22,111. 12. God was their real temple. 

ὁ καθήμενος ἐπί. See note oniv. 2. σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς -- 
“His Shekinah shall abide upon them,” or “ He shall cause His 
Shekinah to abide upon them.” This construction appears 
unexampled. Cf. Num. rab. sect. 13, 218, ΠΣ DWAR OPA 
y182; also Shabb. 22° 30°, etc., where the Shekinah is said to 
rest on the faithful Israelites. In xxi. 3 we have σκηνώσει per 
αὐτῶν. In using the future σκηνώσει and those that follow, the 
Seer passes from the sphere of the visionary to the actual. 
σκηνοῦν is confined to Johannine writings in the N.T. Cf. John 
i. 14; Rev. vil. 15, xii. 12, xiii. 6, xxi. 3, and is always used of 
God or of heavenly beings. The Shekinah, or the immediate 
presence of God, is here promised. The Shekinah primarily 
means the manifestation of God amongst men either in the 
Tabernacle or Temple, or in Jerusalem, or amongst His people 
Israel. But the word is also used where God is spoken of as 
dwelling in heaven, Targ. Jon. on Isa. xxxili. 5; Deut. iii. 24, 
iv. 39. Indeed the Shekinah only exceptionally came down to 
the earth. (See Jewish Encyc. xi. 258 sq.) 

117. Weiss (Offenbarung des Johannes, 68 sq.), while maintaining that 
vii. 9-17 in its present form refers only to the martyrs, asserts that the phrase 
διὰ τοῦτο proves that this cannot have been its original meaning. It would, 
he writes, contradict the teaching of i. 6 to hold that only the martyrs could 
become priests of God. But as we have seen, it is not for any exclusive 


priestly function, but for God’s worship and service that their redemption 
from sin had fitted them. 


216 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII. 16-17. 


16. οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν ἔτι, 
39 A ‘ , μι > AY ε ἢ > A a A 
οὐδὲ μὴ παίσῃ ἔτι αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος οὐδὲ πᾶν καῦμα, 
17. ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς, 
καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων" 
καὶ ἐξαλείψει ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν. 


The first four lines are for the most part derived from Isa. xlix. 
10, but hardly from the LXX, which runs: 


> 4 a9 , 
οὐ πεινάσουσιν οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν, 

5 Ν / > Ν , 29a € 9 
οὐδὲ πατάξει αὐτοὺς καύσων οὐδὲ ὃ ἥλιος, 
GAN 6 ἐλεῶν αὐτοὺς παρακαλέσει, 

Ν Ν cal ε ΄ὔ ΝΜ 3 4 
καὶ διὰ πηγῶν ὑδάτων ἄξει αὐτούς. 


16 isa translation of Isa. xlix. ro, and a translation independent 
of the LXX. raion is an equally good rendering with πατάξει of 
DD’, and καῦμα is probably a better one than καύσων. Our 


author has inverted the order of καῦμα and ἥλιος and inserted 
ἔτι three times. These slight changes have greatly enhanced 
the wonderful beauty of the original. It will be observed that I 
read παίσῃ ἔτι---ἃ suggestion of Swete, who thereby improves on 
the earlier suggestion of Gwynn (Apoc. of St. John in Syriac, 
Ρ. 17) that we should read παίσῃ. πέσῃ ἐπί is here quite 
impossible. ‘The same conception is found in ix. 5, where the 
Uncials and many of the Cursives read πέσῃ (for raion) ἄνθρωπον, 
which s! corrects into πέσῃ ἐπὶ ἄνθρ. With παίσῃ . .. ὃ ἥλιος 
Chr Ps jor, 6: 

The thirst here spoken of means the pain of unsatisfied 
desire, just as in John iv. 14. It is satisfied at the springs of 
living water to which the Lamb leads the blessed (17). He that 
drinketh of this water shall never suffer the torments of thirst: 
God Himself is the fountain of life. Cf. Ps. xxxv. (xxxvi.) 10; 
1 Enoch xlviii. τ. The blessed thereby win a satisfaction which 
is independent of all that is less than the divine. And yet in 
another sense their hunger and thirst will never cease; for they 
will never know satiety, but be ever reaching forward; for their 
object is nothing less than God Himself and His perfections. 
On the distinction carefully observed by our author between 
“the water of life” and “the tree of life,” see note on ii. 7, 
XXil. 14. 

But 17 has very little connection with Isa. xlix. ro. First of 
all the line ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον. . . αὐτούς is altogether different from 
Isa. xlix. τοῦ, The diction of this line is wholly that of our 
author with the seeming exception of ποιμαίνειν, which else- 
where in the Apocalypse has an unfavourable meaning and is 
used with reference to the heathen nations, ii. 27, xii. 5, xix. 15. 
Its use here, however, recalls John x. 11, ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ποιμὴν ὃ καλός, 


et ἢ..." 


VII. 17. | VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 217 


Χ τὰ; Heb, xiii. 20; 1 Pet) i255 and in the O.T. Isa: xl. 11, ὡς 
ποιμὴν ποιμανεῖ TO ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ, Ezek Xxxiv. 23, where it is said 
of the Messiah, ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς. . . καὶ ἔσται αὐτῶν ποιμήν (cf. 
XXxvii. 24). If we take this line along with the next we have an 
excellent parallel in Ps. xxiii. 1, 3, Κύριος ποιμαίνει pe... 
ὁδήγησέν pe. Since the rest of 17° is wholly in the diction of our 
author, and as the idea was a familiar O.T. and N.T. one, we 
may regard ποιμαίνειν in the favourable sense as undoubtedly 
belonging to his vocabulary here. ἀνὰ μέσον -- ἐν μέσῳ, v. 6: cf. 
Ex. xxvi. 28; Josh. xix. 1 (Ξ 3). For its use =“ between,” 
Ch Josh xxii, 251.5 (Cor. 1" 5 

Next as regards 17> we see that it differs in several respects 
from Isa. xlix. τοῦ, ὁδηγήσει is not a rendering of ὉΠ2) but of 
mma’ or 373°, while the LXX ἄξει implies 373°. Moreover, our 
author transposes the verb to the beginning of the verse. The 
phrase ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων is in part explicable from Isa. xlix. 
τοῦ oO ‘yran, but still more from Jer. 11. 13, DYN OM npn, 
LXX, πηγὴν ὕδατος ζῶντος. Cf. Ps. xxxv. (xxxvi.) το, παρὰ σοί 
πηγὴ ζωῆς. We have a remarkable parallel to our text in 
1 Enoch xlviii. 1, where in the new heaven and earth (xlv. 4, 5) 
Enoch sees “4 fountain of righteousness which was inexhaustible : 
around it wexe many fountains of zezsdom, and all the thirsty drank 
of them, and were filled with wisdom.” The plural πηγάς may refer 
to some such conception; for men’s hunger and thirst seek 
satisfaction in the life of God, in His wisdom, righteousness, and 
other perfections. But the most immediate parallels are in John 
iv. 14, τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος adAXo- 
μένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον : Vil. 38, ὃ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ. . . ποταμοὶ 
ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος. The emphasis, as 
Swete observes, is given to the idea of life by the unusual order 
ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων (with which 1 Pet. iii, 21, σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις 
ῥύπου, may be compared; but the parallel is imperfect). The 
phrase recurs in its more natural order in xxi. 6, τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ 
ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς. With the expression cf. also xxii. 1, ποταμὸν 
ὕδατος ζωῆς, and ΧΧΙΙ. 17, ὕδωρ ζωῆς. 

17” then is ποῖ a translation of Isa. xlix. τοῦ, but merely based 
upon it. So far as it is a translation it differs in order and largely 
in diction from the LXX. 

kat ἐξαλείψει... ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν. This line is a 
translation of Isa. xxv. 85, where the LXX reads καὶ πάλιν 
ἀφεῖλεν κύριος 6 θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ παντὸς προσώπου. Since the 
Peshitto and Vulgate agree with the LXX in this rendering of 
mnt) we must here again maintain our author’s independence of 
the LXX. The rendering ἐξαλείψει is found in Symmachus, but 
the version of Symmachus was at the earliest seventy years later 
than our Book. ‘The πᾶν before δάκρυον may point to some 


218 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VIIL-Ix. 8 1. 


dependence on the LXX, or there may be here simply a trans- 
position of the 53 in the Hebrew. Here and in xxi. 4, where 
the line recurs, our author writes ὀφθαλμῶν and not προσώπων 
OF προσώπου. 


CHAPTER VIII.-IX. 


§ 1. Zhe first six Trumpets—but originally the first two Woes or 
Demonic Plagues— Original order and thought of vitt.-ix. 


These two chapters present as they stand insuperable 
difficulties. ‘These will be duly discussed in turn, but for the 
sake of clearness I will at once lay before the reader the results 
of this criticism. 

Results of present criticism.—(a) The first four Trumpets, 
viii. 7-12, are not original, but a subsequent addition, and deal 
only with cosmic phenomena; whereas the sealing in vii. 4-8 
prepares the reader to expect not cosmic but demonic Woes. 

(ὁ) The last three Trumpets are the three Woes announced 
by the Eagle in viii. 13, and deal with the demonic and Satanic 
plagues, against which the faithful are sealed in vii. 4-8. 

(c) viii. 2 is an intrusion in its present context and not original 
in its present form. If it is original it probably stood immedi- 
ately after viii. 5, and read καὶ εἶδον ἀγγέλους τρεῖς, καὶ ἐδόθησαν 
αὐτοῖς σάλπιγγες τρεῖς. 

(4) viii. 6 should then follow in the form καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἄγγελοι οἱ 
ἔχοντες Tas τρεῖς σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσι, and 
then viii. 13 as it stands, save that λοιπῶν should be omitted (see 
note 2 /oc.). 

(e) In ix. 1 πέμπτος should be πρῶτος, and in ix. 13 ἕκτος 
should be δεύτερος, and in x. 7 ἑβδόμου should be τρίτου, and in 
xi. 15 ἕβδομος should be τρίτος. 

(7) In ix. 16-19 there are certain redactional additions. 

Original order of text and thought.—Thus we shall have 
Vili. I, 3-5, 2 (restored), 6 restored, 13, ix. By the excision 
of vili. 7-12 and the restoration of vill. 2, 6 to their original 
form and context, the chief difficulties of the text are overcome, 
the natural order in the development recovered, and the mean- 
ing of the hitherto dark sayings in vill. 1 brought to light. There 
was silence in heaven for half an hour, viii. 1, even the praises 
and thanksgivings of all the orders of angels were hushed, until 
the prayers of the saints should be presented before God, viii. 3-5. 
Thus assurance is given that God is mindful of His own. The 
prayers of the faithful on earth take precedence of the praises of 
the blessed hosts in heaven. Thereupon the Seer beholds three 


ee 


ee μιν κ᾿ 


VIII.-IX. ὃ 1-2.] GROUNDS FOR CONCLUSIONS 219 


angels being given three Trumpets (viii. 2), wherewith they 
prepared to sound, viii. 6 ; and, as they were doing so, he beheld 
another vision, even an angel flying in the midst of heaven and 
proclaiming woe, woe, woe to the inhabiters of the earth because 
of the voices of the trumpets which the three angels were about 
to sound, viii. 12. Thereupon the first angel sounded and there 
followed the first Woe—the plague of demonic locusts, ix. 1-11 ; 
and these tormented for five months all those who had not 
received the seal of God in their foreheads, ix. 4. And when 
the first Woe was over, the second angel sounded, ix. 12, and the 
200,000,000 demonic horsemen, which were bound in the river 
Euphrates, were let loose, and by them one-third of the heathen 
and idolatrous world was destroyed, ix."18, 20 sqq. 


§ 2. Grounds for preceding Conclusions. 


viii. 7-12—a later addition. I. They conflict with the ex- 
pectation created by vii. 4-8. From vii. 4-8 we learn that after 
the six social and cosmic evils that followed on the opening of 
the six Seals, the faithful were sealed in order to secure them 
from the coming demonic and Satanic attacks. After the sealing 
—the right understanding of which is the key to what follows— 
the expectation is natural and inevitable that the next plagues to 
befall the inhabitants of the earth should be demonic. But so 
far is this from being the case that we find a fresh series of 
colourless cosmic visitations following on the first four Trumpets, 
viii. 7-12, whereas the demonic plagues do not begin till the 
fifth Trumpet. Thus the former not only arrest the natural 
development of the Book, but they also introduce an element 
that is alien at this stage. Something must be wrong here, and 
we are thus a priori disposed to doubt the originality of the first 
four Trumpets. 

II. And when we come to examine these four Trumpets, our 
doubts are transformed into convictions,! and we discover that 
whereas the heptadic structure of the Seals and of the Bowls is 
fundamental and original, the heptadic structure of the Trumpets 
is secondary and superinduced. 

i. The first four Trumpets are conventional and monotonous. 
One-third of the chief things mentioned is destroyed in each 
except in viii. 11,2 where instead of τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων--- 

11 am glad to find myself at one with J. Weiss (74 sqq.) in the view that 
viii, 7-12 is secondary, though this writer has not recognized the fact that 
vii. 4-8 imply the immediate sequel of demonic plagues. 

2 In viii. 7 we have πᾶς χόρτος instead of τὸ τρίτον τοῦ χόρτου. Certainly 
τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων καὶ τοῦ χόρτου τοῦ χλωροῦ would be more natural than 


the present text. Besides, the stanza in viii. 7 would then have four lines 
as the next two stanzas. 


220 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VIII.-IX. § 2. 


clearly the original phrase,—even in vili. 9 τὸ τρίτον τῶν πλοίων 
is destroyed—we have the strange phrase, πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
(see note iz /oc.). But the reason for this redactional change is 
manifest. Since the invasion of the earth by the 200,000,000 
demonic horsemen results in the destruction of the third of 
mankind, ix. 18 (sixth Trumpet=second Woe), the same result 
cannot here fittingly be ascribed to the third Trumpet. 

ii. The first Trumpet conflicts with the fifth, for πᾶς χόρτος 
xAwpés is burned up (κατεκάη) in viii. 7, and yet it is presup- 
posed to be unhurt (μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν τὸν χόρτον τῆς γῆς) in the 
fifth Trumpet in ix. 4. 

iii. The first four Trumpets are, as J. Weiss has observed, 
described as objective events, but the visionary nature of the 
fifth and sixth is clearly marked: ix. 1, εἶδον : ix. 13, ἤκουσα. 

iv. When compared with the Seals that precede, and the 
Bowls that follow, the four Trumpets are colourless and weak 
repetitions. Thus contrast the darkening of the third part of the 
stars and the falling of two, viii. 12, 8, το, with the falling to the 
earth of all the stars as unripe figs when shaken of the wind, 
vi. 13; the darkening of the third of the sun, viii. 12, with in- 
tensification of its fires, xvi. 8 sq.; the change of one-third of 
the sea into blood, and the embittering of one-third of the rivers, 
viii. 8-11, with the turning of the entire sea and rivers and 
springs into blood, xvi. 3-4. 

v. But a comparison of the first four Trumpets and the first 
four Bowls shows that the former are clearly modelled on the 
latter. Thus, while the visitations in the first four Bowls are 
directed respectively against the land (xvi. 2), the sea (xvi. 3), 
the rivers and fountains of waters (xvi. 4), and the sun (xvi. 8-9), 
so likewise are the visitations introduced by the first four 
Trumpets. The correspondence in this respect is exact in each 
case, save the fourth, where, instead of only the sun being affected 
by the pouring forth of the fourth Bowl (xvi. 8-9), both the sun 
and moon and stars are to some extent darkened after the fourth 
Trumpet. But this difference is trifling. Hence this close 
correspondence can hardly be accidental. 

vi. The first four Trumpets exhibit a somewhat different 
diction and style.1 In viii. 8 we have πυρὶ καιόμενον, but else- 


1 In viii. 9, however, we have one syntactical irregularity found elsewhere 
in the Apocalypse ; 2.6. τῶν κτισμάτων... τὰ ἔχοντα. See note on ii. 13. 
Also in viii. 8 we have ws ὄρος μέγα, ‘‘the likeness of a great mountain,” 
but this is a common use of ws in Apocalyptic. See notes on i. 10, iv. 6. 
The phrases βάλλειν els, viii. 7, and πίπτειν ἐκ, viii. 10, are used elsewhere 
in the Apoc., but they are not distinctive. Of course it is possible that 
viii. 7-12 may be a fragment of an independent vision of our author added 
subsequently by a scribe who did not understand the Book asa whole. But 
this is most improbable, 





VITI.-IxX. § 2.] GROUNDS FOR CONCLUSIONS 221 


where καίω is followed by πυρί, or a like substantive : cf. xix. 20, 
xxi. 8: In viii..7 μεμιγμένα ev, but the ἐν is omitted in χν. 2. In 
vli. 12 σκοτίζειν, but σκοτοῦν in 1x. 2, Xvi. Io. 

vi. While in viii. 1, 3-5, 13 the order is purely Semitic, the 
verb in all cases beginning the sentence except in villi. 3, where 
the subject once precedes the verb for emphasis, in viii. 7-12 
the subject precedes the verb three times! in viii. 7, once in 
viii. 8, once in vili. 9, twice in viii. 11, and once in viii. 12. This 
fact points at all events to a different style. 

ΟἹ, 2, 0, 13 redacted and transposed.—Having shown the 
secondary character of viii. 7-12, we have now to deal with the 
changes made in the text with a view to introducing viii. 7-12. 

ΟἹ]. 2 1s an intrusion in tts present position. —1. For, as 
J. Weiss (p. 7 n.) has observed, the mention in viii. of the seven 
angels to whom the seven trumpets were given comes as an 
interruption between the opening of the seventh Seal and the 
offering of the prayers of the saints, and yet the angels do not 
take any part in the action till viii. 6. This, it is true, would not 
in itself constitute a valid objection against the originality of 
viii. 2 and its present position, but there are other and stronger 
objections not hitherto observed. 

2. vill. 2 in its present position is against the structure of the 
book in analogous situations elsewhere. Thus it is to be noted 
that the zutroduction to the events following on the seventh 
Trumpet (which embraces the third Woe), xi. 15, is closed by 
salvoes of thunderings and lightnings, xi. 19, and the zz¢roduction 
to the events following on the seventh Bowl, xvi. 17, by a series 
of like phenomena, xvi. 18 ; and that between the sounding of the 
seventh Trumpet and the thunderings, etc., and the pouring 
forth of the seventh Bowl and the like phenomena, there is no 
intrusive reference to any further fresh visitation. 

In like manner we infer that between the opening of the 
seventh Seal and the salvoes of heaven which followed in viii. 5, 
there was originally no intrusive reference to any fresh visitation 
such as those of the Trumpets or Woes. 

3. But viii. 2 not only comes as an interruption and conflicts 
with the structure of the book in analogous passages elsewhere, 
but it has also by its intrusion here debarred the recognition of 
the meaning of the solemn silence for half an hour in heaven, 
viii. 1. The prayers and thanksgivings of all the mighty hierarchies 
of heaven are hushed in order that the prayers of the suffering 
saints on earth may be heard before the throne of God. 

4. Immediately after the seventh (2.6. the third) Trumpet and 
the seventh Bowl we hear what is done, not on earth, but in 


1 Account is not here taken where the ordinals precede the verbs as their 
subjects in viii. 7, 8, 10, 12. 


222 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII.-Ix. § 2. 


heaven: in the former instance a song of thanksgiving; in the 
latter a voice from the temple and throne saying, “It is done.” 
In like manner ‘mmediately after the opening of the seventh 
Seal should be recorded what took place in heaven—z.e. the 
silence enjoined on all the heavenly hosts that the prayers of 
the suffering saints on earth might be heard before the throne. 

5. Finally, the pouring out of the seven Bowls is prepared 
for by an announcement made in heaven: thus in xvi. 1 we 
read, “And I heard a great voice from the temple saying to the 
seven angels: Go and pour forth the seven bowls of the wrath 
of God upon the earth.” Similarly, the opening of the seven 
Seals is heralded in heaven by the song of the four and twenty 
Elders ; v. 9, ‘‘ Worthy art Thou to open the book, and to open 
its seals.” Now, on the ground of analogy we should expect 
some like announcement preparing for the blowing of the 
Trumpets ; and there is such an announcement, but it is found 
not before the first four Trumpets, where it should appear if 
these were original, but before the last three. Thus in vill. 13 
we find: ‘‘ And I saw and heard an eagle flying in the midst of 
heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe to the inhabiters 
of the earth because of the voices of the trumpets of the angels 
which are about to sound.” 

viii. 2, then, is an intrusion in its present position and in its 
present form. It probably stood after viii. 5, and together with 
viii. 6 read as follows: καὶ εἶδον ἀγγέλους τρεῖς καὶ ἐδόθησαν αὐτοῖς 
σάλπιγγες τρεῖς. καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες τὰς τρεῖς σάλπιγγας 
ἡτοίμασαν αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσι. 

Thereupon follows viii. 13, wherein an eagle proclaims to the 
inhabitants of the earth the three coming Woes. No change 
further than the omission of λοιπῶν is needed here. 

ix. In ix. 1 for πέμπτος we should read πρῶτος, and in ix. 13 
δεύτερος for ἕκτος. ‘There are numerous glosses in this chapter. 
First we have the prosaic gloss 6 βασανισμὸς. . . ἄνθρωπον in 
ix. 5, where also it is to be observed that βασανισμός has an active 
meaning though elsewhere in the Apocalypse it has a passive 
one; see xiv. 11 n.: probably καὶ ἐν τῇ “Ἑλληνικῇ ... ᾿Απολλύων 
in ix. 11: almost certainly ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν. . . δράσει in ix. 
16-17, and καὶ ἐν ταῖς ovpais . . . κεφαλάς in ix. 19, since this 
directly conflicts with ix. 17°18. 

It is more than probable that in ix. 13-20 we havea mutilated 
recast of an older vision of our author. Wellhausen has already 
remarked that καὶ ἤκουσα . . . τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους, ix. 13-14, 


1QOn the other hand, ἀπό (ix. 18) is not elsewhere used in the Apoca- 
lypse after ἀποκτείνειν, but ἐν. Cf. ii, 23, vi. 8, ix. 20, xi. 13, xiii. I0, 
xix. 21. But this fact in itself would not militate against the vision in its 
original form being from the hand of the Seer. 


EE ρυυν νι πὰπ δ αἜἝφυιπιιιειειοιο ςἤἵΝ ὑπ πππἰ πππππσππασ ττὰἱὰπ π᾿ τὰ 


VIII. 1.] THE SEVENTH SEAL 223 


is a redactional addition ; but, as frequently, he gives no grounds 
for the assertion. If it is a redactional addition, the addition is 
wholly in the style of the Apocalypse. Thus we have φωνὴν... 
λέγοντα and ἀγγέλῳ, ὁ ἔχων in ix. 13, 14, constructions which are 
characteristic of our author. 

καθημένους ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν in ix. 17 is against the use of our author 
(see iv. 2, note) but may be due to the scribe who introduced 
17°, On the other hand the four angels (τοὺς τέσσαρας dyyé- 
λους) in ix. 14 are not to be identified with those in vii. 1-3, since 
they are distinct from them in every particular save that there are 
four in each case. Yet the article presumes them to be known. 
Again in ix. 16 we have hosts of horsemen introduced and pre- 
supposed to be known through the use of the article. If both 
elements are original, the original vision spoke of four angels in 
command of the hosts of horsemen on the Euphrates. Our 
author only partially reproduces his written vision. Part of this 
vision may possibly be recovered in its original form. It seems 
to have been written in tristichs. Thus 


17. καὶ ot καθήμενοι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔχοντες θώρακας ... θειώδεις 
καὶ at κεφαλαὶ τῶν ἵππων. . . λεόντων 
καὶ ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν... θεῖον 
18. ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν . . . ἀνθρώπων 
ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ... ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν 
ἣ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν 
ἀδικῆσαι. ; 

VIII. 1, 3-5. Zhe seventh Seali—When the seventh Seal was 
opened there was an arrest of the praises and thanksgivings in 
heaven, viii. 1, in order that the prayers of all the suffering saints 
on earth might be heard before the throne of God, viii. 3-5. In 
vii. 1-3 there was an arrest of the judgments on earth until the 
faithful had been sealed against the coming demonic plagues: 
here is a further and fresh pledge that the cause of the faithful is 
one with that of God and the heavenly hosts. 

Ver. 2 is an intrusion here, and belongs to the three 
Trumpets or Woes, if it is original. Its form here is secondary. 
See Introduction to this Chapter, p. 221 sq., and also zx Joc. 

1. καὶ ὅταν ἤνοιξεν τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν ἑβδόμην, ἐγένετο σιγὴ ἐν 
τῷ οὐρανῷ ὡς ἡμίωρον. On ὅταν with the indicative see Robertson, 
Gram. 973. On the meaning of the σιγή see preceding para- 
graph. An analogous idea is found in Judaism: cf. Chag. 12°, 
ova mem nods ayy noose men ΝΘ. by mms iw nyo 
beau» Sy pas wpe. That is, “in the ma‘6n (or fifth heaven) 
are companies of angels of service who sing praises by night, 
but are silent by day because of the glory of Israel,” 2.6. that the 
praises of Israel may be heard in heaven. But the idea in our 


224 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ὙΠ]. 1-2. 


text is infinitely nobler. The praises of the highest orders of 

angels in heaven are hushed that the prayers of a// the suffering 

saints on earth may be heard before the throne. Their needs 

are of more concern to God than all the psalmody of heaven. 
ἡμίωρον isa ἅπ. Aey. ἡμιώριον is the ordinary form. 

2. καὶ εἶδον τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλους ot ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν, 
καὶ ἐδόθησαν αὐτοῖς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγες. That this verse stood origin- 
ally after viii. 5 and referred to three angels who received three 
Trumpets to announce the three Woes, I have sought to prove 
in the Introduction to this Chapter, see p. 221 sq. The position 
of ἑπτά before σάλπιγγες and without the article is suspicious. 
For ἑπτὰ when not preceded by the article stands after the noun 
in i. τό, v. 1 (dts), 6:(dss),: xid) δ᾽ (AEs), ἐμ ἴεν ox (bes), Paves 
xvill. 3 (47s). It can stand before the noun when the noun is 
followed by another noun in the genitive, iv. 5, or an adjec- 
tive that is the equivalent to a noun in the Hebrew, i. 12, ἑπτὰ 
λυχνίας χρυσᾶς = INI NID yaw, xv. 7. Only in four cases does 
ἑπτά stand without the article before a noun that is otherwise 
undefined, 2.6. in i. 20, Vili. 2, xii. 34, xvii. 9. Now the two last 
passages are suspicious on other grounds—possibly also i. 2o— 
and we have found that viii. 2 is likewise.1_ This verse, therefore, 
may have read as follows: καὶ εἶδον ἀγγέλους τρεῖς καὶ ἐδόθησαν 
αὐτοῖς σάλπιγγες τρεῖς. 

But when the three Woes heralded by three Trumpets were 
transformed into the seven Trumpets, the nameless three angels 


1 The same rule holds good of δέκα. When anarthrous it is placed after 
the noun, ii. 10, xii. 3, xiii. I*, xvii. 3, except in xiii. 1» where the clause in 
which it occurs is probably a gloss. δώδεκα is also postpositive when 
anarthrous, xii. I, xxi. 12, 14", xxil. 2, except in xxi. 21, but can precede its 
noun when this noun is followed by another noun in the genitive, xxi. 14°. 
In vii. 5 sqq., xxi. 16, where it precedes numerals, it is necessarily prepositive. 
In John δώδεκα is prepositive when anarthrous. εἷς is always prepositive 
unless in ix. 13. δύο is twice anarthrous—once prepositive in ix. 12 and once 
postpositive, xiii. 11. τρεῖς when anarthrous is postpositive, xi. 9, xvi. 13, 
xxi. 13 (guazer), but prepositive in vi. 6 where its noun is followed by another 
noun in the genitive: exception, xvi. 19. τέσσαρες, on the other hand, is 
prepositive even when anarthrous, iv. 6, vii. 1, because of the participles that 
follow the noun. πέντε when anarthrous is postpositive in ix. 5, 10; ἕξ 
postpositive in iv. 8. In Biblical Aramaic numbers over Io are always 
postpositive : between 1 and Io the postpositive order is much more frequent 
than the prepositive, I, 2, and 6 are always postpositive, 7 always prepositive 
(five times), 3 nine times postpositive and twice prepositive, 4 three times 
postpositive and four prepositive, 10 three times postpositive and once pre- 
positive: the numbers 5, 8, and 9 are not found in Biblical Aramaic. This 
is practically what we find in the Apocalypse except in regard to els. One 
other usage of our author is to be noticed. In the case of ἑπτά (i. 20, viii. 2», 
xii. 3°, xvii. 9), δέκα (xiii. 1, xvii. 12), δώδεκα (xxi. 21), when a phrase or 
clause which contains any of these numerals preceded by the article is followed 
by a noun and the same numeral, the latter numeral precedes the noun, as 
in the above passages. But several of these passages are interpolated. 


VIII. 2-3.] PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS PRESENTED 225 


were transformed into the well-known seven archangels, of ἑπτὰ 
ἄγγελοι. 

This conception is already found in Tob. xii. 15, ἐγώ εἶμι 
Ῥαφαὴλ εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων οἱ παρεστήκασιν καὶ εἰσ- 
πορεύονται ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ ᾿Αγίου (ἐδ). 

They are designated “archangels” in 1 Enoch xx. 7 (Greek), 
and their names are, xx. 2-8, Οὐριήλ, Ῥαφαήλ, Ῥαγουήλ, Μιχαήλ, 
Σαριήλ, Ταβριήλ, ‘PewendrA. These seven are referred to in 
1 Enoch xc. 21, 22, Pirke R. El. iv. and Hekalot iv., and most 
probably in Ezek. ix. 2, Test. Levi viil. 2. There are good 
grounds for assuming the original identity of the seven angels 
and the seven spirits, i. 4 note. But in our Apocalypse they are 
distinct and independent conceptions. 

ot ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν. These angels are ‘‘ Angels of 
the Presence”: cf. Isa. Ixili. 9, 125 YN22. ἑστάναι ἐνώπιον means 
‘to attend upon,” “to be the servant of.” Cf. Luke i. 19, ἐγώ 
εἶμι Ταβριὴλ ὃ παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. It is the transla- 
tion of the Hebrew 50 ἼΩΝ, 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1 5; 2 Kings 
111. 14, v. 16; Jer. xv. 19, where it is used of the servants of God. 
The phrase is used in the same sense of service or worship in 
vii. 9, but has merely a local signification in xi. 4, xx. 12. 

ἐδόθησαν. . . σάλπιγγες. The trumpet is used already 
in an eschatological sense in the O.T. Cf. Isa. xxvii. 13; 
Joel ii. 1, σαλπίσατε σάλπιγγι ἐν Sev . . . διότι πάρεστιν ἡμέρα 
Kvpiov: Zeph. i. 16; in Zech. ix. 14, Pss. Sol. xi. 1 it heralds 
the glorious return from the Dispersion; in 1 Cor. xv. 52, 
1 Thess. iv. 16, Mt. xxiv. 31, 4 Ezra vi. 23 (“εἰ tuba canet cum 
sono, quam cum omnes audierint subito expavescent”), Ps. Apoc. 
Johannis ix. (ἐξέλθωσιν ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ σαλπίσουσιν Μιχαὴλ 
καὶ Ταβριὴλ μετὰ τῶν κεράτων ἐκείνων... καὶ... ἀναστήσεται, 
πᾶσα φύσις ἀνθρωπίνη), it announces the final judgment. See 
Bousset, Zhe Antichrist Legend, 247 sq. 

8. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἦλθεν καὶ ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἔχων 
λιβανωτὸν χρυσοῦν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ θυμιάματα πολλά, ἵνα δώσει ταῖς 
προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων πάντων ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν τὸ 
ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου. As we have already shown, viii. 3-5 should 
follow immediately on viii. 1. 

ἄλλος ἄγγελος. Before the recasting of the text and the 
interpolation of the first four trumpets, the angel here referred 
to may have been Michael or possibly the angel of peace (see 
next paragraph). According to 1 Enoch Ixxxix. 76, Michael 
prays for Israel ; and he may possibly be the angel who mediates 
between God and man, Test. Dan vi. 2. These mediatorial 
functions are presupposed in 1 Enoch Ixviii. 3, 4. In 1 Enoch 
xl. 9, he is called “the merciful and long-suffering.” According 
to Rabbinic tradition he offered sacrifices in heaven, even the 

VOL. I.—15 


226 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN { VIII. 3. 


souls of the righteous : see my note on Test. Leviiii. 5 ; Lueken, 
Michael, 30-32, 91-100. For like views in later Christian 
speculation see note on v. 8 of this text. 

But as the text stands at present, Michael is one of the seven 
angels mentioned in 2, and he cannot therefore be the ἄλλος 
ἄγγελος in 3. If the present text could on any grounds be held 
to be original, we should have to inquire into the identity of 
the ἄλλος. Is he to be identified with one of the four and 
twenty Elders whose functions were of a priestly nature (see 
note on p. 128 sqq.)? This is unlikely; for when an Elder is 
mentioned singly elsewhere we have the phrase v. 5, vii. 13, εἷς 
ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Since this nameless angel is neither one of 
the seven archangels, if viii. 2 is original, nor yet one of the 
Elders, it is possible that we have here ‘“‘the angel of peace” 
referred to in Test. Dan vi. 5, whose office is to ‘strengthen 
Israel that it fall not into the extremity of evil.” In my notes on 
Test. Levi v. 6-7, I have shown that these verses give probably a 
further description of this angel who ‘‘intercedeth for the nation 
of Israel and for all the righteous.” Again in Test. Dan vi. 2 it 
is probably he and not Michael that is described as “the 
mediator between God and man,” and one who “for the peace 
of Israel shall stand up against the kingdom of the enemy.” The 
angel of peace and Michael are referred to as distinct angels in 
1 Enoch xl. 8, 9. The nameless angel in Dan. x. 5-6, 114, 12-- 
14, 19-21 may then be this “angel of peace” (though he is 
generally identified with Gabriel). 

The office of the angel of peace was pre-eminently that of an 
intercessor and mediator in Judaism. He could therefore in a 
Christian Apocalypse be naturally assigned the duty of presenting 
the prayers of the faithful to God. This great angel is nameless 
in 1 Enoch and the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, and if I 
am right also in Daniel. Here, too, he is nameless: he is simply 
ἄλλος ἄγγελος in the present form of the text and was probably 
εἷς ἄγγελος originally. But whether this nameless angel is 
Michael or the angel of peace, the final clause in v. 8 is with 
Spitta and Volter to be rejected as a gloss. Michael or the great 
nameless angel—and not the Elders—presents the prayers of the 
faithful, censing them as he presents them. The Elders offer 
incense in the natural course of their priestly functions in heaven. 

With ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ( = naron-by 2.2) cf. Amos ix. 1, 
εἶδον τὸν Κύριον ἐφεστῶτα ἐπὶ (= 2) τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. The angel 
stands by or upon the altar. In favour of the former meaning 
cf. Gen. xxiv. 13, 43. What this altar is we have now to investigate. 

An altar} in heaven is mentioned seven times in the Apocalypse, 


1 Outside Apocalyptic the term ‘‘the altar,”’ 02)}90, generally means the 
altar of burnt-offering, but not in Apocalyptic. 


VIII. 3.] ONE ALTAR IN HEAVEN 227 


vi. 9, vill. 3 (015), 5, ix. 13, xiv. 18, xvi. 7. Most interpreters! 
agree that the two altars—the altar of burnt-offering and the altar 
of incense—are referred to in our text. But if we assume a 
complete heavenly Temple with a holy place, a holy of holies, 
two altars, etc., we are forced to conclude (1) with Ziillig and 
Hengstenberg, that the curtain of the holy of holies is closed in 
iv. and viii. 3 sqq. and not opened till xi. 19; or (2) with 
Hofmann, that the roof of the Temple was removed in order to 
make possible the vision of God on His throne of Cherubim and 
yet not that of the ark; or (3) with Ebrard, that in the vision in 
iv. the whole scene was disclosed without the Temple, and that 
later in vi. g and vill. 3 sqq. a heavenly Temple appeared on a 
terrace below the height on which the throne stood; or (4) with 
Bousset and Porter, that the conceptions in iv., vi. 7, viii. 3 566. 
referring to the throne scenery and the temple scenery—are 
wholly irreconcilable. 

Now all these attempts at explanation or confessions of 
incapacity to explain proceed, in our opinion, on a wrong 
hypothesis. We have here to do with the conceptions of the 
heavenly Temple in Apocalyptic, and it is wholly unjustifiable to 
conclude that every characteristic part of the earthly Temple has 
its prototype in the heavenly Temple as conceived in Apocalyptic. 
What we have now to do is to try and discover what views were 
entertained in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses as to the altar 
or altars in heaven. 

As a result of my research I would at once answer: ¢here is 
no definite evidence in Jewish or Christian Apocalyptic of two 
altars in heaven. 

Thus in Isa. vi. 6 a seraph takes a live coal from off ¢#e altar 
(nan). The altar is within the Temple, and therefore presum- 
ably the altar of incense. There is only one altar presupposed 
in the vision.? 

In the second cent. B.c. only one altar is implied in Test. 
Levi iii. 6, where the archangels are described as προσφέροντες 
τῷ Κυρίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν. 

Now, passing to Christian and Gnostic writings we find 
mention of only one altar. Cf. Hermas, Mand. x. 3. 2, λυπηροῦ 
ἀνδρὸς ἡ ἔντευξις οὐκ ἔχει δύναμιν τοῦ ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον 
τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. also 3. Sim. vill. 2. 5, ἐὰν δέ τίς σε παρέλθῃ, ἐγὼ 
αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον δοκιμάσω. We might perhaps cite here 
Irenaeus, iv. 18. 6, ‘“‘Est ergo altare in caelis, illuc enim preces 

1 Ebrard and Bousset are of opinion that the altar of burnt-offering is 
referred to in vi. 9, viii. 35, 5, xvi. 7, and the altar of incense in viii. 3, ix. 
13. Swete, that the former is referred to in vi. 9, and the latter in viii. 3, 5, 
ix. 13, and that there is no determining which is referred to in xiv. 18, xvi. 7. 


The altar in xi. I was in its original context the altar in the earthly Temple. 
* Some scholars regard the Temple here as the earthly one. 


228 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 3. 


nostrae et oblationes nostrae diriguntur”; Apoc. Pauli, 44 (ed. 
Tischendorf), καὶ ἴδον τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ τὸν θρόνον καὶ τὸ 
καταπέτασμα. In the Gnostic work preserved in the Excerpts 
from Theodotus in Clement of Alexandria (Dindorf, iii. 437), the 
soul is said to lay down its body παρὰ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τοῦ 
θυμιάματος, παρὰ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς τῶν ἀναφερομένων εὐχῶν ἀγγέλους 
(quoted from Lueken, AZichael, p. 97). 

In later Judaism the same view prevails. According to 
Aboth R.N., A 26 (12) (2nd cent. a.p.), the souls of the 
righteous rest under the heavenly altar. There is only one altar 
presupposed here, and if we may take with this statement another 
of the 2nd cent. (R. Eleazar’s), found in Shabbath, 152”, to the 
effect that ‘‘the souls of the righteous are preserved under the 
throne of glory” (7133 D2), we may reasonably conclude that 
the altar in question is close to the throne of God, and therefore 
within the heavenly temple. In any case there is only one altar 
in question. Finally, in Chag. 12” we find: “In Zebul (ze. the 
fourth heaven) are Jerusalem and the Temple and a built altar 
("192 Mar), and Michael the great prince standing and offering an 
offering thereon.” The same statement is made in Zebach. 62* 
relative to a built altar and Michael, and also in Menachoth, 110%. 

According to Jewish Apocalyptic, therefore, and kindred 
literature, there is only one altar in heaven. This altar has all 
but universally the characteristics of the altar of incense. Such 
sacrifices as are offered thereon (Test. Levi ili. 6) are λογικαὶ καὶ 
ἀναίμακτοι. In the last three passages cited from the Talmud, 
however, we have an epithet that seems to recall the altar of 
burnt-offering, ze. “ built.” 

However this may be, there was, according to Jewish 
Apocalyptic, only one altar in heaven; and since there could be 
no animal sacrifices in heaven, only bloodless sacrifices and 
incense could be offered thereon. 

Let us now examine the passages in our text where an altar 
is mentioned, and see if the Apocalypse herein diverges from 
other apocalyptic literature. 

First of all we remark, that as in other Apocalypses so here 
the phrase used is always “the altar” (τὸ θυσιαστήριον). Some- 
times it is more nearly defined as τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν τὸ 
ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, Vill. 3°, OF aS ἤκουσα φωνὴν μίαν ἐκ TOV κεράτων 
τοῦ θυσιαστ. τοῦ χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγοντα, ix. 13.1 That 
these two references are to the altar conceived as an altar of 
incense (already presupposed in ν. 8), there can be no question. 


1 These expressions belong to the O.T. as applied to the altar of incense : 
cf. Lev. iv. 18, τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. . . ὅ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον Kuplov: xvi. 12, τοῦ 
θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ ἀπέναντι Kuplov (ma y2>p nayen): Ex. xl. 5, τὸ θυσιαστήριον 
τὸ χρυσοῦν. . . ἐναντίον τῆς κιβώτου. 


VIII. 8.] ONE ALTAR IN HEAVEN 229 


Next as regards vill. 5, our author has two O.T. passages before 
him, Isa. vi. 6 and Ezek. x. 2, and, since the former explicitly states 
that the coal was taken from the altar (2.6. the altar within the 
ναός) and the latter states that the coals were taken from between 
the Cherubim (2.6. in closest proximity to the throne of God), we 
infer that vili. 5, ἐγέμισεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, refers 
also to the altar conceived as an altar of incense. From this we 
conclude that the altar mentioned in viii. 3° is also the altar of 
incense. Both are simply designated “the altar,” though it is 
more fully described as “the altar of gold before the throne” in 
viii. 3°. The altar is referred to in only three other passages, 
vi. 9, xiv. 18, xvi. 7. In xiv. 18 (ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ 
θυσιαστηρίου) the evidence is indecisive unless taken in connection 
with the rdle that the altar plays throughout the rest of the 
Apocalypse. There can be no doubt that the interpolator of 
xiv. 15-17 conceived the altar to be the altar of incense, since 
the two angels in xiv. 15, 17 come forth from the Temple. There 
remain now only vi. 9, xvi. 7. xvi. 7 (ἤκουσα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου 
λέγοντος . . . ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι ai κρίσεις σου) might refer to 
the altar conceived as in vi. 9, under which had reposed the souls 
of the martyrs ; but it can just as well, and indeed more reasonably, 
be conceived as referring to the altar on which the prayers of the 
saints were censed and offered, and which is described in ix. 13 
as ordering the infliction of judgment, just as in xvi. 7 it is re- 
presented as vindicating the righteousness of God’s judgment. 
Only one passage now remains that seems to presuppose the 
existence of an altar of burnt-offering as well as an altar of 
incense. But there is not the slightest necessity for this pre- 
supposition. According to Shabbath, 152°, the souls of the 
righteous are (said by R. Eliezar, 2nd cent.) to be preserved 
underneath the throne of God;1 and according to Adoth RN. 
(2nd cent.), they rest beneath the heavenly altar. In Debarim 
rabba, 11, the soul of Moses is bidden to dwell under the throne 
of Glory. The conception therefore in vi. 9 is Jewish, save that 
our author represents 216 martyrs, and not the righteous generally, 
as resting beneath the altar; and herein it is possible that our 
text represents the older form of the conception, just as under 
vi. 11 we have shown that our text again represents the older 
and not the later Jewish view. 

The souls of the righteous, then, according to Judaism, rest 
under the altar that is beneath or near the throne of God, ze. the 
one altar that is within the heavenly Temple. This altar has the 
characteristics of the earthly altar of incense, and in part those 
of the earthly altar of burnt-offering ; for the souls of the martyrs, 


1JIn the same context Rabbi Abbahu (3rd cent.) is represented as 
defending this view. 


230 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 3. 


as later the souls of the righteous generally, were conceived as 
being offered thereon—but as a living sacrifice. See note on 
Wi ian. 

This idea of the offering of the souls of the martyrs on the 
heavenly altar is implied in our text (vi. 9 sqq.) for the first 
time in literature. The genesis of this idea can hardly be earlier 
than the 1st cent. B.c.; for before that period the souls of the 
faithful were conceived as going to Hades at death; but towards 
the close of the rst cent. B.c. the belief that the soul ascends 
forthwith to heaven is found in Philo, 4 Macc., and probably in 
Wisdom (see my £schatology®, 310, 314, 322). 

λιβανωτόν. This word elsewhere means “frankincense,” as 
in 1 Chron. ix. 29; 3 Macc. v. 2. The scholiast on Aristoph. 
Nubes, writes: λίβανος. .. αὐτὸ τὸ δένδρον, λιβανωτὸς δὲ ὃ 
καρπὸς τοῦ δένδρου, and Ammonius, λίβανος μὲν γὰρ κοινῶς τὸ 
δένδρον καὶ τὸ θυμιώμενον, λιβανωτὸς δὲ μόνον τὸ θυμιώμενον 
(quoted from Grotius). The word appears to mean “ censer” in 
our text=nnna7: cf. Lev. x. 1, xvi. 12. But this Hebrew word 


means not only τὸ θυμιατήριον, but also τὸ πυρεῖον, “ fire-pan”: 
cf. Ex. xxvii. 3, Xxxvill. 3, Num. iv. 14. The fire-pan was used 
for conveying coals from the altar of burnt-offering to the altar 
of incense. In Ex. xxxviii. 3 it is composed of copper, but of 
gold in 1 Kings vii. 50; 2 Chron. iv. 22; 2 Kings xxv. 15. 
Spitta (321, 323) and Bousset interpret λιβανωτός in the latter 
meaning here; but this interpretation rests on the view that the 
two altars are referred to in this passage,—a view which appears 
to be controverted by all existing Apocalyptic. In viii. 3 it is 
first used for the reception of incense ; the coals are already in it 
before the incense is placed in it. 

ἐδόθη αὐτῷ θυμιάματα. Spitta (325) remarks that the ritual 
here is analogous to that of the Great Day of Atonement, where 
the person who brought the coals also offered the incense, 
though not analogous to the usual O.T. ritual. But the analogy 
is only partial, since the priest on the Day of Atonement offered 
the incense, not on the altar of incense but before the Ark: cf. 
Lev. xvi. 12; Num. xvi. 46. 

iva δώσει ταῖς προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων πάντων. On the inter- 
cession of angels in the O.T. see note on ν. 8; Test. Levi iii. 5 
(my edition) ; Lueken, AZichae/, 67 sq. 

After δώσει we should understand θυμιάματα. Thus the 
clause practically means ‘“‘that he might cense the prayers, and 
so make them acceptable before God.” (See note on 4.) The 
prayers are those of a// the faithful, vii. 4-8, and not of the 
martyrs only (vi. 9 sqq.). 

τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν τὸ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου. This phrase 
recurs in ix. 13, save that for θρόνου we find θεοῦ. The expres- 


VIII. 3-5.] ONE ALTAR IN HEAVEN 231 


sion belongs to the O.T. See Lev. iv. 18, 717° 965 WwW NIDA 
(cf. Lev. iv. 7, xvi. 12; 1 Kings ix. 25), but our author has not 
used the LXX. The earthly altar of incense was of gold, 
Nu. iv. 11. The single heavenly altar is naturally conceived as 
being of gold also. 

Porter thinks that this was the first mention of an altar in 
heaven, and Bousset appears to be of the same opinion, and 
both agree in holding that the author has introduced irreconcil- 
able contradictions by combining the temple scenery and the 
throne scenery. That contradictions exist to some extent it is 
true, but not at all to the extent these scholars maintain, when 
once the right interpretation of the altar is recognized. Besides, 
the combination of these two sceneries did not originate with 
our author, but are as old as the 2nd cent. B.c. and most prob- 
ably Isa. vii—see note on iv. 2, p. 111 sq. 

4. καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ καπνὸς τών θυμιαμάτων ταῖς προσευχαῖς τών 
ἁγίων ἐκ χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγγέλου ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. With the diction 
Swete compares Ezek. viii. 11, ἕκαστος θυμιατήριον αὐτοῦ εἶχεν ἐν 
τῇ χειρί, καὶ ἣ ἀτμὶς τοῦ θυμιάματος ἀνέβαινεν. 

ταῖς προσευχαῖς is here the dativus commodt. 

The incense went up for the benefit of the prayers (Blass, 
Gramm. p. 111). The prayers are made acceptable by being 
offered with incense on the altar. All access to heaven lies 
through the avenue of sacrifice. Whether it be the prayers of 
the faithful or the martyrs themselves, both alike must be 
presented or offered on the heavenly altar that they may be 
cleansed thereby from the last taint of self, and be made ac- 
ceptable to God. On the former idea cf. Hermas, Mand. x. 3. 2: 
πάντοτε yap λυπηροῦ ἀνδρὸς ἡ ἔντευξις οὐκ ἔχει δύναμιν τοῦ ἀναβῆναι 
ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. 3... . μεμιγμένη οὖν ἣ λυπὴ μετὰ τῆς 
ἐντεύξεως οὐκ ἀφίησιν τὴν ἔντευξιν ἀναβῆναι καθαρὰν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσια- 
στήιον. 

5. καὶ εἴληφεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸν λιβανωτόν, καὶ ἐγέμισεν αὐτὸν ἐκ 
τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐγένοντο 
ἵ βρονταὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ ἵ καὶ σεισμός. 

On εἴληφεν see note on v. 7. After censing the prayers the 
angel had laid down the censer, while the smoke of the incense 
was ascending, 4; now he takes it up again for a different 
purpose. It is not now to be used for the office of intercession 
but for judgment— a function that does not rightly belong to 
this sacrificial vessel. We might here compare Ezek. x. 2, πλῆσον 
τὰς δράκας σου ἀνθράκων πυρὸς ἐκ μέσου τῶν χερουβεὶν Kal διασκόρ- 
πισον ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν. ‘The Seer in Ezekiel is in the earthly Temple, 
but the Seer in the vision before us is in heaven. This is clear 
from ἔβαλεν eis τὴν γῆν: cf. viii. 7, xii. 4, 9, 13, Xiv. 19. The 
casting of the fire on the earth is followed by βρονταὶ καὶ φωναὶ 


232 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ὍὙ{ὕἹΠ]. 5-6. 


κτλ. On the first three elements, where the lightning naturally 
precedes the thunder, see note on iv. 5. The lightnings, thunders, 
voices, and an earthquake are not the precursors of the plagues 
that are about to ensue in connection with the Trumpets, as 
has been assumed, but form the close of the introduction to 
the Seventh Seal, as they likewise do to the Seventh (¢.e. Third) 
Trumpet or Third Woe, xi. 19, and to the Seventh Bowl, xvi. 18. 

Corn. a Lapide and Diisterdieck point out that 5 represents 
the fulfilment of the prayers offered by ‘‘all the saints” in 3-4 
and vi. 9, and that this connection is indicated by the fact that 
part of the fire on the altar that consumed the incense is cast on 
the earth and becomes an instrument of judgment to punish 
their enemies. 

6. καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες Tas ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν 
αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν. σαλπίσω, ἐσάλπισα belongs to Biblical 
and late Greek. 

This verse forms the immediate sequence of viii. 2, and 
probably read originally as follows: καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἄγγελοι of ἔχοντες 
τὰς τρεῖς σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν. On this 
verse vili. 13 should follow without break, vili. 7-12 being an 
intrusion in the text. It is noteworthy that ἄγγελοι ἡτοίμασαν 
αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν and ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν in 
viii. 13 could represent exactly the same Hebrew, the former= 
ypnd yinyna Ὁ ΝΟ, and the jatter ypnd omnyn “pn. 

7-12. The first four Trumpets.—A later addition, since the 
text originally recounted three Woes, or three Woes introduced 
by the three Trumpets. See Introduction to this Chapter, 
p. 219 sq. Individual incongruities are dealt with in the notes 
that follow. 

These four Trumpets form a closely connected group. They 
are of a conventional character. Of the fifteen things affected by 
the plagues, ove-third is injured or destroyed in twelve instances. 
Of the three exceptions, that in vill. 11, πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, is 
most probably a redactional correction from τὸ τρίτον τ. av6., 
seeing that the latter is the result of the sixth Trumpet (ze. the 
second Woe) in ix. 18. The second in viii. 10, ἐπὶ ras πηγάς, is 
probably a corruption of τῶν πηγῶν, or possibly a mistranslation 
of a Hebrew original (see note z# /oc.). The third deviation 
from the conventional uniformity is in viii. 7, πᾶς χόρτος xAwpds 
instead of τοῦ χόρτου χλωροῦ. This, no doubt, was the original 
form, but it is strange that it escaped correction, seeing that it 
conflicts with ix. 4. But, if it were not the original form, the 
change cannot have been made by the editor that transformed 
the three Trumpets or Woes into the seven Trumpets ; for we 
cannot conceive of his deliberately multiplying contradictions 
between the added section, viii. 7-12, and the original context. 


ΜΙ. 7. THE FOUR INTERPOLATED TRUMPETS 233 


7. καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἐσάλπισεν, 
καὶ ἐγένετο χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα tv αἵματι, 
καὶ ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν᾽ 
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη, 
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη, 
καὶ πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη. 


χάλαζα καὶ mop... ἐν αἵματ. These words recall Ex. 
ix. 24, ἦν δὲ ἡ χάλαζα καὶ τὸ πῦρ φλογίζον ἐν τῇ χαλάζῃ, save that 
there is a heightening of the terrors of the plagues by the substitu- 
tion of ἐν αἵματι for ἐν τῇ χαλάζῃ. But this new feature is 
probably due to an actual experience of the Seer. Blood red 
rain is a phenomenon well known to science. Swete draws 
attention to a similar occurrence in Italy and the South of 
Europe in r901—“‘the result, it is said, of the air being full of 
particles of fine red sand from the Sahara.” Volcanic eruptions 
could account for the same phenomenon. In Or. Sibyll. v. 377 
there is a reference to some such phenomenon, zip yap ἀπ᾽ 
οὐρανίων δαπέδων βρέξει μεροπέσσιν. 

πῦρ... ἐν αἵματι. The combination of fire and blood as an 
eschatological feature is found already in Joel 11. 30, δώσω τέρατα 
νον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς αἷμα καὶ πῦρ καὶ ἀτμίδα καπνοῦ : and that this pass- 
age was familiar to the early Christians appears from Acts ii. 19. 

μεμιγμένα ἐν αἵματι. In xv. 2, where μίγνυμι recurs, it is not 
followed by the ἐν. 

χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα. This phrase is almost certainly 
based upon Ex. ix. 24 (quoted above), but instead of μεμιγμένον 
the LXX has φλογίζον as a rendering of nnpond ; and the Targums 


and Peshitto support this rendering. The Vulgate, on the other 
hand, reads mzs¢a, and so supports the independent rendering of 
the Hebrew word given by our text. 

τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη. Since in xviii. 8 we have xara- 
καυθήσεται, we might expect κατακαήσεται (as int, Cor. 11]. 15; 
2 Pet. iii. 10) there, or κατεκαύθη here, if both passages were from 
the same author. τὸ τρίτον (μέρος) with a genitive following is 
found twelve times in vill. 7-12: elsewhere in this book three 
times, ix. 15, 18, ΧΙ. 4. Cf. Babba Mezia, f. 59°: “hen was 
the world smitten—a third of its olives, and a third of its wheat, 
and a third of its barley . . . there was great war on that day ; 
for wherever Rabbi Eliezer looked the fire burned.” 

The use of fractions to express relative proportions is already 
found in Zech. xiii. 8, 9, τὰ δύο μέρη αὐτῆς ἐξολεθρευθήσεται καὶ 
ἐκλείψει τὸ δὲ τρίτον ὑπολειφθήσεται ev αὐτῇ. Cf. Ezek. v. 2. 

τῶν δένδρων. Cf. vil. I, 3. πᾶς χόρτος. .. κατεκάη. This 
is absolutely at variance with ix. 4, where the locusts are bidden 
not to destroy the grass. See preceding note on viii. 7-12. 


234 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 8-10. 


8. καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν" 
καὶ ὡς ὄρος μέγα πυρὶ καιόμενον ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, 
καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῆς θαλάσσης αἷμα. 


At the second blast a fiery mass like a mountain was hurled 
into the sea. The figure of a burning mountain is probably 
derived from 1 Enoch xviii. 13, ἴδον ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ὡς ὄρη μεγάλα 
καιόμενα. But the parallel is clearer in xxi. 3, ἐκεῖ τεθέαμαι ἑπτὰ 
TOV ἀστέρων... ἐρριμμένους ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμοίους ὄρεσιν μεγάλοις καὶ 
ἐν πυρὶ καιομένοις. Cf. also cviil. 4. 

ἐγένετο αἷμα. There is obviously here an allusion to the first 
Egyptian plague. Ex. vii. 20, μετέβαλεν πᾶν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐν τῷ 
ποταμῷ εἰς αἷμα : Ps, lxxviil. 44. As there the Nile was turned 
into blood, so here is the sea—at least a third part of it. 
Ci συν 5. 

9. καὶ ἀπέθανε τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰ 
ἔχοντα ψυχὰς καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν πλοίων διεφθάρησαν. Cf. Ex. 
vii. 21. On the destruction of the fish of the sea as an act in 
the eschatological drama, cf. Zeph. i. 3. With κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν 
τῇ θαλάσσῃ cf. v. 13, πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ. . ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ev 
αὐτοῖς πάντα. The phrase τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς stands as a nominative 
in apposition to τῶν κτισμάτων, as in i. 5, ili. 12, ix. 14, but 
against Greek syntax. For similar syntactical incongruities 
cf, 11:13 ; Ezek. xxili.:7, 12 (LXX), 

διεφθάρησαν. Understand τὰ πλοῖα from τὸ τρίτον τῶν πλοίων. 
The diction ὡς ὄρος . . . πυρὶ καιόμενον . . . διεφθάρησαν, though 
not the thought, recalls Jer. xxvili. (li.) 25, τὸ ὄρος. .. τὸ 
διαφθεῖρον (mnwin) .". . δώσω σε ὡς ὄρος ἐμπεπυρισμένον 
(ΠΕΡῚ 1) 


10, καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν" 
καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀστὴρ μέγας καιόμενος ὡς 
λαμπάς, 
καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς 
πηγὰς T τῶν ὑδάτων. 


A omits the entire clause καὶ éwi . . . ὑδάτων, but I think 
wrongly. Instead of ἐπὶ τὰς πηγάς we should expect τῶν 
πηγῶν. The accusative may be due to a mistranslation of by 
pon ΜΟῚ nmin Το. As the sea was smitten in the second 
plague, the fresh waters are smitten in the third. The two 
clauses recur in xvi. 4. We have no real parallel in Jewish 
Apocalyptic to the fall of a star of this nature. That all the 
stars of heaven were to fall before the end we have already seen 
in vi. 13, and this expectation goes back to the O.T. 

But in none of the many references to this expectation is 
there any intention of an accompanying evil like that in our text. 


VIII. 10-11. | THE FOUR INTERPOLATED TRUMPETS 235 


Hence there is no real parallel in the fall of the star Gokihar in 
Zend eschatology (Bundahish, S.B.2#. xxx. 18, 31) except in 
so far as it is a sign of the end. The fall of individual stars 
in viii. 8, τὸ is very weak over against the vivid overwhelming 
vision of the stars falling from heaven as unripe figs fall from the 
fig-tree when shaken by the wind, vi. 13. 

πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων is a frequent expression in the LXX= 
DNB NID. 


11. [καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος λέγεται ‘o ἴΑψινθος] 
καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῶν ὑδάτων ἵ εἰς  ἄψινθον, 
καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανον ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων [ὅτι 
ἐπικράνθησαν]. 

In this verse I have bracketed two clauses as glosses. The 
first interrupts the steady development of thought in the stanza. 
The expression τὸ ὄνομα... λέγεται is unique in the Apoca- 
lypse. See note on ix. 11. The latter gloss is explanatory. 
By the omission of the first gloss we recover in 10-11 a stanza 
of four lines as that in 8-9 and also in 12. 

That such an expectation as that in our text was current in 
Palestine as to the waters becoming bitter or salt, is clear from 
4 Ezra v. 9, ‘‘in dulcibus aquis salsae invenientur.” This expec- 
tation may have arisen from such statements as we find in Jer. 
ix, 15, Xxili. 15, that Jahweh would chastise his people for their 
idolatry by feeding them with wormwood and giving them water of 
gall (wx, a poisonous herb) to drink. Though not itself poison- 
ous, yet wormwood (7292) is found as a parallel of wsx7, which is 


poisonous, in Deut. xxix. 17; Lam. ili. 19; Amos Vv. 7, vi. 12, 
as well as in the two passages already referred to in Jeremiah. 
It was, therefore, conceived as having poisonous effects. Its 
bitter taste, which is referred to in our text, ἐπικράνθησαν, is 
mentioned in Prov. v. 4 and implied in Lam. 111. 15 where its 
parallel is on, “bitterness.” From these passages we can 
partly understand the genesis of the above expectation and the 
name given to the star. We shall observe also that in 4 Ezra 
v. 9 only a part of the waters is affected as in our text. 

The word my5, “wormwood,” is rendered by Aquila by 
ἀψίνθιον in Proy. v. 4; Jer. ix. 15, xxill. 15, but in the LXX 
by a variety of words—dvdyxy, ὀδύνη, πικρία, χολή. ἄψινθος 15 
regularly feminine, but it is made masculine here probably 
because ἀστήρ is So. 

The reading ἐγένετο. . . εἰς aivOov (though in itself good 
enough Greek: cf. xvi. 19; Acts v. 36; John xvi. 20; Theognis, 
164) is most probably corrupt. The waters do not become 
wormwood, but, vemaining waters, are made bitter (ἐπικράνθησαν). 
Hence we should read ὡς with ἢ 51 Prim., and render “and the 


236 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VIII. 11-12. 


third of the waters became like wormwood,” ze. “bitter.” If, 
indeed, the writer of viii. 7-12 had wished to express the idea 
that the waters became wormwood he would probably have used 
the same idiom as he has in 8, ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῆς θαλάσσης 
αἷμα. In xvi. 19 ἐγένετο. .. εἰς is found. If εἰς is original and 
ὡς a correction, then we have an additional ground for assuming 
a Hebrew original. εἰς ἄψινθον =mayb, corrupt in that case for 
mys. The expression πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων has no parallel in 
the Apocalypse. It is used here for πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι. When 
πολλοί is followed by a genitive, the genitive is either a proper 
noun, John xii. 11, xix. 20, Acts xvii. 8, or a definite collective 
expression, Acts vili. 7, xix. 18. Here τῶν ἀνθρώπων stands for 
mankind as a whole. The use of πολλοί in this connection is 
therefore peculiar, and it is probable that instead of πολλοί the 
original form of the vision had τὸ tpirov. This would be 
analogous to what followed on the second Trumpet: a third of 
the sea became blood, and accordingly a third of the creatures 
in it perished, and even a third of the ships with their crews. 
So here one-third of the fresh water of the world became of a 
poisonous nature, and a third of mankind died. But not only is 
the analogy of the second Trumpet in favour of τὸ τρίτον having 
stood in the original vision, but also every statement in 7-12 
where the proportion affected in every (?) case is one-third. 
Besides, if already a third of the earth is burnt up, viii. 7, it is 
strange that it is not till after the second Woe, ix. 18, that the 
third of mankind is destroyed. Furthermore, the change of τὸ 
τρίτον into πολλοί was apparently due to the fact that in ix. 18 
after the sixth Trumpet it is stated that one-third of mankind 
was destroyed by the three plagues of fire, smoke, and brimstone. 

ἀπέθανον ἐκ. Cf. ix. 18, and M.-W.’s Gram. 460. ὅτι ἐπικράν- 
θησαν : cf. Ex. xv. 23. This clause I have bracketed as a gloss. 


12. καὶ 6 τέταρτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν" 
καὶ ἐπλήγη τὸ τρίτον τοῦ ἡλίου 
fol ‘ 
kal τὸ τρίτον τῆς σελήνης καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων, 
ἵνα σκοτισθῇ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν 
4 4 , > A ‘ , ε < ‘ c 4 ε , 
καὶ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν μὴ φάνῃ ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ νὺξ Τ ὁμοίως. 


The last verse is prose, and apparently corrupt, at all events 
it is unintelligible. For literary parallels see notes on vi. 12, 13. 
It is to be observed how weak the phenomena here are in com- 
parison with those already described in vi. 12, where the entire 
sun is darkened and the moon ensanguined. The stars in vi. 13 
have already fallen from heaven. Here only a third of them are 
darkened. 

The limitation of the τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν is obviously to the 
time of shining (cf. Amos viii. 9, one-half), not to the intensity 


VIII. 19-.18,} THE COMING WOES 237 


of brightness. There is no intelligible connection between the 
obscuration of the third part of the sun, moon, and stars and 
this limitation of their time of giving light. 

The text is corrupt. The original is either preserved by the 
Bohairic Version only, or to be recovered by a happy conjecture. 
The text clearly meant originally that, since the third part of the 
sun, moon, and stars was smitten, this third part was darkened 
and did not shine either by day or night. But somehow instead 
of ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός the oldest Greek form of the text read 
ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ vvé—the first stage in the corruption of the text. 
This rendered the text ungrammatical and unintelligible, and yet 
a considerable body of cursives (see crit. note) held fast to it. 
But the ancestor of Q and a larger body of cursives changed 
τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν into τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς, and yet still retained the 
primitive order of the words. This made the text grammatical 
but unmeaning. This constitutes the second stage of the corrup- 
tion of the text. Finally, SAP vg give the same text as Q, but 
change the order of the words. Here we have the third stage. 
It is possible that the original error is due either to a mistrans- 
lation of a Semitic source, or rather to a loss of a letter in that 
text. καὶ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν μὴ φάνῃ ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ νὺξ ὁμοίως = 
13. nod oy wasn xb oneeSen. Here ov is a corruption of a= 
“by day.” Hence read with the Bohairic as in note.! 

This partial obscuration of the luminaries corresponds in a 
modified degree to the ninth Egyptian plague of darkness; Ex. 
X. 21-23, σκοτισθῇ. Elsewhere in this Book σκοτοῦν is used (ix. 2, 
ἐσκοτώθη ὃ ἥλιος, Xvi. 10), and not oxorifew. The latter, however, 
is used in the Little Apocalypse: cf. Mark xiii. 24; Matt. xxiv. 
29; Luke xxiii. 45. 

13. This verse, which should follow immediately on viii. 2, 6, 
proclaims the immediate coming of the Woes. 

καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ πετομένου ἐν μεσουρανήματι 
λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Οὐαὶ οὐαὶ οὐαὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
ἐκ τῶν [λοιπῶν] φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόν- 
των σαλπίζειν. 

For καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα οἴ. ν. 11, Vi. 1. ἑνός is here equivalent 
to the indefinite article, as in ix. 13 (note), xviii. 21; cf. Blass, 
Gram. 144. The eagle appears (as a messenger also in 2 Bar. 
Ixxvil. 19 544.) in the zenith, where the sun stands at midday: 
cf. xiv. 6, xix. 17. The threefold “Woe” should introduce three 
visitations after the fifth, sixth, and seventh (ze. first, second, and 
third) Trumpets. In ix. 12 it is declared that the first Woe is 
past, and that two are yet to come. Then at the close of the 
interlude (x. 1-xi. 13) that separates the sixth and seventh 


1 Here Boh. either recovers the original by a happy conjecture or preserves 
it: it=Kac To Tp. avTwy μὴ φανη ἡμερας και ομοιως VUKTOS. 


238 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (red 


Trumpets, it is stated that the second Woe is over and that 
the third is yet to come. This Woe, however, is not recounted, 
unless with Erbes, p. 60, and Bousset we recognize it as the 
descent of Satan to the earth in xu. 12. 

οὐαὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The dative generally 
follows οὐαί: the acc. occurs in xii. 12. On the exceptional 
construction with the nom. see note on xvili. 10. The Woes are 
directed against the heathens or pagans. See note on xi. 10 for 
this meaning of the phrase, and § 4 of the Introd. to xiii. on the 
Hebrew underlying it. These Woes, which are of a demonic 
character, cannot affect those who have received the seal of God 
on their brows (see note on vii. 3). Thus viii. 13-ix. should 
follow immediately on viii. 6, without the intervention of viii. 7-- 
12. See p. 218 for original order of viii—ix. We have seen that 
the first four Trumpets are weak and otiose. 

τῶν [λοιπῶν] φωνῶν τ. σάλπιγγος τ. τριῶν ἀγγέλων. In the 
original vision these words stood as they are here save for the 
addition of λοιπῶν. λοιπός is not used elsewhere in the Apo- 
calypse as a mere epithet. Together with the art. it forms a 
noun; asin 11: BA eliza) wh ag, Χ|} 07 RIE. 21 Ἐπ πὶ 
Moreover, its position before the noun is against the usage of the 
writer with regard to epithets in vill. 1, 3-5, 13, ix. With the 
exception of ἄλλος, viii. 3, and εἷς, viii. 13, which always pre- 
cede the noun in the Apocalypse save in ix. 13 (μίαν), epithets 
always follow after the noun, as in vili. 3 (207), 13, ix. 2, 5, 9, 
10, 13 (dis), 20 (quinguies). 


IX. 1-12. THe FirtH TRuMPET, or rather ¢he first Trumpet, 
introducing the first demonic plague designed to torment those who 
were not sealed with the seal of God. 


1. καὶ 6 πέμπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν" 
καὶ εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν, 
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡἣ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου. 
For πέμπτος we should read πρῶτος. See Introduction, p. 218. 
The star is conceived as a personal being here, 7.e. as an 
angel. See note oni. 20. The participle πεπτωκότα does not 
convey when connected with ἀστέρα the idea of a fallen or lost 
angel, as very many expositors have taken it. Its use here is due 
to the fact that ἀστήρ is used, and the text means essentially no 
more than that the Seer saw an angel descend (ze. a star fall). 
Cf. τ Enoch Ixxxvi. 1, Ixxxviii. 1. Possibly πεπτωκότα should 
be taken strictly as describing a completed action, as πίπτοντα 
would describe an incomplete action; in other words, the Seer 
saw the angel just alighting: cf. viii. 13, x. 1, xiii. 1, xiv. 6, etc. 
As we see from 1 Enoch lIxxxvi. 3, stars can also be said to 


1Χ. 1.] THE FIRST WOE 239 


“descend.” Thus “to fall” (1 Enoch Ixxxvi. 1 and Ixxxviii. 1) 
and “to descend” (1 Enoch Ixxxvi. 3) are synonymous expres- 
sions when applied to stars symbolizing angels. It is different, 
however, when the subject of πίπτειν is not a star but an angel. 
Good or bad angels “descend” (1 Enoch vi. 6), but only bad 
angels “fall” (Luke x. 18) or are “‘cast down” (Apoc. xii. 9). 

When angels descended they were conceived of as assuming 
human forms in the O. and N.T. 

In 1 Enoch Ixxxvi. the fallen angels are described as assuming 
the forms of bulls ; but this is only due to the symbolical imagery 
of the Dream Vision, where the descendants of Seth are symbolized 
by various kinds of oxen. Hence there is no actual transforma- 
tion in question. 

While in apocalyptic language the Seer saw ἀστέρα... 
πεπτωκότα, in language free from symbol he would say as in xx. 1, 
εἶδον ἄγγελον καταβαίνοντα... ἔχοντα τὴν κλεῖν τῆς ἀβύσσου. 
Hence the star here represents an angel. This angel is sent 
down by God to execute one of the last judgments on the 
faithless. The key of the Abyss is here committed to him. 
This he retains in xx. 1. 

Who is this angel who descends? He may be Uriel, if it is 
legitimate to compare 1 Enoch xx. 2, according to which he was 
the angel set over the world and Tartarus (6 ἐπὶ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ 
τοῦ Ταρτάρου). In τ Enoch, Tartarus is the nether world generally, 
cf. xxl.—xxll.; but in the N.T. Tartarus is, as we shall see 
presently, the intermediate abode of fallen spirits, just as the 
abyss is so conceived in our text. 

ἐδόθη αὐτῷ: There is no angel who keeps the key of the 
abyss in the Apocalypse as in 2 Enoch xlii.1. This key is com- 
mitted to one angel for a special purpose for the time being: 
Clipe 8. an 

ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου. In the Apocalypse the 
abyss is conceived of as the pre/iminary place of punishment of 
the fallen angels, of demons, of the Beast, and the false Prophet, 
and the prison for 1000 years of Satan. It is referred toin ix. 1, 
2, 11, Xi. 7, xvii. 8, xx. 1, 3. As the abode of demons it is men- 
tioned in Luke viii. 31, and possibly in Rom. x. 7, though in 
this last passage it has been universally taken as meaning Sheol. 
In our text, ix. 1, 2, it is a place of fire. It is referred to in 
2 Pet. ii. 4 (raprapwcas).} 

The fima/ place of punishment, alike for Satan, the Beast, the 
false Prophet, and all not written in the Book of Life, is the λίμνη 


1 Tartarus was originally the place of punishment for Titans in the /ad 
and in Hesiod. Hence there is a certain fitness in the use of the words in 
2 Peter. Later it designated the nether world generally (1 Enoch xx. 2, 
Greek), or the abode of the damned. 


240 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (1x. 1. 


τοῦ πυρὸς Kal θείου, Xx. Το, 14, 15. Gehenna,! which was essen- 
tially a place of punishment for man, is not referred to in the 
Apocalypse, save possibly in xiv. ro. Its place is taken by the 
λίμνη τοῦ πυρός. This “lake of fire,” as we shall see presently, 
was conceived originally as a place of punishment, xot for men, 
but for Satan and the fallen angels. Thus the λίμνη τοῦ πυρός 
agrees exactly with the idea in Matt. xxv. 41, where the wicked 
are sent into τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ kal 
τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. 

Now, turning to the earlier history of the word we find that 
ἄβυσσος is used about thirty times as a rendering of DN in the 
LXX. 1. The ¢ehém in the O.T. is the ocean that once 
enfolded the earth but is now shut up in a subterranean abyss 
(Ps. xxxiii. 7), which was closed and sealed, and to which there 
was no access save through a shaft (Prayer of Manasses, 3), 
ὃ πεδήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ προστάγματός σου, ὁ κλείσας 
τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ σφραγισάμενος αὐτὴν τῷ φοβερῷ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ 
ὀνόματί cov. So far as the ἄβυσσος is conceived as a surging, 
imprisoned flood, it has no connection with our text. 2. But 
there is another sense in which the ancient myth has influenced 
the thought of our author. The deep was conceived as the 
abode of Yahweh’s enemy, Amos ix. 3 (Job xli. 24 (LXX), τὸν 
τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσου). Yahweh had cut Rahab in pieces and 
pierced the dragon, Isa. li. 9, yea He had broken the head of 
the dragon in the waters, Ps. Ixxiv. 13. (See, further, Gunkel, 
Schopfung und Chaos, 91-98.) Henceforth he can do nothing 
without God’s permission (see Cheyne on “ Dragon,” in Zucy. 
Bib. i. 1131-34). The abyss, then, is the abode of God’s 
enemy. So much of the ancient idea has survived in the O.T. 
3. But it is not the abyss conceived as a subterranean flood, but 
as a great chasm in the earth, that the idea has made its way into 
later literature. Possibly the transformation may be in part due 
to Isa. xxiv. 21-22, where it is said that God will punish the 
heavenly powers as well as the kings of the earth, and imprison 
them in the pit (112) as a place of ¢xfermediate punishment. 
We observe that as yet there is no idea of a fiery place of 
punishment. 

We now proceed to the consideration of the conception of 
the ἄβυσσος in τ Enoch. Here we find a great development on 
the ideas of the O.T. The term ἄβυσσος is used of the abyss of 
waters in 1 Enoch xvii. 7, 8; but, so conceived, it has no con- 

1 Gehenna was originally regarded as a fiery and final place of punishment 
for men ; and this meaning it retained in Judaism, so far as the Gentiles were 
concerned. Sheol, which was originally a dark, cheerless, non-fiery abode of 
the departed, began as early as 100 B.C. to acquire the fiery character of 


Gehenna, and in Luke xvi. 23 it acquires another characteristic of Gehenna, 
z.¢. the departed in Hades are punished in the presence of the righteous. 


Ix. 1.] THE FIRST WOE 241 


nection of any kind with the prison of the fallen angels or Satan. 
Turning aside then from ἄβυσσος in this sense, we find that in 
other passages it is conceived as an intermediate and a final 
place of punishment for the fallen angels and demons. 

1. Lntermediate place of punishment for the fallen angels.—This 
abyss is referred to or described in 1 Enoch xviii. 12-16, 
xix. 1-2, xxi. 1-6. It is waterless, birdless, chaotic, horrible, 
fiery, and is situated beyond the confines of earth and heaven, 
Xxi. 2, XVili. 12, 15, xxi. 3. It is the temporary place of punish- 
ment for the fallen angels, the stars and hosts of heaven, 
xviii. 12-16, and for the women who sinned with the angels, 
xix. 1-2.!_ This place is somewhat differently described in the 
Noah sections of 1 Enoch. Thus the fallen angels are cast into 
valleys of utter darkness 22: the earth, x. 12, lxvil. 7, and covered 
by rocks, x. 5. These valleys, however, are traversed by streams 
of fire, according to Ixvii. 7.3 

2. Final place of punishment for fallen angels and demons.— 
This inferno is referred to or described in 1 Enoch xxi. 7-10, 
x. 6, 13, xviii. 11, liv. 6, lvi. 4, xc. 24, 25. It is beyond the 
bounds of earth and heaven, xviii. 11, xxl. 7. It is called τὸ χάος 
τοῦ πυρός, X. 13; the ἄβυσσος, xxi. 7 (xc. 24?), and communicated 
with the world of space above by a great shaft—diaxomny εἶχεν 
ὃ τόπος ἕως τῆς ἀβύσσου, χχὶ. 7 (cf. φρέαρ in our text, ix. 2); the 
χάσμα μέγα, XVill. 11, which was πλήρης στύλων πυρὸς μεγάλων 
καταφερομένων, ΧΧΙ. 7, XC. 24; “18 chasm of the abyss of the 
valley,” * lvi. 3; ‘the burning furnace,” liv. 6. 

3. final place of punishment for Satan, angels, demons, and 
wicked men.—In 1 Enoch cviil. 3-6 a chaotic fiery wilderness is 
described as the final abode alike of fallen spirits and wicked 
men. This place is not Gehenna; for it is beyond the bounds 
of earth, cviil. 3. To this conception is very nearly related the 
λίμνη τοῦ πυρός in our text. This λίμνη τοῦ πυρός appears, like 
all the places of punishment just described in Enoch, to be 
outside the bounds of heaven and earth. If we could accept the 
present order of the text in xx.—xxii. we should have to conclude 
that it persists (xxi. 8), though a new heaven and a new earth 
have taken the place of the old, xxi. 1. 


1 The demons, who according to 1 Enoch are the spirits that went forth 
from the slain children of the angels and the daughters of men, xv. 8, are not 
punished till the final judgment, xvi. 1, lvi. 4. Such appears to be the view 
behind Matt. viii. 29. But in the N.T. Apocalypse the demons are confined 
in a fiery abyss unless set free by the special permission of God, ix. 1 sqq. 

2 A special place of punishment is assigned to Azazel, z.e. Beth Chaduda, 
the wilderness of jagged rocks, twelve miles from Jerusalem, where the scape- 
goat was cast down from a rough mountain cliff and destroyed, Yoma, 67>; 
Targ. Jer. on Lev. xiv. Io. 

ὃ This looks like a conflation of two distinct conceptions. 


VOL. 1.—16 


242 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Ix. 1-4. 


From the last paragraph it appears to follow that the con- 
ception of Gehenna as a place of punishment for mankind 
exclusively, is absent from the Apocalypse,! and that its place is 
taken by the λίμνη τοῦ πυρός (cf. xx. 14-15), which, though 
originally quite different from Gehenna, has become fused with 
it in xiv. τὸ (cf. also Matt. xxv. 41). The final place of punish- 
ment prepared for the fallen angels has thus become also the 
final abode of wicked men. Cf. Matt. xxv. 41, also 4 Ezra 
vii. 36 (“the furnace of Gehenna . . . and over against it the 
Paradise of delight”). This is all the more remarkable since 
the conception of Gehenna is current in the Gospels and in 
1 Enoch. 


2. καὶ ἤνοιξεν τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου, 
καὶ ἀνέβη καπνὸς ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος ὡς καπνὸς καμίνου 
μεγάλης, 
καὶ ἐσκοτώθη ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐκ τοῦ καπνοῦ τοῦ 
φρέατος. 
ἀνέβη καπνὸς ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος κτλ. Cf. Ex. xix. 18, ἀνέβαινεν 
ὃ καπνὸς ὡς καπνὸς καμίνου : Gen. xix. 28, ἀνέβαινεν φλὸξ τῆς γῆς 
ὡσεὶ ἀτμὶς καμίνου. The sun is not eclipsed here, but darkened 
by the volume of smoke rising from the abyss. Cf. Joel ii. 10, 
where, owing to the plague of locusts, ‘“‘the sun and the moon 
were darkened.” 


8. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ καπνοῦ ἐξῆλθον ἀκρίδες εἰς THY γῆν, 
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐταῖς ἐξουσία ὡς ἔχουσιν ᾿ξουσίαν οἱ σκορπίοι 
τῆς γῆς. 

The locusts do not form the cloud, but come forth from it. 
Locusts were the eighth of the Egyptian plagues. But these 
locusts are unlike the ordinary earthly locust; for they had 
stings like scorpions in their tails. It was with these that they 
did hurt, and not as did the locusts with their mouths, for, indeed, 
they are forbidden to touch the trees or any green thing. 

οἱ σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς. Bochart (A/eroz. ill. 540) points out that 
according to ancient writers (Lucian, De Dipsadibus, iii. Ρ. 236, 
ed. Reiz) there were two kinds of scorpions, TO μὲν ἕτερον ἐπίγειόν 
TE καὶ πεζόν eo. . θάτερον δὲ € ἐναέριον καὶ πτηνόν. 


4. καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν τὸν χόρτον τῆς γῆς 
οὐδὲ πᾶν χλωρὸν οὐδὲ πᾶν δένδρον, εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 
οἵτινες οὐκ ἔχουσιν τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν 

μετώπων. 


1 In xiv. 10 one characteristic of Gehenna seems to be given—the punish- 

ment of sinners in the presence of the angels and Νὴ the Lamb. Gehenna is 

referred to 1 Enoch xxvii. I, xlviii. 9, lili, 3-5, liv. 1, lxii. 12, lxxxi. 6, 
xc. 26, 27. 


ΙΧ. 4-6.] THE FIRST WOE 243 


If the first four Trumpets belonged to the original, the 
present verse would stand in contradiction with viii. 7, as we 
have already pointed out. 

οἵτινες οὐκ ἔχουσιν τὴν σφραγῖδα κτλ. The relative οἵτινες 
defines the special class of men. See Blass, Gram. 173. The 
statement here made is full of significance. It explains the 
meaning of the sealing of the 144,000 in vii. 4-8, where see notes. 
The sealing of the faithful secures them—not against physical 
evil, but—against the demonic world which is now coming into 
actual manifestation. The manifestation of the Antichrist and 
his demonic followers is the counterpart of the manifestation of 
Christ and His Church. God marks the faithful with His own 
seal to show that they are His. Thus the true sons of God are 
revealed. Character must ultimately attain to manifestation and 
finality. 

vii. 4-8 is referred to in ix. 4. As regards vii. 1-3, it not 
only serves to provide a pause for the sealing of the faithful in 
vii. 4-8, but forms a sort of prelude to ix. 1-12, though the con- 
nection is one of the slightest. See note on ix. 14. 


5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μὴ ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτούς, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα βασανισθήσονται μῆνας πέντε᾽ [καὶ 6 βασανισμὸς 
αὐτῶν ὡς βασανισμὸς σκορπίου, ὅταν παίσῃ ἄνθρωπον]. 
For ἵνα followed by fut. ind., cf. iii. 9, vi. 4, Vill. 3, xiii. 12. 
The locusts are commissioned not to slay men, but to torment 
them. The wound inflicted by scorpions is rarely fatal. The 
period of the visitation of these demonic locusts is limited to five 
months. This limitation is due to the fact noticed by Bochart 
(Hieroz. iii. 339), that the natural locust is born in the spring and 
dies at the end of the summer, and thus lives about five months 
in all. On the various types and natures of locusts see the 
“Excursus” in Driver’s Joel and Amos, p. 82 sqq. 
παίσῃ. This word and πλήσσω are used occasionally as 
translations of nn in the O.T., though it is commonly rendered 
by πατάσσω. 


6. καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ζητήσουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν 
θάνατον 
καὶ οὐ μὴ εὕρωσιν αὐτόν, 
καὶ ἐπιθυμήσουσιν ἀποθανεῖν 
καὶ φεύγει 6 θάνατος ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν. 

The writer has here passed from the rdle of the Seer 
to that of the prophet. As regards the thought we might 
compare Job iii. 21, ὁμείρονται τοῦ θανάτου καὶ οὐ τυγχάνουσιν, and 
Jer. viii. 3, εἵλοντο τὸν θάνατον ἢ τὴν ζωήν. Wetstein compares 
Ovid, Jdis 123, “ Desit tibi copia lethi: Optatam fugiat vita 
coacta necem”; Seneca, Zroad. 954, ‘‘mors miseros fugit ” ; 


244 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1Σ. 6-7. 


Cornelius Gallus, Z/eg. i. “mors optata recedit. Est omni pejus 
vulnere velle mori, Et non posse tamen”; Soph. £ectr. 1014, etc. 
A worse degree of despair is attested in Eccles. iv. 2-3, 2 Bar. x. 6, 
Soph. Oed. Col. 1220, Theognis, 425, where not to be born at all 
is deemed a superlative blessing. Diisterdieck aptly contrasts the 
Pauline words, PAi?. i. 23, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ 
σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι. 
φεύγει is the present of habitual avoidance, as Alford observes. 
It not merely predicts ; it affirms a certainty (Robertson, Gram. 
870). 
7. Kal τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἀκρίδων ὅμοια ἵπποις ἡτοιμασμένοις εἰς 
πόλεμον, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν ὡς στέφανοι ὅμοιοι χρυσῷ, 
καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὡς πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων. 

The first clause is a free rendering of Joel ii. 4 (where the 
prophet describes a plague of locusts), 1487 D'DID ANI, where 
the LXX has ὡς ὅρασις ἵππων ἡ ὄψις αὐτῶν. Though ὁμοίωμα 
is a bad rendering of A871, we cannot suppose that it represents 
any other word. Hence we should perhaps translate, ‘‘ And the 
forms of the locusts were like the forms of horses” =AN WD) 
D’DID ANNI AINA. ὁμοίωμα is the general rendering of nw in 


Ezekiel. On the other hand, our author may have deliberately 
abandoned the original in Ezekiel here and chosen the word 
ὁμοιώματα to express a much less definite idea than AND = ὅρασις 
does. Then the text would mean: ‘the semblances” or “the 
likenesses” (in the vision) of the locusts were, etc. This 
resemblance between the head of the locust and that of the horse 
was early observed, as the text of Joel proves. This resemblance, 
as it has been pointed out, has given birth to the names Heupferd 
in German and Cavalletta in Italian. An Arabian poet (Muham- 
miaddin Assarhuriensis) writes : ‘‘ Habent femur camelorum, crura 
struthionis, alas aquilae, pectus leonis. Cauda iis ut viperarum 
terrae: et decorans eas equorum species in capite et ore” (quoted 
by Bochart, A7zevoz. 111. 308, ed. Rosenmiiller). Bochart also 
quotes Theodoret’s commentary on Joel: εἰ γάρ τις ἀκριβῶς κατίδοι 
τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς ἀκρίδος σφόδρα τῇ τοῦ ἵππου ἐῳκυῖαν εὑρήσει" ἔστι 
δὲ ἰδεῖν καὶ πετομένην αὐτὴν κατ᾽ οὐδὲν τῆς τοῦ ἵππου ταχύτητος 
ἐλαττουμένην. 

ἡτοιμασμένοις is also an independent rendering of Joel ii. 5, 
nonds Jy; LXX, παρατασσόμενος εἰς πόλεμον. 

ὡς στέφανοι. . . ὡς πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων. Our author does not 
say that these demonic locusts had crowns on their heads, as 
in iv. 4, Vi. 2, Xli. I, xiv. 14, but the semblance of crowns. It 
has been suggested that the phrase refers to the yellow greenish 
colour of their breasts. But their faces resembling those of man 


ΙΧ. 8-11.] THE FIRST WOE 245 


and the semblance of crowns on their heads appear to belong 
to them not as natural, but as demonic locusts, z.e. demons. 
8. καὶ εἶχαν τρίχας ὡς τρίχας γυναικῶν, 
καὶ οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῶν ὡς λεόντων ἦσαν, 
9. καὶ εἶχαν θώρακας ds θώρακας σιδηροῦς, 
καὶ ἡ φωνὴ τῶν πτερύγων αὐτῶν ὡς φωνὴ ἁρμάτων 
ἵππων πολλῶν τρεχόντων εἰς πόλεμον. 


The antennae of the locusts are said to be like a maiden’s 
hair in an Arabic proverb given by Niebuhr, Beschrieb vom Arab. 
111. 172. καὶ οἱ ὀδόντες... λεόντων, from Joel i. 6, of ὀδόντες 
αὐτοῦ ὀδόντες λέοντος. Observe the insertion of the ὡς by our 
author. In the next clause the breast of the locust is compared 
to an iron cuirass. φωνὴ ἁρμάτων ἵππων... τρεχόντων εἰς 
πόλεμον. We have ἃ combination of two distinct statements in 
Joel. The first is Joel ii. 4, ὡς ἱππεῖς οὕτως καταδιώξονται 
(yyy? 159. owIDD. Here καταδιώκω is a bad rendering of yy, but 
τρέχω is a good one). The writer here is quite independent of 
the LXX. The second, Joel il. 5, is ὧς φωνὴ ἁρμάτων. 


, , 
10. καὶ ἔχουσιν οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις Kal κέντρα 
A a lol Ν 
καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν 
ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μῆνας πέντε. 


ὁμοίας (PQ and nearly all cursives) σκορπίοις -- dp. ταῖς οὐραῖς 
τῶν σκορπίων. This may be a condensation like that in xiii. 11, 
κέρατα ὅμοια apviw (for dpviov κέρασι: cf. Matt. v. 20). De Wette, 
Winer, and others reject this explanation, and hold that the tails 
of the locusts are compared to scorpions, just as the tails of the 
horses in ix. 19 are compared to snakes (see W.-M., 307, 778). 


11. ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν βασιλέα τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου. 
ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Εβραϊστὶ ᾿Αβαδδών, [καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ ὄνομα 
ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων |. 


Ἐβραϊστί is found also in John ν. 2, xix. 13, 17, 20, xx. 16; 
Apoc. xvi. 16. For ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ (sc. γλώσσῃ), Ἑλληνιστί is 
used in John xix. 20; Acts xxi. 37. 

We have no means of identifying the angel of the abyss 
beyond the statement here. In fact, as a person he does not 
exist outside this verse.1 The Hebrew word }i72N is found 


almost exclusively in the Wisdom literature, Job xxvi. 6, XXVill. 22, 
REX 12; EXOY. XV. 1; Xxvil zo: Ps. Ixxxviti. 11. Etymologi- 


1Tt is true that in Shabbath, 89%, we find the words nvm p13". These 
words are surely a quotation from Job xxviii. 22, and there is no real personi- 
fication here; since the words Abaddon and Death are parallel with the 
earth, the sea, and the abyss (as in Job), from all of which Satan makes 
inquiry as to the abode of the Law. 


246 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Tx. 11. 


cally it means “destruction,” and is always rendered by ἀπώλεια 
in the LXX except in Job xxxi. 12. It is parallel to Sheol in 
Job xxvi. 6, xxviii. 22; Prov. xv. 11, xxvil. 20. In the Emek 
hammelech, f. 15. 3, it is the lowest part of Gehenna. 

ὄνομα ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων. This construction, where the proper 
name stands in apposition to ὄνομα, is found only here in 
our author(={nw nv). That in xiii. 17, ἔχειν. .. τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
θηρίου, is different, and likewise that in xiv. 1, ἔχουσαι τὸ ὄνομα 
νον γεγραμμένον, xvii. 5, xix. 12, 16. On the other hand, the 


a 


construction ὄνομα αὐτῷ... ᾿Αβαδδών is already found in vi. ὃ 
(John i. 6, xviii. 10). Here we might call attention to another 
construction only found once in the Apoc. viii. 11, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
ἀστέρος λέγεται ὃ ΓΑψινθος. But more important still is the 
exceptional order ὄνομα ἔχει. We should expect ἔχει ὄνομα as in 
xiii. 17, XiV. I, XIX. 12, 16, xxi. 14. The latter part of the verse 
looks like a gloss. First, there is the unusual phrase ὄνομα ἔχει 
᾽Απ., to which we have already called attention.! Next, the form 
’EBpaiori here and in xvi. 16 would lead us to expect Ἑλληνιστί, 
as in John xix. 20, instead of ἐν τῇ “EAAnvixy. Finally, the excision 
of this clause leaves a vigorous distich. Thus we should have 
ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν βασιλέα [τὸν] ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου ὄνομα αὐτῷ 
Ἔβραϊστί ᾿Αβαδδών. It is possible that the original was Hebrew : 
observe ᾧ . . . αὐτῷ in 8 5}: ὅ vg., and the omission of τὸν before 
ἄγγελον in Q min 80, In that case "EBpaioré would be due to 
an addition: and βασιλέα 3 possibly due to a dittograph in the 
Hebrew, ovnna xb 50 pay. 
Thus we should have 


ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἄγγελον τῆς ᾿Αβύσσου 
ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Αβαδδών. 


᾿Απολλύων. Grotius writes here: “ Poterat dixisse. . . ἐξολο- 
θρεύων : sed maluit alludere ad nomen Apollinis, quod velut 
proprium numen Caesaribus.” The name ᾿Απόλλων was de- 
rived by the Greeks (Aesch. Ag. 1082; Archil, 23) from 
ἀπόλλυμ. Erbes (p. 60, note) has supported this allusion 
by showing that the locust together with the mouse and the 
lizard was a symbol of the cult of Apollo: Preller, Grieschtsche 
My thologie®, i. 183, 195, 225. This is possible but not probable. 
ἀπολλύων is a natural rendering of ;71N. V6lter, iv. 31, on the 


1 On the other hand, it has been urged that the idea of the king of the 
locusts is already found in the LXX of Amos vii. 1, ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων 
ἐρχομένη. . . καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος els, Γὼγ ὁ βασιλεύς. But there is no thought 
of Gog here, and where our author draws upon Joel we have seen that he uses 
the Hebrew directly and not the LXX. 

2 Possibly @ is an addition. ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Αβαδδών would then=‘ny i738. 
Cf. vi. 8. 


ΙΧ. 11-14.} THE SECOND WOE 247 


other hand, identifies Apollyon here with the Persian Ahriman, 
who, when, according to Bundehesh ili. 26, he sought to storm 
the heavens, was cast down to the earth, and had then (a. cit. 
xi. 17) bored for himself a hole in the earth and leapt into it 
(Spiegel, Zranische Alterthumskunde, ii. 121). There in the abyss 
he dwelt as lord of all the evil spirits and hurtful beasts, scorpions, 
and snakes (Saussaye. Lehrb. der Religionsgeschichte*, ii. 183-192). 
See xiii. 11, where ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων appears to represent an 
original corruption in the Hebrew, which probably = ἦν ἀπολλύων 
ὡς ὃ δράκων. 

12. 4 οὐαὶ ἡ μία ἀπῆλθεν᾽ ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα.’ 

See note on viii. 12. On ἀπῆλθεν see note on ΧΙ. 14. The 
feminine ἡ οὐαί is generally explained by its similarity to ἡ θλίψις 
or ἡ ταλαιπωρία (Thayer 7 /oc.). 

ἡ pia is a Hebraism. ἡ oval ἡ μία (see note on vi. 1) τε ΠῚ ΠΠ 
nnown. Cf. Ezek. vii. 26, where οὐαί is a rendering of n\n. Only 


twice is οὐαί used in the LXX as a noun: in Ezek. vii. 26 and 
in Proy. xxiii. 29, where it renders ix (only here used as a 
noun). Perhaps the gender of οὐαί may be influenced by mn, 


18-21. The sixth Trumpet, or rather the second Trumpet, 
introduces the second demonic plague which destroyed one-third of 
the unfaithful. 


13. καὶ 6 ἕκτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν" 
καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεράτων τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου 
τοῦ χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, 
14, λέγοντα τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀγγέλῳ, 6 ἔχων τὴν σάλπιγγα, 
Λῦσον τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους τοὺς δεδεμένους ἐπὶ τῷ 
ποταμῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ Εὐφράτῃ. 


For ἕκτος we should read δεύτερος. See Introduction, p. 218. 
μίαν is here the indefinite article (cf. vill. 13, xviii. 21), as 
occasionally in Hebrew (Dan. viii. 3, etc.) and frequently in 
Aramaic. It is true that this use of the article is found in the 
Papyri (Moulton, Gram. 97), but in a book like the Apocalypse 
the usage is best accounted for by the Semitic style of the writer. 
θυσιαστηρίουι See note on viii. 3. See crit. note. λέγοντα. 


1 The text of 8 st me may be original. Archetype of AP etc. trans. pera 
ravra to 12 and added καὶ at the beginning of 13. But the feeling that wera 
ravra belonged to 13 led 110, 385, 2016, etc., to begin 13 with wera raura 
και. This reading Q 69 emended into καὶ wera ταυτὰ and Eth Prim. into και. 
The fact that ert. . . μετα ταυτα (AP etc.) is tautological is in favour of 
the reading of δὲ s! me. Though er: occurs elsewhere twenty times in the 
Apoc. it is never used tautologically. Further, wera ravra is never used 
tautologically and never appears at the close of a sentence in the Apoc. except 
in i. 19, iv. I, and there ina quotation from Dan. ii. 29. On the other hand, 
none of the other Trumpets, and none of the Seals or Bowls, is so introduced. 


248 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Ix. 14. 


See note on λέγων in iv. 1. ὁ ἔχων. We have here the same 
anomalous construction as in ii. 20 (see note), iii, 12, xiv. 12, 
where, however, the irregularity could be explained as a trans- 
lation of the Hebrew article and participle. 

We have already observed that in vii. 4-8 measures were 
taken to secure the faithful against the two demonic plagues 
which were about to ensue, z.e. the fifth and sixth Trumpets. The 
interlude, therefore, of the four Trumpets, vill. 7-12, which refer 
wholly to natural phenomena, seems wholly unmotived. These 
show, moreover, signs of redaction, elements in contradiction 
with adjoining statements in the Seals and Bowls, and a general 
weakness and ineffectiveness as compared with the parallel 
plagues in the Seals and Bowls. 

But to return. The saints have already been secured against 
the first demonic plague, which was to inflict not death but 
torment on the unfaithful, and against the second demonic plague, 
which was to destroy one-third of the unfaithful. This second 
demonic plague seems in some way to be connected with or to 
result from the prayers of the faithful; for the voice which 
commands its infliction arises from the altar, whereon the prayers 
of the faithful were offered, vili. 3-4. 

These prayers, therefore, are of the same character as those 
offered by the martyrs beneath the altar, vi. 10. Thus chapters 
vi. 10, Vili. 3-5, ix. 13 are linked together by this underlying 
fundamental idea. 

The irregularity of ix. 13, where the sixth (2.6. the second) 
angel not only sounds the trumpet but also is bidden to take an 
active part, is due to the need of connecting viii. 3 sqq., 2.6. the 
prayers of the faithful with the divine answer to them in ix. 13 sqq. 

Λῦσον τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους κτλ. The presence of the 
definite article here is noteworthy. It points to a current 
tradition, not elsewhere referred to in the Apocalypse. They 
are not to be identified with the four angels in vii. 1; for the 
angels there are at the four corners of the earth, whereas here 
they are in the river Euphrates: there they are actively restrain- 
ing the destructive winds of heaven, here they are themselves in 
restraint, till the hour of their action arrives. In one point both 
classes of angels are alike. They are both angels of divine 
wrath. 

Now we might perhaps have expected that these two quater- 
nions of angels would have introduced the two demonic plagues, 
that the first quaternion, vii. 1, would have brought in the plague 
of demonic locusts; and that the second quaternion would 
introduce, as in point of fact it does, the plague of demonic 
horsemen, ix. 15 sqq. The ground for the former expectation 
is found in vii. 1, where the first quaternion is represented as 


ΙΧ. 14.] THE SECOND WOE 249 


holding in restraint the destructive winds. Now, according to 
1 Enoch lxxvi., the destructive winds from ¢hvee corners of the 
earth (see note on vii. 1 of our text) bring with them, amongst 
such inorganic evils as rain, frost, snow, only one organic evil— 
plagues of locusts. Since the destructive winds from the four 
corners of the earth are really the same in vii. 1-3 (see note zm oc.) 
and 1 Enoch lxxvi., it is not unreasonable to suppose that these 
winds were conceived in both passages as exerting on the whole the 
same powers of destruction and in introducing plagues of locusts.1 

The words, vii. 3, μὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν. .. μήτε τὰ δένδρα 
may point to the latter, which devour every blade of grass and 
every leaf on the trees. Now is it a pure coincidence that, when 
τι demonic plagues are introduced in ix., the first plague should 
sy that of locusts? It is true, indeed, that the locusts are no 
./ager natural locusts—for they are monsters, having as it were 
ene heads of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the 
tails of scorpions ; and their mission is not to destroy the vegeta- 
tion of the earth and the trees, but to torment those who had not 
the mark of God on their foreheads. Even in Joel i.-ii. the 
description of the plague of natural locusts, on which our author 
has drawn, shows elements which appear to spring from a mytho- 
logical tradition.? For there the locusts are said to come frow 
the north, ii. 20. Now, though such might possibly be the case 
(see Driver on /oe/ ii. 20), the recorded locust plagues appear 
always to have invaded Palestine from the S. and S.E. Here 
the Gog-Magog expectation seems to have influenced the prophet. 
In τ Enoch lxxvi. 1 sqq. we have signs of this influence, seeing 
that the locusts are said to come from the N.E.N., the N.W.N. 
and the S.W.S. And finally, in the LXX of Amos vii. 1, where 
the locust plague is explicitly identified with the host of Gog, 
though there is not a hint of this in the Massoretic: καὶ ἰδοὺ 
βροῦχος εἷς Tay ὃ βασιλεύς. Now it is not improbable that the 
same combination of natural and mythological elements was 
reproduced in the original lying behind vii. 1-3 of our text. 
But in ix. 1-12 a further development of the tradition is attested, 
where it appears enriched and transformed under the influence 
of supernatural conceptions, and thus the plague of natural and 
semi-mythological locusts coming from the N.E. and N.W. 
quarters becomes a plague of demonic locusts coming from the pit, 
and thereby the four angels from the corners of the earth, which 
had control of the destructive winds that carried the locusts, had 
of necessity to give place to Abaddon, ¢he angel of the abyss, who 
was set over this demonic tribe. The fact that we find the same 


1 Locusts have but little power of flight, and are in the main dependent on 
the wind. 
2 See Gressmann, Ursprung d. Israel.-Jiid. Eschat. 187 sq. 


250 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΣΞ. 14. 


transformation of a natural visitation into a supernatural in the 
sixth Trumpet is in favour of our exegesis of the plague under the 
fifth. 

τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους τοὺς δεδεμένους ἐπὶ τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ 
μεγάλῳ Εὐφράτῃ. The last phrase is familiar from Gen. xv. 18 ; 
Deut. 1. 7; Jos. i. 4. On the Euphrates lay the border province 
that was the subject of continual strife between the Romans and 
Parthians. 

Who are these four angels? We have seen that the descrip- 
tive epithets applied to them in our text manifestly discriminate 
them from the four angels in vii. 1-3. We have shown grounds 
also for associating the four angels at the four corners of the 
earth with natural and semi-mythological plagues of locusts, δ΄ 
have therefore naturally treated vii. 1-3 as a sort of prelude ἢ’ 
the demonic locusts in ix. 1-12. We shall see that it is possib?t 
to explain in like manner, though partially, the genesis of the 
description in ix. 13-21. These verses describe four angels at 
the head of 200,000,000 demonic horsemen coming from the 
Euphrates to attack the pagan world. Now there can hardly be 
a doubt that the older form of this tradition is found in 1 Enoch 
ivi. 5, “‘ And in those days the angels shall return and hurl them- 
selves to the East upon the Parthians and Medes. They shall 
stir up the kings so that a spirit of unrest shall come upon them. 
. . . 6, And they shall go up, and tread under foot the land of 
His elect ones.” Here we have a recast of the Gog prophecy of 
Ezekiel. The Parthians and the Medes are for the time the 
historic representatives of the hosts of Gog, and their objective, 
as in Ezekiel, is Palestine; and they set out against it at the 
instigation of certain angels. In our text we have a further 
development of this tradition. The Euphrates is still the storm 
centre, but the hosts stationed there are no longer Parthians or 
even men, but demons?! under four angels, whose objective is 
not Palestine, but the pagan, unbelieving, idolatrous world. 
These four angels, therefore, are angels of punishment. They 
are “bound” until the hour for their services arrives. Now the 
idea of angels of punishment is a very familiar one in preceding 
Apocalyptic: cf. 1 Enoch xl. 7, lili. 3, lvi. 1, Ixii. 11, Ixiii, 1; 
Test. Lev. ili. 3 ; 2 Enoch x. 3. Even the very diction in our 
text is already found 1 Enoch Ixvi. 1, where, in reference to the 
first world judgment or the Deluge, the writer speaks of “the 
angels of punishment who are prepared to come and let loose all 
the powers of the waters which are beneath in the earth.” Cf. 
ix. 15, ἄγγελοι of ἡτοιμασμένοι. 

1 According to Mazdeism, Bahkman— Vasht ii. 24, Persia was to be 


assailed by hordes of demons and idolators from the East. See Boklen, 
Verwandschaft d. Jiid-Christl. mit der Persischen Eschatologie, p. 88. 


ΙΧ. 14-15.] THE SECOND WOE 251 


We thus know some of the traditions from which the Seer 
drew his materials. The necessity for the transformation of a 
natural visitation into a supernatural is likewise manifest, even 
if the expectation of an invasion from the East by demonic 
hordes were not already current (see note, p. 249). For the 
Seer is concerned with the punishment not of nations as such, 
but of individuals as unbelieving and idolatrous. The agents, 
therefore, must be supernatural. 

There is one element in the description for which no explana- 
tion or even parallel can be offered. We cannot discover “ the 
four angels” in other apocalyptic writings, nor can we even con- 
jecture why the number is “four.” Yet the presence of the 
article points either to the previous mention of the tetrad in our 
text or the existence of a current tradition.? 


15. καὶ ἐλύθησαν ot τέσσαρες ἄγγελοι 
οἱ ἡτοιμασμένοι εἰς τὴν ὥραν καὶ ἡμέραν καὶ μῆνα καὶ 
ἐνιαυτόν, 
ΕἸ , a , A > , 
iva ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 


1 [selin ( Theol. Zeitschr. aus der Schweiz, 1887, i. 64) quotes a passage from 
a late Christian Apocalypse of Ezra, chap. vi., published by Baethgen in the 
Z.A.T.W., 1886, 193 sqq., from the Syriac MS Sachau 131 in the Royal 
Library in Berlin: ‘‘ And I saw an adder which came from the East, and it 
. . . went up into the land of promise, and there was a quaking upon the 
earth, and a voice was heard: Let these four kings which are chained in the 
great river Euphrates be loosed, which shall destroy one-third of mankind. 
And they were loosed.” From this passage Iselin thinks that the original 
sense of our text is to be recovered, and that the presence of ‘‘ Kings” in the 
Ezra Apocalypse over against ἄγγελοι in our text points to the fact that the 
author of the former found o°35p in the Hebrew original of the N.T. Apoc., 
but that the Christian redactor of the latter found o’2x>m. But that the 
author of a very late Christian Apocalypse, which dealt with the duration of 
the sovereignty of Islam, and which is derived from our text notwithstanding 
the objections of Schoen (p. 70), should have had such a Hebrew original 
before him is wholly wanting in probability as Spitta, p. 98, has shown. 
Spitta’s own proposal (p. 99) to read ἀγέλαις is just as improbable, and is of 
no service in the interpretation of the text. 

Another explanation is offered by Bousset. He holds that at the base of 
ix. 13 sqq. lies the older tradition of the four destructive winds, which is 
actually preserved in its original form in vii. I sqq., and that the trans- 
formation of the four angels in command of the four winds at the 
four corners of the earth into the four angels chained in Euphrates, is due to 
the fears of the Parthian invasion that prevailed at the time throughout the 
Roman world. This transformation, he states, is already effected in 1 Enoch 
lvi. 5, which he cites as follows: ‘‘In jenen Tagen werden ‘die’ (sic) Engel 
sich versammeln,” etc. But in the original there is no article before Engel. 
Certain angels are here, in keeping with the transcendent views of later times, 
assigned the task of stirring up the Eastern hordes—a task which in 
Ezek. xxxviii. 3-7 is ascribed to God Himself. Thus there is no ground of 
any kind for the statement that ‘‘the four angels” are set at the head of the 
Parthian hosts in Enoch. Who these angels are, or how many, there is no 
means of determining : no more can we as yet explain the origin of ‘‘ the four 
angels” in our text. 


252 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [IX. 15-16. 


On ἡτοιμασμένοι see note on ix. 14. On ἡτοιμασμένοι... 
iva, cf. viii. 6. To the peculiar order of the divisions of time 
here we find parallels in Num. i. 1; Zech. i. 7; Hag. i. 15; and 
in 2 Enoch xxxiii. 2, ‘A time when there is no computation 
. . » neither years, nor months, nor weeks, nor days, nor hours.” 
Cf. also Ixv. 7. 

The clause defines the actual fixing of the time in a definite 
hour of a definite day, in a definite month of a definite year. On 
εἰς = “ with a view to,” cf. ix. 7. 

τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. The servants of God are exempt 
from this Woe, ix. 4, 20. Only the κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
Vill. 13, were to be destroyed. The presence of the phrase τὸ 
τρίτον τ. avOp. here probably led to the change of τὸ τρίτον τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων into πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων in vill. 11, The fifth and 
sixth Trumpets, 2.6. the first and second Woes, are original, but 
we have seen many grounds for regarding the first four Trumpets 
as a subsequent addition. In vi. 8 it is implied that one-fourth 
of mankind was destroyed. 


16. καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν στρατευμάτων τοῦ ἱππικοῦ Sis μυριάδες 
» pups, > Η 39.» αὶ eet + 
[ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν. 17. καὶ οὕτως εἶδον τοὺς 

ἵππους ἐν τῇ ὁράσει] 
Ν ‘ ε , 8.8 393 A 3Ξ, 
καὶ τοὺς (οἷ) καθημένους (-o1) ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντας (-ες) 
θώρακας πυρίνους καὶ δακινθίνους καὶ θειώδεις, 
‘ ε κ A 7] ε ‘ , 
καὶ αἱ κεφαλαὶ τῶν ἵππων ὡς κεφαλαὶ λεόντων, 
καὶ ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν ἐκπορεύεται πῦρ καὶ καπνὸς 
καὶ θεῖον. 


I have bracketed the second line as a confused gloss. With 
ἤκουσα τ. ἀριθμον, vil. 4 has been compared. But there is no 
true parallel. The ἤκουσα in vii. 4 belongs as essentially to the 
description of the vision as the εἶδον in vii. 1, while the ἤκουσα 
τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν here is a parenthetic aside. Such another aside 
is to be found in καὶ οὕτως εἶδον... ἐν τῇ ὁράσει. It is wanting 
in st. Nowhere else in the Apocalypse does the Seer speak of 
his own vision.! 

When the second line is removed we should read of καθήμενοι 
ἐπὶ τοὺς ἵππους, and change the αὐτῶν into αὐτούς and take it 
as referring to ἵππους contained implicitly in τοῦ ἱππικοῦ. The 
gen. αὐτῶν seems to be due to the scribe who interpolated 
16>, 17%, for the gen. is against our author’s usage (see iv. 2 n.). 
If the second line is retained against the sense of the context 
and the universal practice of our author, the thought and syntax 
are very confused. The οὕτως leads us to expect an immediate 
description of the horses, and therefore the description of the 


1 Not so in Daniel: cf. vii. 2, viii. 2, 15, ix. 21. 


IX. 1.161] THE SECOND WOE 253 


riders in the next line comes in as an unlooked for and dis- 
turbing element. But since both riders and horses are pre- 
supposed in the first line, the line καὶ τοὺς (ot) καθημένους (-οι) κτλ. 
is original. With the dis μυριάδες μυριάδων we might compare 
Ps. Ixviii. 18, wow ‘pbs ona; but this expression is admittedly 
corrupt. Dan. vii. 10, }129 125, is nearer to our text, which= 
naa Ni. 

The third line refers to the riders who are armed with breast- 
plates which are fiery red (πυρίνους), smoky blue (ὑακινθίνους), and 
sulphurous yellow (Geddes), corresponding manifestly to the πῦρ 
and καπνός and θεῖον which proceeded out of the horses’ mouths. 
All the breastplates have these colours apparently, since analogously 
the fire, smoke and brimstone go forth together (ἐκπορεύεται--- 
sing.) from the mouths of the horses. The brimstone character- 
izes the host as demonic: cf. xiv. 10, xix. 20, xxl. 8. ὑακίνθινος 
is used frequently in the LX X as a rendering of neon = “ violet.” 
The hyacinthine colour of the breastplates corresponds to that 
of the smoke which issues from the jaws of the horses. For fire 
breathing monsters, cf. Ovid, 7,767. vii. 104 f. ; Virg. Georg. 11. 140, 
“tauri spirantes naribus ignem”; Lucret. v. 29; Job xli. ro—11, 
ἐκ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύονται λαμπάδες καιόμεναι, Kal διαριπτοῦνται 
ἐσχάραι πυρός" ἐκ μυκτήρων αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται καπνός. 

In the riders and the demonic steeds there is a combination 
of two quite different ideas. Gunkel (Zum ... Verstandnis des 
IVT. 52 sq.) well observes: “In the representation of the 
second host (2.6. ix. 17 sqq.) two different traditions stand side 
by side: according to the one, the creatures spit forth fire, 
smoke, and brimstone, and have therefore a strong mythological 
character ; according to the other, they are squadrons of cavalry 
clothed in corresponding colours, fiery red, smoky blue, and 
sulphurous yellow.” 

This second tradition has therefore conceived the creatures 
in a more human fashion. Even this doubleness is a clear sign 
that we have here to do with old traditions and not with the 
inventions of a dreamer. Such an example makes it manifest 
that apocalyptic Judaism and Christianity is partly dependent 
on an eschatology strongly coloured by mythology. 


lol , 
18. ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν τούτων ἀπεκτάνθησαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων 
> A AQ 4 A A A A , A > 
ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς Kal Tod καπνοῦ καὶ τοῦ θείου τοῦ ἐκπορευο- 
μένου ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν 
ε Ἂ. > “ A o > “-“ , LA 3 Ν AQ 
19. ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν [καὶ 
ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν. 
A . 
ai γὰρ οὐραὶ αὐτῶν ὅμοιαι ὄφεσιν, ἔχουσαι κεφαλάς], καὶ 
ἐν αὐταῖς (-οις) ἀδικοῦσιν. 


254 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1Χ. 19-20. 


ἀπό (-- ὑπό) used with a passive verb: cf. xii. 6. 

I have with some hesitation bracketed καὶ ἐν ταῖς... Ke 
φαλάς as an addition. From ix 174, 18 it is manifest that the de- 
structive power lies in the three plagues, the fire, the smoke, and 
the brimstone, that issue from the mouths of the demonic steeds, 
and that it is these that kill the one-third of those who have not 
the mark of God on their forehead. There is no room then for 
any other destructive activity. All the unfaithful, that are slain, are 
slain by the above three plagues. The bracketed clause, there- 
fore, is at variance with its present context. When it is removed 
there remains a tristich, of which the last line probably ran, 
ἡ yap ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν ἐστίν, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς 
ἀδικοῦσιν (cf. ix. 10)= “for the power of the horses lies in their 
mouths, and with them they do hurt.” 

The intruding clause was modelled on ix. το. There is a 
fitness in demonic locusts having the stings of scorpions in their 
tails, but the grotesqueness of fire-breathing demonic horses 
with tails like snakes and running out into heads is too intolerable, 
even if it were not already excluded by the context itself. The 
parallel adduced by Holtzmann of the giants with snakes instead 
of legs on the altar of Zeus at Pergamon is no real help here 
(Manchot, Die Heiligen, 44; Ussing, Pergamos, p. 84). 

On the Mazdean expectation of demonic hordes from the 
East, see note on p. 249. 


20. kat οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ot οὐκ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν ταῖς 

πληγαῖς ταύταις, 

οὐδὲ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν, 

ἵνα μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα 

x A ‘ ‘ a Ν A a ‘ , ‘ 

τὰ χρυσᾶ kal τὰ ἀργυρᾶ kat τὰ χαλκᾶ καὶ τὰ λίθινα καὶ 
τὰ ξύλινα, 

ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν δύνανται οὔτε ἀκούειν οὔτε περιπατεῖν. 


Notwithstanding the demonic plagues the survivors repented 
not of their idolatries. ovéé= “not even”: cf. Mark vi. 31 ; 1 Cor. 
IV. 3. 

On μετενόησαν ἐκ see note on ii. 21. In τῶν ἔργων τῶν χειρῶν 
αὐτῶν we have the familiar O.T. phrase pa wyn, Jer. 1. 16: cf. 
Deut. iv. 28. 

iva μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν. Here the infinitive of result with 
ὥστε is replaced as elsewhere in late writers by iva: cf. Blass, 
Gram., p. 224. Our text carefully distinguishes demons and 
idols. On the worship of demons cf. Deut. xxxil. 17; Mic. 
v. 12; Ps. evi. (cv.) 37, ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις : τ Cor. x. 20, ἃ θύουσιν, 
δαιμονίοις καὶ ov θεῷ θύουσιν : τ Tim. iv. 1 The words ra χρυσᾶ 
καὶ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ... καὶ τὰ ξύλινα ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν δύνανται οὔτε 
ἀκούειν are drawn from Dan. v. 23 (save that our author has 


ΙΧ. 20-21.] THE SECOND WOE 255 


omitted one phrase and added οὔτε περιπατεῖν), τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς 
χρυσοῦς καὶ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χαλκοῦς Kal σιδηροῦς καὶ ξυλίνους καὶ 
λιθίνους, ot οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ οἱ οὐκ ἀκούουσιν (Theod.). The 
Massoretic here=dpyvpots καὶ χρυσοῦς, but the Peshitto sup- 
ports the order in Theodotion, and both the text and versions 
of v. 4 support this order also. Hence this was originally the 
order of the Hebrew. Our author, however, did not necessarily 
use the version of Theodotion. He may have used the Hebrew 
that Theodotion and the Peshitto presuppose. He may also have 
had 1 Enoch xcix. 7 before him which = ot προσκυνήσουσιν λίθους 
καὶ ot γλύψουσιν εἴδωλα χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ ξύλινα [+ καὶ λίθινα, 
Tert. De dol, iv.]... καὶ of προσκυνήσουσιν... δαιμόνια. 
Here we have the combination of εἴδωλα and δαιμόνια as in our 
text. We might also compare 1 Enoch xix. 1, ἐνθάδε οἱ μιγέντες 
ἄγγελοι ταῖς γυναιξὶν στήσονται καὶ τὰ πνεύματα αὐτῶν... πλανήσει 
αὐτοὺς (2.6. ἀνθρώπους) ἐπιθύειν τοῖς δαιμονίοις : Jub. xi. 4, “ They 
worshipped each the 140]... and malignant spirits assisted 
them”; Sibyll. v. 80 sqq. See Bousset, Rel. 4. Jud. 172 566. 
On οὔτε περιπατεῖν cf. Ps. cxiii. 15 (cxv. 7), πόδας ἔχουσιν καὶ 
περιπατήσουσιν. 


Ν ͵ A A fol 
21. καὶ οὐ petevdnoov ἐκ τῶν φόνων αὐτῶν οὔτε ἐκ τῶν 
φαρμακιῶν αὐτῶν 
Ξ > lol , 7 A 3 3 la’ 7A 
οὔτε ἐκ τῆς πορνείας αὐτῶν οὔτε ἐκ τῶν κλεμμάτων αὐτῶν. 


Immorality of every description was the natural sequel of 
demonic worship and idolatry. The-order φόνων. . . πορνείας 

. κλεμμάτων is noteworthy. It recurs, so far as the first two 
are concerned, in xxi. 8, xxii. 15 (in the reverse order). This 
is the order of the Massoretic text in Ex. xx. 13. The same 
order is observed throughout Matthew, 2.6. v. 21, 27, XV. 19, xix. 
18. But there is another order—that found in the LXX (B) 
of Ex. xx. 13, od μοιχεύσεις" od κλέψεις" od φονεύσεις : but Deut. v. 
17-20 (LXX, B), οὐ μοιχεύσεις" οὐ φονεύσεις" od κλέψεις. With 
this last agrees the orderfound in Luke xviii. 20; Rom. xiii. 9 ; 
Jas. ii. 11; and Philo, De Decal. 24f. In Mark x. 19, on the 
other hand, the authorities are divided—the neutral text, accord- 
ing to Westcott and Hort, following the Massoretic order, and 
the Syrian (Greek, Lat. Syr. Eth.) following that of the LXX (B, 
in Deut. v. 17-20). With φόνων... dappaxidv . . . πορνείας 
cf. xxi. 8, xxli. 15, where εἰδωλολάτραις is added. φαρμακιῶν 
here means “sorceries,” as parallel lists in xxi. 8, xxli. 15 (Gal. 
v. 20) show, but its insertion here between φόνων and πορνείας is 
difficult. Cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 15. 


256 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [X. § 1-2. 


CHAPTER X. 


This chapter comes from the hand of ourauthor. It is designed 
in part to assure the faithful that the hour of the final Woe, that 
must precede the end, has come, x. 7, when the mystery of God 
will be fulfilled. It is designed further to serve as an introduction 
to xi. 1-13, which is a proleptic digression dealing with Jerusalem 
and the Jews during the reign of the Antichrist (see § 5 which 
follows). 

Attempts have been made by some critics to disintegrate this 
chapter and assign it to different sources. The best means of 
testing such hypotheses will be a close study of the diction, and 
to this task we shall at once proceed. 


§ 1. Zhe Diction of this Chapter is decisive in favour 
of its being from the hand of our Author. 


Thus in 1 with ἄγγελον ἰσχυρόν cf. v. 2. καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ : cf. 111. 12, xiii. 13, XVI. 21, XVili. I, XX. I, etc. meptBe- 
βλημένον, a favourite word in the Apoc. ips: cf. iv. 3: τὸ πρόσωπον 
αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος : cf. i. τό. ἔχων ors 3 βλαρίδιον ἢ ἠνεῳγμένον : for 
same construction cf. xix. 12, ἐχ. ὄνομα γεγραμμένον, and xix. 16. 
On the use of ἔχων as a finite verb cf. xil. 2, xix. 12, xxi. 12, 14. 
2. ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ν. 13, Vii. I (cf. x. 5,8)... ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ν. 3, 
10, 13, Vi. 10, Vii. 1, etc. ‘These uses are characteristic. See 
Ρ. 191. ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. See note xiv. 15. 4. ἤμελλον 
γράφειν. μέλλω belongs to the diction of our author : Οἷς ἃς ΤΌ; ἢ. 
τὸ (475), iii. 2, 10, etc. See note on 7. 5: ἑστῶτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. 
See note on 2. 6. ἐν τῷ ζῶντι. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας Tov αἰώνων : cf. 1. 18, 
iv. 9, 10, xv. 7. ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν... καὶ τ. γῆν. .. eal 
τ. θάλασσαν: cf. xiv. 7, where the same triple enumeration is 
found, iv. 11. 7. ἐν Tats ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς. For same phrase cf. 
ii. 13. μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, see note 27: loc. ἐτελέσθη.---ἃ favourite 
word of our author. εὐηγγέλισεν, c. acc., cf. xiv. 6 (cum ἐπί). τοὺς 
ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τ. προφήτας : cf. xi. 18, i. I, ls 50... Ἀν: 35X15 αν. By 
xxii. 4, 6. 8. φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ : cf. (x. 4), Xi. 12, XIV. 2, 
13, XViii. 4. λαλοῦσαν pet ἐμοῦ καὶ λέγουσαν : cf. iv. 1 note, 
xvii. I, xxi. 9. ὕπαγε λάβε: cf. xvi. 1, ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐκχέετε : ἑστῶτος 
ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. See on 2. 10. ἔλαβον... ἐκ τῆς χειρός : cf. 
v. 7, εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς. 11. λαοῖς κ. ἔθνεσιν k. γλώσσαις κ. 
βασιλεῦσιν. This phrase is a recast by our author of the char- 
acteristic phrase found six times elsewhere in this Book ; see note 
on v. 9. 

§ 2. Hebraisms.—It is to be observed also that there are 
frequent Hebraisms, as is the manner of our author. GE ot 
ot πόδες αὐτοῦ = “his legs” (see note i loc.) ; 2. καὶ ἔχων. This use 


X.§2-5.] X—AN INTRODUCTION ΤΟ XI. 1-13 257 


of the participle as a finite verb is Semitic: cf. iv. 7, 8, xii. 2, 
ΧΙΧ. 12, ΧΧΙ. 12, 14. 7. καὶ ἐτελέσθη. Best explained as a 
Hebraism. See note zz loc. In ὃ ὕπαγε λάβε is Hebraistic. 

§ 3. From the above study we must recognize that it would 
be a highly hazardous proceeding to break up this chapter and 
assign some portions to one writer and some to another. Yet 
this is what Wellhausen, p. 14, attempts. He first brands x. 8-11 
as an intrusion, for which the way has been prepared by the 
earlier addition, x. 2% Next he regards x. 5-7 also as an 
addition, which explains why Christ or God in x. 1 has been 
transformed into an angel (see my note on x. 1). This explana- 
tion is quite unconvincing in itself, and the fact that the diction 
is wholly against it removes it from the field of serious specula- 
tion. Spitta’s analysis of this chapter is open to still more 
weighty objections. He assigns x. 13, 2°, 3, 5-7 to his first 
Jewish source; x. 1°, 2%, 9°, 10-11 to his second; and x. 4, 8°, 
οὗ to a Redactor. 

§ 4. As opposed to the views of chap. x. which we have just 
considered, we might mention those of Weyland, Volter, and 
J. Weiss, who, though differing from each other in nearly every 
other respect, agree in assigning x. and xi. 1-13 to one and the 
same hand. x. and xi. 1-13 are undoubtedly closely connected ; 
but, as the diction and other characteristics prove, they are not 
the work of the same author. 

§ 5. The third view, which regards x. as written by our 
author to introduce xi. 1-13, is represented by Weizsicker, 
Schoen, Sabatier, Bousset, Pfleiderer?, Jiilicher, Porter. 

Sabatier was of opinion that the author breaks away in x. 
from the order of development originally designed by him in 
order to insert a succession of fragments from Jewish sources. 
Bousset, following in the steps of this scholar, regards x. as the 
work of our author, which is indeed not a supplement but a 
digression, and is designed to explain the further course of his 
revelation, since the fulness of the visions threatens to introduce a 
certain degree of disorder. Furthermore, he points out that x. is 
not only an introduction to xi. 1-13, but takes within its purview 
XVii.-xviil. and thus binds together the composite elements. 

With this statement of Bousset Iam on the whole agreed, 
but I should like to put the matter differently and bring out 
other features which my own study of the problem has suggested 
tome. xi. 1-13 is, as I shall show later, a proleptic digression. 
It is a digression ; for the author is practically concerned with 
Rome firstly and lastly, and not with Jerusalem. It is proleptic ; 
for the vision belongs essentially to the third Woe (or third 
Trumpet), when the Antichrist is actually reigning and in 
Jerusalem. Thus the unities of subject, time, and place are 

VOL. 1.—17 


258 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [5 


sacrificed for the nonce by the insertion of xi. 1-13 in its present 
context. How little our author is concerned with Jerusalem is 
shown by his drastic abbreviation of the vision in Jerusalem, 
xi. I-13, which is abridged, indeed, to such a degree as to be 
well-nigh unintelligible! Now it is for this abbreviated vision 
that our author writes x. as an introduction. He is not suffered 
to leave out all mention of Jerusalem. He has had a vision 
touching Jerusalem. The contents of this vision are not given 
to him by direct inspiration as in the earlier chapters (cf. also 
x. 3-4), but through a book which he is bidden to eat. It is 
probable that in this particular instance our author implies that 
the vision is already written, and that he has had a vision (see 
x. I sqq.) authorizing him to publish it with the visions directly 
received. But in the direct vision in x. t1 he is told with 
regard to the visions that follow xi. 1-13, δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι 
ἐπὶ λαοῖς ... Kal βασιλεῦσιν πολλοῖς ---ἰη other words, his in- 
spiration in regard to xii. sqq. is to come directly through the 
organs of spiritual vision as in the earlier chaps. i.-ix., though 
the use of tradition, oral or written, is not thereby precluded. 
The words λαοῖς. . . βασιλεῦσιν in some measure define the 
contents of these later chapters, but the reader is already aware 
that they must deal with the third Woe, viii. 13, x. 7. 

But x. serves not only to introduce xi. 1-13. It announces 
through the solemn oath of an angel that there will be no 
further delay, but that the time of the third Woe has come, 
when the mystery of God will be fulfilled—the whole purpose of 
God which has run through all the ages. The introduction to 
this Woe begins with xi. 15, but xi. 1-13 is essentially a part of 
this Woe. 


1. καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ, 
περιβεβλημένον νεφέλην, καὶ ἧ ἶρις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, 
καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, 
καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς στύλοι πυρός. 


The Seer has returned to earth. He hears a voice twice 
from heaven, x. 4, 8, and he receives the book from the angel 
that stood on the earth and the sea, x. 8, το. 

ἄλλον ayy. ἰσχυρόν. To be rendered: “another angel, a 
mighty one”: cf. vi. 4, xiv. 9, xv. 1. The diction recalls v. 2, 
xviii. 21. If Michael is referred to in viii. 3-5, it is possible that 
Gabriel is referred to here. In that case ἰσχυρός (= 133) would 


1 ol δύο μάρτυρες, xi. 3, are, in spite of the art., not mentioned before ; nor 
yet is τὸ θήριον, xi. 7. We can at the best guess at the relation in which the 
Beast stands to Jerusalem and to the nations and peoples, xi. 8, and to the 
witnesses, xi. 3, 7, etc. 


X.1.] THE ANGE. WITH THE LITTLE BOOK 259 


imply a play on the name of the angel. Another argument in 
favour of this identification is that the author of this chapter 
almost quotes verbally from Dan. xii. 7, and that the angel there, 
who raises both hands to heaven and “swears by Him that 
liveth for ever,” is by many scholars identified with Gabriel 
(cf. x. 5, 6—yet see note on viii. 2 of our text). 

Wellhausen holds that the strong one is not an angel, but is 
“‘according to the description Christ or God Himself,” and that 
the echoes of His voice are the seven peals of thunder of the 
Ps. xxix. This latter identification is ingenious, but is wholly 
against not only the present context, but the spirit of later 
Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic. Nor is the strong angel to be 
identified with Christ, as Christ is never designated as an angel 
in the Apoc. The voice in x. 4, 8 is probably that of Christ. 

καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. This phrase is found in xviii. 1, 
xx. 1, and frequently in various forms in the Apoc. Cf. iii. 12, 
ΧΙ]. 13, XVI. 21, Xx. 9, etc. περιβεβλημένον νεφέλην. Cf. Ps. 
ciii. (civ.) 3; Dan. vii. 13. With the phrase ἡ ἶρις ἐπὶ τ. κεφ. cf. 
iv. 3, and with τ. πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος cf. i. 16. The rainbow 
is due to the light from the angel’s face on the cloud. The ex- 
pression ot πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς στύλοι πυρός is very peculiar. στύλοι as 
applied to the feet seems unintelligible. If it had been used of 
the legs, the comparison would have been expressive: cf. Cant. 
v. 15, “his legs were like pillars of marble.” The mistake, if 
there is a mistake, must lie either in πόδες or in στύλοι. Since 
our author had the angel described in Dan. x. 6, xii. 7 before his 
mind, we infer that the error lies in the former; for though Dan. 
x. 6 has 1nb319, this is rendered in Theod. by τὰ σκέλη (though 
the LXX has οἱ πόδες, as our text here andin i. 15). 539 has also 
the meaning of “leg” in 1 Sam. xvii. 61 and Ezek, i. 7.2 (See 
Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, 919 sq., and on 595 under nny. Cf. 
also Deut. xxviii. 57; Isa. vii. 20.) Accordingly we should 
render here “and his legs were like pillars of fire.” This 
secondary meaning of the Hebrew word 59 is attached by the 
author to the Greek word. He thinks in Hebrew, and as he 
embodies Hebrew idiom in his Greek, so also he has trans- 
ferred to a Greek word a meaning which only legitimately 
belongs to the Hebrew of which it is a rendering. 

Furthermore, in Palestinian Aramaic it is used as meaning 
the thigh of an animal, being a translation of oyna: cf. Ex. 
xxix. 17; Lev. 1. 13, vill. 21, ix. 14. In Arabic this word means 
either “foot” or “leg.” From these facts we see that, while our 
author had in his mind the word 53, he attached to it not its 

1So rightly LXX, Peshitto, and Vulg. crura. 


3 Here the LXX and Vulg. render 511 rightly. But the Massoretic needs 
to be corrected. See Cornill and Marti. 


260 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Σ. 1-2. 


ordinary meaning “foot,” but its less usual one “leg,” and that 
he transferred this secondary meaning of the Hebrew word to its 
Greek equivalent. It might appear at first sight that he was 
wholly unjustified in supposing that the primary and secondary 
meaning of the Hebrew word, 7.e. “foot” and “leg,” belonged 
also to the Greek word; and yet it is possible that this secondary 
meaning of πούς (when used as a rendering of the Hebrew) was 
not unexampled at the time. For in the LXX it appears as the 
equivalent of o'yn5, ‘‘ thigh,” as we have already observed above. 

This explanation removes the objection advanced by J. 
Weiss (p. 42), that the position of the clause relating to the 
βιβλαρίδιον between the representation of the feet and the 
placing of them on the sea and land, gives it the impression of 
an interpolation. The πόδες should be rendered “legs,” and a 
full stop put after βιβλαρίδιον ἠνεῳγμένον. With these words the 
description of the angel closes. Wellhausen (p. 14) also regards 
it as an addition, the aim of which is disclosed by x. 8, 11. 
These verses, it is true, do disclose the aim, but x. 8-11 come 
from the hand of the Seer himself, and the contents of “the 
little book” are not a mere digression, but a froleptic vision of the 
reign of the Antichrist. Such proleptic visions occur elsewhere 
in our author. 

ἔχων ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ βιβλαρίδιον. Just as in v. τ βιβλίον 
γεγρ. ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν is based in Ezek. ii. 9, so is the text 
here also: καὶ ἰδοὺ χεὶρ ἐκτεταμένη πρός με, kal ἐν αὐτῇ κεφαλὶς 
βιβλίου ς͵ We have here independent visions of the same 
Seer. βιβλαρίδιον (a ἅπ. Aey., a diminutive of βιβλάριον : cf. 
παιδάριον, John vi. 9. βιβλιδάριον is the form used in Classical 
Greek) means a very small book. This fact is of importance 
when we seek to determine the amount of the sequel that is to 
be assigned to it. If the seven-sealed Book embraces only 
chaps. vi.-ix., the small booklet (βιβλαρίδιον) should naturally 
embrace very much less. Its contents have been reasonably 
limited to xi. 1-13, which comes in as a proleptic digression 
among the events contained in the Seven-sealed Book. This 
clause properly belongs to 1. 

2. ἔθηκεν τὸν πόδα... γῆς. The message concerns the whole 
earth. Perhaps the idea was remotely suggested by Dan. xii. 5. 
With the phrase ἔθηκεν... πόδα cf. 1. 17, ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ. 

ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. This is the more normal—apparently 
the only legitimate—form of this phrase in the Apoc.: cf. vi. 10, 
vii. 2, 10. It is true we find also κράζειν ἐν φ. μεγάλῃ in xiv. 15 ; 
but the passage is from an interpolater’s hand, and the wholly 
unusual form κράζειν ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φ. in xviii. 2. After λέγειν the 
phrase φωνῇ μεγάλῃ may follow without ἐν, asin v. 12, vill. 13; or 
with it, as in xiv. 7, 9. Cf. λέγοντος ὡς φωνῇ βροντῆς, vi. 1; φωνεῖν 


X. 2-3.] THE LITTLE BOOK 261 


φ. μ., xiv. 18. None of these phrases is found in the Johannine 
Gospel. The nearest is in xi. 43, φ. μ. ἐκραύγασεν. For kindred 
phrases in the O.T. cf. Dan. ii. 4; Isa. xl. 9; Ps. xxix. 4; 
Jonah iii. 8. 

ὥσπερ λέων μυκᾶται. ὥσπερ is found only here in the Apoc. 
Elsewhere ὡς is used in this sense. It is found twice in John 
v. 21, 26. The clause itself is an independent rendering: of the 
Hebrew of Hos. xi. 10, INw? masa, where the LXX has ὡς λέων 


ἐρεύξεται. Practically the same words recur in Amos i. 2, it. ὃ. 
Joel iii. (iv.) 16. The LXX gives different renderings of IN, as 
ὠρύεσθαι, Hos. xi. το; φθέγγεσθαι, Amos 1. 2; ἐρεύγεσθαι, Hos. xi. 10, 
Am. iii. 8; ἀνακράζεσθαι, Joel iii. (iv.) 16, but never μυκᾶσθαι, 
which is not found in the LXX. μυκᾶσθαι is properly used of 
oxen; but since Theocritus, xxvi. 21, has μύκημα λεαίνης, and 
4 Ezra xi. 37, xii. 31 has “leo . . . mugiens” (=puxao6a), we 
may reasonably infer that μυκᾶσθαι was used of the roar of a lion. 

In all these passages the words are used of God. In 4 Ezra 
τὶ 7 (xu. 31)/the phrase “leo’. . . mugiens” is used of the 
Messiah. But the context here limits the reference to an angel, 
2.6. Gabriel. 

8. The loud voice of the angel seems at the outset to have been 
inarticulate, but not so the seven thunders that followed. Since 
the article is present here, the idea is clearly a familiar or current 
one. Bousset rightly protests against Spitta (followed by Well- 
hausen) representing the seven peals of thunder (known already 
from Ps. xxix. 3-9) as echoes of the voice just referred to. Nor 
can we with Volter, iv. 69, who appeals to Wisd. xix. 13, take 
them as merely conveying warnings announcing the wrath of God 
and heralding the final issues. Nor yet again can we accept the 
explanation offered by Weizsaicker, Schoen, Pfleiderer, J. Weiss 
(p. 43), and Bousset, who take the aim of this intermezzo to be 
a purely literary one. On this hypothesis a source which contains 
the cycle of visions connected with the Seven Thunders is ex- 
cluded from his work by the Seer, either because it may have 
been known to his readers and therefore not have needed in- 
corporation here, or because it may have been to a large extent 
a repetition of the foregoing visions. In that case the Seer has 
fallen from his réle and plays the part of an editor, who gives 
account to his readers of the contents and order of his book. 
As against these explanations I am inclined to treat the state- 
ment as a Jona fide one, and view it in the same light as that of 
St. Paul in 2 Cor. xii. 4 in regard to his vision in the third 
heaven: ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. 
The Seer witnessed the vision referred to in x. 3-4 in connec- 
tion with that of the strong angel, and has accordingly recorded 
the fact that he so witnessed it, although he was forbidden to 


262 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Κ. 3-6. 


disclose it. ἐλάλησαν... φωνάς. With this construction we 
might compare xiii. 5, λαλοῦν μεγάλα, and Mark ii. 2. The 
voices of the Seven Thunders are intelligible to the Seer, as 
he forthwith prepares to write down their message. 

4. καὶ Ste ἐλάλησαν at ἑπτὰ βρονταί, ἤμελλον γράφειν᾽ Kat 
ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν Σφράγισον ἃ ἐλάλησαν αἱ 
ἑπτὰ βρονταί, καὶ μὴ αὐτὰ γράψης. 

The Seer is forbidden by a voice, #.e. probably that of Christ, 
to write down the disclosures of the Seven Thunders. The non- 
writing is equivalent to sealing. σφραγίζειν is a technical apo- 
calyptic term (cf. xxii. 10), and thus σφράγισον and μὴ γράψῃς are 
practically synonymous. With this passage Swete aptly compares 
John xii. 28, ἦλθεν οὖν φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. . . ὁ οὖν ὄχλος ὁ 
ἑστὼς καὶ ἀκούσας ἔλεγεν βροντὴν γεγονέναι" ἄλλοι ἔλεγον “AyyeAos 
αὐτῷ λελάληκεν. 

The words φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (cf. x. 8) show that the Seer 
is now on earth. See note on iv. 1, p. 109. 

5. After the intermezzo of 3-4 dealing with the Seven 
Thunders, the Seer resumes the description of the strong angel 
and his action. 

καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος, ὃν εἶδον ἑστῶτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς; 
ἦρεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τὴν δεξιὰν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, 
6. καὶ ὥμοσεν ἐν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 


ἱστάναι ἐπί takes the acc. with the sense of “to stand at,” 
iii. 20, ἐπὶ τ. θύραν : vii. 1, ἐπὶ τ. γωνίας : also with the sense of 
“to stand on,” viii. 3, ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (AP): xi. 11, ἐπὶ 
τ. πόδας: xii, 18, ἐπὶ τ. ἄμμον: xiv. I, ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος : XV. 2, ἐπὶ 
τ. θάλασσαν ; but takes the gen. with the same sense ἴῃ x. 5, 8, 
ἐπὶ τ. θαλάσσης (+ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, x. 8); for it is characteristic of 
our author to write ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, or εἰς τὴν γῆν and ἐπὶ τ. θαλάσσης. 
See note on vil. I, p. 191. 

Next we observe that the text is clearly derived from Dan. xii. 7 
—but the diction is not from the LXX or Theod. ; for they render 
ὕψωσε (DM) τὴν δεξιὰν (+ αὐτοῦ, T) καὶ τὴν ἀριστερὰν (+ αὐτοῦ, T) 
εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ὥμοσε τὸν ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεόν (ἐν τῷ ζῶντι τὸν 
αἰῶνα, 1). For αἴρω never occurs as a rendering of O% when the 
verb is used technically of raising the hand to swear. Here the 
Versions give ὕψωσεν. But αἴρω is the usual translation of Nw 


4’ when it is used technically of raising the hand to swear. In 
fact 1° NW? (=alpew or ἐξαίρειν or ἐκτείνειν τὴν χεῖρα) is a Synonym 
for ὀμνύναι, and so it is actually rendered (0%) in the three 
Targums on Ex. vi. 8, Num. xiv. 30, and in the Jer. and Jon. 
Targums on Deut. xxxii. 40, and in the Jon. Targ. on Ezek. xx. 
5, 6, 15, 23, 28, 42, XXXVI, 7, etc. 


Χ. 6] ©. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE THIRD WOE 263 


From the above we conclude that our author did not use the 
Versions but the Hebrew of Daniel, which he rendered freely to 
suit his purpose, odyn sna yaw ovmwn-by «νον my ow. 1 do 
not know of the combination “he lifted up his hand and sware” 
occurring elsewhere in canonical literature save in these two 
passages : 

ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ Kal Thy γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν 
αὐτῇ καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ὅτι χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται. 

This statement that God has created all things, serves to 
introduce the announcement that affects all created things. 

Such references to the creative activity of God (cf. iv. 11, 
xiv. 7) are very frequent in later Judaism (cf. Bousset, Red. d. 
Judenthums, 296) but very rare outside the Apocalypse in the 
Nii το. Actsixiv:/ 15; xvii. 24% Heb; xi..z.. | In) the: O.T.:. ef. 
Genwig pisqgq., Hx. xx. bE} Isa. xxxvili 16, xin. 5; Jern-xxxit. Τῇ, 
linge.) Oki. Ὁ, (Cll, 28. xv. 15) Cxxiv. 8: /exxxivs:'3; and 
especially cxlv. 6, τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, τὴν 
θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς. Also Wisd. ix. 1, xi. 17; 2 Enoch 
ΧΧΙ͂Υ. 2, xlviil. 5. 

χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται. The idea underlying χρόνος here is that 
of an interval of time. Hence the clause means that there 
will be no delay. Cf. Heb. x. 37, 6 ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει 
(= nx) Nd, Hab. ii. 3). 

We have now to inquire the meaning of the clause in relation 
to its context—a matter of much importance. With regard to 
what is there to be no delay? This question we cannot investi- 
gate apart from Dan. xii. 7, which was before the mind of the 
Seer, and yet we must not do violence to our text by simply 
forcing upon it the meaning in Daniel. Now Dan. xii. 7, vii. 25, 
speaks of “a time, times and half a time,” 2.6. 34 years, the period 
during which the Antichrist was to have power. But this period 
was a period already tn progress in the visions of Daniel. 

But this is not the case in our text. The reign of the Anti- 
christ as not yet begun in the visions of the Seer. All the evils 
and plagues—even the two demonic plagues, are only forerunners 
of that period. But the hour for the reign of the Antichrist has 
all but struck. There will be no further delay (χρόνος οὐκέτι 
ἔσται). The evil of the world must now culminate in the revela- 
tion of the Antichrist ; for the day of the Lord cannot come, ἐὰν 
μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὃ ἄνθρωπος τῆς 
ἀνομίας (2 Thess. li. 3). The reign of the Antichrist which is 
about to begin is to be introduced by and embraced in the 
third Woe, to which our author refers in 7.1 

1 Of other interpretations two may be mentioned. 1. The words are said 


to predict the ending of the state of time and the beginning of eternity. This 
view, which was in vogue as early as Bede, I supported in my edition of 


264 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (xa, 


7. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς Tod ἑβδόμου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν 
μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς εὐηγγέ- 
λισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τοὺς προφήτας. 

This verse presents a difficult problem. Are we to regard 
ἀλλ᾽. . . σαλπίζειν as original or not? Spitta (p. 110) rejects 
the clause as an addition of the redactor; Volter (iv. 59) like- 
wise rejects it, and J. Weiss (p. 41). These writers do not advance 
definite grounds for the excision of the clause, which could be 
stated and either accepted or rejected. The only definite objec- 
tion is that of J. Weiss, who contends that it destroys the rhythm. 
But, as Bousset rejoins, there is no real rhythm in this chapter. 

But though these critics have not furnished any just grounds 
for the rejection of this clause, the very fact that all three, though 
approaching the book from different standpoints, felt that there 
was something wrong about the clause, points to certain inherent 
difficulties. With these difficulties which arise in connection with 
the meaning which we attach to the phrases ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις and 
μέλλῃ, we shall now proceed to deal. We have already seen 
that as in ix. 1 we were obliged to change πέμπτος into πρῶτος, 
and in ix. 13 ἕκτος into δεύτερος, so here for ἑβδόμου we must 
read tpirov. The reference is to the third Trumpet (or third 
Woe, cf. xi. 14), in which the kingdom of the Antichrist is mani- 
fested and destroyed and God’s kingdom established throughout 
the world. But the three Woes are Woes only to the inhabi- 
tants of the earth, z.e. the unfaithful: cf. viii. 13. To the faithful 
they are merely stages in the realization of the secret purpose of 
God (μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, x. 7), which secret purpose leads ulti- 
mately to the blessedness of the faithful (cf. εὐηγγέλισεν, x. 7 and 
xi. 17-18). 

Let us now return to μέλλῃ and ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις. First as 
regards μέλλῃ. What meaning are we to assign to this word? 
It is used in three senses in the Apocalypse. 1. As an auxiliary 
with an infinitive to express simple futurity, iii. 16 (possibly also 
ii. 10 dis). 2. Cum inf. =to be about to do or suffer something, 
iii. 2, 10, Vili, 13, X. 4, Xli. 4, 5, xvii. 8 (possibly ii. ro 7s). 
But μέλλειν is practically an auxiliary here also. 3. Cum inf.= 
to be destined, i. 19, vi. 11. Now x. 7 clearly does not belong 
to 3. Hence it belongs either to 1 or 2. It is generally 
assigned to 2 (see R.V., Holtzmann, etc.), and it must be con- 


2 Enoch, p. xxiii, in relation to xxxiii. 2, Ixv. 6, 7, where the absolute cessa- 
tion of time is foretold. But this interpretation is wrong. 2. Nor is it right, 
with Alford, Bousset, and others, to connect our text with vi. 11, καὶ ἐρρέθη 
αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν : for there the martyrs pray for the 
speedy appearing of the day of judgment, and they are assured that that day 
will come in a little while, when the roll of the martyrs is complete. But in 
our text the period referred to is the reign of Antichrist on earth, which 
begins with his expulsion from heaven. 


xe] THE MYSTERY OF GOD 265 


fessed this is the usual meaning of μέλλειν in the Apocalypse. 
But if we accept it, it follows that the mystery of God will be 
accomplished ‘‘in the days when the seventh angel is about to 
sound,” 26. before this angel has sounded. Now this is against 
every reasonable meaning that can be assigned to the μυστήριον 
τοῦ θεοῦ in this context (see note zz /oc.). If μέλλῃ has this 
meaning here, then we must excise ἀλλ᾽... . σαλπίζειν as an 
addition from the same hand that expanded the three Trumpets 
(or Woes) into seven, and explain the addition as due to a 
misunderstanding of the froleptic character of xi. 1-13. Not 
observing the proleptic character of xi. 1-13, the interpolator 
assumed that the Antichrist came before the seventh (1.6. third) 
Trumpet. - 

But it is possible to take μέλλῃ in the first sense. In that 
case we should translate ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν simply as “when 
he shall sound.” We have now to deal with ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις. 
This phrase might in itself denote a point of time or a period. 
But the words τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, however we interpret them, 
are in favour of the latter. The text then would run: “in the 
days of the voice of the third angel when he shall sound.” 

καὶ ἐτελέσθη. This can be explained as a Hebraism, ie. 
Dw = τελεσθήσεται, or with WAL, p. 346 sq., as the aor. of 


anticipation, “in the days when the third angel shall sound, then 
the secret of God is finished.” καί introduces the apodosis in 
XIV. IO. 

τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεου. 1. This phrase has been taken by 
Bousset as referring to the casting down of Satan from heaven, 
xii. 8-g. This interpretation has much in its favour, but it is 
not wide enough. ‘The thanksgivings in xi. 17-18 lead us to 
expect something greater. 2. Vischer (p. 21), VOlter (ii. 18, 
iv. 73), Holtzmann (Ὁ zz Joc.) refer it to the birth of the Messiah. 
In this case Vischer assumes that xii. is from a Jewish hand, 
and Volter, that it belongs to an Apocalypse of Cerinthus. 
3. While the first view is inadequate the second is impossible. 
Hence we take the phrase in a wider sense than Bousset. The 
phrase appears to mean ¢he whole purpose of God in regard to the 
world, which must finally be accomplished.!_ This purpose is 


1 To determine the meaning of this phrase it must be studied in its several 
contexts. Thus in Rom. xvi. 25, 26, Col. i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3, Eph. i. 9, 
10, 111. 3-6, 9, vi. 19, the μυστήριον means the inclusion of the Gentiles in 
the Christian Church. (See Robinson, Zfh. 234 544.) This is actually 
designated τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ in Col. ii. 2. But this cannot be the 
meaning in our text. Again the unbelief of Israel is described as a μυστήριον 
in Rom. xi. 25, and as bound up with God’s mercy to the Gentiles. Other 
meanings of the word are found in the Pauline Epistles, and one in particular 
calls for attention, 2.6. that in 2 Thess. ii. 6-8, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτόν 
(Ξ: τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς ἀνομίας) ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ καιρῷ" τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται 


266 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [x. 7. 


not secret; for it has already been made known to His servants 
the prophets. καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μ. τ. θεοῦ means the consumma- 
tion of this growing purpose of God that has run through all the 
ages. It presents a twofold aspect: one of woe to the inhabiters 
of the earth (=the third Woe), and, so far, it is equivalent to 
the manifestation of the Antichrist on earth: and one of joy 
to the faithful (εὐηγγέλισεν, x. 7): for the Antichrist cannot 
overcome them spiritually, however much he may persecute 
them, and, moreover, he is to reign but a short time and their 
recompense is at hand. The contents of the divine purpose 
may be inferred from the thanksgivings of the 24 Elders after 
the seventh Trumpet (1.6. third Trumpet or Woe). Thus the 
kingdom of God is to be set up, xi. 17—a fact which carries 
with it the casting down of that of Satan and the Antichrist, 
‘the destroyers of the earth” are to be destroyed, ze. Rome as 
the servant of the Antichrist, xi. 18 (cf. xiv. 6-20, xix. 2), the 
saints recompensed, and the dead judged, xi. 18. 

τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς εὐηγγέλισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τοὺς 
προφήτας. These words seem to be a reminiscence of Amos 
iil. 7 (LXX), διότι od μὴ ποιήσῃ κύριος 6 θεὸς πρᾶγμα ἐὰν μὴ 
ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν (=D corrupt for 1112) αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς 
δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς προφήτας (ONIN Way δὲ MND nds-ox ‘>). 
If our text is based on Amosiil. 7, then our author clearly did not 
use the LXX, since it presupposes a different text. εὐηγγέλισεν 
c. acc. as an active is found only here in the N.T., as is also evay. 
c. ἐπί in xiv. 6. Cf. LXX of 1 Sam. xxxi. 9; 2 Sam. xviii. 19. 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι c. acc. is frequent in Luke. ‘His servants the 
prophets” is a well-known O.T. expression: cf. 2 Kings xvii. 13, 
23, xxi. 10, xxiv. 2; Ezek. xxxvill. 17; Zech. i. 6; Jer. vii. 25. 
xxv. 4; Dan. ix. το. But in our text we may take it that the 
phrase refers to the Christian prophets, the contemporaries of 
the Seer. The O.T. prophets touched very slightly, and 
generally not at all, on the great problems with which the Seer 
deals. As regards ἑαυτοῦ, if it is used, it is placed before the 
noun as here in x. 2. Otherwise αὐτοῦ is used, and placed after 
the noun: cf. i. 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, etc. etc. But the former expres- 
sion is, of course, stronger. 


τῆς ἀνομίας" μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται 
ὁ ἄνομος. The principle of evil will at last be revealed and culminate in a 
personality; for the advent of the Lord cannot take place unless this 
apostasy come first and the man of lawlessness be revealed (2 Thess. ii. 3). 
Here the μυστήριον refers to the Antichrist who is still hidden, but about to 
be revealed. This use is very nearly allied to that in our text, but it is much 
more limited in meaning. τὸ μυστ. τ. θεοῦ in our text embraces the whole 
purpose of God in history. The manifestation of evil in the Antichrist is 
only a part of this all-embracing purpose, which issues in the complete 
triumph and manifestation of goodness. The conceptions underlying 
2 Thess. ii, are related essentially to those in our text. 


X.8-9.] | THE SEER ASKS FOR THE BOOK 267 


8. kal ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πάλιν λαλοῦσαν per 
ἐμοῦ καὶ λέγουσαν Ὕπαγε. λάβε τὸ Βιβλίον τὸ ἠνεῳγμένον τὸ ἐν 
χειρὶ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ ἑστῶτος ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 

In the above text I have followed the uncials. The 
solecism seems to go back to the Seer himself. If he had had 
the opportunity of revising his MS. he would probably have 
written ἐλάλησεν . . » λέγουσα or λαλοῦσα per ἐμοῦ, λέγουσα. 
(ΕἸΣ ν᾿ τ; xvil..'1.) The reading of the majority of the cursives, 
λάλουσα . . . καὶ λέγουσα, is simply a scribal correction and not 
in our author’s style. Nor is the text read as in 7 νυ]ρ 51 
Prim., καὶ ἤκουσα φωνήν, aught else than a correction, though it 
is in keeping with our author’s style. The voice is that already 
mentioned in 4. 

The expression ὕπαγε λάβε is a Hebraism, and exactly repro- 
duces the clause in Gen. xxvii. 13; Hos. i. 2, ΠΡ 3). Cf. Gen. 


XXIX. 7, Xxxvil. 14—in all about 57 times (in Oxford Heb. Lex., 
p- 234). It occurs also in Matt. v. 24, viii. 4, XIX, 21, etc. ; 3 John 
iv. 16, ix. 7. In our text in xvi. 1 we have ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐκχέετε. 
See note on x. 5. From x. 9-Ο we know that our author had 
Ezek. iii. 1 544. before him: now this idiom occurs in Ezek. 
ili. I, 134 7, and in 111. 4. ἑστῶτος ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. See 6 n. 


9. καὶ ἀπῆλθα πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον λέγων αὐτῷ δοῦναί μοι τὸ 
βιβλαρίδιον καὶ λέγει μοι Λάβε καὶ κατάφαγε αὐτό, καὶ πικρανεῖ 
σου τὴν κοιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ στόματί σου ἔσται γλυκὺ ὡς μέλι. 

With λέγων. . δοῦναι, “bidding him to give,” cf. xili. 14; 
Acts xxi. 21, Neuve μὴ περιτέμνειν. See Blass, Gram. 232, 240. 
The incident here undoubtedly recalls Ezek. iii. 1 sqq. Our 
author is not dependent on the LXX, which reads here: iii. 1, 3, 
κατάφαγε τὴν κεφαλίδα ταύτην... καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ στόματί μου 
ὡς μέλι γλυκάζον. 

There is a difference between the description in our text and 
in Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s roll was sweet as honey in the mouth, but 
there is no direct reference to its being bitter in the belly. And 
yet even the latter idea, which is emphasized in our text, seems 
to be derived from Ezekiel. For this contrast implicitly 
underlies the description in Ezekiel, where, though the book was 
sweet in the mouth, its contents with regard to Israel were full 
of “lamentation and mourning and woe.” The same contrast 
is found also in Jer. xv. 16, 17 according to the Mass., ‘ Thy 
words . . . I did eat (symbolically), and thy words were unto 
me the joy and rejoicing of my heart. ... I sat not in the 
assembly of them that make merry . . . for thou hast filled me 
with indignation” (1.6. hast given me nought but wrath to 
announce). But it is noteworthy that for nok, “I did eat,” 


the LXX reads pb> = συντέλεσον αὐτούς, a text accepted by 


268 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [X. 9-10. 


Duhm and Cornill. Bertholet (Ezek. iff. 3) suggests that our 
author may have taken iii. 14 in this sense: “850 the spirit lifted 
meup ... and 1 went in bitterness” (719 FN) 1). This sugges- 


tion seems probable. 

Next as to the meaning of the sweetness followed by bitter- 
ness in our text various explanations are offered. Most 
expositors are of opinion that the reception of a revelation is in 
itself a joy, but that its contents carry with them grief and bitter- 
ness. This is the meaning supported by the passages just cited 
from Ezekiel and Jeremiah. 

But Ewald, Heinrici, Holtzmann hold that the sweetness 
and bitterness point to the diverse nature of the contents of the 
book. For of the book (which=xi. 1-13), xi. 1, 3-6, 11-13 
disclose mercy and redemption, whereas xi. 2, 7-10 predict dis- 
appointment and death even for the righteous. 

The introduction of this episode points to the use of a foreign 
source by our writer. The inspiration is not direct. There is 
not a single mention of this Little Book through the remaining 
chapters, and the Seer speaks of seeing the visions himself. ‘The 
inspiration-theory underlying the idea of acquiring superhuman 
knowledge through eating is lower than that which prevails else- 
where in the Apocalypse. And yet this idea is not without 
parallel in the Apocalypse ; for the eating of the Tree of Life in 
Xxil. 14 appears to impart immortality, but there the words are 
symbolically used. 

In the O.T. the conception appears more natural. Accord- 
ing to the Paradise story, the Tree of Knowledge gave to those 
who ate of it spiritual knowledge. The ancients did not distin- 
guish sharply, as we do, between the material and spiritual life. 
And yet even we moderns believe in the close relation of these 
two ; for we hold that with the material elements of the bread 
and wine spiritual gifts are imparted to the faithful in the Holy 
Communion. 

10. καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγγέλου καὶ 
κατέφαγον αὐτό᾽ καὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ στόματί μου γλυκὺ ὡς μέλι" καὶ ὅτε 
ἔφαγον αὐτό ἐπικράνθη 2 ἡ κοιλία μου. 

In 9 the importance of the results that followed the eating 
of the book is emphasized, and accordingly these are placed 
first ; in this verse the events are given in the order of the Seer’s 
experience. 


1The LXX reads καὶ ἐπορεύθην μετέωρος here, where the last word=0}, 
corrupt for 70. 

3 eyeutcOn αὶ 1854 arm Prim. This reading seems due to Ezek. iii. 3, 
xbon pyo; LXX, ἡ κοιλία cov πλησθήσεται. Swete thinks that it is ‘the first 
word of a gloss ἐγεμίσθη πικρίας, accidentally transferred into the text from 
the margin,” 


= aL] XI.=THE LITTLE BOOK 269 


11. καὶ λέγουσίν μοι Δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ 
ἔθνεσιν καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσιν πολλοῖς. 

The plural λέγουσιν is difficult. We cannot determine 
whether the words come from the heavenly voice (4, 8), or from 
the angel (9). Probably it is simply the plural of indefinite 
statement, as in xiii. 16, δῶσιν : xvi. 15, BAétwow—an idiom some- 
times found in Hebrew, and frequent in Biblical Aramaic. Cf. 
Dane: iv. 13.2.2, 51. 20) v2 (20))/2y) Vil.) 12, 20; Har. vi. 5) See 
Wellhausen, Zinleitung in d. Evang. 25 sq. 

The construction προφητεύειν ἐπί (c. dat. or acc.) is found not 
infrequently in the LXX as a rendering of 5y Na). éxi= ‘in 


regard to” is found in John xii. 16 after γράφειν. The phrase 
πάλιν προφητεῦσαι refers backward in πάλιν to what precedes, and 
forward in προφητεῦσαι to the chapters that follow xi. 15, as the 
βιβλαρίδιον embraces only xi. 1-13. The prophecies are to deal 
with “peoples and nations and Janguages and many kings.” It 
is interesting that this enumeration, which occurs seven times in 
the Apocalypse (see note on v. 9), is here given a different form, 
and βασιλεῦσιν is put in the place of φυλαῖς. The “kings” are 
specially those mentioned in xvii. 10, 12. The Seer is recasting 
this characteristic phrase with a view to the contents of his later 
visions. 


CHAP TE RCT, 


§ 1. Zhe contents of the Little Book, being a proleptic Digression 
on the Antichrist in Jerusalem. 


The measuring (i.e. the securing against demonic powers) of 
the faithful, 1-2, and the preaching of the two Witnesses, 3-0, 
are a preparation against the appearance of the Antichrist in 
Jerusalem—the Beast from the abyss, who will reign for three and 
a half years, and will war against and put to death the Witnesses 
to the great joy of the unbelievers, 7-10: the Witnesses raised 
anew to life, and the rest of the Jews converted to Christianity, 
11--13. 

Such appears to be the meaning of this section in its present 
context. ‘This section is proleptic, because it really belongs to 
the third Woe or Trumpet, when Satan had already been cast 
down from heaven (xii.) and the Kingdom of the Antichrist estab- 
lished (xiii.). It is, therefore, contemporary in point of time with 
xil.—xill. It is a digression, because the author has turned aside 
for the moment from his main theme of the Antichrist as iden- 
tified with Rome and its empire, in order to describe his 
appearance in Jerusalem. This task done, he can pursue without 
interruption to its close the struggle between Christ and the Anti- 
christ as embodied in the Roman Empire. If we ask why he 


270 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧῚ.8 1-2. 


introduced this section at all, we might perhaps reply that in one 
respect its presence here is a tribute to the older form of the 
Antichrist tradition (before 70 a.D.), which regarded Jerusalem 
as the scene of the manifestation of the Jewish Antichrist, as 
in 2 Thess. ii.; and that in another respect it was designed to 
represent the Conversion of the Jews to Christianity under the 
pressure of fear and after the preaching of Moses and Elijah— 
the two companions of Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration 
—was completed. 


§ 2. But 1-13 had originally a different meaning and was 
borrowed by our author from an early source. 


But though § 1 gives the meaning of this section in its 
present context, this was not its original meaning; for it was 
not the original composition of our author, but consisted origin- 
ally of two independent fragments which were borrowed and 
revised by him to suit his own ideas. 

The grounds for this statement are as follows: 

I. xi. I-13 consists of two independent fragments, both 
written before 70 A.D. 

2. The diction differs very perceptibly from that of our author. 

3. The order of the words, which is largely non-Semitic, 
differs decidedly from that of our author. 

4. The meaning of certain phrases in xi. 1-13 differs absolutely 
from that which they bear in the rest of the Apocalypse. 

5. Certain ideas common to xi. 1-2 and xi. 3-13 are expressed 
in different phraseology and appear to point to different author- 
ship (whether Greek or Aramaic). 

I. Xl. 1-13 consists of two independent fragments both written 
before 70 A.D. 

The first fragment is xi. 1-2. Owing to Wellhausen’s recogni- 
tion of the fact that xi. 1-2 was originally an independent oracle 
written before 70 A.D. (Skizzen und Vorarbetten, vi. 221 sqq.; cf. 
also his Analyse der Offend. Johannis, 1907, p. 15), the task of 
subsequent critics has been rendered easier. 

This oracle predicted the preservation of the Temple and 
those who worshipped in it (1.6. the Zealots, who during the siege 
had taken up their quarters in the Temple and the inner court ; see 
my note 7” /oc.), while the outer court and city would be trodden 
down of the Gentiles.1 There is here no idea of the destruction, 
but only of the capture of Jerusalem. There were many prophets 
among the Zealots, according to Josephus. This fragment would 
naturally be the work of one of these. 

Amongst the older scholars, Corrodi, Herren, Schneider, 


1 On the expectation that Jerusalem would be captured by the Romans, 
see Josephus, B./. vi. 5. 3. 


ΧΙ. § 2.] ΧΙ. I-13 FROM TWO SOURCES 271 


Eichhorn, Semler, Bleek, Ewald, De Wette, and Liicke inter- 
preted xi. 1-2 of the preservation of the Temple ; and, as they held 
to the unity of the Apocalypse, they naturally concluded that the 
Apocalypse was written before 70 a.D. J. Weiss accepts the date 
thus found for xi. 1-13 and takes xi. 3-13 to be from the same 
hand. But Bousset and Porter distinguish xi. 1-2 and xi, 3-13. 

xi. 3-13. This fragment, as Wellhausen has rightly observed 
(Analyse, p. 16), stands in an isolated position. οἱ δύο μάρτυρες 
(xi. 3) are in spite of the article not previously mentioned, nor 
is τὸ θήριον (x1. 7). He thinks that xi. 3-13 originally referred 
to Rome, and that the Redactor adapted it by his additions to 
Jerusalem. The reasons he advances for this last view are not 
tenable, and are dealt with in my notes where necessary. In the 
course of his criticism Wellhausen reduces the original document 
to xi. 3%, 7, 8%, g (four words), 10-13 (with excisions). 

The criticism of Bousset is sounder. He shows first of all 
how fragmentary xi. 3-13 is, seeing that it leaves us in doubt as 
to whether the Antichrist appears as a purely mythological figure 
or an historical personage: as to the relation in which he stands 
to Jerusalem, or to the nations and people mentioned, or to 
the Witnesses. Next he takes xi. 3-13 in connection to xi. 1-2. 
The binding together of these two fragments could not, he Bor, 
have been effected by an author who wrote after 70 Α.Ὁ. ; for 
that only under the presupposition that they were combined i in 
an apocalypse written before 70, could they possess a good sense 
and an inner connection. For according to xi. 1-2, Jerusalem is 
to be given over to the Gentiles, but the Temple is to be preserved. 
And only in this situation is the following prophecy conceivable. 
The two Witnesses and the Beast from the abyss appear in the 
city beleagured by the Romans. I confess that I find this 
reasoning unconvincing. The writer who could adapt to his own 
Apocalypse of 95 A.D., when Jerusalem was in ruins, a fragment 
that bore definitely on tts face the date of 70 A.D. when Jerusalem 
still stood, would have found less difficulty in adapting to it a 
Jragment dealing with eschatological expectations of the reign of 
the Antichrist and written at some undtscoverable date before 70 
A.D. ; for xi. 3-13 also presupposes Jerusalem to be still standing. 

But, as we shall discover later, there are some grounds for 
regarding xi. 7 as wholly recast Dy, our author and xi. 4 (?), 8°°, οὗ 
as added by him, and that xi. 54 is possibly a gloss. 

2. The diction and idiom differ very perceptibly from those of 
our author. 

First we observe that in 1 ἐγείρειν, in 2 ἐκβάλλειν and αὐλή, 
in 5 (and 12) ἐχθρός, in 6 ὑετός βρέχειν and ὁσάκις ἐάν, and 
ἀφιέναι Cc. inf. in 9, and in 11 ἐπιπίπτειν are found here only in the 
Apoc. ‘These facts in themselves prove nothing, but the follow- 


272 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XxI. § 2. 


ing prove much. Thus πτῶμα Ξε “corpse,” is used in 8, 9, where- 
as our author uses νεκρός in this sense, xvl. 3, xx. 13; θεωρεῖν in 
II, 12, whereas our author uses βλέπειν or δρᾶν in this connection ; 
προφητεία = “period of prophetic activity” in 6, but “ prophecy ” 
in the rest of the Apoc. Again in xi. 6 we have τὴν ἐξουσίαν, 
whereas in such a passage where limited authority is implied the 
article is omitted ; see note on il. 26: the pres. inf. στρέφειν though 
the aor. inf. only i is used, except in the case of βλέπειν, i. 12, 
γ 5: 4. ΧΙ 20, and ERE MI in ΧΙ. 13, and of infinitives after 
μέλλειν ; see note on 1. 19. Again in xi. 11 ἔστησαν stands (cf. 
xviii. 17) where our author would probably have used ἱστήκεισαν 
(cf. vii. 11) or ἐστάθησαν (cf. vill. 3, vi. 17). In xi. 13 ἑπτά stands 
after χιλιάδες. See vill. 2 ἢ. Finally, in 3 we have δώσω... καὶ 
προφητεύσουσιν where our author would have used δώσω ἐξουσίαν 
. « « προφητεύειν OF iva προφητεύσωσιν, see note on xi. 3; in 5° we 
have εἰ with subj., which is against our author’s usage ; in 6 ὅσάκ!: 
ἐάν to denote indefinite frequency, whereas our author uses ὅταν : 
cf. iv. g (ix. 5); and in 11 εἰσῆλθεν ἐν, whereas εἰσέρχεσθαι is 
followed either by eis or πρός c. acc. elsewhere in the Apoc. 

3. The order of the words, which ts largely non-Semitic, differs 
decidedly from that of our author.—The subject precedes the 
verb in Xi. 5, πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται. . . Kal κατεσθίει: xi. 6, ὑετὸς 
βρέχῃ: Xi. το, καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες. . . χαίρουσιν : Xi. ΤΙ, πνεῦμα 
ζωῆς... εἰσῆλθεν and φόβος... ἐπέπεσεν : ΧΙ. 13, τὸ δέκατον 
... ἔπεσεν and οἱ λοιποὶ... ἐγένοντο. But more noteworthy 
are the cases where the object precedes the verb: xi, 2, μὴ αὐτὴν 
μετρήσῃς, τὴν αὐλήν. .. ese τὴν πόλιν. .. πατήσουσιν : Xi. 5, 
αὐτοὺς... ἀδικῆσαι: xi. 6, ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν (here only in this 
order in the text of the Apocalypse) : Xi. Q, τὰ πτώματα... οὐκ 
ἀφίουσιν τεθῆναι: Xi. 10, δῶρα πέμψουσιν. 

I leave out of consideration xi. 7, which has been recast by our 
author ; xi. 4 (0), 8°, 9%, which have been probably added by him. 

Now the force of this evidence becomes clearer if we com- 
pare the order of words in this chapter with the five preceding 
chapters. In these 


Subject precedes Prepositional phrase Object precedes 
verb. precedes verb. verb. 
Chap.vi.... ». ‘10fimes, i I (for emphasis: vi. 6). 
‘set See. ee τς 
99 Vill. I, 3-5, 13. 1 time. eee eee 
Chap. viii. 7-12. 7 times. eee 7 times. 
(addition to text). 
Chap. villi. 2,6... 2 ;, Fr ase 
(recast). 
Chap. ix. «3 + ΠΣ time. 3 times. I (in a gloss: ix. 11). 
got) | Kelle! ΠΕ wa iames. I time. I (object a pronoun: x. 4. 


Cf. xi.2). 


KI. § 2.] ITS DICTION AND IDIOM 27a 


Thus in five chapters from the hand of our author the object 
precedes the verb only twice, whereas in eleven verses in 
chap. xi. it precedes it seven times. This evidence speaks for 
itself. 

4. The meaning of certain phrases in xi. 1-13 differs absolutely 
from that which they bear in the rest of the Apocalypse. The 
phrase ὃ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is used in xi. 1 of the Temple in Jerusalem. 
But our author does not apply this phrase to the earthly 
Temple, as he reserves it for the Temple in heaven. Next our 
author could not have described the actual Jerusalem as τὴν πόλιν 
τὴν ἁγίαν in xi. 2. This phrase he reserves for the heavenly 
Jerusalem which cometh down from heaven (xxi. 10). Again, 77 
πόλις ἡ μεγάλη is used in xi. 8 of Jerusalem, but in our author this 
phrase technically designates Rome. See note zm loc. Finally, 
οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς το Πα dwellers in Palestine in xi. 10, 
but elsewhere in the Apocalypse the inhabitants of the whole 
earth. Owing to the above facts our author must have attached 
a symbolical meaning (if he did attach a definite meaning) 
to the first phrase as well as to πόλις in xi. 13 (See notes 7” 
loc.). 
Mp Though the ministry of the Witnesses ts of the same 
duration as the occupation of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, the 
incidents tn xt. 3-13, culminating in the destruction of one-tenth of 
Jerusalem, suggest quite a different situation from that implied in 
xt, I-2. 

6. Certain ideas common to both xt. I-2 and xt. 3-I3 are 
expressed in different phraseology and may point to different 
authorship (whether Greek or Aramaic). 

Thus over against μῆνας τεσσαράκοντα δύο in xi. 2 we have the 
same idea expressed by ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα in Xi. 3, 
and over against τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν in xi. 2 we have τῆς πόλεως 
τῆς μεγάλης in xi. 8. 

In xi. 1-2 of this section we have a notable instance of 
reinterpretation on the part of our author. The inviolable 
security which the Jews attached to the Temple is reinterpreted 
by him as meaning the spzritual security of the Christian com- 
munity despite the Satanic kingdom of the Antichrist about to 
be manifested. 

The same process of reinterpretation runs through xi. 3-13, 
as will be seen in the notes. In addition to the transformations 
of meaning thus effected it is possible that our author would 
here impress the general lesson that underlies the entire Apoca- 
lypse, that fidelity to Christ, while it ensures spiritual security 
against the demonic world, entails martyrdom, but that this 
martyrdom in its turn leads to ultimate victory in all 
things. 

VOL. 1—18 


274 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΣΙ. 1. 


XI. 1-13. A PROLEPTIC DIGRESSION ON THE 
ANTICHRIST IN JERUSALEM. 


1. καὶ ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ, λέγων Ἔγειρε καὶ 
μέξρησον τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ τοὺς προσκυ- 
νοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ. 

These two verses, xi. 1-2, are a fragment, as Wellhausen was 
the first to recognise, of an oracle written before 70 A.D. by one 
of the prophets of the Zealot party in Jerusalem, who predicted 
that, though the outer court of the Temple and the city would 
fall, the Temple and the Zealots who had taken up their abode 
within it would be preserved from destruction. These verses, 
therefore, originally dealt partly with contemporary history and 
partly with eschatological forecasts. But in their present context 
they cannot possibly be interpreted by the Contemporary 
Historical Method. The Temple is destroyed and the Zealots 
with it, and the prophecy of Christ, Mark xiii. 2 = Matt. xxiv. 2 
=Luke xxi. 6, has been fulfilled to the letter. Hence no 
literal interpretation is here possible. The verses must be 
taken wholly eschatologically, and several of the phrases symboli- 
cally, as μέτρησον τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, THY αὐλὴν 
τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ. For the temple of God is here the spiritual 
temple of which all the faithful are constituent parts; the outer 
court is the body of unbelievers who are given over to the sway 
of the Antichrist; and the measuring, like the sealing in vil. 
4 sqq., denotes the preservation of the faithful, not from physical 
evil, but from the spiritual assaults of the Antichrist and his 
demonic following during the reign of the Antichrist. The 
grounds for the above interpretation will be found in the intro- 
duction to this chapter and in the notes that follow. 

The construction ἐδόθη μοι. . . λέγων is very abnormal for 
ἔδωκέν por. . . λέγων. We have, however, an analogous con- 
struction in Gen. xxii. 20, ἀνηγγέλη. . . . λέγοντες (. . . ἼΝ 
WON): xxviii. 24, xlviii. 2; Jos. ii, 2, x. 17, xvi. 2, etc. ; Clem. 
1 Cor. xi. τ, Λὼτ, ἐσώθη ἐκ Σοδόμων... πρόδηλον ποιήσας ὃ 
δεσπότης. Here we should expect ἔσωσεν. But eleven words 
intervene between ἐσώθη and ποιήσας here. Cf. Thue. iii. 36. 1. 

κάλαμος. Ezek. xl. 3-xliii 20 was in the mind of the 
author of this verse. In xli. 13 the angel measures the Temple. 
The Hebrew is 77197 7p in Ezekiel. 

μέτρησον. Three explanations have been given of the 
measuring. 

1. Measuring may be done with a view to rebuilding and 
restoring, as in Ezek. xl. 2 sqq., 47, xli. 13, ΧΙ]. 13; Zech. 
ii. 2-8 ; Jer. xxxi. 39. So Vitringa, Bengel. But this meaning is 
excluded by the context. 


Srl] THE MEASURING—ITS MEANING 275 


2. It may be done with a view to destruction, as in 2 Kings 
xxi. 13; Isa. xxxiv. 11 ; Amos vii. 7-9; Lam. ii. 8; 2 Sam. viii. 2%. 
So Baumgarten and Erbes (69-74). But this sense also is in- 
admissible in our text, since the exclusion of the outer court in 
2 from measurement is the same as its surrender, not indeed 
to destruction, but to profanation by the Gentiles. The ideas 
underlying μέτρησον and ἔκβαλε are here essentially opposed. 

3. There remains, therefore, the third and only meaning 
applicable to this word ém its original context, 1.6. the measuring 
means physical preservation, as in 2 Sam. viii. 2°. So Storr, Oeder, 
Semler, Corrodi, Bleek, Ewald, Ziillig (ii. 163-169), De Wette, 
Liicke, Bousset, etc. The text here in its original form dealt with 
the actual Temple, altar, outer court, andcity. It does not, how- 
ever, follow that our Seer attached the same meaning to these 
words. Rather we shall see grounds for believing that in re-editing 
this earlier document, xi. 1-13, he attached to them symbolical 
meanings.! And such is the case with the word “ measure” in 
its present context. Thus we must have recourse to a measuring 
different from the above three. 

4. In its present context the measuring does not mean 
preservation from physical, but from sfz7ztwal danger. Thus the 
measuring comes to be practically synonymous with the sealing 
in vii. 4 sqq. A related meaning is attached to measuring 
like 1 Enoch Ixi. 1-5: 


1. “And I saw in those days how long cords were given to 
those angels and they... flew... towards the 
north. 

2. And I asked the angel saying: 

Why have those (angels) taken these cords and gone 
off? And he said unto me: They have gone to 
measure... 

3. ... These shall bring the measures of the righteous 
... to the righteous 


1 Bousset rejects every attempt at a symbolical explanation ; but there 
is no other kind of explanation admissible, if we hold that xi. 1-13 is 
borrowed material, and that our author attached a certain meaning to it in its 
new context. On p. 330 Bousset gives the following attempt at an explana- 
tion. He admits (because he rejects an allegorical interpretation) that the 
meaning attached to xi. I-13 by ‘‘the Apocalyptist of the last hand” can 
scarcely be made out. He holds that, in case he reflected on its meaning, 
he would at all events have seen in xi. I-2 a prophecy of the destruction of 
Jerusalem. But the very phraseology is against this view: the city is 
‘* trodden down” but it is not destroyed. Moreover, Bousset recognizes that 
in xi. 3-13 the city is still presupposed to be standing (cf. xi. 13 specially). 
From this attempt we may conclude that it is impossible to interpret xi. 1-2 
in its present context from the standpoint of the Contemporary Historical 
hypothesis. 


276 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XxI. 1. 


That they may stay themselves on the name of the 
Lord of Spirits forever... 
4. . . . And those are the measures which shall be given to 
faith, 
And which shall strengthen righteousness. 
5. And these measures shall reveal all the secrets of the 
depths of the earth, 
And those who have been destroyed by the desert, 
And those who . . . have been devoured by the fish of 
the sea, 
That they may return and stay themselves 
On the day of the Elect One; 
For none shall be destroyed before the Lord of Spirits, 
And none can be destroyed.” 


The exact meaning of measuring in this passage is difficult 
to determine, but its general sense is clear. It does not signify 
preservation from physical destruction, but the spiritual preserva- 
tion, lxi. 3-4, or restoration of those who had been physically de- 
stroyed, to the spiritual community of the Messianic Kingdom, 
Ixi. 5. The last words imply that all the faithful live unto God, 
whether quick or departed. Physical death in their case is a 
thing without meaning. 

τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. This phrase here denoted originally the 
actual Temple in Jerusalem. But our Seer would never have so 
described it; for in his own diction it means one of two things. 
1. The spiritual temple, iii. 12, of which the faithful are pillars. 
2. The temple in heaven, vii. 15, xi. 19 (25), xiv. 15, 17, XV. 5, 
6, 8 (dis), xvi. 1, 17. Next, it is noteworthy that at the close of 
Christ’s ministry (Matt. xxiii. 38=Luke xiii. 35) the actual 
Temple is called by Christ the Jew’s house, no longer God’s 
house, though at the beginning He had called it His Father's 
house (John ii. 16 = Mark xi. 17 = Matt, xxi. 13 = Luke xix. 46), 
and that there is no temple at all in the heavenly Jerusalem, 
xxi. 22. To our Seer the Jews are 7 συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ii. 9, 
iii. 9, and in John viii. 44 they are the children of the devil 
(ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ). But since our Seer has 
incorporated into his text xi. 1-13 with certain editorial changes, 
he must have attached some meaning to the above phrase and 
taken it symbolically.1_ To him, therefore, it meant the spiritual 
temple (iii, 12; Eph. ii. 19 544.) of which all the faithful are 
constituent parts, the Christian community of God generally, or 
rather he took the Temple, altar, and worshippers together as 
representing this community. This idea was a very familiar one 


1 Our Seer’s addition in xi. shows that he attaches a symbolical or rather 
non-literal meaning to certain expressions. 


ΧΙ. 1-2.] FATE OF THE UNBELIEVERS 277 


in the N.T.: cf. 1 Cor. ili. 16, ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστέ: 2 Cor. vi. 16, ἡμεῖς 
γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμὲν ζῶντος : τ Pet. ii. 5, καὶ αὐτοὶ ds λίθοι ζῶντες 
οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικός. 

τὸ θυσιαστήριον. In our note on viii. 3 we have shown 
that τὸ θυσιαστήριον in the Apocalypse refers always, with the 
exception of this passage, to the one altar in heaven. As 
regards the present passage expositors are divided. Some take 
this altar to be the altar of incense within the vads: others, the 
altar of burnt-offering. In the case of the two altars in the earthly 
Temple, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, when it is used without any additional 
defining phrase or attribute, means the altar of burnt-offering. 

But we have already found that our author has not, and 
indeed could not have, taken the words μέτρησον and τὸν ναὸν 
τοῦ θεοῦ literally. If he attached any special meaning to 
θυσιαστήριον here, it must also be a figurative one. He appears 
to have taken it together with the ναός and of προσκυνοῦντες ἐν 
αὑτῷ as forming one idea. But in the case of borrowed apoca- 
lyptic material, it is not necessary to explain every detail of such 
material, and indeed it is frequently impossible ; for the material 
is often borrowed on account of certain of its chief ideas which 
fit in with the borrower’s own, or easily lend themselves to entire 
transformation in their new context. The very presence of such 
inexplicable details, moreover, in apocalyptic texts is prima facie 
evidence that the contexts in which they occur are not original 
and spontaneous creations of the Seer, but are derived from 
traditional material. 

τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷς For the meaning of measuring 
in connection with this phrase see the quotation from 1 Enoch 
above. Since the Temple, the altar, and the worshippers 
are set over against the outer court, the worshippers must 
include those in the men’s and women’s courts, ze. Jews in 
opposition to Gentiles, who were restricted to the outer court. 
But the writer did not mean that all Jews, as worshippers in 
the inner court, would be saved, but a certain definite body of 
Jews worshipping at a certain definite time, ze. when Jerusalem 
was trodden down by, and in the hands of, the Gentiles—the 
Romans. At this period the inner courts were occupied by the 
Zealots. Safety was assured to them by one of their prophets in 
the above fragment, xi. 1-2. 

2. While the community of God is to be preserved against 
spiritual evils, z.e. against the assaults of its spiritual foes, the 
Antichrist and the demonic world about to be revealed, the 
unbelievers are left a prey to the Antichrist and his demonic 
followers for the forty and two months. 

τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ. In Herod’s Temple the 
inner court, with its various divisions accessible only to Jews, was 


278 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [xXI. 2. 


separated from the outer by a breastwork of stone—8pvdaxros 
(Joseph. B.J. v. 5. 2) or τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, Eph. ii. 14. 
On this breastwork stood pillars at equal distances from one 
another with inscriptions, some in Greek and some in Latin, 
forbidding the Gentiles to pass this barrier on pain of death 
(Ant. xv. 11. 5).} 

This outer court was in later times called the Court of the 
Gentiles, but this designation is not found in the Mishna or 
Josephus. This court was not regarded by the Jews as strictly 
sacred (Jew. Encyc. xii. 88), but was recognized as such by our 
Lord, who (Mark xi. 17 = Matt. xxi. 13 = Luke xix. 46) quoted 
the words of Isa. ἵν]. 7 (LXX), 6 yap οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς 
κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. 

The original reference in this verse is to the capture of the city 
and the outer court of the Temple by the Romans, by whom, ac- 
cording to its writer, these were to be trodden down for 42 months. 
Thus the words were written while the Temple itself was still in 
the possession of the Zealots, and therefore before 70 a.D. The 
writer of xi. 1-2, who was a prophet of this fanatical party, 
assured his fellow Zealots that the Temple itself would not be 
destroyed. But é tts present context there is a transformation of 
the original sense. Since the Temple, altar, and the worshippers 
in the Temple represent to our Seer the Christian community 
of the faithful (see note zz Zoc.), the outer court and the city 
symbolize those who are given over for 34 years to the domina- 
tion of the Antichrist, irrespective of their race, whether Jew or 
Gentile. But probably only the former are here in the 
foreground. 

ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν kal μὴ αὐτὴν petpyons. These words make it 
very clear that μετρεῖν here means to preserve, and that the non- 
measuring of the outer court is equivalent to its rejection. The 
Temple and the outer court are to experience exactly opposite 
fortunes. 

ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν Kal... πατήσουσιν. This construction 
is regarded by many scholars as the same as that in 3. But the 
constructions are quite dissimilar. The latter forms one idea and 
the tenses are the same; but in the former the ἐδόθη is to be taken 
literally. The outer court and the city “Πᾶνα been given over 
(in the counsels of God) to the Gentiles, and they shall,” etc. 
For the idiomatic uses of διδόναι to which the present instance 
does not belong, see 3, note. It is not here implied that 
Jerusalem will be destroyed. The following clause defines the 
degree of devastation and the duration of it. 


1 One such inscription is still extant, discovered in 1871 by Clermont- 
Ganneau. See Ancyc. Bid. iv. 4945; Hastings’ D.B. iv. 713; Jewish 
Encyc. xii. 85. 


XI. 2.] FATE OF THE UNBELIEVERS 279 


τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν. This phrase could not be used of the 
actual Jerusalem by our Seer. It stood in the oracle he 
borrowed, and he left it there unchanged, as we find it frequently 
the case in this and other apocalypses in the case of borrowed 
material. This phrase is only used by our Seer of the new 
Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem, as in xxi. 2: cf. xxi. Io, 
Xxil. 19. His true attitude to the actual city, Jerusalem, is revealed 
in the clause he adds in xi. 8, ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα 
καὶ Αἴγυπτος κτλ. The phrase itself is a familiar one in Jewish 
prophecy and Apocalyptic: cf. Isa. xivaii. 2, ls ΤΌ δη. ΙΧ. 24, 
WIP WY; the prayer of Azariah in Dan. (LXX and Theod.) 


11]. 28; Neh: xi. 1, 18; Pss. Sol. viii. 4, πόλει ἁγιάσματος. The 
heavenly Jerusalem, which was to be the abode of Christ and the 
martyrs for 1000 years, is called τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημένην in Our 
text, xx. 9, in contrast to the earthly Jerusalem, which our 
author designates as Σόδομα καὶ Αἴγυπτος. 

τὴν πόλιν... πατήσουσιν. (The future as contrasted with 
ἐδόθη here implies that this event is still in the future.) Cf. 
Luke xxi. 24, Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν. In the 
Pss. Sol. this verb or a compound of it is used in relation to the 
Temple, vii. 2, μὴ πατησάτω ὃ ποῦς αὐτῶν κληρονομίαν ἁγιάσματος 
σου, li. 2 (κατεπάτουν), 20: and in relation to Jerusalem in xvii. 25. 
In all these passages from the Pss. Sol. profanation but not 
destruction is implied as in our text. But the expression is not 
infrequent in the O.T. and Apocrypha. Cf. Zech. xii. 3, 
θήσομαι τὴν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ λίθον καταπατούμενον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν : 
158. Ixiii. 18; Dan. wilt.) τὸ, 12; Rss Ixxizy a; τ Mace. iil, 45; 
τὸ ἅ ἁγίασμα καταπατούμενον, 51, iv. 60; 2 Mace. vill. 2. 

μῆνας τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δύο. This period is derived from 
Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7, where, however, it is described as “ἃ time 
and times and half a time,” 2.6. 34 times or years, and defines the 
duration of the reign of the Antichrist. It is noteworthy that 
this idea appears under three forms in our text: 1. as here and 
in xiii, 5. 2. Xi. 3, ΧΙ. 6, ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα: 
cf. Dan. xii. 11, where, however, the number is 1290, owing to the 
insertion of an intercalary month. 3. xii. 14, καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς 
καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ. This is a literal rendering of Dan. vii. 25, 
xii. 7. It is somewhat peculiar that two different forms occur in 
xl. 2, 3 to express the same idea, but this is no longer a difficulty 
when we assume the different provenance of xi. 1-2 and 
xi. 3-13. Similarly on independent grounds we assume that 
xii. 6 and xii. 14 are from different sources. This explains the 
double form of the phrase in these verses also. 

The origin of the 34 years has never been satisfactorily 
explained. Gunkel, Z. vel. Verst. d. NT. 79-82, traces it to a 
mythological source, and thinks that it meant originally the evil 


280 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XI. 2-3. 


time, #.¢. the winter months (cf. X.A.7.8 389); but this is 
fanciful. 

How strongly this period had impressed itself on the 
imagination of the early Christians may be inferred from the fact 
that the drought caused by Elijah in 1 Kings xviii. 1 sqq., which 
lasted 3 years, is said to have lasted 34in Luke iv. 25; Jas. v. 17. 
Thus it is transformed into a type of the great and final Woe that 
should befall the world. It is referred to as the καιροὶ ἐθνῶν in 
Luke xxi. 24 (which belongs to the interpolated Jewish Christian 
Apocalypse) and also in 4 Ezra v. 4. 

xi. 8-18. (See Introduction to chapter.) Concurrently with 
the advent of the Antichrist (in Rome?) the two Witnesses— 
Moses and Elijah, our Lord’s companions on the Mount of 
Transfiguration—appear in Jerusalem as preachers of repentance 
to the Jews. Towards the close of his reign the Antichrist 
suddenly comes to Jerusalem and slays the Witnesses, whereat 
his followers rejoice. After three days the spirit of life enters 
into the two Witnesses and they ascend into heaven, while an 
earthquake destroys part of Jerusalem. Under the influence of 
fear the Jews are converted to Christianity. 

8. καὶ δώσω τοῖς δυσὶν μάρτυσίν μου, Kal προφητεύσουσιν 
ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα περιβεβλημένους σάκκους. 

The construction καὶ δώσω... καὶ προφητεύσουσιν is Hebraic. 

3NB. . . ἸΠΝῚ Ξε “I will commission (or give permission to) 
my two witnesses to prophesy.” Some scholars think that it 
occurs also in xi. 2, ἐδόθη. . . καὶ πατήσουσιν : but this seems 
wrong, for we should then require δοθήσεται... καὶ πατή- 
σουσιν. Besides ἐδόθη is used in a literal sense in xi. 2, whereas 
δώσω in xi. 3 is used in an idiomatic sense. Hence this is the 
only instance of this idiom in the Apocalypse which uses three 
different constructions of διδόναι in this sense. 1. διδόναι, c. 
inf.=“to permit”: cf. ii, 7, ii 21 (ὃ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι), 
Vi. 4, Vil. 2, xiii. 7, 15, xvi. 8. This is the normal construction in 
this sense in our book. It is noteworthy that in xiii. 15 we find 
this idiomatic sense and the literal close together, ἐδόθη αὐτῇ 
dodvaz. This idiom is Hebraic: cf. Esth. ix. 13, ... wna. 
τήν. It is found once in John v. 26. 2. διδόναι, c. ἵνα and 
subjunctive: cf. ix. 5, xix. 8. 3. ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ποιῆσαι, 
xiii. 5. This is found twice in John i. 12, v. 27. It is alsoa 
well-known Hebrew idiom, 2.6. δ nw ἘΣ nam), The speaker is 
either God or Christ. 

tots δυσὶν μάρτυσιν. The presence of the article shows that 
the writer is dealing with two well-known figures, or that the 
present section is fragmentary, and that the article refers to a 
portion of it now lost. 


ΧΙ. 8.] THE TWO WITNESSES 281 


The origin and identification of the two Witnesses are prob- 
lems of great difficulty. Here the apocalyptic tradition does 
not give us the help we should expect; for the apparent mean- 
ing of xi. 5-6 and apocalyptic tradition are here at variance. 
1. The latter, which Bousset holds is really the older, identifies 
the two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah. The oldest Christian 
attestation of this view belongs to the 2nd cent. a.p. Cf. Tert. 
De Anima, 50, ‘‘ Translatus est Henoch et Elias, nec mors eorum 
reperta est, dilata scilicet. Ceterum morituri reservantur ut Anti- 
christum sanguine suo exstinguant.” Ps. Johannine Apoc. 8; Ps. 
Cyprian, De Montibus Sina et Sion, 5, and other authorities, for 
which see Bousset, Zhe Antichrist Legend, xiv. To these we 
may add the remarkable fact that in 1 Enoch xc. 31, if the 
text is correct, it is said that Enoch and Elijah would return 
before the judgment. 

2. The text of xi. 5-6 apparently identifies the two Witnesses 
with Moses and Elijah. The Witnesses are empowered to turn 
the water into blood and to smite the earth with every plague, 
xi. 6. These words point to the first Egyptian plague, Ex. 
vil. 14 sqq., and the rest that were inflicted by Moses on the 
Egyptians. But the rest of the text points just as clearly to 
Elijah. For the Witnesses have power to consume with fire (cf. 
2 Kings 1. 10 sqq.; Sir. xlvili. 3), and to close the heaven so that 
there should be no rain upon the earth, 1 Kings xvii. 1 sqq. ; Sir. 
xlvili. 1-3 ; Luke iv. 25; Jas. v.17. We are here undoubtedly 
reminded of Elijah. Moreover, their assumption into heaven is 
in harmony with 2 Kings ii. 11 and the tradition in regard to 
Moses embodied in the Assumption of Moses. In the next place 
their return before the end of the world was expected amongst the 
Christians and the return of Elijah among the Jews. The belief 
in the return of Moses would naturally arise from Deut. xviii. 18, 
cf. John vi. 14, vii. 40, and in that of Elijah from Mal. iv. 5: cf. 
Sir. xlviii, ro; Mark ix. 11; Matt. xi. 14; Eduj. viii. 7: see Jez. 
Encyc. v. 126. Possibly both expectations may be combined in 
John i. 21. Again the account of the Transfiguration (Mark ix 
1 sqq. and parallels), in which Moses and Elias appear with 
Christ, taken with the preceding evidence, may also point to the 
existence of an expectation of their return. And a reference 
to this expectation is actually found in Debar. R. x. 1, where, 
according to Jochanan ben Zakkai (1st cent. a.p.), God said to 
Moses, “If I send the prophet Elijah, ye must both come 
together”; see Volz, 193. 

The duty assigned to Moses and Elijah here is to spread 
repentance. This idea is found in Pirke El. xliii., xlvii., in 
regard to Elijah, though generally in Judaism his duties are 
differently described. It is remarkable that in later Judaism it 


282 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΞΙ. 3-4. 


is said in regard to Elijah that his Messianic activity would begin 
three days before the coming of the Messiah (Elijahu Rabba, 
25 sqq.). The number three here is significant in regard to our 
text. 

We may, therefore, conclude with some confidence that the 
author of the Jewish fragment, xi. 3-13, meant Moses and Elijah 
by the two Witnesses.} 

But, though Moses and Elijah were designed by the phrase 
“the two witnesses” in the original document, there is much 
doubt as to the denotation of this phrase in its present context. 
Many allegorical interpretations have been given of it, but not 
one of them is satisfactory when taken in connection with the 
work of the witness in xi. 5-6. Apparently, therefore, we are to 
conclude that the phrase retains its original significance, as we 
shall see more clearly presently. In any case the question is of 
very small moment; for throughout the rest of the Apocalypse 
our Seer’s thoughts and visions are concerned with Rome and 
not with Jerusalem, as they are in this fragmentary section, 
xi, 1-13. For the moment the steady progressive current of our 
author’s thought has been checked, and he has here turned aside 
into a backwater, but with xi. 14 we return again into the main 
current. 

χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. See note on 2. 

περιβεβλημένους σάκκους. An uncorrected slip of our author. 
The raiment typifies the sombre nature of their message. 

4. οὗτοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο ἐλαῖαι καὶ at δύο λυχνίαι at ἐνώπιον 
τοῦ κυρίου τῆς γῆς ἑστῶτες. This verse is based on Zech. iv. 
2, 3, 14, but the writer departs widely from both the text and the 
ideas. Thus in Zechariah there is one candlestick with its seven 
lamps which are the eyes of the Lord running to and fro through 
the whole earth, iv. 2, 10, and on either side of this candlestick 
are the two olive trees, which are Joshua and Zerubbabel, 
iv. 3, 12, 14. But the one candlestick is changed into two in 
our text, and the two candlesticks and the two olive trees are 
treated as synonymous ; for the two Witnesses are said to be the 
two candlesticks, and the two olive trees which stand before the 
Lord, #.e. in Zechariah’s prophecy. Several links in the develop- 
ment of thought between our text and Zechariah may be lost, 
which might have served to explain the wide divergence between 

1 Moffatt suggests that the Zoroastrian expectation of the two apostles, 
Hfishédar and Hfishédarmah, after the temporary triumph of the evil spirit, 
may have been fused into the Jewish expectation of Enoch and Elijah. But 
the beliefs are not analogous. Not two but three reformers were expected : 
the above two and Saoshyant ; and these are not contemporary, but appear 
in successive millenniums. None of them is slain by the power of evil, but the 
second slays the serpent, and the third slays Ahriman himself. See 5.3.2. 
xxiii. 195; V. lii. 233-235, xxiv. 15, 99. 


ΧΙ. 4.] THE TWO WITNESSES 283 


them. But more probably we have here a bold and independent 
interpretation of these symbols. The two olive trees are not, as 
Zechariah thought, Joshua and Zerubbabel, but really the two 
Witnesses, Moses and Elijah, who are also candlesticks, in so far 
as they are dearers of the divine light of God in the Law and in 
Prophecy. The idea that the Law is a divine light was familiar 
to pre-Christian Judaism, cf. Prov. vi. 23: ‘‘ The law is light” ; 
Test. Lev. xiv. 4, τὸ φῶς Tod νόμου τὸ δοθὲν εἰς φωτισμὸν παντὸς 
ἀνθρώπου: Wisd. xvill. 4, τὸ ἄφθαρτον νόμου φῶς. Moreover, 
that an apocalyptic writer should assign a like value to prophecy 
is only to be expected. The O.T. was commonly described as 
“the Law and the Prophets” (Luke xvi. 16; Matt. vii. 12), 
“Moses and the Prophets” (Luke xvi. 29, 31, xxiv. 27), “the 
Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts xxviii. 23). As Moses 
could represent the Law, so Elijah could represent the Prophets. 

Thus we have not one candlestick but two, not one witness 
to God but two. 

Hence, if xi. 4 belongs to the original document, the doubling 
of the Witnesses may be due to the reinterpretation of Zech. iv. 14 ; 
for in Judaism alike before and immediately after the Christian era 
only one forerunner appears to have been expected, whether 
Elijah or Moses (see note on 2) or Jeremiah (Matt. xvi. 14). 
This reinterpretation of the olive trees might have led to a rein- 
terpretation of the candlestick and the transformation of the one 
candlestick into two and also of the ideas underlying the candle- 
stick. There is no reason to suppose that the writer of xi. 4 
drew on any tradition independent of Zech. He borrows the 
technical terms directly from the Hebrew text of Zech. (see next 
note). His interpretation of the olive trees is natural, and that 
of the candlesticks intelligible when taken in connection with the 
interpretation of the former and their new context. If the 
origins of the two witnesses are to be sought ultimately in non- 
Semitic religions, no such origins have yet been discovered, and, 
even if such non-Semitic originals ever existed, the writer of xi. 4 
was unacquainted with them. 

The return of Moses and Elijah is to be interpreted in the 
first instance literally and in the next symbolically, as represent- 


1 Gunkel (Verstindnis, 60) thinks that an older tradition lies behind 
xi. 3-13, and that, since the Beast is said to wage war with the two Witnesses, 
the latter were originally heavenly warriors. So also Bousset, 321. But the 
same reasoning would prove that every member of the Church was a heavenly 
warrior in xii. 17. These anthropological features recall, he holds, the hope- 
less struggle of the Babylonian Anu and Nudimmut against Tiamat till Marduk 
intervened and overcame Tiamat. But this suggestion is purely hypothetical. 
The attempt to establish a connection between Parsism and our text is far- 
fetched and nugatory. See Boklen, Verwandschaft, 100 544. ; Clemen, 
Lrklarung des N.T. 109. 


284 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XxI. 4-6. 


ing Law and Prophecy. While xi. 5-6 point to their literal 
return, xi. 4 attaches a new symbolical meaning to these two 
great figures in giving a new interpretation to O.T. symbols. 

ai ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου τῆς γῆς ἑστῶτες. Here the LXX of Zech. 
iv. 14 has παρεστήκασιν κυρίῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς. Hence our text is 
independent of the LXX, αἱ ἐνώπιον... ἑστῶτες. The inser- 
tion of a preposition with its case between the art. and participle 
is found occasionally in the Apocalypse, as in xi. 16, xii. 12, 
xlii. 6, 12, xiv. 13, XVlii. 17, Xix. I. κυρίου τῆς γῆς is found only 
here in the Apocalypse. 

There is the possibility that xi. 4is due to ourauthor. Three 
things point in this direction. 

First, there is the free reinterpretation of Scripture, which is 
characteristic of him ; secondly, the abnormal construction ai. . . 
ἑστῶτες, which is likewise characteristic; and thirdly, his direct 
translation from the Hebrew. Contrast xi. 6. 

δ. καὶ εἴ τις αὐτοὺς θέλει ἀδικῆσαι, πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ 
στόματος αὐτῶν καὶ κατεσθίει τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν" [καὶ εἴ τις θελήσῃ 
αὐτοὺς ἀδικῆσαι, οὕτως δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποκτανθῆναι]. 

The use of θέλω here is peculiar. It is generally rendered 
‘to desire.” But this rendering gives an unsatisfactory meaning. 
Are we to suppose that whoever cherished even a wish to injure 
the witnesses was to be destroyed by fire? This difficulty could 
be escaped by taking θέλω as a mere auxiliary. Thus we should 
have, “If any man will hurt them.” The fact that θέλω means 
“to desire” in 6 does not make this impossible. 

The verse is based on 2 Kings i. 10, 12, but with a modifica- 
tion of the details, and probably on Jer. v. 14, δέδωκα τοὺς λόγους 
μου els τὸ στόμα σου πῦρ Kal τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον ξύλα, Kal καταφάγεται 
αὐτούς. In this passage the language is figurative, but not so in 
our text. In Sir. xlviii. 3 we have a combination of Elijah’s 
twofold powers of destruction—év λόγῳ κυρίου ἀνέσχεν οὐρανόν, 
κατήγαγεν οὕτως τρὶς 7op—which appear in xi. 5 and xi. 6* of our 
text. In Sir. xlviii. 1 the meaning is mainly figurative, ἀνέστη 
Ἠλίας προφήτης ὡς πῦρ, καὶ ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ ὡς λαμπὰς ἐκαίετο. 

εἰ θελήσῃ. On the use of εἰ with the subj. see Blass, Gram. 
216. 

καὶ εἴ τις θελήσῃ... ἀποκτανθῆναι, seems to be the weak 
gloss of a scribe based on the preceding clause and on xiii. ro. 
It adds nothing to the sense. 

δεῖ αὐτὸν. . . ἀποκτανθῆναι. Cf. xiii. ro. 

6. οὗτοι ἔχουσιν τὴν ἐξουσίαν κλεῖσαι τὸν οὐρανόν, ἵνα μὴ 
ὑετὸς βρέχῃ τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς προφητείας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν 
ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων στρέφειν αὐτὰ εἰς αἷμα καὶ πατάξαι τὴν γῆν ἐν 
πάσῃ πληγῇ ὁσάκις ἐὰν θελήσωσιν. 

The first clause refers to Elijah, 1 Kings xvii. 1. Cf. Sir. 


ΧΙ. 6-7.]| THE ANTICHRIST IN JERUSALEM 285 


xlvili. 3; Luke iv. 25; Jas.v.17. The phrase ὑετὸς βρέχῃ is not 
only unusual, as Swete observes, but extraordinary. For κλεῖσαι τ. 
ovp., cf. Luke iv. 25 (ἐκλείσθη 6 οὐρανός), where alone the phrase 
is found in this connection. For στρέφειν. . . εἰς αἷμα in this 
phrase the LXX gives μεταβάλλειν, Ex. vii. 17. 

As regards the first clause it is noteworthy that according to 
Josephus (3.2. v. 9. 4) the fountain of Siloam and other springs 
outside the city almost wholly dried up so as to create a famine 
of water before the coming of Titus against Jerusalem, but that 
after Titus’ coming these began to flow in such abundance that 
they sufficed not only for the Romans and their cattle, but also 
for watering their gardens. Josephus adds that this same sign 
occurred in the days of Zedekiah, when the King of Babylon 
warred against the Jews, and took the city and burnt the Temple. 
This fact may have suggested the above reference. 

ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν. Here only in this order in the Apocalypse. 

πατάξαι τὴν γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ. This phrase primarily refers 
to the Egyptian plagues, Ex. vii. 17, xi. 10, but it recalls directly 
the LXX of 1 Sam. iv. 8, οὗτοι οἱ θεοὶ οἱ πατάξαντες τὴν Αἴγυπτον 
ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ (737538 ον « (EPS). 

7. καὶ ὅταν τελέσωσιν τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτῶν, τὸ θηρίον τὸ 
ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου ποιήσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν πόλεμον καὶ νικήσει 
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀποκτενεῖ αὐτούς. 

In this section, xi. 1-13, where the diction and the meanings 
attached to so many of the phrases brand it as derived for the most 
part from independent sources (see Introd. p. 270 sq.), this verse 
stands out in strong relief as exhibiting the diction and thought 
of our Seer. Thus τελεῖν (x. 7, xv. 1, 8, xvii. 17, xx. 3, 5, 7); 
μαρτυρία (1. 2, 9, Vi. 9, xii. 11, etc.), τὸ θήριον τὸ ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς 
ἀβύσσου (xiii. I, Xvil. 8), ποιήσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν πόλεμον καὶ νικήσει 
αὐτούς (almost verbally in xiii. 7), ἀποκτείνειν (12 times). What- 
ever, therefore, stood in its place in the original document, the 
verse in its present form is the work of our author. 

And yet in the original form of this verse there must have been 
some reference to the Antichrist ; for to him is due the death of 
the Witnesses referred to in what follows. If, as we infer on 
other grounds, the scene of the Antichrist’s appearance here is 
Jerusalem and the time of the composition of this fragment is 
anterior to 66 a.D., then the Antichrist was in all probability 
originally the /ezwzsh Antichrist described somewhat as in 2 Thess. 
11., and had therefore mainly a re/igtous significance ; but if this 
section was written during the siege, 67-69, the Antichrist may 
already have been identified with the Roman Empire, though not, 
of course, with Nero. In this latter case the conception would 
have had a folitical reference. So much for the conception of 
the Antichrist in the original document. As to its meaning in 


286 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XI 7-8. 


its present context, it cannot, of course, be other than that in 
xiii, 1, xvii. 8, in so far as our author assigned it a definite 
meaning at all. The Beast from the abyss, therefore, 7.5. Nero 
redivivus or the demonic Antichrist, appears here proleptically. 
See App. to xvii., vol. ii., p. 76. 

But there is another feature which should be observed in this 
conception. Here for the first and last time in our author is 
the traditional connection of the Antichrist with Jerusalem set 
forth. In the rest of the Apocalypse this traditional connection 
is broken, and Rome takes the place of Jerusalem either as the 
seat of the Antichrist’s empire or the object of his attack. This 
marks a revolution in the expectation of the Antichrist, but one 
which, independently of the immediate historical situation of 
95 A.D., had already in part taken place and left its mark in 
the reinterpretation of the Fourth Kingdom in Dan. vii. as 
that of Rome and no longer as that of the Greek Empire. 
If τὸ θηρίον ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου stood in the original document, 
representing a pseudo-Messiah and non-political Antichrist, as in 
2 Thess. 11.) or else the Roman Empire, in its present context it 
can only represent Nero vedivivus as in chaps. xiii. and xvii. 
Since the Antichrist is first introduced as θηρίον (without the art.) 
in xill, 1, he appears here proleptically. But, as we have shown 
(see p. 269), the whole section xi. 1-13 is in its present context 
proleptic. 

ποιήσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν πόλεμον Kal νικήσει αὐτούς. These clauses 
represent an independent rendering of Dan. vii. 21, DY INP Nay 
ind mp" perp. Here Theod. has ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων 
καὶ ἴσχυσεν πρὸς αὐτούς. The LXX is very divergent in vii. 21, 
but in vii. 8 its rendering of the last clause (lost in Mass. and 
Theod.) is ἐποίει πόλεμον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους. Hence, since Apoc. 
xiii. 7° (-Ξ- ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων Kal νικῆσαι αὐτούς) is, 
and xi. 7° is not, an exact equivalent of the Aramaic of Dan. vii. 
21, xiil. 7* cannot be derived from xi. 7°, but the converse is 
possible. And not only possible but highly probable, since νικᾶν, 
which does not occur in the LXX or Theod. as a rendering of 

>’, is a favourite word with our author. 

We conclude, therefore, that ποιήσει. . . καὶ νικήσει αὐτούς 
is from his hand. 

8. kat τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς πλατείας τῆς πόλεως τῆς 
μεγάλης, ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα καὶ Αἴγυπτος, ὅπου καὶ 
ὃ κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη. 

The use of τὸ πτῶμα here and in οὗ as a collective is 
difficult, especially as in 9° the plural is used. In xi. 5 we have 
στόμα used collectively, and the collective use of πρόσωπον, 
κεφαλή, καρδία is well known in the N.T. See Blass, Gram. 83. 


ΧΙ. 8.] THE ANTICHRIST IN JERUSALEM 287 


Possibly the writer may have been influenced by the Hebrew or 
Aramaic usage by which nay is used collectively = “ corpses.” 

τῆς πόλεως τῆς μεγάλης. This phrase is used of Rome 
throughout the rest of the book: cf. xvi. 19, xvil. 18, xviii. 10, 
16, 18, 19, 21, and under the figure of Βαβυλὼν 7 μεγάλη, xiv. 8, 
Xvi. 19, XVli. 5, xvili. 2. The latter use is decidedly that of our 
author; the former belongs to the original document, and is left 
there by our author. That Jerusalem, however, could be so 
designated we see from Or. Sib. v. 154, 226, 413; Joseph. δ. 
Apion. i. 197, 209, ᾿Ιουδαῖοι πόλιν οἰκοῦντες ὀχυρωτάτην πασῶν: 
Appian, «5.77. 50, μεγίστη πόλις Ἰεροσόλυμα: Pliny, Hist. Wat. 
ν 14. 70. 

Spitta and Wellhausen take the city to be Rome; but what- 
ever evidence there is is against this identification. As the 
text stands, “the great city” can only be Jerusalem. Also in 
the original document it designated Jerusalem and not Rome. 
1. For there is every connection between Moses and Elijah and 
Jerusalem, but none between them and Rome. 2. According to 
apocalyptic tradition the Witnesses appear always in Jerusalem. 
3. xi. 13 refers to Jerusalem; for the numbers there given suit 
Jerusalem but not Rome (see note 7” /oc.). 4. The phrase oi 
κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (ΧΙ. 10) appears to denote the inhabitants 
of a single country, 2.6. the Palestinians, not the inhabitants of the 
whole world. 5. The original document, xi. 3-13, which I take 
to be of Jewish origin, naturally dealt tenderly with the Jews, 
for these are represented as repenting: whereas the inhabitants 
of Rome are represented as refusing to repent, ix. 21, xvi. 9. 
From the repentance of Jerusalem it follows that the final judg- 
ment is directed not against the Jews, but against the heathen 
world. In this respect this fragment suits our author. In the 
original document, xi. 1-2, the temple is spared ; in xi. 3-13 the 
bulk of the Jews are converted. 

ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς. . . ἐσταυρώθη. I take these two 
clauses to be an addition of our author. ὅπου καὶ... éorav- 
ρώθη is generally admitted by critics to be a later addition. It 
is quite in the style of our author: cf. xx. 10, ὅπου καί, and ii. 13, 
ὅπου ὁ Σατανᾶς κατοικεῖ (observe the order in contrast with 
that in xii. 6, 14). ἥτις καλεῖται... Αἴγυπτος is also in the 
style of our author. First of all ἥτις, which is properly the 
relative of indefinite reference, seems here=7%, the relative of 
definite reference, as in 1. 12, xii. 13, xvii. 12, xix. 2—a usage 
which is rather frequent in the Lucan writings of the N.T. 
but which is not (?) found in Matthew, Mark, the Johannine 
writings, or the Pauline Epistles. Next, ἥτις καλεῖται in the form 
ἡ (6) καλουμένη (-os) is found in i. 9, xii. 9, xvi. 16. 

Σόδομα Kat Αἴγυπτος. Cf. Isa. i. 9, 10, where Judah is com- 


288 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XI. 8-9. 


pared to Sodom, ὡς Σόδομα ἂν ἐγενήθημεν (quoted in Rom. ix. 29), 
ill. 9; Ezek. xvi. 46, 48, 49. 

Sodom and Egypt are alluded to in Wisd. xix. 14, 15, as 
types of wickedness. 

Jerusalem was, therefore, the city meant both by the original 
writer and also by our author. And yet the latter cannot have 
taken the. entire section literally, for Jerusalem no longer 
existed in his time. It is impossible to reinterpret from the 
standpoint of the author the various details of this section, which 
originally set forth the expectations of an earlier time. 

9. καὶ βλέπουσιν ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν kal γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν 
τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἥμισυ, καὶ τὰ πτώματα αὐτῶν οὐκ 
ἀφίουσιν τεθῆναι εἰς μνῆμα. βλέπειν belongs to the diction of 
our author: cf. especially 1. 11, 12, iii. 18, v. 3, xvi. 15, xvii. 8, 
etc. In xi. 11, 12 its place is taken by θεωρεῖν, where the sense 
is exactly the same. But θεωρεῖν does not occur elsewhere in the 
Apocalypse. Again, the use of ἐκ τῶν hadv=‘“‘some of the 
peoples,” is a familiar idiom in our text, but it occurs elsewhere 
in the N.T. and is not therefore distinctive: see note on ii. ro. 
Next, the enumeration λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν κτλ. is characteristic of 
our author, yet it may have been a current phrase: cf. 4 Ezra ᾿ 
iii. 7, Where it occurs. See note on v. 9. 

Finally, the position of the verb (βλέπουσιν) at the beginning 
of the sentence is suggestive of the style of our author. The 
evidence of the diction, therefore, though not decisive in favour 
of regarding βλέπουσιν... πτῶμα αὐτῶν as an addition of our 
author, supports the idea that the verse is his addition, or has 
undergone revision at his hands. If it is an addition, then the 
original was written before 66 (cf. xi. 13), and xi. 8-9 ran as 
follows : καὶ τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς πλατείας τῆς πόλεως τῆς μεγάλης 
ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἥμισυ, καὶ τὰ πτώματα κτλ., and ἀφίουσιν 
would be the plural of indefinite statement (cf. x. 11) or an 
Aramaism. The object of the addition would be to bring out 
the contrast of the Jews (cf. xi. 13) and the hostile Gentiles, and 
to declare that for the former an opportunity of repentance was 
reserved (as in the Pauline Epp.), but not for the latter (xvi. 9). 
On the other hand, if the enumeration λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν κτλ. 
stood in the original document, two interpretations of it in that 
document are possible. 1. It could refer to members of different 
nations present in Jerusalem—observe the partitive use of ἐκ, 
“some of.” In this case ἀφίουσιν would be the plural of 
indefinite statement (cf. x. 11) or an Aramaism, and xi. 3-13 
was written before 70 A.D. ; for the city is still standing (xi. 13), 
but there is no terminus a quo discoverable. 2. It could refer 
to the beleaguering hosts of Rome—the subject of ἀφίουσιν. 

When we turn from the meaning of this clause in its original 


XI. 9-10.) THE ANTICHRIST IN JERUSALEM 289 


context to its present, I can offer none better than that suggested 
in the preceding paragraph. 

ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἥμισυι These three and a half days 
correspond to the three and a half years of their prophetical 
activity.? 

ἀφίουσιν. This verb c. inf. (cf. John xi. 44, xviii. 8) is not 
found elsewhere in the Apocalypse. It occurs with different 
meanings in il. 4, 20. 

Burial was refused to the Witnesses in order to put them to 
greater shame: cf. Ps. Ixxix. 3; 1 Kings xiii. 22; Pss. Sol. ii. 31; 
and Joseph. B./. iv. 5. 2, in reference to the high priests Ananus 
and Jesus. 

10. kat οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς χαίρουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ 
εὐφραίνονται, καὶ δῶρα πέμψουσιν ἀλλήλοις, ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ δύο προφῆται 
ἐβασάνισαν τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 

The phrase (οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Or τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς) is the equivalent of the Hebrew post "2. See xiii. 
Introd. § 4. In the O.T. this phrase can denote either (1) ‘the 
inhabitants of the land,” 2.2. Palestine, Hos. iv. 1; Joel i. 2, 14, 
il. 1; Jer. vi. 12, x. 18, etc. ; or (2) ‘the inhabitants of the earth,” 
Isa: Xxiv. 6, XXvi. 21, etc.; 1 Enoch xxxvii. 2, 5, xl. 6, 7, xlvili. 5, 
εἴς. 

Both these O.T. meanings appear in our text. The latter is 
found in 111. 10, vi. Io, vill. 13, xili. ὃ, 14, xvii. 8, and the former 
at all events originally in the verse we are now dealing with. 
For, as Bousset zm /oc. has rightly urged, it is hard to see what 
the inhabitants of the earth would have to do with the two 
prophets who appear in Jerusalem in the struggle against the 
Beast from the abyss. And besides, when the Witnesses fell, the 
inhabitants could within three and a half days hear of their death, 
rejoice and send presents to each other; but this could not be 
possible if the phrase were taken to mean the inhabitants of the 
earth. 

In the next place, the phrase can either have a good ethical 
meaning, as in 1 Enoch xxxvii. 2, 5, xl. 6, 7, xlvili. 5, or a 
neutral meaning as in our text in xiv. 6; where, however, in 
most MSS, though not in A, it has the form τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς; or it can have a bad ethical meaning, as in 1 Enoch 
liv. 9, lv. 1, Ix. 5, Ixv. 6, 12, Ixvi. 1, Ixvii’ 8, and in our 
text in ili. 10, Vi. 10, vill. 13, xi. 10 (21). xiii. 8, 14, xvii. 8. 
Thus in the original document the phrase meant the in- 
habitants of Palestine, and there is no convincing ground for 

1 Gunkel thinks (Zum Verstindnds, 80) that the three days go back to 
the three winter months during which the sun-god is hidden or dies. But it 


is three and a half days that we have to explain, and apart from this difficulty 
the speculation is wholly wanting in probability. 


VOL. I.—19 


290 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XI. 10-12. 


assigning a different meaning to it in its new context. The city 
which is mentioned in xi. 8, 13 is clearly Jerusalem, and, lest 
there should be any mistake on this head our author adds 
the damning clause in xi. 8. The κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς are 
Palestinians—likewise Jews; and though they rejoice over the 
martyrdom of the Witnesses, they are not painted in such dark 
colours as the inhabitants of Jerusalem, xi. 8°. 

δῶρα πέμψουσιν κτλ. These words recall Esth. ix. 19, 22, 
ἐξαποστέλλοντας μερίδα. . . τοῖς φίλοις καὶ τοῖς πτωχοῖς : Neh. 
Vill. τὸ, 12. 

11. καὶ μετὰ τὰς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ ἥμισυ πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τοῦ 
θεοῦ εἰσῆλθεν ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν, καὶ φόβος 
μέγας ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τοὺς θεωροῦντας αὐτούς. 

The τάς refers back to xi. 9. πνεῦμα ζωῆς is the DYN ΠῚ, 


Gen. vi. 17, vii. 15, 22, though the phrase is there used of the 
lower animal creation and not of man. But it has become for the 
writer the same as the phrase in Gen. 11. 7, DYN Now. εἰσῆλθεν 
ἐν αὐτοῖς. Cf. Luke ix. 46, εἰσῆλθεν διαλογισμὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς, and see 
Blass, Gram, 130. These words and the following look like an 
independent translation of Ezek. xxxvii. τὸ... M7 O72 Niamh 
pmbin-by sty». Here the LXX has εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτοὺς τὸ 
πνεῦμα (A, πνεῦμα ζωῆς)... Kal ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῶν. 
Since in xxxviil. 5 the LXX has πνεῦμα ζωῆς, which is accepted 
by Cornill and others as representing the original over against 
the Mass. ὉΠ ΠῚ mn, the writer may have had this reading 
before him. Cf. also 2 Kings xiii. 21, ἔζησεν καὶ ἀνέστη ἐπὶ τοὺς 
πόδας αὐτοῦ. 

φόβος... ἐπέπεσεν émi,c. acc. This is a Lucan phrase: cf. 
Luke i. 12; Acts xix. 17; but it is also an O.T. one: cf. Ex. xv. 
16\3,Ps. liv. (ly.) 53 

τοῦς θεωροῦντας. This verb occurs twice in this verse and not 
elsewhere in the Apoc. It is a Johannine word (over 20 times). 
The words which our author uses in this sense are δρᾶν (2), 
ὄψεσθαι (3), εἶδον (56), and βλέπειν (12). 

12. καὶ ἤκουσαν φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν 
αὐτοῖς ᾿Ανάβατε ὧδε" καὶ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, 
καὶ ἐθεώρησαν αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτῶν. 

In defence of ἤκουσα, xii. 10 might be adduced, but the 
textual evidence is overwhelming in favour of ἤκουσαν. On the 
other hand, since the Seer constantly says ἤκουσα throughout 
the Book (24 times), it is more likely that ἤκουσαν would be 
changed into ἤκουσα than vice versa. The words of invitation are 
addressed not to the Seer but to the resuscitated Witnesses, and 
they are heard by their enemies, who also see their ascension 
into heaven. 


XI. 12-13.] ASCENSION OF THE WITNESSES 291 


ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ As Elijah (2 Kings ii. 11) and as Moses 
(according to a lost portion of the Ass. of Moses, referred to by 
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 15, and Origen, Zz /Josuam hom. ii. 1, 
Jellinek, Beth Ha-Midrash, i. 115-129, vi. 71-78) the Witnesses 
went up to heaven. 

But the tradition that Moses was removed from the sight of 
his followers by a cloud, while he was still talking with them, 
is given in Joseph. Ant. iv. 8. 48, προσομιλοῦντος ἔτι, νέφους 
αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν στάντος, ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγγος. See 
also James, Apocrypha anecdota, il. 3. 170-171. Our text pre- 
supposes the combination of both these traditions—the dis- 
appearance of Moses in a cloud and his ascension into heaven. 
Hence we explain the use of the art. before νεφέλῃ from the 
current tradition. In the passages above referred to in Clement 
Alex. and Origen and in the Apocalypse of Elias (ed. Steindorff, 
p- 164), a peculiar but quite intelligible account of the resuscita- 
tion of the two Witnesses will be found. There it is said that 
Moses was carried to heaven in the spirit, but that his body was 
left on the earth. We see here the influence of the Alexandrian 
doctrine of the resurrection. 

18. καὶ ἐν ἐκείνη τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐγένετο σεισμὸς μέγας, καὶ τὸ 
δέκατον τῆς πόλεως ἔπεσεν, καὶ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν τῷ σεισμῷ ὀνόματα 
ἀνθρώπων χιλιάδες ἑπτά, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο καὶ ἔδωκαν 
δόξαν τῷ θεῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 

With the earthquake here mentioned we might compare 
vi. 12 and Ezek. xxxviil. 19, 20, where there is the prediction of 
a great earthquake that is to precede the end. 

τῆς πόλεως. While this expression was used literally in the 
original document it could not be so understood by our author ; 
for only the ruins of the city remained in his time (see note 
on 8). If he attached a new and definite meaning to it, this 
meaning would be symbolical. The city would represent the 
Jewish people. 

ὀνόματα ἀνθρώπων = “persons.” See note on iii. 4. 

χιλιάδες Extd. This number suits the population of Jeru- 
salem, which according to the statement of the Ps.—Hecataeus 
in Josephus (¢. Apzon. i. 22), was about 120,000; but in no case 
could it suit Rome. 

ἔδωκαν δόξαν τῷ θεῷ. This phrase is here used of Jews, and 
means to glorify God by turning from their apostasy and re- 
penting. They had become servants of the Antichrist. In 
xiv. 7, ΧΡ]. 9, it is used of the Gentiles, who are exhorted to 
repent, or who refuse to repent and turn from idols to God. 
Repentance appears also to be the meaning of the phrase in 
Josh. vii. 19; Jer. xiii. 16. In iv. 9, xix. 7 of our text it means 
to glorify or praise God, and so perhaps in Luke xvii. 18; 


292 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN ([XI. 18-14. 


John ix. 24; Acts xii, 23; Rom. iv. 20. In the O.T. it is of 
frequent occurrence: cf. 1 Sam. vi. 5 ; Isa. xlii. 12; Ezra x. 11. 

In the original document, xi. 3-13, which was Jewish (for the 
preservation of the city is presupposed in opposition to Christ’s 
prophecy, Mark xiii. = Matt. xxiv. = Luke xxi.), this verse simply 
meant the repentance of the Jews and their return to the 
worship of God. But in its present context it could only mean, 
if it had a definite meaning for our author, the conversion of 
Israel to Christianity in the last days—an expectation that 
agrees with Rom. xi. 25, 26, according to which this conversion is 
to follow when the full number of the Gentiles has entered into 
Christ’s Kingdom. 

τῷ θεῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. This phrase recurs in xvi. 11, where it 
is used in reference to the heathen. Wellhausen (p. 16) thinks 
that it would be sheer nonsense to speak of converting Jews to 
the God of heaven. But, if the Jewish elders in Ezra v. 12 can 
speak of their fathers as having provoked ¢he God of heaven, it is 
fitting that Jews should be said to repent, ze. to be converted to 
the God of heaven. Neh. i. 4, 5 prays and fasts before the God 
of heaven. This expression, as Bousset (2.4. d. Judenthums, 306) 
points out, was probably derived in the first instance from foreign 
sources. It and kindred phrases are of very frequent occurrence 
in the later canonical and apocryphal books: cf. Ezra 1. 2, v. 11, 
12, Vi 9, 10, Vil. 12, 21, 233 Dan. 11: 28, 10; 375) 44 (See 
Bousset, of. ctt. 


XI. 14°-XIII. THE SEVENTH TRUMPET, i.e. THE 
THIRD TRUMPET AND THE THIRD WOE. 


XI. 14°-19. The proleptic digression in xi. 1-13, to which 
x. is an introduction, has come to a close, and our author returns 
to the steady and progressive development of the divine drama 
in the third Woe,! the casting down of Satan to the earth, xii. ; 
the manifestation of the Kingdom of the Antichrist in imperial 
Rome and the imperial cultus, xiii. ; the judgments on Rome, 
xiv.-xix. and on Satan, xx. 1-3; the 1000 years’ reign of the 
martyrs, xxi. 9-xxii. 2, 14-15, 17, xx. 4-6; the overthrow of the 
unbelieving hosts of Gog and Magog, xx. 7-10; the final judg- 
ment, xx. 11-15 ; the blessed consummation of the Kingdom of 
God, xxi. 5 44 οἷο 65 1-49"; xxii. 3-5. To these great themes 
the heavenly songs in xi. 15-18 are an introduction. The divine 
decree for all these happenings of the coming days has gone 
forth, and the heavenly hosts burst into song, as though they 
were already fulfilled in actuality as they are in essence. 


1 Spitta (p. 124) identifies the seventh Trumpet with xii.—xiii. 


ΧΙ. 14-15.] THE THIRD WOE 203 


Thus the heavenly voices declare that God has become King 
of the world, xi. 17—hence no longer Satan (xii.) or Antichrist 
(xiii.) ; that the time has come to destroy ‘‘those that destroy the 
earth,” xi. 18, ze. Rome, xiv. 6—-xix., Satan, Antichrist, and the 
False Prophet, Xx. 10; to judge the "dead, MPO 7 MX LEE Gs 
to recompense the saints, ΧΙ LS, 2:6. xiv. I-5, XX. 4—6, Xxi. 9-- 
ΧΧΙΪ. 2, xxli. 14, 15, 17; and to bring to its blessed consumma- 
tion the everlasting Kingdom of God, xi. 15, #.e. xxl. 1-4, xxii. 3-5. 

xi. 14-19 is undoubtedly from the hand of our author. 
Thus in 14 ἀπῆλθεν (- “15 past”) and ἔρχεται ταχύ are our 
author’s ; see note zz Joc. 

15. φωναὶ... λέγοντες : acharacteristic abnormality. βασι- 
λεύσει (and in xi. 17) used of God: cf. xix. 6; and of the saints, 
V. 10, Xx. 4, 6, xxii. 5. With tod κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ : 
cf. xii. 10. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων : cf. 1. 6, 18, iv. 9, το, etc. 
16. ἔπεσαν . . . Kal προσεκύνησαν : cf. iv. Io, v. 14, xix. 4 (also 
of the Elders). ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν : cf. vil. 11. 17. Κύριε 
ὃ θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ ὃ ὧν Kai 6 ἦν : see note 7 Joc. εἴληφας : οἵ. 
V. 7, Vill. 5. εἴληφας τὴν δύναμιν : οἵ. ἵν. 11, ν. 12. 18. ἦλθεν ἡ 
ὀργή σου: cf. vi. 17 for the same phrase, and xiv. 10, xvi. 19, 
XIX. 15. δοῦναι τὸν μισθόν : cf. xxii. 12. τοῖς δούλοις σου τοῖς 
προφήταις : οἵ. x. 7 (i. I, Xxil. 6). τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά cou: 
cf. xix. 5. τοῖς μικροῖς καὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις : cf. xill. 16, xix. 5, 18, 
XX. 12. τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν : cf. xix. 2. 19. ἀστραπαὶ καὶ 
φωναὶ κτλ. : cf. vill. 5, xvi. 18. Thus practically every clause shows 
the hand of our author. 

14, ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ δευτέρα ἀπῆλθεν᾽ ἰδοὺ ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ τρίτη ἔρχεται ταχύ. 
The second Woe is, as we have already seen, the same as the 
sixth Trumpet, that is, originally the second Trumpet. See pp. 
2 7SGG;5 (23%. 

ἀπῆλθεν = “is past,” is found only elsewhere in N.T. in ix. 12, 
xxi. 1, 4. This usage, which is classical, is distinctive of our 
author. More ordinary uses Of 1. OCEMr τῇ %)0, a. 1. xvi: 2; 
xvill. 14. In ἔρχεται ταχύ we have another phrase characteristic 
of our author: cf. il. 16, ili, 11, xxii. 7, 12, 20. 

15-18. In these verses, which are proleptic in their outlook, 
we have two great anthems of praise. The first (15°), consisting 
of a distich and sung most probably by the Cherubim or Living 
Creatures, celebrates the divine conquest of the world as though 
already achieved and the establishment of the Millennial 
Kingdom, xxi. 9-xxii. 2, xx. 4-6, and heralds the advent of the 
everlasting kingdom that is to follow on its close, xxi. 1-4, 
xxii. 3-5. The second anthem (17-18), consisting of twelve 
lines and sung by the Elders, first recognizes the establishment of 
God’s sovereignty in the Millennial Kingdom (17°¢) and the 
outbreak of Gog and Magog at its close, and then proclaims 


2904 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XI. 15. 


that the time has come for the final judgment, the recompense 
of the faithful, and the destruction of those that destroy the 
world (18). Here, except in the last clause, which appears to be 
displaced or interpolated, the chronological order of development 
is followed. 

It is noteworthy that in xix. 15-3 we have a corresponding 
anthem from the angelic hosts, at the close of which the Elders 
and the Cherubim simply respond with the words ᾿Αμήν, 
GAAnAovid, as they have already sung their anthems in this 
chapter (xi. 15-18); while in xix. 6°-8 there is given the loud 
paean of the glorified martyrs in heaven on the establishment of 
the Kingdom of God and the advent of the Millennial Kingdom. 
Further, it is to be noted that whereas xix. 1-8 refers to the 
epoch immediately preceding the Millennial Kingdom, the 
present passage refers to the chief eschatological events from the 
establishment of the Millennial Kingdom to that of the Kingdom 
that dureth for ever and ever. 

15. καὶ ὁ ἕβδομος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν καὶ ἐγένοντο φωναὶ 
μεγάλαι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, λέγοντες 


Ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 
καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, 
‘ , > 2A A 2% 

καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 


Whether the heaven or the earth is here the scene of the 
Seer’s vision is uncertain ; but the former is more probable, as he 
hears the thanksgivings of the angels. See note on iv. 1. 

φωναί. These voices may be those of the Living Creatures 
or Cherubim. Their praise precedes that of the Elders: cf. 
iv. 9. ἐγένετο. . . τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν κτλ. The heavenly voices 
celebrate the divine conquest of the world as if it were already 
achieved. The words are therefore proleptic, as are those of the 
thanksgiving of the 24 Elders in xi. 16-18. With the phrase 
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου cf. Matt. iv. 8. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Kai τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ is an O.T. expression: cf. Ps. il. 2, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου 
καὶ κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ. That this Psalm was early quoted as 
a Messianic Ps. appears from Acts iv. 26. See also xii. τὸ of 
our text. But the first book in which ὁ Χριστός means technically 
the Messianic King is 1 Enoch: cf. xlviii. 10, ‘They have 
denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed”; 1. 4. Subse- 
quently it appears in Pss. Sol. xvii. 36, xviii. 6, 8 (also in the 
inscription of this Ps.). Cf. Luke 11. rr. 

βασιλεύσε. The Kingdom begins with the Millennial 
Kingdom (xxi. g-xxii. 2, xx. 4-6), which after the final judgment 
passes over into the everlasting Kingdom of God (xxi. 1-4, 
xxii. 3-5). The Kingdom of God and Christ is one. In Eph. 
v. 5 we find τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, whereas in the 


XI. 15-18.] THE THIRD WOE 295 


earlier Epistle, 1 Cor. xv. 24-28, the Son resigns His mediatorial 
Kingdom to the Father, that God may be “‘all in all.” But later 
Christ, too, was conceived as “all in all,” Eph. i. 23; Col. 
iii. 11. The Kingdom is to be for everlasting: cf. Dan. ii. 44, 
Wil. 14, 27: Luke i. 33. 

16. καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι οἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ 
καθήμενοι ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους αὐτῶν ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ 
προσεκύνησαν τῶ θεῷ, λέγοντες. 


For the unusual order οἱ ἐνώπιον. . . καθήμενοι, see note 
on ΧΙ. 4. 
17. Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, 


ὃ ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν, 
ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην 
καὶ ἐβασίλευσας. 


On the witness of the Cherubim follows the thanksgiving of 
the Elders. On Κύριε 6 θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ see i. 8, iv. 8; and 
on ὃ dv καὶ ὁ ἦν see i. 4, 8, iv. 8. Here and also in xvi. 5 
ὁ ἐρχόμενος is omitted, because at this stage it is already fulfilled. 
On the combination of tenses in εἴληφας .. . καὶ ἐβασίλευσας 
cf. iii, 3, v. 7, Vili. 5. τὴν δύναμιν κτλ. The supreme and final 
authority over all things. ἐβασίλευσας τε “hast become king,” 
“begun thy reign”: cf. Ps. xciii. 1; 2 Sam. xv. 10, xvi. 8. Thus 
the power of Satan on earth (xii.) and the kingdom of his agent 
the Antichrist (xiii.) are overthrown. God’s reign being now 
established on earth, the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom 
(xxi. 9-xxil. 1-2, xx. 4-6) follows in due course. See noteon 15. 


18. καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν, 
καὶ ἦλθεν ἡἦ ὀργή σου, 
καὶ ὃ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι, 
ΟἿ A A A a , 
καὶ δοῦναι τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς δούλοις σου 
τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους 
καὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου, 
τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, 
καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν. 


καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν, ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου. .- . ὃ καιρὸς τῶν 
νεκρῶν κριθῆναι. . . καὶ δοῦναι τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς δούλοις σου. . . 
τοῖς μεγάλους. There is progressive movement in these words— 
the recognition of a development of events in their true order. 
After the close of the Millennial Kingdom mentioned in the 
preceding verse the song refers to the twofold uprising of nations 
(τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν : cf. xix. 19, xx. 8—9%»), and their destruction 
(ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου: cf. xix. 21, xx. 9°), the judgment of the dead 
(ὃ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι : cf. xx. 11-15), the final recompense 
of all the righteous in the New Jerusalem, which together with 


206 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [xI. 18. 


the new heaven and the new earth should become their eternal 
abode (καὶ δοῦναι τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς δούλοις σου. . . τοῖς μικροῖς Kat 
τοῖς μεγάλοις : cf. xxi. 1--4, xxii. 3-5). It is remarkable that the 
chronological order is abandoned in the last line—xai διαφθεῖραι 
xtA. It is possible that we have here a dislocation of the text, 
and that after καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου we should read 


καὶ <6 καιρὸς > διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν 
καὶ 6 καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι. 


In this case, since Rome is already judged in the preceding 
verse, the διαφθεῖραι τ. διαφθείροντας would refer to the destruc- 
tion of the Beast, the False Prophet, and Satan, by their being cast 
into the lake of fire (cf. xix. 20, xx. 10). Thus we should have 
the eschatological events in their chronological order. The 
words καὶ ἐβασίλευσας : 18, καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν, certainly 
recall Ps. xcviii. (xcix.) 1, LXX, κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν, ὀργιζέσθωσαν 
λαοί, where ὀργιζέσθωσαν, though a possible, is not a right 
rendering of 1137, which here should have been translated by 
ταρασσέσθωσαν or the like. Probably Ps. ii. 1, 5 was also in 
the mind of the writer as it was in 15. With “ the wrath of the 
nations here cf. xvi. 9-11, 21, but especially xix. 15-21, xx. 8-9. 
In vi. 15-17 the thought of coming judgment makes the mighty 
ones of the earth fear and tremble. ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή cou: cf. vi. 17, 
XiV. 10, XVi. IQ, XIX. I5. 

ὁ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι: Zé. xx. 11-15. The aim of the 
impending event is here expressed by the inf.=iva κριθῶσιν οἱ 
νεκροί. See Blass, Gram. 228, note. δοῦναι τὸν μισθόν : cf. xxii. 12. 
τοῖς δούλοις σου τοῖς προφήταις: cf. x. 7, also i. 1, xxii. 6. 
These are the Christian prophets: cf. xviii. 20; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
29; Eph. ii. 20, lil. 5, iv. 11. τοὺς ἁγίους Kal τοὺς φοβουμένους. 
A primitive slip for τ. ἁγίοις x. τ. φοβουμένοι. There is 
some difficulty in defining these two categories. Bousset pro- 
poses with hesitation to omit the xaé; then we should have the 
parallel clauses, “Thy servants the prophets, and the saints 
who fear Thy name.” But since the καί appears to be original, 
we should, with Volter (ii. 8) and others (including Bousset), inter- 
pret the two clauses (‘‘ the saints and those who fear Thy name”) 
as referring to Jewish and Gentile Christians. In 1 Clem. xxi. 7 
(cf. xxiii. 1) the Greek Christians so designated themselves, as 
Harnack (Vischer, Offend. Johannts, 133, note) points out: τὴν 
ἀγάπην αὐτῶν μὴ κατὰ προσκλίσεις, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸν 
θεὸν ὁσίως ἴσην παρεχέτωσαν. Vischer (p. 19) and Spitta (p. 584) 
and Harnack, who assume a Jewish origin of xi. 15-19, take these 
words to represent Jews and Proselytes, on the ground that the 
phrase of φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν was the usual designation for the 
heathen who had joined the Jewish community in the Dispersion, 


XI. 18--9.] THE THIRD WOE 207 


So the phrase means in Ps. cxv. 11, 13, Cxviii. 4, Cxxxv. 20 
(see Duhm). But this phrase has different meanings according 
to the context. From 1 Clem. xxi. 7 it has above been shown 
that it is a designation for Christians; in Pss. Sol. ii. 37 it 
designates “the pious Pharisees, whose object was to maintain 
the purity of theocratic principles” (Ryle and James): cf. Pss. 
Sol. iii. 16, iv. 26, v. 21, xiii. 11, xv. 15. 

τοὺς μικροὺς Kal τοὺς μεγάλους. A slip for the dative. This 
phrase is characteristic of our author: cf. xiii. 16, xix. 5, 18 
[xx. 12]. The two phrases τοὺς φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου and 
τοὺς μικροὺς Kal τοὺς μεγάλους are derived from Ps. cxv. 1 ὯΝ 
poun-py oppo “Ὁ ‘x, but hardly from the LXX, which 
renders τοὺς φοβουμένους τὸν κύριον τοῦς μικροὺς μετὰ TOV μεγάλων. 

διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν : cf. xix. 2, ἥτις ἔφθει- 
ρεν τὴν γῆν. The phrase may be borrowed from Jer. li. 
(xxviil.) 25, τὸ ὄρος τὸ διεφθαρμένον, τὸ διαφθεῖρον (M*NvIDN) πᾶσαν 
τὴν γῆν. On the probability that this line originally stood after 
καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου see first note on this verse. 

19. καὶ ἠνοίγη ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ 6 ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, Kal ὥφθη ἡ 
κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ" καὶ ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαὶ 
καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταὶ καὶ σεισμὸς καὶ χάλαζα μεγάλη. 

As the first Woe or Trumpet is preceded by the prayers of 
all the saints which are offered on the altar within the holy place 
of the heavenly temple, viii. 3, and the second Woe opens with 
the answer to those prayers from the same altar, ix. 13, so the 
third begins with the opening of the holy of holies and the 
manifestation of the Ark of the Covenant. This last act is 
symbolical. As the earthly ark was a witness to the covenant 
between God and Israel, the heavenly ark is a witness to the 
covenant between God and the Christian community, which is 
the true Israel. By the manifestation of the latter at this stage 
God has pledged Himself to the fulfilment of all the great deeds 
celebrated in the heavenly song just sung. 

On the heavenly temple see note on iv. 2. The ark of the 
covenant (N37 jis) originally stood within the veil of the 


tabernacle, and subsequently in the holy of holies in Solomon’s 
Temple. What became of it is unknown. The fragment pre- 
served in Jer. iii. 16-18 forbids in the name of Yahweh the hope 
of its restoration to the second Temple. It was no longer needed ; 
for (ili. 17) Yahweh would make Zion His dwelling-place, and 
Jerusalem would be called “ Yahweh’s Throne.” But later the 
legend arose that Jeremiah at the bidding of God (2 Macc. ii. 4-8 ; 
Rest of the Words of Jeremiah, iii. 8) hid, in a cave-like dwelling 
in the mountain which Moses climbed, “the tabernacle and the 
ark and the altar of incense.” The same account is found in 


298 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΠ.81. 


2 Bar. vi. 5-10, Ixxx. 2, though there it is an angel or angels 
by whom this task is discharged. 

But it is quite a mistake with some scholars to identify the 
hidden ark with the ark in the temple in heaven. The latter is 
the archetype of the former, and existed prior to it. The earthly 
ark was, according to the above tradition, buried somewhere on 
the earth: see Yoma, 53°-54°; Joseph. “41. xviii. 4. 1; Rest of 
the Words of Jeremiah, iii. 7-8, 14: see note on ii. 17. ἠἢνοίγη ὁ 
ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ---7.6. the holy of holies. Since the first two Woes 
open with events connected with the heavenly altar, viii. 3, ix. 13, 
the third Woe begins with the throwing open of the holy of holies. 

ἀστραπαὶ κτλ. See note on viii. 5. 


CHAPTER XII. 
AYRE TROSITEGC.. 
INTRODUCTION. 


Chap. xii. represents the conflict of good and evil as a cosmic 
one—not one originating on earth. The idea is Pauline: Eph. 
vi. 12, etc. The presupposition of O. and N.T. apocalyptic is that 
the world’s disorder and sin is only a part of the disorder and sin 
affecting the spiritual world. Cf. Isa. xxiv. 22; Daniel and Rev. 
xii.; Eph. i. 3, ro, etc. (see Robinson, p. 20 sqq.); Luke x. 18. 
The conflict is not limited to this earth or to this life. Itisa 
warfare from which there is no discharge until the kingdom of 
this world is become the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ. 


§ 1. Zhe meaning of this Chapter in its present 
Christian context. 


The third Woe or the third Trumpet deals with the climax 
of Satan’s power on earth. This crowning evil, however, was 
nota sign of his growing power, but the closing stage of the strife 
which had its beginning in heaven and was destined to have its 
ending on earth. In heaven the strife had already terminated 
in the vindication of God’s sovereignty and the hurling down of 
Satan to earth (chap. xii.). Hence however Satan may rage and 
his minions—the Roman and heathen powers (chap. xiii. sqq.)— 
they are not to be feared: this final persecution of the Church is 
but the last struggle of a beaten foe, whose venom and malignity 
are all the greater since he knows how short a time he has. 

1In 2 Bar. vi. 7 the text is corrupt. Instead of reading ‘‘ark” it 
reads “‘ephod.” But 58 is here corrupt for }.x=‘‘ark.” The converse 
corruption in the Mass. text is found in 1 Sam. xiv. 18, as the LXX and 
several Talmudic authorities prove. 


XII. §1-2.] SOURCES USED BY OUR AUTHOR 299 


Such is the object of this and the coming chapters, in which 
chap. xii. gives the reader a spiritual insight into the past in order 
to prepare him for the crowning evil of the manifestation of 
Satanic power on earth in chap. xili. sqq. In setting forth his 
theme the Seer borrows the main part of the present chapter 
from Jewish sources, in which international myths have been 
used and transformed to higher ends. In our text the Seer takes 
account alike of the past, the present, and the time to come. 
His vision goes back before the birth of Christ. Of a glorious 
goddess of the sun is born a wondrous child, against whom, alike 
before and after his birth, the Dragon showed a ceaseless enmity 
(1-5*>), But from this enmity He is rescued and rapt to the 
throne of God, and His mother, ze. the Church, is preserved 
from the attacks of the Dragon (5°-6). Thither the Dragon and 
his angels storm after him, but are met by Michael and his 
angels and hurled down to earth (7-9). Thereupon, on the eve 
of the last and fiercest persecution about to burst on the com- 
munity of Christ through the rage of the baffled fiend, the Seer 
hears the glorified martyrs in heaven raise a paean of triumph in 
honour of their brethren still on earth, who, too, are to be 
martyred in this persecution (10-12). In the course of this 
persecution part of the community—the Jewish Christian—makes 
its escape (13-16)—-a meaningless survival in our present text 
—a work of 95 A.D. ; see notes 7” /oc.: thereupon the Dragon 
turns against the rest of the seed of the woman—the Gentile 
Christians scattered thoughout the world (17). Thus the Seer 
leads up to his main theme—the persecution of the Church by 
the Empire of Rome. 


§ 2. But this was not the original meaning of this Chapter: tts 
chief section could not have been written originally for the 
Apocalypse by a Christian: nor could it have been the 
original creation of a Jew. 


Vischer (Offend. Johannis, 19 sqq.) and Gunkel (Schopfung, 
173 sqq.) have shown that this chapter could not have been 
composed by a Christian. It is simply inconceivable that a 
Christian writing freely could have so represented the birth and 
life of Christ. Whatever his visions may have been, they could 
not have failed to be more in unison with the facts on which 
the Christian community was founded and which were embodied 
in the heart of its most cherished beliefs. No Christian 
could spontaneously have depicted the life of our Lord, 
under the figure of a child, born of a sun-goddess,! perse- 


1 Even if the sun-goddess is taken to represent the Community, it cannot 
be the Christian community that is here primarily designed ; for it is never 


300 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΠ΄ ὃ 2-3. 


cuted by the seven-headed dragon and rapt to the throne of 
God, and have suppressed every reference to His earthly life and 
work, His death and resurrection. Nor could a Christian have 
represented the overthrow of Satan as due to Michael and not 
to Christ. The passive and subordinate role assigned to the 
Messiah here is quite in keeping with Jewish, but not with 
Christian conceptions. 

This chapter, moreover, is full of mythological features which 
could not have been the original creations of a Jew ora Christian. 
These are—1. A goddess clothed with the sun, crowned with the 
signs of the zodiac, and standing on the moon as her footstool. 
2. This goddess is with child—an idea wholly foreign to Jewish 
conceptions of the angels. 3. The great fiery Dragon with 
seven heads and ten horns and seven diadems, whose tail can 
hurl down a third of the stars of heaven. 4. The birth of the 
young sun-god and his rapture into heaven. 5. The flight of the 
woman into the wilderness by means of the wings of the great 
eagle. 6. The flood cast forth by the Dragon after the woman, 
and the earth opening its mouth and swallowing it. 

And yet, since this vision occurs in a Christian apocalypse, 
it must have had a Christian meaning for our author: he must 
have interpreted it in a Christian sense. What this meaning was 
we have in some measure seen already in$1. Our author either 
took literally or allegorised the mythological features that were 
susceptible of such treatment, and neglected the rest—a course 
that was usual in dealing with traditional material. Their lack 
of connection with their present context and their unintelligi- 
bility are undoubtedly evidence that they are wrested from their 
original context and belong to earlier forms of the myth. 


§ 3. Zhe Idiom and Diction of this Chapter are those of our Author 
—facts which are against his use of Greek sources here. 


1. The clause σημεῖον (xii. 3, XV. I: im ΧΙ. 13, 14, ΧΥΪ. 14, 
xix. 20 in another meaning) μέγα ὥφθη (i. 7, xi. 19, xil. 3) ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ which recurs in xii. 3 is found also in xv. 1, εἶδον ἄλλο 
σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρ. μέγα. μέγα follows after the noun. Cf. x. 1, 
Ἐν ἢ, νη de Cle 

περιβεβλημένη---12 times in Apoc. and 12 times in rest of 
N.T. 8 times in rest of Apoc. c. acc. as here. ὑποκάτω, v. 3, 13, 
vi. 9. ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. Only here in our author has ἐπί the gen. 


said to be the mother of Jesus. On the other hand, the Jewish Messiah 
could be regarded as a child of the community: cf. Test. Jos. xix. 11; 4 Ezra 
ix. 43 sqq., x. 44 5464. Besides, the true Israel in the O.T. was the spouse 
of God ; whereas in the N.T. the true Israel, or Church, is ¢he dride of Christ. 


XII. ὃ 3.] IDIOM AND DICTION 301 


in this phrase, though this is the natural construction as denoting 
rest on. In x. 1 (see textual evidence) xix. 12 it occurs c. acc. 
in sing. Elsewhere in Apoc. always c. acc. 7m plural (five times). 
In the rest of the N.T. ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς occurs four times and 
ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν twice. S#dSexa—post-positive: see notes on 
111: 2,°X1i.--3. 

2. ἐν γαστρὶ €xouca—participle used as finite verb as in x. 2, 
ΧΧΙ. 14. On κράζει κτλ. see note on text. 

βασανίζω (ix. 5, Xi. 10, xiv. Io, xx. 10) is never used in LXX 
of the pangs of childbirth, and only here in the N.T. 

8. ὥφθη κτλ. : See On I. πυρρός: see vi. 4. For the position 
of the last émrd see footnote on vill. 2, ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ. 
This is the usual idiom in the Apoc. See note on 1 above. 

4, ἔστηκεν ἐνώπιον : cf. Vil. 9, Vill. 2, ΧΙ. 4. τῆς μελλούσης 13 
times in Apoc., Io times with pres. inf. and 3 times with 
aor. inf., ili. 2, 16, xii 4. On the order ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ .. . 
καταφάγῃ : Cf. xill. 15, ἵνα ὅσοι... προσκυνήσωσιν . . . ἀἄποκταν- 
θῶσιν. καταφάγῃ : cf. x. 9, 10, ΧΙ. 5, ΧΙ]. 4, XX. 9. τέκνον : cf. 
ii: 23. 

5. The clause ὃς μέλλει. . . σιδηρᾷ is from the hand of our 
author: ch 11: 27; xix. 15. 

6 is a doublet of xii. 13° 14 from the hand of our author. 
ὅπου... ἐκεῖ: cf. ΧΙ. 14. For analogous Semiticisms, cf. 
ii. 7, 17, li. 8, vil. 2, 9, xili. 8, 12, xvii. 9, xx. 8. ὅπου occurs 
5 times elsewhere without complementary adverbial phrase. 
ἡτοιμασμένον : cf. vill. 6, ix. 7, 15, ΧΥΪ. 12, xix. 7, xxi. 2. On 
this rare use of ἀπό after a passive verb see note on ix. 18. 
tpépwow. On this indefinite use of plural, cf. x. 11 (xi. 9 
originally). ἡμέρας χιλ. διακοσίας. ἑξήκοντα (cf. xi. 3)—an inter- 
pretation of the phrase in xii. 14. 

7-8. πολεμῆσαι μετά: cf. 11. τό, ΧΙ]. 4, xvii, 14 (xix. 11), 
This phrase is found in the N.T. only in the Apoc., and outside 
the Apoc. without μετά in Jas. iv. 2. It is common in the 
LXX. On the irregular syntax see note zz Joc. τοῦ before the 
infinitive occurs only here in our author: not at all in the 
Fourth Gospel. οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη : cf. xx. 11, τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη 
αυτοις. 

9. On the original form of this verse see note i” loc. ὃ ὄφις 
ὃ ἀρχαῖος . .. Σατανᾶς: cf. xx. 2. ὃ καλούμενός : cf. xi. 8 n. 
SudBodos . . . ὃ πλανῶν: cf. xx. 8. τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην : cf. 
ili. 10, xvi. 14. The writer of the Fourth Gospel would have 
used κόσμος, which, indeed, is used in Apoc. xi. 15 (xiii. 8 
xvii. 8). 

10. ἄρτι: cf. xiv. 13—a Johannine word but also Pauline 
and Petrine and in Matt. 4 σωτηρία : cf. vii. 10, xix. 1. ἡ δύναμις : 
ef. iv. 11, Vil. 12, xix. 1. ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν : cf. xi. 15, ἡ 


302 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Κι]. § 8. 


βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. ἡ ἐξουσία, passim. τῶν 
ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, 1. 9,. Vi. II, XIX. 10, ΧΧΙ]. 9. ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός : 
cf. iv. 8. 

11. This verse is word for word the diction of our author. 
évixnoay—characteristic of our author. διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ dpviou: 
cf. ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, 1. 5, V. 9, Vil. 14. διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς pap- 
τυρίας αὐτῶν : cf. vi. 9, διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν : 
also i. 9, xx. 4. ἠγάπησαν: cf. i. 5, iii, 9, xx. 9. ἄχρι θανάτου 
occurs already in 11. 10. ἄχρι occurs 11 times in Apoc. but not 
in Johannine Gospel or Epistles. 

12. διὰ τοῦτο : cf. vil. 15, xvill. 8(15 times in Fourth Gospel). 
εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί. This phrase is difficult and would point 
to the existence of xii. 7-10, 12 in a Greek form. We should 
expect εὐφραίνου οὐρανέ as in xvili. 20 ; for the plural is not found 
elsewhere in the Apoc. See note on xii. 12. ot . . . σκηνοῦντες, 
used of heavenly dwellers: cf. vil. 15, xiii. 6, xxi. 3, aS κατοικεῖν 
of dwellers on earth. Though the LXX uses σκηνοῦν and 
κατασκηνοῦν Of the dwellers on the earth, our author does not. 
οὐαί, c. acc. (="IN) as in vili. 13. c. nom. in xviii. 10, 16, 19 as 
in LXX of Isa. v. 8, 11, 18, 20-22 -- Π. ὀλίγον καιρόν. ὀλίγος 
prepositive here as in ill. 4. This order is Semitic=ny pyn, 
though the reverse order is possible. Contrast Acts xiv. 28, 
χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον. 

18. ὅτε εἶδεν and ὅτι ἐβλήθη... γῆν (from xii. 9) added as 
connecting links after incorporation of xii. 7-12. ἥτις τε ἥ-- ἃ 
usage of our author: see xi. 8 n. 

14. πέτηται. Cf. iv. 7, vill. 13, xiv. 6, xix. 17. Not else- 
where in N.T. ὅπου... ἐκεῖ. See on xii. 6 (above). καιρὸν καὶ 
καιροὺς κτλ. See xi. 2n. ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως, a Hebraism. 
See xii. 14 n. 

15. ὡς ποταμόν. See Additional Note on ds, p.35 sq. ἵνα 
αὐτὴν ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃ. On ποταμοφόρητον see note in loc. 
Next, ἵνα is followed by object and verb also in vi. 4, xiii. 13 ; and 
adverbial phrase or clause and verb in xii. 4 (iva ὅταν... .), xix. 15; 
by substantive clause and verb, xiii. 15 (iva ὅσοι .. .); though 
immediately by verb as a rule: cf. ii. ro, iii. 9, vi. 11, Vili. 3, 12, 
ix. 5,15, Xli. 6 (iva ἐκεῖ); 14, xiii. 12, 15%, 16, xiv. 13, xvi. 12, 
xix. 8, 18, xxl. 15, xxil. 14. ἵνα μή is followed by verb 6 times; 
by subject and verb, iii. 11, viii. 12, xi. 6; by adjective and verb, 
xvi. 15. The combination ποταμοφόρητον ποιεῖν is Hebrew as 
well as Greek: see note on xvii. 16. 

17. ὠργίσθη: cf. xi. 18. ἀπῆλθεν: cf. x. 9. ποιῆσαι 
πόλεμον μετά : Cf. ΧΙ. 7, ΧΙΠ. 7, XIX. 19. τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος: 
cf. ix. 20, xx. 5; Luke xviii. 11 alone in N.T. for this use of 
λοιπός. τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς Tod θεοῦ. These words recur 
in xiv. 12. τηρεῖν Occurs 11 times in the Apoc. It belongs 


OEE EE Ee 


Χτι. § 8-4.] SEMITIC SOURCES 303 


also to the Johannine vocabulary. Gospel 18 times, 1 Ep. 7 
times. τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ : cf. 1. 2, 9, XIX. 10, XX. 4. 

18. ἐστάθη ἐπί, c. acc. Cf. vii. 1 (p. 190). 

Before passing on attention ought to be drawn to words or 
expressions that are am. Aey. in the Apoc. 5. ἡρπάσθη. 12. 
ὀλίγον καιρόν. 13. ἐδίωξεν. 14. ἀπὸ προσώπου -- “because of.” 
Contrast its meaning in vi. 16, xx. II. 15. ποταμοφόρητον. 
16. ἐβοήθησεν... κατέπιεν. 

Thus the entire chapter exhibits the peculiar idioms and 
diction of our author—with two slight exceptions. The first is 
in xii. I, ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, instead of which he uses ἐπὶ τὴν 
κεφαλήν (or τὰς κεφαλάς). The second irregular usage is the use 
of οὐρανοί in xii. 12, but this may be due to the source which 
our author is translating; see § 4. In any case these two expres- 
sions are of no weight against the overwhelming agreement in 
point of idiom and diction of this chapter with the style of our 
author. The evidence ts distinctly against the hypothesis that we 
have here a recast of existing Greek sources from another hand 
or hands. 


§ 4. Yet since our author undoubtedly used sources (see ὃ 7) and 
not Greek sources as we have just seen, there remains the 
hypothesis that he used Semitic sources oral or written—a 
hypothesis for which there ts considerable evidence, consider- 
ing the paucity of the text. 


From what precedes it follows that our author found the 
originals of xii. 1-5, 13-17, xil. 7-9, 12 in Semitic sources oral 
or written, and that he translated them into Greek with certain 
additions of his own as xii. 6, 10-11, and in ΧΙ]. 3,5, 9, 13, 17. 
The evidence for the existence of such Semitic sources is as 
follows. 

Some evidence pointing to a Semitic source or influence has 
already been advanced in the past. Thus υἱόν, ἄρσεν -- 5? 12 in 
ΧΙ, 5, ὅπου... ἐκεῖ =DW..- WWE in ΧΙ. 6, 14, οὐκ ἴσχυσεν = 
$y) xb in xii. 8, and κατέβη xii. 12, ἐβλήθη xii. 9, 13, as render- 
ings of the same verb 17° (Aram. nn)), have been adduced by 
various scholars in the past. Gunkel (Schépfung, 200 sq.) has 
enumerated the above and sought to strengthen the evidence 
for a Semitic original by the following arguments. Thus ὠδίνουσα 
καὶ βασανιζομένη τεκεῖν, xii. 2, is, he claims, a Hebrew construc- 
tion such as ΠῚ nnn, 1 Sam. iv. 19 (itself an isolated idiom), 
but as I have sought to show in the note zm /oc., τεκεῖν should be 
immediately connected with κράζει, or taken as a complement of 
the preceding clause as ‘“‘about to be delivered.” The mis- 
translation of the Hebrew dual which he finds in xii. 14 was over 


304 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Χ1]. 4. 


200 years old. He thinks that the construction in xii. 7, if we 
omit 6 M. καὶ οἱ ayy. αὐτοῦ, is Semitic, and thus misses the point. 

But the above evidence, though suggestive, is in no respect 
conclusive—not indeed that it is possible to discover absolutely 
conclusive evidence where the text is so exiguous, but there is 
further evidence that makes the hypothesis of a Semitic original 
the only reasonable solution of the problem before us. 

xii. 1-5, 13-17%” and xii. 7-9, 12 will here be treated together 
as derived from Semitic sources. (1) First of all the force of the 
evidence in ὅπου. .. ἐκεῖ xii. 14 (repeated in xii. 6), has not 
been observed. The addition of ἐκεῖ after ὅπου is contrary to 
the usage of our author when writing independently. Cf. ii. 13 
(dis), xi. 8, xiv. 4, xx. το. And yet analogous Semiticisms are 
used by our author elsewhere (see iii. 8 n.), but not this particular 
one. This idiom is repeated in xii. 6, which is merely a doublet 
of xu τῶ 74: 

(2) Next the use of οὐρανοί instead of οὐρανός in xii. 12 is 
best explained by our author’s use of a Semitic source (contrast 
ΧΙ. 20 εὐφραίνου... οὐρανέ) ; for he always uses the sing. 
when writing independently, and even when translating a Semitic 
original, as in xii. 7, ὃ, 10, where the use of the plural might 
suggest the idea of a plurality of the heavens: an idea he rejects— 
though it was held by St. Paul and the author of the Hebrews, 
and was current in the O.T., and enforced in the Testament of 
XII Patriarchs, 2 Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, etc. (see note on 
iv. 1, p. 108). Since there is here no risk of misconception he 
renders ΓΦ 199 by the familiar rendering of the LXX, εὐφραίνεσθε 
οὐρανοί. 

(3) Our author nowhere else uses τοῦ before the infinitive 
(xii. 7). Nor is it found in any of the Johannine writings. Hence 
its appearance here can be best explained as due to a Semitic 
background. The explanation is given under (8) below. 

(4) There seems to lurk a mistranslation in the clause οὐδὲ 
τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν in xii. 8. For nowhere else in the Apocalypse 
is there such a separation of αὐτῶν from the noun on which it 
depends as here.!. Next, in xx. 11, where the clause recurs, we 
find τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς. This is the natural form of this 
expression : moreover, it is the Hebrew ond syno-nd orpo-b3 or 
the Aramaic pn> nonwn xb ans 55. But αὐτῶν is a possible, 
though here an incorrect, rendering of ond (or 5). Hence for 


1 This differentiates the usage of the Apocalypse from the Johannine 
Gospel. ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, αὐτοῦ, αὐτῶν can in John either precede or follow the 
noun: they can only follow in the Apocalypse. In John these possessives 
can be separated from their noun by an adj.: cf. iii. 19, viii. 17, by a pre- 
position, ix. 15, xi. 32, or by a verb, ix. 28 (d2s), xi. 32, xii. 47, xiil. 6, 14, 
xix. 35, xx. 23. See note on ili. 2 above. 


XII. ὃ 4-6.] TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES 305 


αὐτῶν we should read atrots—an emendation made in some of 
the later MSS. 

(5) In xii. 14, ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως = WNIT “3B, “ because of 
the serpent.” This is a pure Semiticism not elsewhere found in 
the N.T. 

(6) ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα, xii. 1=i777. Here the participle is used 
as a finite verb. On this Semiticism see note zm Joc. It is not 
improbable that σύρει in xii. 4 is a rendering of a participle also 
such as 3nb, This would explain the tense of σύρει in the 


midst of past verbs. 

(7) Other Semiticisms are ὀλίγον καιρόν, xii. 12=Ny byp. In 
the Apocalypse adjectives are postpositive, but the unusual order 
here can be explained as reflecting the Semitic: ἔβαλεν... 
ὀπίσω, xii. I5="INN. . . Mow; ὡς ποταμόν, xii. 15 = 23; πολε- 
μῆσαι μετά, Xi. 7 =DY ONN. 

(8) In xii. 7 6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ of ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι is 
the literal reproduction in Greek of a Hebrew idiom. This 
construction is otherwise inexplicable. For another form of it 
see xill. 10. See note 27 Joc. 


$5. Order of Verb, Subject, and Object. 


In the original form of xii. 1-5 there are 11 verbs: 7 times 
the verb comes first, 3 times it is preceded by the subject, and 
once by the object. 

In the original form of xii, 7-9, “12 there are 10 verbs: 
6 times the verb comes first, 4 times it is preceded by the 
subject. 

In the original form of xii. 13-18 there are 16 verbs, all 
coming first save 2: 1 of these is necessarily preceded by the 
subject (xii. 13) and one by the object (xii. 15). In the latter 
instance the object and verb together almost certainly represent 
a Semitic verb and therefore this case does not count. 

The above facts, though they do not help to differentiate xii. 
7-9, 12 from the rest of the chapter, manifest the Semitic order 
of the words throughout the entire chapter. 


86. This Chapter was not originally a unity, but was derived 
Jrom two independent Jewish sources. 


That this chapter is composite is clear from many facts. It 
is sufficient, to begin with, to mention two. First, xii. 10-11 is 
clearly an addition, since it breaks the connection and conflicts 
with its immediate context. Next, the flight and rescue of the 
woman are recounted in xii. 6 before the casting down of Satan, 


VOL. I.—20 


306 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN =‘ [XI 88. 


and yet in xii. 13-17 it is placed after that event and treated at 
fuller length. Owing to these and other difficulties various 
hypotheses are advanced. 

Spitta (130 sqq.) thinks that the difficulty can be got over by 
excising xii. 6 as a short preliminary redactional addition, which 
constitutes in fact a doublet of xii. 13-17. Other additions he 
finds in xii. 9, ὁ πλανῶν... τὴν γῆν : in xii. I1, 13, ὅτε εἶδεν and ὅτι 
ἐβλήθη... γῆν : and in xii. 17, καὶ ἐχόντων... Ἰησοῦ. Pfleiderer 
(332 54.), VOlter, ili, 146 sqq., regard xii, 12-17 as well as 
ΧΙ, 11 as later additions. They conceive the overthrow of Satan 
to be the last or last but one scene of all. V6lter says that the 
addition of xii. 6 is incomprehensible on the presupposition of the 
original unity of xii. 1-10, 12-17. Why should this notice of 
the flight of the woman be inserted, if this were recounted fully in 
ΧΙ, 12-17? On the other hand, the shortness of the account in 
xii. 6 would naturally lead to a fuller statement as in xii. 12-17. 

Dieterich, A4dvaxas, 118, reconstructs the chapter as follows: 
xii. I-4, 14-16, 5 (6, 17, 12°), 7-12". 

None of the above hypotheses is satisfactory, though some 
of Spitta’s suggestions are of permanent value. The remaining 
chief hypotheses seek to explain the chapter as consisting of 
(a) two parallel visions, or of (4) two distinct sources. 

(a) Under this head come Gunkel’s and Wellhausen’s. 
Gunkel (Schopfung, 274 sqq.) sees in xii. 6 and xii. 7-16 parallel 
accounts. The first writer had concluded the section with xii. 6. 
He was acquainted with xii. 7-16, but owing to his aversion to 
the mythological element he not only abbreviated the account of 
the flight of the woman but he also left out wholly the narrative 
of the overthrow of the Dragon. A reviser subsequently added 
the original account, xii. 7-16. But why then, it may be asked, 
did he not excise the disturbing xii. 6? Wellhausen (Azad. d. 
Offend. Joh. 18 sqq.) finds that xii. 1-6 and xii. 7-14 are parallel 
accounts, which terminate in a common conclusion xii. 15—17. 
Both are incomplete, and they must both be used to supplement 
each other. xii. ro-12 and certain clauses in xii. 3, 5, 9, 17 are 
added by the redactor, with a view to giving a Christian character 
to the whole. The rest is purely Jewish. From a combination 
of xii. 1-6 and xii. 7-9, 13-14 he recovers the original contents of 
the narrative. The Dragon warred in heaven and was overcome 
and cast down to the earth. There he assails the woman who 
had borne the male child. The child was thereupon rapt into 
heaven and the woman, z¢., the élite of the community, fled 
into the wilderness, where she stayed for 34 years. The Dragon 
then attacks the rest of her seed in Jerusalem which had not 
fled into the wilderness. The conclusion of the Apocalypse 
which dealt with the returning Messiah is lost. 


i ll 


XII. § 6-7.] XII. 7-10, 12 OF JEWISH ORIGIN 307 


We have, therefore, in xii. a Pharisaic counterblast to the 
Zelotic oracle in xi. 1-2. 

But the above hypotheses labour under one and the same 
difficulty. They both assume two parallel visions—an assumption 
which can only be justified by the further assumption that one 
of them is considerably abbreviated. In either case a recon- 
struction of the parallel accounts in their completeness is im- 
possible. Moreover, Gunkel’s reconstruction is based on the 
Marduk myth, which as reproduced by Gunkel is itself a recon- 
struction and without any actual basis in tradition. 

(ὁ) Two distinct sources. J. Weiss (87 sq.) is of opinion that 
we have here two distinct sources. The first dealt with the birth 
of the Messiah, His persecution by the Dragon, the flight and 
persecution of the woman, and the persecution of the remaining 
children of the woman. The second dealt with the strife of 
Michael with the Dragon in heaven: the casting down of the 
Dragon and his reign on earth. 

In support of this hypothesis (88 sq.) Weiss urges that the 
war with the Dragon has no connection of any kind with the 
persecution of the Child. The angels are not conscious of con- 
tending on behalf of the Messiah, and it is nowhere said that the 
Dragon is overthrown as an enemy of the Messiah. If the war 
with the Dragon and the enmity between the Dragon and the 
Messiah had been conceived in relation with each other, then 
the final strife between the Messiah and the Dragon must have 
been recounted at the close. And the fact that this is not so 
is a proof that the war with the Dragon had originally nothing to 
do with the Messiah, His birth and persecution. 

In this matter Weiss appears to have established his conten- 
tion and is herein followed by Bousset. His further contention 
that xii. 7-12 was an original constituent of a Christian Apocalypse 
is against the evidence of the section itself, which in form and 
idiom points to a Semitic origin (see § 4 (8), § 5) and in matter 
to a Jewish. 


§ 7. These two sources were borrowed by our Author from Jewish 
Tradition, xtt. 7-10, 12 being probably an original product 
of Judaism, but not so xtt. 1-5, 13-17. 


ΧΙ. 7-10, 12 is an original product of Judaism. All the 
elements in this section can be found in pre-Christian Judaism, 
as I have shown in the notes on xii. 7 (p. 323 sq.). Yet even in 
the case of this section some of the subject-matter may go back 
to the Zend religion. Thus in the Bund. (S.B.£. v. 17) iii. 
ΙΟ-ΙΙ it is stated that the evil spirit or Ahriman attacked the 
heaven with his confederate demons, and they “sprang like a 


308 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧὩ]. § 7. 


snake down to the earth” (cf. Apoc. xii. 12, κατέβη ὃ διάβολος 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς). 

For go days and nights the heavenly angels contended with 
the demons of the evil spirit and hurled them down to hell 
(Bund. iii. 26). In some degree the Zend tradition may in turn 
be dependent on the Babylonian myth of the primeval chaos 
monster Tiamat which was overcome by Marduk. But the same 
idea was found in Greece in the wars of the Titans and ata 
later date among the Mandaeans (Brandt, Mandaische Schriften, 
128 sqq., 138 sqq., 178, 181 sqq., 231 sq.) and the Manichaeans 
(Fliigel, Mant, 87); see Gunkel, Verstandnis, 57. The myth had 
an international currency in the ancient world. 

xii. 1-5, 13-17. We have already seen (δ 2) that this section 
could not have been written originally either by a Jew or by a 
Christian. It was therefore taken over from a heathen source 
by a Jew or by a Christian. 

That it was taken over by a Jew and not by a Christian is 
probable on the following grounds. 1. It shows signs of being 
a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (§ 4). Even if this 
could be established conclusively, it does not, of course, prove a 
Jewish original as against a Jewish-Christian, though it makes it 
more likely. 2. It exhibits several characteristics which differ- 
entiate the Jewish and the Christian Messiah. Thus the Messiah 
is here conceived as playing a passive rdle so far as the present 
text is concerned (cf. 1 Enoch xc. 37; Shemone Esre, 15 (14); 
4 Ezra vii. 28 sq.; 2 Bar. xxix. 3). He is rapt away after 
His birth: and remains in concealment after His birth.) The 
same three characteristics belong to the Jewish Messiah, but 
are positively at variance with the universally accepted views of 
Jesus, the Christian Messiah. 3. The description differs widely 


1 These two facts, though impossible in a first-hand description of Jesus, 
would be possible in a Jewish apocalypse: for we find a kindred tradition in 
the Jer. Talmud, Berachoth, 5° (chap. ii.), the Midrash Echa Rabbati, i. 16, 
according to which an Arab had come to a Jew at Bethlehem and told him of 
the destruction of Jerusalem and the birth of the Messiah. Thereupon the 
Jew went off to Bethlehem and saw the mother of the Messiah ; but when he 
returned a second time he was informed that the child had been carried off by 
a strong wind. With this legend we might compare the tradition in the 
Targ. Jon. on Mic. iv. 8, that the Messiah was already born but was con- 
cealed on account of the sins of the people; and in Justin, Dza/. 8, that, 
according to Trypho, the Messiah was possibly already born but would remain 
unknown till Elijah came and anointed Him ; and in Sanh. 98°, that He was 
already born but living in concealment at the gates of Rome. The same idea 
underlies the statement of certain Jews in John vii. 27, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ὅταν 
ἔρχηται οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν, and 2 Bar. xxix, 3/4) Ezra vil. 28, 
xiii. 32. The birth of the Messiah, therefore, followed by His sudden dis- 
appearance, was an idea familiar to Judaism, but impossible as a purely 
Christian conception. Whether He remained on earth or was carried off to 
heaven as in our text is a subordinate question. 


XII. 8 7-9.] XII. 1-5, 13-17 OF NON-JEWISH ORIGIN 309 


from the Christian conception in the way of omission. The 
Person, life, death, and resurrection of Christ are here wholly 
ignored. 4. The description of the birth and rapture of the 
Messiah could well represent an event still impending in the 
view of the writer (and therefore a Jew), but not in that of a 
Christian. 5. A Jewish writer could accept the divine figure— 
a sun-goddess, 7 a general sense as symbolizing the true Israel, 
since in the O.T. Israel was the spouse of God. But in the 
N.T. the true Israel is the spouse of Christ. 

Hence, since the original of xii. 1-5, 13-17 is alien in nearly 
every respect to the Christian conception, but shows affinities in 
certain definite respects to the Jewish, it is immeasurably more 
probable that the myth was adopted and adapted first by a Jew, 
then by a Christian. When once it was incorporated in Jewish 
Apocalyptic, its adoption by our author for his own purposes is 
easily intelligible. It is only 4e premier pas qui cotite. THe sees 
in it a prophecy of the last times, a prophecy likewise that was 
coming to fulfilment in the events of the present. 

xii. I-5, 13-17 isa torso. In accordance with the primitive 
forms of the myth we should expect a return of the Messiah from 
heaven in order to destroy the Dragon, but this expectation is 
not fulfilled here or later in our Apocalypse. Christ destroys the 
two agents of the Dragon, chap. xix., but not the Dragon himself. 


§ 8. The two sections, xit. I-5, 13-17 and xii. 7-I0, 12, were 
adapted to their new Christian context by the addition of 
xtt. 6, 11, and by changes and additions in αἱ. 3, 5, 9, 10, 17. 


Since these questions are dealt with in the notes on the text 
they require no further consideration here. 


§ 9. Whether the sections were first brought into connection by our 
author, or already formed a unity in a Semitic original ts 
doubtful, though the evidence perhaps points to the former 
alternative. 


If the two sections existed already as a whole, then our 
author translated his source and inserted xii. 11 and certain 
additions in xii. 3, 5, 9, 10, 17 to adapt it to its new context. In 
this case xii. 6 was already before him and due to the Jewish 
writer who had joined the two sections.! ὅπου... ἐκεῖ would 
thus be explained as due to the source as in xii. 14 (see ὃ 4, 
p. 304). But the other hypothesis, that our author first brought 
the two sections together, is perhaps preferable. On this hypo- 


1 That the two sections existed already as a whole (whether as Jewish or 
Christian, in Semitic or Greek) is the view of Weizsicker, Sabatier, Schoen, 
Pfleiderer, Gunkel, Wellhausen. 


310 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XII. § 9-11. 


thesis he added xii. 6, 11 and certain clauses in xii. 3, 5, 9, 
10, 13, 17. On this hypothesis we could explain in xii. 6 the in- 
definite Semitic plural τρέφωσιν (which our author uses elsewhere, 
X. 11) as opposed to τρέφεται in xii. 14, the use of ἡτοιμασμένον 
(cf. ix. 7, 15, xvi. 12), the different phrasing of the period of the 
Antichrist, ἡμέρας χιλίας κτλ. =f. xi. 3. The unusual ὅπου... 
ἐκεῖ would in that case be simply transferred from xii. 14. 

The decision of this question depends on the authorship of 
xii. 6. 


8 το. xi. 1-5, 13-177°—essentially a heathen myth—may have 
been adopted and adapted originally by a Phartsaic Jew 
about 67-60 A.D., but xii. 14-16 are meaningless in their 
present context. 


This is Wellhausen’s view as to the date of the entire chapter, 
and it appears right, though we cannot follow him in regarding 
the chapter as an original Jewish creation. It was only a Jewish 
adaptation of a heathen myth—a question which will be discussed 
presently. 

xii. 1-5, 13-17% represents at the outset two great powers— 
the sun-goddess and the Dragon, which symbolized for the Jewish 
adapter the Jewish Community and its spiritual foe, the Antichrist. 
The Dragon, who after his overthrow in the war in heaven (xii. 4) 
descended to earth, besets the Jewish Community with a view 
to destroying the Messiah, who was to come forth from it. But 
the Messiah who was to be born in the hour of Israel’s sorest 
need, as was foretold in Mic. v. 3, Isa. vii. 14 sqq., was carried 
off to heaven, and so escaped the dragon, who therefore fell upon 
the Jewish Community through his agent the Roman Empire. 
The Pharisees, who were the élite of the nation, fled to the 
wilderness, xii. 14-16, and so escaped ; but the Zealots clung to 
the Temple, and so were exposed to the fury of the Dragon, xii. 
17% (cf. xi. 1, 2).! In its present context (95 A.D.) xii.-17 is 
reinterpreted, but xii. 14-16 are meaningless. 


§ 11. Original source of xit. 1-5, 13-17” to be found ina 
primitive international myth. 


Scholars have sought the source of this chapter variously in 
Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Egyptian myths. It is not, 
however, directly and wholly from any one of these, but from an 
early international myth. The chief attempts of the above 
nature are as follows. 


1 The Messiah, according to Jer. Berachoth, f. 5. c. 1, was born on the day 
of the destruction of Jerusalem. 


XII. § 11.] SOURCE OF XII. I-5, 13-17 311 


Babylonian origin.—Gunkel (Schépfung, 379 sqq.) traces the 
entire chapter to an old Babylonian myth which dealt with the 
war between Tidmat, the seven-headed dragon, and the gods, 
which was not decided till Marduk the god of light arose. In 
this strife Tidmat cast down a third of the stars (cf. Dan. viii. 10). 
Tiamat was a water monster—a fact which would explain the 
action of the dragonin xii.15. The great eagle is the constellation 
called the Eagle, which Gunkel supposes to have been the servant 
of Marduk. ‘Tiamat, knowing the destiny of the child, seeks to 
kill it the moment it is born, but it is rescued and borne off 
to a place of safety. Then Tidmat turns against the mother, but 
through the help of the eagle and the earth she is saved. There- 
upon his fury is directed against the rest of her sons. At last 
Marduk grows up and returns and overcomes Tiamat. 

But the incurable weakness of this hypothesis is that it is not 
found in Babylonian mythology, but reconstructed on the basis 
of the very chapter it is invoked to explain. In that mythology 
indeed there is found Tiamat and Marduk and Damkina his 
mother, who is, in fact, described in terms similar to those in xii. 1. 
But of her persecution by Tiamat, because she was about to bear 
a child dangerous to the dragon, of the removal of the child, and 
of the flight of the woman into the wilderness, there has not been 
found a trace in Babylonian mythology. But perhaps the most 
telling criticism of this hypothesis is to be found in the fact that 
as the one exclusive explanation of our text it is abandoned by its 
author. See Verstdndnis, 59 56. 

Zend origin.—V Olter (iv. 86 sq.) traces the myth in our text 
to a Persian origin. Ormuzd and Ahriman contend for “the 
great kingly glory.” The parallel to this Volter finds in the 
woman in xii. 1, who represents the theocracy. Ahriman sends 
Azhi Dahak—the dragon—to secure this treasure. The twelve 
stars with which the woman was crowned were the twelve constel- 
lations created by Ormuzd, while the seven diadems of the 
dragon had their counterparts in the seven planets which were 
created by Ahriman. 

To the statement that the dragon cast down a third of the 
stars of heaven, Volter adduces the parallel that in Bund. iii. 11 
the serpent stood on a third part of the heaven and sprang there- 
from to the earth. So far the parallels are interesting, but of the 
woman with child, the birth of a son, his removal, the rescue 
of the mother, there is naturally not a word in Persian mythology 
in connection with “the great kingly glory” and the serpent. 
These ideas Volter would trace to Mic. iv. 8-10, though he 
thinks that our author may have combined the marvellous tradi- 
tion of the book of Zoroaster with the myth about “the great 
kingly glory” which Azhi Dahak sought to obtain, 


312 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XII 8 11. 


The above hypothesis, though it offers interesting parallels, 
cannot be accepted as the source of our text. 

Greek origin.— Dieterich! (Abraxas, 117 sqq., Wekyia, 217, 
n. 3) finds the original of chap. xii. in Greek mythology, ze. in the 
myth of the birth of Apollo, as transmitted by Hyginus. It was 
announced in prophecy to Python the son of Earth, the great 
Dragon, that he should be slain by the son of Leto, who was with 
child by Zeus. Out of jealousy Hera contrived that Leto could 
give birth only where the sun shone not, and Python observing 
that she was soon to have a child pursued her in order to slay 
her. But Boreas carried her off to Poseidon (cf. xii. 14), who 
placed her in Ortygia and submerged the island in the sea. Ac- 
cordingly Python failing to find her returned to Parnassus. On 
the island, which was brought to the surface by Poseidon, Leto 
bare Apollo, who burst at once his infant bands and in the fulness 
of his divine form and strength hastened the fourth day after his 
birth to Parnassus and slew Python. 

Dieterich (Advax. 120, note 4) recalls also another form of the 
myth. According to this, owing to the water floods of the chaotic 
world which Python threw into such an uproar, Leto could not have 
borne her child had not the earth come to her help and raised 
up the waste, desolate island of Delos. Further, he adduces the 
facts that Leto was portrayed with a veil of stars (cf. xii. 1), and 
that the bronze masterpiece of Euphranor, which Schreiber 
thinks may have originally stood in Ephesus, represented Leto as 
fleeing before the dragon with Apollo and Artemis in her arms. 

If we may combine the above myths we obtain very striking 
parallels to chap. xii, and particularly so if we recognize that 
xii. 1-5, 13-17? is from a distinct source, as Dieterich did not. 
The chief figures, such as the woman, the child, the persecuting 
dragon, correspond closely to both: also individual traits, such as 
the assisted flight of the woman, the waters menacing the woman, 
the help given by the earth to the woman. It is only indeed by 
the combination of conflicting forms of the Greek myth that we 
can arrive at the above remarkable parallels. For one form of 
the Greek myth (that on the coin) represents Apollo as already 
born before Leto’s flight, whereas another represents his birth as 
after it. One form represents the waters as helpful to her, the 
other as hostile. Both forms agree in making an island the 
place of refuge and not the wilderness as in our text. Notwith- 
standing, the Greek myth stands incomparably nearer to our text 
than does the Babylonian or Persian. 


1 This view was propounded in 1794 by Dupuis, Origime de tous les cults, 
iii, 49, and in 1819 by Richter, Das Christenthum u. d. altesten Keligionen 
d. Orients, 212, and adopted by O. Pfleiderer (Das Christenbild des urchrist- 
lichen Glaubens, 1903, 38 544.). 


XII. § 11.] SOURCE OF XII. I-5, 12-17 313 


Again, if our conclusions above as to a Jewish source of 
xii. 1-5, 13-17 are valid, then the ultimate derivation of xii. 1-5, 
13-17” from a Greek myth through this source is quite possible ; 
and such an hypothesis is free from the chief objection that told 
against Dieterich’s theory, that the entire chap. xii. was taken 
over first hand from a Greek myth by a Christian Apocalyptist. 

Egyptian source.—Bousset (354 sq.) has recourse to Egyp- 
tian mythology for the source of our text, and finds in the 
myth of Hathor, Osiris, Horus and Set as startling parallels as 
Dieterich found in the Greek myth. The woman, who is the 
mother of the child, is the goddess Hathor (1.6. Isis), who is re- 
presented with a sun upon her head (Brugsch, fe/. μ. ALythol. d. 
Aigypten, 211); cf. xii. 1. The child is Horus, the son of Osiris ; 
the dragon is Typhon (Set), the favourite symbols for whom 
are the dragon, serpent, or crocodile (of. cit. 709). Set was usually 
described as red (710); cf. Plutarch, De Jside, 22, 30. After 
Osiris (the declining sun) is slain by Set, Isis though pursued by 
Typhon collects the bones of Osiris, and in a marvellous manner 
bears the child, the young sun-god. Then she escapes on a boat 
of papyrus, makes her way through the marshes and gets safe to 
a legendary floating island, Chemnis (of. cit. 400 sq.). According 
to another variant, Hathor does not bear Horus till she reaches 
Chemnis (403, 405), while an Osiris hymn represents Hathor as 
producing wind with her wings 1 (398) in her flight, and as bearing 
Horus in the solitude whither she had fled. Finally, Horus 
overcomes Typhon (as Apollo the Python), 399, 717, 721. 
Typhon is subsequently imprisoned and destroyed by fire (722). 

As in the Greek myth, the woman flees to an island and not 
into the wilderness as in our text. Similarly Horus (like Apollo) 
is not separated from Hathor as the child is from the woman in 
our text. Finally, water is not hurled after Hathor to destroy her ; 
on the contrary, she finds deliverance on the face of the waters. 

Conclusion.—From the foregoing discussion it follows that the 
myth in chap. xii. 1-5, 12-17” is not borrowed wholly and directly 
from any of the above sources, but that it is akin to elements in all 
of them cannot be denied. The oldest of the four is in all prob- 
ability the Babylonian, but at a very early date the tradition of a 
World-Redeemer had become international. So Gunkel, aban- 
doning the strict derivation of our text from the primitive Baby- 
lonian myth, now holds (Verstdndnis, 55), and so also Cheyne 
(Bible Problems, 195, 206) and Clemen (Zrklarung. d. NT 237). 
This primitive myth is in reality “the old story of the conflict be- 
tween light and darkness, order and disorder, transferred to the 

1 As Cheyne (Δ δ] Problems, 199) points out, the vulture was the second 


bird of Hathor-Nechbit. This recalls ‘‘the wings of the great eagle,” 
xii. 14. 


314 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN peer 


latter days and adapted by spiritualisation . . . to the wants of 
faithful Jews” (Cheyne, of. cit. 80). Into this primitive inter- 
national tradition Judaism had read its own religious history and 
its longings for a divine Redeemer (cf. Gunkel, of. cit. 58). 

On the general meaning of this chapter see Introduction, § 1. 

1. καὶ σημεῖον μέγα ὥφθη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη 
τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ ἡ σελήνη ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς 
κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς στέφανος ἀστέρων δώδεκα. 

This verse is to be taken as constituting a complete sentence. 
γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη is ἃ phrase standing in apposition to σημεῖον 
μέγα. We have exactly the same construction in xv. I, εἶδον 
ἄλλο σημεῖον... ἀγγέλους ἑπτά, save that the verb in xv. 1 is 
active, whereas in xii. 1 itis passive. Most editors connect the 
kal ev γαστρὶ ἔχουσα of 2 with περιβεβλημένη κτλ. and treat it as 
merely a participial phrase, but wrongly. In καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ 
ἔχουσα the participle stands for a finite verb, as in i. 16, vi. 2, etc. 
σημεῖον has two meanings in our Apocalypse. In xii. 1, 3, Xv. I, 
it seems to denote a heavenly marvel; but in xiii. 13, 14, Xvi. 14, 
Xix. 20, a sign wrought by the Antichrist or his agents in order to 
deceive the inhabitants of the earth. The latter is thus a 
caricature of the sign wrought by Christ: cf. John ii. 11, 23, etc. 
The word in this latter sense does not naturally occur till the 
Satanic reign begins on earth. With the first meaning cf. σημεῖον 
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, Luke xi. 16; Mark viii. 11; Matt. xvi. 1; τὸ σημεῖον 
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Matt. xxiv. 30). 

The first Woe was introduced by καὶ εἶδον (ix. 1), the 
second by καὶ ἤκουσα, ix. 13, whereas the third opens with καὶ 
σημεῖον μέγα ὥφθη. We have come at last to the climax of the 
apocalyptic vision. 

ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Thisis taken as: 1= “in the heaven” (so De 
Wette, Diisterdieck, Spitta, Gunkel, B. Weiss, Holtzmann). In 
this case the scene of action is the same as in xi. 19, and the 
ornaments of the woman—the sun, moon, and twelve stars—fall 
in fitly with this tradition ; or 2 as= ‘‘on the heaven,” ze. “in the 
sky” (so Vischer, Volter, Bousset, Swete, J. Weiss, Anderson 
Scott). In favour of this view is the fact that the woman flies 
into the wilderness, which cannot be supposed to be in heaven. 
But in the original context of this tradition, as Wellhausen (p. 19) 
points out, while heaven was clearly the scene of action in xii. 1-3, 
in 4 a descent to earth on the part of the woman and the Dragon 
is silently presupposed, as well as the overthrow of the latter. 
But the overthrow of the Dragon was omitted here by the Seer 
since he deals with it later in xii. 7 sq. 

It is hard to determine the place of the Seer during the 
various scenes in this chapter, since he is using independent 
traditions in a very abbreviated form. See note on iv. 2, p. 109. 


XII. 1.] VISION OF THE WOMAN 315 


γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον κτὰ. In its present context this 
woman ! represents the true Israel or the community of believers. 
This community embraces Jewish and Gentile Christians, 
all of whom are to undergo the last great tribulation. But the 
original expectation of the source xii. I-5, 13-17 (67-69 A.D.), 
that the Jewish Christians would escape (see xii. 14-16 notes, 
Introd. ὃ 10), survives in the text and is meaningless in 95 A.D. 
“The rest of her seed” (=originally “Gentile Christians”) 
in xii. 17 must in its present context be taken as including all 
Christians. 

But since the woman is represented as the mother of the 
Messiah, the community which she symbolizes must embrace the 
true O.T. Israel. The conception in the present context is very 
elastic. The Seer did not here create his symbols freely, 
but used those that had come to him by tradition. J. Weiss 
(p. 137) takes the woman to symbolize the heavenly Jerusalem, 
which St. Paul calls “our mother” (Gal. iv. 26), and which 
thus forms a contrast to the woman that symbolizes Babylon or 
Rome in chap. xvii. But this cannot have been the original 
meaning of the description in our text. If the Seer had been 
creating freely, he would not have introduced into the picture a 
number of notable characteristics which were without further 
significance for his purpose, and were, therefore, wholly super- 
fluous. Thus the woman wearing a crown of twelve stars, clothed 
with the sun, and having the moon beneath her feet, the heads, 
horns, and diadems of the dragon, the wings of the great eagle, the 
stream cast forth from the mouth of the dragon after the woman 
and swallowed up by the earth, are ideas that can be best 
explained from a mythological background. See Introduction to 
this chapter, p. 310 sqq., for the larger consideration of these ques- 
tions. Here, however, we should observe that in the crown of 
twelve stars we are probably to recognize the twelve signs of the 
zodiac, as Gunkel (Schdpfung, 386), Zimmern (X.A.7:3 360), 
Bousset, and Jeremias (Badylontsches, 35 sq.) havedone. Jeremias 
(Babylonisches, 35 sq.) draws attention to the fact that, according 
to Martianus Capella (De Wupt. Philol. et Merc. i. 75), the 
Assyrian Juno wore a crown with twelve precious stones, amongst 
which were the zmaragdus, jasper, hyacinth. These stones, 
Clemen (Z£rklarung α΄. NV.T. p. 78) states, have been shown by 


1 This designation of the theocratic community by γυνή has parallels in 
Isa. liv. 5; Jer. iii. 6-10; Ezek. xvi. 8°; Hos. ii. 19, 20. Zion appears as a 
woman in the vision in 4 Ezra ix. 38-x. 59. The spiritual Israel was the 
spouse of God in the O.T. The true Israel in the N.T becomes the spouse 
of Christ: cf. Apoc. xix. 7, xxl. 9. The blending of the O.T. conception with 
that of the N.T. introduces confusion. But this is owing to the use of the 
Jewish source. 


316 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN’ [Χ11.1-2 


Kircher (Oedipus Aegyptiacus, 1653, ii. 177 sq.) to correspond 
to the twelve signs of the zodiac. The twelve stones on the 
breastplate of the high priest are interpreted by Philo (Vita 
Mos. iii. 14) and Josephus (Azz. iii. 7. 7) of these signs. The 
original, then, of the woman in our text was a goddess,! whose 
crown was studded with the signs of the zodiac, whose body 
was clothed with the sun, and whose feet rested on the moon as 
a footstool. 

With the actual phrase περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον cf. Ps. cil. 
(civ.) 2, ἀναβαλλόμενος φῶς ὡς ἱμάτιον. ΤῸ ἣ σελήνη ὑποκάτω. .. 
δώδεκα we have a remarkable parallel in T. Naph. v. 3-4, ὃ Λευὶ 
ἐκράτησε τὸν ἥλιον Kal ὃ ᾿Ιούδας φθάσας ἐπίασε τὴν σελήνην, καὶ 
ὑψώθησαν ἀμφότερα σὺν αὐτοῖς. 4, καὶ ὄντος τοῦ Λευὶ ὡς ὃ ἥλιος, 
ἰδοὺ νέος τις ἐπιδίδωσιν αὐτῷ βαΐα φοινίκων δώδεκα, καὶ ᾿Ιούδας 
ἐγένετο λαμπρὸς ὡς ἣ σελήνη, καὶ ἦσαν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν (αὐτοῦ, 
bd, A) δώδεκα ἀκτῖνες. 

Here Levi is like the sun, and receives twelve branches of 
palm, and Judah is bright like the moon, and beneath his (or 
“their ”) feet are twelve rays of light. The symbolism in both 
passages is the same. The twelve ἀκτῖνες, which are evidently 
the twelve “stars” in our text, seem to symbolize in both 
passages the twelve tribes. The diction recalls Joseph’s dream : 
Gen. xxxvii. 9, ὃ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη Kal ἕνδεκα ἀστέρες. 

2. καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα καὶ κράζει ὠδίνουσα καὶ βασανιζομένη 
τεκειν. 

ἔχουσα is here used as a finite verb by a Semiticism; for in 
Biblical Aramaic and Syriac the participle is more frequently 
used as a finite verb than in its proper signification. This usage 
is found in late Biblical Hebrew, and frequently in Mishnaic 
Hebrew. It is reflected occasionally in the Greek translations : 
cf. Dan. ii. 21, where the four Aramaic participles (= four finite 
verbs) are rendered in the LXX by one finite verb and three 
participles, and by Theodotion by three finite verbs and one 
participle: cf. also ii. 22, iii. 9, 16, vi. 10, vil. 7 (here three 
participles = finite verbs are rendered by two participles and one 
finite verb). This Semiticism is found again in our text in iv. 7, 
8, x. 2, xxl. 12, 14. Instances of this usage are to be found in 
St. Paul; cf. 2 Cor. v. 12, vii. 5. See Blass, Gram. 284 sq. 

With σημεῖον... ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα cf. Isa. vii. 14, δώσει κύριος 
αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἣ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει (λήμψεται, B) 
καὶ τέξεται υἱόν. 


1 Amongst the Egyptians the goddess Hathor is represented with the 
sun upon her head (Brugsch, Rel. und Myth. d. alten Aegypten, 211); 
amongst the Greeks, Leto wears a veil of stars (Dieterich, A44vaxas, 120, ἢ. 4), 
whilst among the Babylonians Damkina, the mother of Marduk, is called ‘‘ the 
lady of the heavenly tiara ” (Α΄. A. 7.8 360, n. 3). 


παν ομδδὴν 


XII. 2-3.] VISION OF THE DRAGON 317 


There are many close parallels in the O.T. in which the 
theocratic community is described as a travailing woman. 
Cf. Isa. xxvi. 17, ὡς ἡ ὠδίνουσα ἐγγίζει τοῦ τεκεῖν Kal ἐπὶ TH ὠδῖνι 
αὐτῆς ἐπέκραξεν ... ἐν γαστρὶ ἐλάβομεν καὶ ὠδινήσαμεν : Mic. 
iv. 10, ddwe .. . θυγάτηρ Yewv ὡς τίκτουσα : Isa. lxvi. 7, πρὶν 
τὴν ὠδίνουσαν τεκεῖν, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὸν πόνον τῶν ὠδίνων, ἐξέφυγεν Kal 
ἔτεκεν ἄρσεν. 

The above passages, which compare the theocratic community 
to a woman in travail (cf. also Jer. iv. 31, xilil. 21, xxli. 23; 
Isa. xiii. 8, xxi. 3; Hos. xiii. 13), and the birth of the new Israel 
to that of a man child (Isa. Ixvi. 7 sq.), point to the fact that this 
vision in its Jewish form dealt with the expected birth of the 
Messiah from the Jewish nation, and that in its present and 
Christian context it refers to the birth of Christ. 

As regards the construction, τεκεῖν is generally taken as an 
epexegetical infinitive dependent on βασανιζομένη. Perhaps it 
would be best to take it closely with κράζει. Thus we should 
have: “and cried in her travail and pain to be delivered.” The 
text seems to be based on Isa. xxvi. 17 but not on the LXX, and 
would = nbz npanr nbin pyrm, Pacavi~w is used of the pangs 
of childbirth in profane Greek (see Thayer 221 Joc.) but not in 
the LXX or N.T. Or else τεκεῖν is to be translated according 
to the familiar Hebrew idiom (=n55) “‘ready to be delivered.” 

8. καὶ ὥφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν TH οὐρανῷ, Kat ἰδοὺ δράκων 
μέγας πυρρός, ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ kal: κέρατα δέκα, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς 
κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ἑπτὰ διαδήματα. 

The sevenheaded Dragon is ultimately derived from Baby- 
lonian mythology. The monster appears as the chief enemy of 
God in the O.T., and is variously designated or hinted at under 
such titles as Rahab, Isa. li. 9-10; Ps. Ixxxix. 10; Job xxvi. 
12-13, etc.: Leviathan, Ps. Ixxiv. 12-19; Isa. xxvii. 1: Behe- 
moth, Job xl. 15-24: the dragon in the sea, Job vii. 12; Ezek. 
xxix. 3-6, xxxli. 2-8; Jer. li. 34, 36, 42 (cf. Pss. Sol. ii. 28-34): 
the Serpent, Amos ix. 2 566. (see Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, 
29-82; Genesis’, 121 sqq.; Zimmern, K.A.7.3 507 sqq.; Jere- 
mias, Das AT.? 177 sqq.; Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erk- 
larung des NNT. 99 566. 

The many names by which this monster was designated 
point to a manifoldness of the tradition. The dragon appears in 
some passages as a personification of the ocean, and specially of 
the primeval ocean, Isa. li. g-10; Ps. Ixxxix. 10 566. ; Job xxvi. 
12, etc.: in others as a dweller in the Nile, and so Egypt is 
named Rahab, Isa. xxx 7; Ps. Ixxxvil. 4: in others as the 
monster which prevents the rising of the sun, Job ili. 8, or from 
which the darkness comes, Job xxvi. 13. Hence Gunkel con- 
cludes (Genesis® 122) that other mythologies in addition to that 


318 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Κι]. 8. 


of Babylon may have contributed towards the dragon myth in 
the O.T. 

The dragon and the primeval ocean are brought together in 
Isa. li.g sq. These were overcome by Yahweh in the prehistoric 
foretime. And what happened at the beginning of days will be 
repeated on a greater scale at the end of time. The primeval 
strife between Yahweh and the powers of chaos is transformed 
into a final struggle between God and Satan at the world’s close, 
in which the latter will manifest himself as a world-power, 
hostile first to Judaism and then to the Christian Community. 
The transformation of cosmological myth into eschatological 
doctrine is found also in Isa. xi. 6-8, ἰχν. 25, Hos. ii. 18-22, 
which assign to the blessed coming time the peace that reigned 
in Eden ; in Isa. Ixv. 17, Ixvi. 22; 1 Enoch xci. 16, where the 
creation of the foretime is to be succeeded by the creation of a 
new heavens and a new earth. 

The manifoldness of the ancient eschatological myth is to 
some extent repeated in the eschatological expectation. Thus in 
Isa. xxvii. 1, it issaid that “in that day Yahweh with His sore and 
great and strong sword shall punish leviathan, the swift serpent, 
and leviathan, the crooked serpent, and He shall slay the dragon 
that is in the sea.” Similarly in our Apocalypse we have a 
variety of evil agents—the Dragon, z.e. Satan, and his two agents, 
the Beast andthe False Prophet. The Beast was originally none 
other than the dragon himself, the chaos monster, since he came 
up from the sea, xiii. 1. As such he pours forth a flood of water 
from his mouth after the woman, xii. 15. The same idea seems 
to underlie xvii. 1. 

δράκων... πυρρός κτλ. The fiery red or scarlet colour, 
xvil. 3, of the dragon may (X.A. 7.8 503 sq. 512) go back to the 
muSrusSu tamtim, the “raging” or “red gleaming” serpent, 
which was set up in the Temple of Marduk, Esagil, and is to be 
regarded as the chaos monster since with the Babylonians no 
monster had a serpent-like form. The Babylonian representa- 
tions of this muSruSSu have two horns—a feature with which we 
may compare the horns in our text. But the number ten comes 
most probably from Dan. vii. 7, 24. The Babylonian tradition 
speaks also of the muSmahha, the “great serpent” with “seven 
heads.”! Zimmern (X.A.7\8 507, 512) takes these to be 
descriptions of one and the same mythological chaos monster. 
The combined characteristics of these two conceptions serve to 
account for the colour? of the dragon in our text, the number of 


1In the Gnostic Pistis Sophia (ed. Schmidt, Ixxxviii. 34) a serpent is 
mentioned having the form of ‘‘a basilisk with seven heads.” Wetstein 
quotes Qiddushim 29” where a demon with seven heads appears. 

2 But the red colour of the Dragon is found in the Egyptian myth. The 


SS ee 


XII. 3-4. | VISION OF THE DRAGON 319 


his heads and the fact that he was horned. The idea, therefore, 
in our text is composite, and embraces characteristics (7.6. ten 
horns and seven heads) that cannot be reconciled or at all events 
understood. Ifthe writer had been creating freely the conception 
before us, we should naturally have expected the Dragon to have 
had seven heads and seven and not ten horns. But the number 
ten has come from tradition, 2.6. Dan. vii. 7, 24. 

καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ἑπτὰ διαδήματα. This clause cannot 
be illustrated from any ancient source. But its presence here is 
not difficult in itself. If the Christ has διαδήματα πολλά, xix. 12, 
the Dragon, His great foe, would not unnaturally be represented 
as likewise crowned with diadems. But we cannot in this way 
explain xiii. 1, where the ten horns of the beast are similarly 
crowned, and where these ten horns appear to refer to the 
Parthian kings. It is not improbable that both here and in 
xiii. 1 the clauses are later interpolations, and from the same 
hand that was at work in i. 20, viii. 2, xvii. 9. The position of 
the ἑπτά (in xili. 1 of the δέκα) before the noun and without the 
article is difficult. As a rule our author placed ἑπτά after its 
noun when anarthrous. See, however, footnote on vill. 2. 

4. καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ 
ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. καὶ ὃ δράκων ἔστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς 
γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς 
καταφάγῃ. 

In the first clause we have not onlya reference to but a loose 
rendering of Dan. viii. 10, where it is said of the little horn 
sayy yay dem oye xaycy Sam, Since both the LXX 
and Theodotion give here wholly divergent renderings resting on 
a different text, the rendering in our text is an independent 
version. The third part of mankind was destroyed after the 
sixth (1.6. second) Trumpet: here the third part of the stars was 
cast down after the seventh (2.6. third). 

To this last statement we have a remarkable parallel in 
Bund. iii. 11, “ He (the evil spirit) stood upon one third of the 
inside of the sky, and he sprang like a snake out of the sky down 
to the earth.” 

καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει. . . εἰς τὴν γῆν. These words refer 
to a war in heaven between the good angels and Satan and his 
angels, and it is implied that the latter were cast down to earth, 
where already the woman is supposed to be, and that it was not 
till then that the woman brought forth her child. When the 
child was born He was carried off to the throne of God. Thenin 


dragon Typhon which sought to slay Horus the child of Hathor was according 
to Plutarch (De Jszde et Ostride, 22, 30) of a red colour. See Gunkel, 
Zum Verstdndnts, 57, note. 


320 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ XII. 4-5. 


xil. 7 5464. a second war in heaven is recounted. This second 
was intended by our author to be understood as Satan storming 
heaven in pursuit of the child. Thus xii. 4 would refer to the 
primeval war in heaven when Satan was hurled down from his 
first abode to earth, and xii. 7 sqq. to Satan’s final attempt to 
storm heaven, and his final overthrow after the birth of the child. 
The story is told in symbolic language. The birth of the child 
marks the end of Satan’s power in heaven. With this idea we 
might compare our Lord’s language, Luke x. 18, ἐθεώρουν τὸν 
Σατανᾶν. . . ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. But originally xii. 47° and 
xli. 7 544. were doublets, and referred to one and the same war 
in heaven. xii. 7-9 had originally no reference whatever to the 
child, nor were Michael and his angels in the least conscious that 
they were fighting on His behalf, nor is it anywhere stated that 
the dragon was overthrown because of his enmity to the child. 

Behind this casting down of the stars Gunkel (Schépfung, 387) 
would discover an astrological myth, which accounted for the 
gap in the starry heaven. In the present context this subject of 
a war in heaven is rehandled in xii. 7-10, 12. 

ὃ δράκων ἔστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικός. In their present 
context these words are, as J. Weiss, p. 83, writes, intended to 
teach that the enmity of mankind which Jesus had to endure 
was in reality an enmity of the devil (cf. Luke xxii. 1 sqq.; John 
xili. 27) which had beset Him from the beginning (cf. Luke iv. 
13; Mt. ii. 4). But this was not their original meaning. See 
Introd. to Chapter, § 10, p. 310. 

5. καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν 
ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ᾽ καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς 
τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. 

The peculiar phrase υἱόν, ἄρσεν is found also in Tob. vi. 12 
(x) καὶ υἱὸς ἄρσην οὐδὲ θυγάτηρ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ, and the correspond- 
ing Hebrew in Jer. xx. 15, 131 12, where the LXX gives only ἄρσην 
(B, ἄρσεν), but the Vulgate Peshitto and Targum of Jonathan 
support the text. Notwithstanding the text is peculiar. The 
neuter ἄρσεν is also peculiar. Yet we find it in the LXX, Isa. 
Ixvi. 7, ἐξέφυγε καὶ ἔτεκεν ἄρσεν : Jer. xxxvil. (xxx.) 6. 

ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν... σιδηρᾷ. This clause which comes from 
the hand of our author (cf. ii. 27; xix. 15) and refers to Christ, 
makes clear the meaning which he attaches to the text. It is just 
this child (Ps. ii. 9) that will with irresistible power overcome 
the Antichrist and his heathen followers. 

ἡρπάσθη κτλ. Our author makes these words refer to the 
removal of Christ from the sphere of Satan’s power and to His 
ascension. Thus the whole life of Christ and all His redemptive 
activities are ignored and only His birth and ascension are here 
mentioned. Jesus, moreover, is represented as a child in need 


ΧΤΙ. δ-8.] WAR IN HEAVEN 321 


of protection, and as such rapt to heaven. ‘These facts can only 
be explained by the hypothesis that our author did not write this 
chapter himself, but by his editorial additions made the text, 
which had originally quite a different meaning, refer to Christ’s 
birth and ascension. See Introd. to Chapter. ἁρπάζω is 
used in the same sense as in our text in 2 Cor. xil. 2, 4; 
1 Thess: iv. 17; Acts viii. 20. 

καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ = “‘even unto His throne.” It is 
probably an addition of our author: cf. iil. 21, v. 1, vil. 10, and 
possibly the idea in xxii. 1, 3, τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ Kai τοῦ ἀρνίου. 

6. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον 
ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ἐκεῖ τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν ἡμέρας 
χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. 

The Church is to be sheltered from persecution during the 
reign of Antichrist. But this statement does not accord with 
our author’s teaching elsewhere. See notes on 14-16 (p. 330), 
and on 17 (p. 332). 

This verse is a doublet (see pp. 301, 304) of xii. 13°, 14, and 
anticipates what takes place after the confitct in heaven about to 
be described. On the meaning of the γυνή here, see note, p. 315. 

The 1260 days is an interpretation of the corresponding but 
less definite phrase in 14. It denotes the period of the Anti- 
christ’s reign. 

τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ in xiii. 6 is an expansion 
and explanation of εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς in 14. The ἀπό (= ὑπό) 
after a passive verb—very rare in N.T.—belongs to the style of 
our author (see ix. 18, note). The phrase τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον is 
found in John xiv. 2, 3. 

7. καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. 

ὃ Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ 
δράκοντος, 

καὶ 6 δράκων ἐπολέμησεν καὶ ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, 8. καὶ οὐκ 
ἴσχυσεν 

οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. 


καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος. .. 6 Μιχαὴλ. .. τοῦ πολεμῆσαι. 
We have here an abnormal construction. Some _ scholars 
compare Acts x. 25, ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, but this 
construction is not a true parallel. 

Diisterdieck makes many suggestions. He proposes ἐπολέ- 
μῆσαν as the original text, and explains the τοῦ as a dittograph of 
αὐτοῦ preceding it: or he suggests the loss of ἀνέστησαν or ἦλθον 
(so Swete) before τοῦ πολεμῆσαι : or again, the excision of πόλεμος 
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ as a marginal gloss. Viteau (Ztudes, i. 168) 
assumes the loss of ἦσαν, but Bousset and Swete think it better to 
repeat ἐγένετο with Μιχαήλ. Buttmann and Blass take τοῦ 

VOL. 1L—21 


322 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XII. 7. 


πολεμῆσαι as depending on ἐγένετο πόλεμος and 6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ 
ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ as the subject of πολεμῆσαι. There was war 
in heaven, so that Michael and his angels fought,” etc. The 
nom. would then appear here irregularly for the acc., te. τοῦ 
πολεμῆσαι τὸν Μιχαὴλ καὶ τοὺς ἀγγελους αὐτοῦ Robertson, 
Gram. 1066, takes τοῦ πολεμῆσαι to be “in explanatory 
apposition with πόλεμος, but none of the examples 
he gives from the LXX are parallels. Herein he follows 
Moulton’, 218, who seeks to illustrate the construction by a 
quotation from Virgil which is not analogous. His illustration of 
this abnormal Greek by an abnormal piece of English—“ There 
will be a cricket match—the champions to play the rest,” throws 
no light on the difficulty. 

But all these explanations are only counsels of despair. The 
first step to the true explanation was taken by Ewald, Bleek, and 
Zullig, who recognized τοῦ πολεμῆσαι as a Hebraism = onpnd 
= “they had to fight.” But none of these scholars attempted to 
deal with the chief difficulty, 2.6. the nominatives 6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ 
ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ before τοῦ πολεμῆσαι. Some acquaintance with 
the LXX would have solved this difficulty. So far from being 
a unigue construction in Greek, it is a construction found 
several times in the LXX, and found as a /iteral reproduction of a 
pure Hebraism. ‘Thus in Hos. ix. 13 we have ᾿Εφράιμ rod 
ἐξαγαγεῖν (=sysind onas), “Ephraim must bring forth,” Ps. 
XXV. 14, ἡ διαθήκη αὐτοῦ τοῦ δηλῶσαι] (cf. Vulg. = Ὀν τ πο Π}2): 
1 Chron. ix. 25, ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν... τοῦ εἰσπορεύεσθαι κατὰ ἑπτὰ 
ἡμέρας (=D. nyaw> 3... ons), “their brethren had to 
come in. . . every seven days”: Eccles. ili. 15, ὅσα τοῦ γίνεσθαι 
ἤδη yéyover (-- ΠῚΠ 723 mynd Wwe), “what is to be hath already 
been.” Thus in the Hebrew the subject before 5 and the inf. 
is in the nom., and the Greek translators have literally repro- 
duced this idiom in the LXX. 

There can, therefore, be no doubt that we have here a literal 
Greek reproduction of a pure Hebraism, which recurs in a less 
correct form in xii. ro (see note). Hence this passage admits of 
easy retroversion into Hebrew. 

pyowa mondo ‘am 7 
pona_ ondnd yoxdny ΝΘ 
Say xd) yordny ons pon 8 
mova ἫΝ xy xd ony on 

7. ‘And war burst forth in heaven: 

Michael and his angels had to fight with the Dragon, 

8. And the Dragon,” etc. 


1 Here the LXX and the Vulg. take 1n2 in the nom., whereas modern 
scholars render it as the acc, after oyna), 


ΧΙΙ. 7.1 WAR IN HEAVEN 323 


πόλεμος ἐν τῷ odpav. Battles in the sky are referred to 
in 2 Macc. v. 2 sq. ; Joseph. B./. vi. 5. 3; Sibyll. ili. 796-808, ἐν 
νεφέλῃ δ᾽ ὄψεσθε μάχην πεζῶν τε καὶ ἵππων. But our text refers 
not to a mere spectacle in the sky but to an actual war. Many 
of the features in this account we can find in pre-Christian Juda- 
ism. i. Thus Michael, who was earlier conceived as the patron 
angel of Israel as opposed to the patron angels of the Gentiles, 
came later to be regarded as the guardian of the righteous of all 
nations—a conception which set Michael in direct antagonism 
to Satan, the protagonist of evil. 11. Michael’s greatest struggle 
was to take place in the last days on behalf of Israel. If this 
expectation is combined with the preceding, the conflict of 
Michael and Satan is to come to a climax in the last days. 11]. 
According to Jewish tradition Satan was cast down from heaven 
in the beginning of time, but according to a widely attested 
belief he had still access to heaven, The fusion of these two 
beliefs could readily issue in the eschatological expectation that 
Satan was to be cast down from heaven in the last times, and, if 
we take the evidence of i. and ii. into account, his great angelic 
opponent was to be Michael. 

i. In Dan. x. 13, 21, xil. 1 Michael is described as the 
guardian angel of Israel, and fights on their behalf against the 
guardian angels of the Gentile nations, Dan. x.—xii. But in 
1 Enoch xx. 5 he is represented not as the patron angel of Israel, 
but as the patron angel of the saints in Israel. Furthermore, he 
is expressly distinguished from the seventy angelic patrons of the 
nations (Deut. xxxii. 8-9 LXX; Sir. xvil. 17; Jub. xv. 31-32), 
since Israel is not put under an angelic patron like the nations 
but is God’s own portion. But anotherstage still in the develop- 
ment emerges. In the larger ethical universalism of the Testa- 
ments of the XII Patriarchs, Michael is regarded not merely as 
the intercessor on behalf of the saints in Israel but of the right- 
eous in all nations, T. Levi v. 7, as the mediator between God 
and man, T. Dan vi. 2. This radical change of conception 
brought with it of necessity other changes. Michael’s antagonists 
are no longer the patron angels of the nations but the spiritual 
foe—first of the righteous Israelite and next of the righteous of 
all nations. In either case alike this foe is Mastema (Jub. x. 
8, 11), or Beliar, ζ.6. Satan,! T. Dan vi. 1 (T. Benj. vi. 1). Thus 
Michael is the angelic representative of the power of goodness 
in the strife with evil, and as such fights with Satan. This con- 
ception, which is that which appears in our text, had already 
been arrived at in Judaism. See my edition of the Testaments 

1In later Judaism Michael’s opponent is frequently called "ΡΠ wna, 


which is practically =6 ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος. See Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Juden- 
thum, i. 822, 826, 837, 842. 


324 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΚΙ]. 8. 


XII Patriarchs, pp. 39-40, 132; Lueken, Michael, 23-30; 
Bousset, Religion des Judenthums, 320 sq. 

ii. The intervention of Michael in the last times of greatest 
need is referred to already in Dan. xii. 1; 1 Enoch xc.)14, and 
later in Ass. Mos. x. 2.1 

iii. Once more we find in 2 Enoch xxix. 4-5 and in the 
Book of Adam and Eve i. 6. (Malan’s transl.) the statement that 
Satan once attempted to set his throne on an equality with that of 
God, and was thereupon hurled down from heaven. But alongside 
this tradition there existed the belief that Satan had still his place 
in heaven: cf. Job 1. 6, 7; Zech. ili. 1 sqq.; 1 Enoch xl. 7 
(Eph. i. 3, 10, ii. 6, ili. 10, vi. 12; Asc. Isa. vii. Ὁ sqq.; 2 Enoch 
vii. 1). The existence of these two views in Judaism naturally 
led to their fusion in an eschatological expectation, such as we 
find in our text, according to which Satan is,to be cast down 
from heaven by Michael in the first of the last great final struggles 
between the Kingdom of God and Satan.? With this conception 
we might compare the spiritual form given to it by our Lord in 
Luke x. 18, ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
πεσόντα, and John xii. 31, νῦν ὃ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθή- 
σεται ἔξω. 

These words mean that evil is already hurled from its seat of 
power which it had hitherto held, and that the first and most 
important stage in the conquest of Satan had already been 
achieved. His sphere is henceforth more limited. 

To the cosmological myth referred to above there are parallels 
in the Persian mythology where Ahriman in the beginning of 
the world’s history storms heaven and is hurled down, Bund. 
ili. 11, 26; and in those of the Manichaeans, Mandaeans, and 
Greeks. 

But in the Persian religion we find not only the cosmological 
myth but also this eschatological expectation. In the last days 
there was to be war in heaven, Ahuramazda and the Amshas- 
pands were to contend with Angra Mainyu and his followers and 
overcome and destroy both him and the serpent Gokihar (see 
Boklen, Verwandschaft d. jiid.—Christlichen mit d. Parsischen 
Eschatologie, 125, 544.). 

8. ἴσχυσεν = 95", as in Ps. xiii. 4; Dan. vii. 21. This Hebrew 


1 This expectation appears also in the LXX and Theod. renderings of 
Dan. viii. 11, ἕως ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσεται (Theod. ῥύσηται) τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν, 
though the Hebrew is quite different. This designation of Michael as ‘‘ the 
captain of the host” or ‘‘chief captain” appears in 2 Enoch xxii, 6, xxxiii. 
10. Thus the LXX expected Michael to free Israel from its subjection to 
Antiochus. 

2 In the Pesik. R. iii. 6 (ed. Friedmann, p. 161°) Satan declares that he 
and his angels will be cast down to hell by the Messiah (see Jewish Encyc. 
xi. 70): cf. Lueken, A/ichae/, 29. 


XII. 8-9. ] DRAGON CAST DOWN TO EARTH 325 


verb is used absolutely in the sense of “to be victorious” in 
Gen. xxx. 8, xxxii. 28; Hos. xii. 4, etc. ἐπολέμησεν . . . καὶ οὐκ 


ἴσχυσεν recalls Dan. vii. 21, > ΠΟΘ᾽... ΔῚΡ ἼΩΝ, Theod. 
ἐποίει πόλεμον... . καὶ ἴσχυσεν. οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη κτὰ. This phrase, 


which is found in Dan. i. 35 (cf. Zech. x. 10), recurs in xx. ΤΙ. 


ε 


9. καὶ ἐβλήθη ὅ δράκων ὃ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις 6 ἀρχαῖος, ὁ 
καλούμενος Διάβολος 
καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὃ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην---ἐβλήθη 
εἰς τὴν γῆν 
καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν. 

On the casting down of Satan see note on ver. 8. The earth 
is now to be the scene of his activities. The 6 μέγας points back 
to ver. 3, ἰδοὺ δράκων μέγας. It is not improbable that the words 
ὃ ὄφις. .. ἐβλήθη are an addition on the part of our author. 
See p. 309 sq. The diction and ideas are essentially his. In that 
case the original of ver. 9 ran— 


kat ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας εἰς Thy γῆν 


A ες ” > lal > > A > , 
καὶ ob ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν. 


& ὄφις. . . Διάβολος καὶ ὃ Σατανᾶς. Cf. xx. 2. First of all, 
διάβολος is the LXX rendering οἵ jh¥. Hence διάβολος and 


Σατανᾶς are synonymous in our text. We have now to consider 
the connections here established between Σατανᾶς and ὁ ὄφις 6 
ἀρχαῖος. The conceptions were originally quite distinct. The 
old serpent—cf. the Rabbinical expressions ‘3iD7p0 wn3n and 
fw vina: see Wetstein and Schéttgen ix /oc.—is manifestly 


the serpent in Gen. ili. 1 sq. that tempted Eve. The serpent in 
this passage was distinct from the rest of the animal creation. It 
stood upright apparently (see note in my edition on /w4. iii. 23): 
it possessed supernatural knowledge—the secret of the tree— 
which none but God besides knew: it was opposed to God and 
calumniated Him. These facts point to a mythological element 
in the background, and that the serpent was originally a demon 
of a serpentlike form and hostile to God and man. 

That supernatural beings had such a form was believed among 
the Semites, Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, and others. (See 
Gunkel? on Gen. iii. 1-5.) 

The word Satan, jb¥, is of purely Semitic origin. Satan 
appears as a distinct superhuman personality only in three 
passagesin the ΘΒ Zech: ui. ; Job. 1. 6; 1 Chron. σαὶ τ In 
the earlier he is completely subject to Yahweh, and appears 
among “the sons of God” in Job, though he is regarded as 
distinct from them, Jobi. 6. ‘The development of the conception 
moves along two lines; (a) from being subordinate to, Satan 


326 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XII. 9-10. 


becomes largely independent of, Yahweh; (4) from being the 
(not necessarily unjust) accuser, he becomes the tempter and 
enemy of men. In N.T. both developments are complete, in 
O.T. both are in process” (Zucyc. Bib. iv. 4298). 

But in the O.T. there is not the slightest hint of the later 
identification of the serpent and Satan beyond the combination 
in the tempter of Eve in the Paradise story of the demonic 
character and the serpent-like form. The next step in this 
direction is to be found in 1 Enoch Ixix. 6, where Gadreel is 
said to have tempted Eve. He was probably a Satan, since he 
was a leader of the fallen angels, and the guilt of the angels 
consisted in their becoming subject to Satan, liv. 6. In Wisd. 
li. 24 the entrance of death into the world is attributed to Satan: 
φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Some 
scholars explain this passage by the entrance of death into the 
world by the murder of Abel by Cain, but the above is to be 
preferred, and it is that taken by Jos. Av#. i. τ. 4. 

Thus we come to the complete and absolute identification of 
the serpent and Satan in our text. Cf. Stave, Ueber d. Einfluss 
des Parsismus auf das Judenthum, 265 sqq. 

10-11. The second of these verses and part of the first are 
from the hand of our author, and not from the source from which 
he is translating. 

10. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν 

“Aptt ἐγένετο ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις 

καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν 

καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, 

ὅτι ἐβλήθη ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, 

ὁ κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ 
νυκτός. 


The diction of 1o is wholly from the hand of our author, but 
this is to be expected as he was the translator. First as to the 
use Of ἄρτι: cf. xiv. 13. καὶ ἤκουσα. . . λέγουσαν is of constant 
occurrence: cf. especially vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, X. 4, XiX. I. ἡ σωτηρία 
means here “victory” as in vil. 10, xix. 1, and thus = nyaw* 


(so Eichhorn and Ewald). Cf. Ex. xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xx. 17. 
With ἡ δύναμις cf. vii. 12, xix. 1. The δύναμις is the power of 
God which has been manifested in the victory over the Dragon. 
ἡ ¢fovcia=the delegated power of the Messiah. This word 
occurs twenty times in our text. ἡ βασιλεία, the empire, unshared 
and unqualified, of God: cf. xi. 15; Ps. ii. 2, 6. 6 κατήγωρ is a 
Hebraism: see below. τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν: cf. i. 9, vi. 11, 
XIX. IO, XXil, 9. ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός : cf. iv. 8. 

As regards the subject matter, the evidence is not so clear. 
Most of ver. 10 follows aptly on 9 and connects naturally and 


ΧΙΙ. 10.] MARTYRS’ TRIUMPH SONG 327 


directly with 12. But there is an unsurmountable difficulty in 
the phrase τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν. This could not be used by angels 
of men. On what grounds Bousset thinks this possible, I know 
not. Hence, if the singers are not angels, they must be men. And 
since in Judaism the faithful were not glorified before the Judg- 
ment, the singers in our text must be the Christian martyrs in 
vi. 9-11, who in vi. 11 have already received their glorified bodies. 
(See further discussions on these questions below.) Hence we 
conclude that this phrase in xii. ro is from the hand of our author. 
See below. 

κατήγωρ. If this is the right reading, then it is a translitera- 
tion of 13.0p, which in turn is the Hebraised form of κατήγορος. 
7)).3D = συνήγορος exhibits the same formation. In later Judaism 
Michael and Satan are the protagonists of good and evil: the 
former, moreover, is the champion or advocate (713°3D) of the 
faithful, while the latter is their accuser (117up) before God. 
ΞΒΕΣ ὦ ρον" (wo) 6} ποῖδ 1 Dan. vis) 2..52. (According 
to Shem. R. sect. 18 (f. 117°) on Ex. xii. 29 (SchOttgen, 1. 
1120, il. 660), ‘Michael and Sammael are like the advocate and 
the accuser (7179) 3205 17) who stand before the Court... 
Satan accuses (2130p) but Michael upholds the merits of Israel.” 
Cf. also Midr. Teh. on Ps. xx. and cf. also Midr. R. on Ruth at 
the opening in Lueken, A/ichae/, 21 sqq. The Satans are spoken 
of as accusers of mankind before God, 1 Enoch xl. 7—“I heard 
the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to 
come before the Lord of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the 
earth.” 

τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν. Whoare these brethren? In their present 
context they cannot be those who have already suffered martyr- 
dom ; for in that case they would no longer be exposed to Satanic 
assaults, but they are clearly the faithful who are still living, 
and who are therefore still exposed to the accusations of Satan. 
To understand this passage we must remember that xii. 11 (see 
note 7” Joc.) is an addition of our author, and that in the original 
document, 2.6. ΧΙ]. 7-9, 10 (in part), 12, the time presupposed is 
antecedent to the Judgment. Now, if xii. 10 in its present form 
belonged to the original Jewish source, the heavenly voices must be 
those of angels and not of men; for in_/wdaism the martyrs were 
not glorified before the Judgment, and could not therefore bear 
their part in the praises of heaven. Rather they were concerned 
as unclothed spirits supplicating for vengeance underneath the 
heavenly altar (see note on vi. 9-11). Since, therefore, the song of 
triumph 15, on the presupposition that xii. 10 belongs to the source, 
sung by angels, possibly by the angels who had fought against 
the dragon and overcome him, the phrase τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν could 
not have stood in the original document or tradition ; for men 


328 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙ]. 10-11 


are never said to be “brethren” of the angels: in our text they 
are called “fellow-servants.” (Cf. xix. 10, xxii. 9.) Hence 
instead of τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν there would have stood some such 
phrase as τῶν δικαίων (1.6. ὉΠ) as in 1 Enoch i. 8, v. 6, xxv. 4, 
XXXxix. 4, xlv. 6, etc. Thus the angels praised God in that the accuser 
of the righteous was cast out of heaven.! Hence we conclude 
that in xii. ro our author replaced an original phrase such as 
Opsn in this Jewish source by the words τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν. 
By the substitution of this phrase he has transformed the 
original meaning of the passage, which in its present form recalls 
the scene in vi. 9-11. The singers are not angels but men; 
for they speak of the faithful on earth as “our brethren.” They 
are, moreover, the martyrs, who in vi. 11 have already received 
their glorified bodies, and are bidden to wait till ‘their brethren ” 
(ot ἀδελφοὶ aitdv—observe the recurrence of this phrase), who 
were also to be slain, should be fulfilled. These glorified 
martyrs, who sing the heavenly song, can look forward in xii. 
11 and declare prophetically that their brethren have already 
overcome the Dragon by their martyrdom. Thus in their vision 
the martyr roll is already complete. 

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, 2.6. uninterruptedly. According to 
Wajjikra R. § 21, Satan accuses men all the days of the year 
except the Day of Atonement. κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
θεοῦ: cf. Job i. 6 sqq.; 1 Chron. xxi. 1; 1 Enoch xl. 7. 


11. καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου, 
lol 2 - 
καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν, 
Ν > > ‘ ἧς 39 A Ξ᾿ 
καὶ οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι θανάτου. 


Every phrase in this verse belongs to our author. See p. 302. 
It was added by him to his translation of his original document. 
It interrupts, according to Vdlter, ii. 146, Vischer, 28, Spitta, 130, 
J. Weiss, 89, Gunkel, 192, etc., the close connection between 
vv. to and 12. The διὰ τοῦτο in 12 referred immediately to 
ver. 10 in the original source. The heavens are bidden to 
rejoice because in the overthrow of the Dragon the sovereignty of 
God and His Christ has been vindicated, and the accuser of the 
righteous has been cast out of heaven, and the earth and its 
inhabitants are bidden to mourn because the Dragon has gone 
down to them. But in τι the victory of the saints on the earth 
is already past. They have overcome the Dragon by their 
martyrdom and the roll of the martyrs is now complete (cf. vi. 11). 
Yet in 12 the advent of this last period of martyrdom is only 
just announced. The Dragon has only just come down to earth, 
and his rage is now directed against the rest of the seed of the 


1 The function of the archangel Phanuel was to prevent the Satans from 
appearing before God to accuse mankind, 1 Enoch xl. 7. 


XII. 11-13.] MARTYRS’ TRIUMPH SONG 329 


woman, which does not take effect till 17. Hence, even though 
11 be entirely proleptic, it comes in rather incongruously between 
1o and 12. See also final note on Io. 

διὰ τὸ αἷμα. The διά here has been taken by Ewald, De 
Wette, Bousset to denote the means and not the ground; iv. 
II, ΧΙΠ]. 14 are quoted as other instances of this use. Certainly 
in xii. 11, xiii. 14 this meaning seems more natural. But it is 
best to take διά as denoting the cause. Then the death of the 
Lamb is the primary and the testimony of the martyrs the 
secondary ground of their victory. 

τὸν λόγον κτλ. Since τὸν λόγον is here parallel to τὸ αἷμα 
it may give a second objective ground for their victory, and so 
mean the divine word of revelation, for which they offer their 
testimony. But the next clause shows that we should take the 
words to mean their personal testimony to Jesus. Thus the two 
sides of man’s redemption are here brought forward together. 

οὐκ ἠγάπησαν Thy ψυχὴν κτλ. Cf. John xii. 25, ὃ φιλῶν τὴν 
ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπολλύει αὐτήν, καὶ ὃ μισῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ 
κόσμῳ τούτῳ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον φυλάξει αὐτήν : and ΜΚ. viii. 35 sq. ; 
Matti x39, xvi 25 ; Luke ix. 24) xvii. 33: 

12. διὰ τοῦτο εὐφραίνεσθε, οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκηνοῦντες" 

οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, 
ὅτι κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἔχων θυμὸν μέγαν, 
εἰδὼς ὅτι ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει. 


διὰ τοῦτος 566 πΠοίβ Οὔ 11. This phrase goes back to ver. 10 
in the present form of the text. οὐρανοί is found only here in the 
plural in the Apocalypse. For the phrase εὐφραίνεσθε of οὐρανοί, 
cf. Isa. xliv. 23, xlix. 13, Ὁ 939, where the LXX has εὐφρ. οὐρανοί 


as here. Cf. also Ps. xcv. 11. We should therefore expect εὐφραίνου 
οὐρανέ (or ὃ οὐρανός) as it is in xviii. 20. The use of a plural 
here points toa source. See Introd. p. 302, and compare the 
unusual ὅπου. . . ἔκεϊ in ver. 14. The word σκηνοῦν is techni- 
cally used of God in vii. 15, xxi. 3, and of heavenly beings in 
ΧΙ]. 6; κατοικεῖν is used of those who dwell on the earth. No 
such usage prevails in the LXX. ὀλίγον καιρόν, 2.6. the period 
specified in 14 (see 16). 

13. καὶ ὅτε εἶδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς Thy γῆν, ἐδίωξεν 
τὴν γυναῖκα ἥτις ἔτεκεν τὸν ἄρσενα. 

As we saw above (see note on 1), the woman in the present 
context represents the true Israel or the community of believers. 

The clauses ὅτε εἶδεν (cf. 1. 17) and ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν 
appear to be additions of our author in order to bind the 
divergent elements together. See also Spitta, p. 134. The ὅτε 
εἶδεν is rather weak, but the second clause, ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν 
(repeated from ver. g), is inserted because of the incorporation of 


330 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙ]. 18-1δ. 


xii. 7-12 in the text. This verse therefore in all probability 
simply read in the original document as follows: καὶ 6 δράκων 
ἐδίωξεν τὴν γυναῖκα κτλ., and formed the immediate sequel of 5. 
When the Child was rapt to heaven in 5, the Dragon thereupon 
pursued His mother, 13. 

ἥτις τ- ἧ. See note on xi. 8. 

14-16. The expectation expressed here is merely a survival 
of an earlier time and was found by our author in his source. 
But in our author it is meaningless, as it is against his own 
expectation of a universal martyrdom: cf. xiii. 15. For other 
like survivals see xviii. 4 ”.: also p. 43, § 4. Our Book is only 
a first sketch, which our author had not the opportunity of 
revising. 

14. καὶ ἐδόθησαν τῇ γυναικὶ at δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦ τοῦ 
μεγάλου, ἵνα πέτηται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, ὅπου 
τρέφεται ἐκεῖ καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ 
ὄφεως. 

ai δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦι͵Ἡ: The definite article here 
renders nugatory the various attempts made to explain this con- 
ception from supposed parallels in the O.T., as Ex. xix 4; 
Deut. xxxii. τα (Spitta); Isa. xl. 31 (Holtzm.) or Mic. iv. 9-10 
(Volter, iv. 76, 79), where the points of similarity are purely 
accidental. The eagle was originally a definitely conceived 
eagle in the tradition. ὅπου... exei—a Hebraism, ow-v'ix. 
The addition of the ᾿κεῖ is contrary to the usage of our author: 
hence we infer the use of a Semitic source here. See Introd. 
p. 301. 

καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς Kal ἥμισυ καιροῦ, a mistranslation (but a 
mistranslation that had secured a prescriptive right by reason of 
its ambiguity): cf. Dan. vii. 25, ΓΝ by pon py, and xii. 7 
‘ym OM Ἵν). This translation which renders a dual as a 
plural is first found in the LXX and Theod. of Dan. vii. 25, 
xii. 7. The text does not necessarily show dependence on the 
Greek versions. ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ éhews=WNIT IHD. We have 
here a Hebrew idiom. This phrase is to be connected not with 
πέτηται but with τρέφεται ἐκεῖ, and to be rendered (1) “at a 
distance from,” cf. Judg. ix. 21: ἔφυγεν. . . καὶ ὥκησεν ἐκεῖ 
ἀπὸ προσώπου ᾿Αβιμέλεχ ("8 35D); or (2) “because of.” This 
latter meaning is to be preferred, for it is a very frequent meaning 
of 251) ; whereas the meaning it has in Judg. ix. 21 is unattested 
in any other passage. The sojourn of the woman in the wilder- 
ness for three and a half years is due to the serpent who reigns 
over the world for that period. See note on xi. 2. 

15. καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ ὄφις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ὀπίσω τῆς γυναικὸς 
ὕδωρ ὡς ποταμόν, ἵνα αὐτὴν ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃ. 

The word ποταμοφόρητος is formed on the analogy of 


XII. 15-17.] DRAGON PERSECUTES THE WOMAN 331 


ὑδατοφόρητος, ἀνεμοφόρητος. It is found in Hesychius in his 
note on JU, vi. 348, ἀπόερσεν᾽ ποταμοφόρητον ἐποίησεν. but as 
early as 78 A.D. in Ap. Ixxxv. 16 and later in StrP. v. τὸ (see 
Expositor, Mar. 1911, p. 284). 

To the statement in our text there are no real parallels in the 
O.T. or in Judaism. The passages which represent God as 
putting forth His wrath like water, Hos. v. 10; or the streams of 
ungodliness overwhelming the righteous, Ps. xxxii. 6, cxxiv. 4, 
Isa. xliii. 2; or the march of the Israelites through the Red Sea, 
have no bearing on our text. On the other hand the Dragon is 
referred to as a water monster in Ezek. xxix. 3, XXxxil. 2, 3; Ps. 
Ixxiv. 13; T. Asher vii. 3. See note on 3. 

On the meaning of this verse for our author see next verse. 

16. καὶ ἐβοήθησεν ἡ γῆ TH γυναικί, Kal ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα 
αὐτῆς καὶ κατέπιεν τὸν ποταμὸν ὃν ἔβαλεν ὃ δράκων ἐκ τοῦ στόματος 
αὐτοῦ. 

With the diction we may compare Num. xvi. 30, ἀνοίξασα ἡ γῆ 
τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς καταπίεται αὐτούς : XVI. 32, xxvi. 10; Deut. xi. 6. 

As regards the original meaning of this verse we are wholly in 
the dark. In the war between land and water mythological 
features are discoverable which have no longer any significance 
in their present connection. But we have not the same 
difficulty with regard to the meaning they bore in 68-70 A.D. 
Vv. 14-16, if the source is Christian, refer to the flight of the 
primitive Christian community to ‘Pella before the fall of 
Jerusalem (cf. Euseb. 4.Z. iii. 5) ; but, if the source is Jewish, 
to that of the élite of the Jews to Jabneh, which became the seat 
of Jewish scholarship after the fall of Jerusalem (Jewish Encyc. 
vii. 18). In either case 14-16 are without significance in their 
present context. 

17. καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ποιῆσαι 
πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς, τῶν τηρούντων τὰς 
ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ. 

In this verse the words τῶν τηρούντων... Ἰησοῦ are with 
Wellhausen (19) and J. Weiss (136 sq.) to be regarded as an 
addition of our author to the Jewish source he here uses. They 
belong specially to his vocabulary. (See note on xiv. 12.) 
Vischer (p. 35) regards Ἰησοῦ only as an addition here, Spitta 
(131) καὶ ἐχόντων... Ἰησοῦ, while Bousset, though maintaining 
that ch. xii. is of Christian origin, assigns ΧΙ. 17 to the 
Apocalyptist of the last hand, and VoOlter (iv. 75, 146) to a 
redactor of the age of Trajan. This verse comes wholly or in part 
from our author, or it comes from the Jewish source: it must 
be from one or other ; for there is no counterpart to it in the inter- 
national myth from which many of the chief features in this 
chapter were ultimately derived, 


332 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Κι]. 18--ΧΤΙ]. 81. 


In its original source 17*° is interpreted by Wellhausen as 
follows: The woman whose flight is represented in xii. 14 is 
here identified with the élite of the Jews who fled before the 
destruction of Jerusalem and so escaped destruction. These 
embraced pious Scribes and Pharisees who refounded Judaism 
after the destruction of Jerusalem. Their attitude was opposed 
to that of the Zealots, and thus ch. xii. forms a counterblast 
to the Zelotic oracle, xi. 1-2. The λοιποί, on the other hand, 
from whom the woman is distinguished, are the Jews who 
remained in Jerusalem and were destroyed by the Romans.! 

In the present context, however, the interpretation must be 
different. The outlook is now Christian. This being so, ver. 14, 
which originally referred to the divine oracle (Euseb. AZ. 
lii. 5) that commanded all Christians to leave Jerusalem before 
it was beleaguered by the Romans 67-68 a.p., or to the flight of 
certain Jews to Jabneh before 70 a.p., does not admit of any 
intelligible reinterpretation in its present context. Our author 
incorporated in his text this Jewish or Christian source, as it 
stood, save for certain changes and additions in 3, 5, 17, and 
his second source with like alterations in 7, 9, 10-11. These 
sources of a Vespasianic or earlier date expect the escape of 
the faithful, but this expectation was abandoned by our 
author. According to him no part of the Church was to 
escape persecution and martyrdom. Hence 14-16 is simply 
a meaningless survival. ‘The rest of her seed” symbolize 
the Gentile Christians or the Church in general throughout 
the Roman Empire, which forms the theme of the next 
chapter. 


CHAPTERS X19. 8 Χ ΤΊ 2 VV, ae2 


INTRODUCTION. 
§ τ. Zhe Original and Leading Thoughts of this Chapter. 


This Section (xii. 18—xiii., xiv. 12-13) is in the style of our 
author, but the greater part of it was translated by him from 
Hebrew sources. These, as we shall see later, dealt with two? 


1 If this verse belonged to the Jewish source, then the phrase οἱ λοιποί 
had not the technical meaning that sometimes belongs to it in Apocalyptic as 
‘*the remnant.” Cf. 4 Ezra vi. 25, vii. 28, ix. 7, 8, xii. 34, xiii. 24, 26, 48; 
Apoc. Bar. xxix. 4, xl. 2. It has, moreover, no technical meaning in our 
text here or in ii. 24, ix. 20, xi. 13, xix. 21, xx. 

2 The first Beast, which here represents the antichristian world power of 
Rome, goes back ultimately to the Dragon himself, z.e. the primeval monster 
of chaos. It comes up from the sea. In the preceding chapter the Dragon 


XI. 18-XIII. §1.] MEANING OF THIS CHAPTER 333 


earlier and different conceptions of the Antichrist, but, as trans- 
formed and incorporated in the present context, they refer to 
the antichristian Empire of Rome as incarnated in Nero redivivus 
and the heathen priesthood of the imperial cult. With masterful 
hand here as everywhere our author adapts his materials to suit 
his own purpose. In chap. xii. the author carried us back into 
the past and represented the strife in heaven and the hurling 
down of Satan to earth. He next told how Satan, when cast 
down to earth, forthwith proceeded to persecute the Woman, 
whose offspring was destined to destroy him, and how, on her 
marvellous deliverance from his hands, he turned in fury on the 
rest of herseed. In order to help him in this struggle Satan takes 
his stand by the shore of the sea (xii. 18) and summons to his aid 
his two servants, the Neronic Antichrist from the sea (xiii. 1-10) 
and the False Prophet, z.e. the heathen imperial priesthood from 
the land (xiii. 11-17). The present chapter opens with the 
appearance of these two monsters in response to his summons, 
and thereupon the time changes from the past to the future. 
Our Seer beholds the first monster emerge from the sea with 
seven heads and ten horns, and amongst the heads he discovers 
one that was wounded unto death but had again recovered (xiii. 3). 
In the first monster we have the Roman empire—the anti- 
christian kingdom—which becomes incarnated in Nero vedzvzvus. 
The last and dreadest hour has now arrived—the personal reign 
of the Antichrist for the destined period of three and a half 
years, who goes to war with the saints and overcomes them in 
physical strife. All the faithless forthwith worship him, while 
the faithful are banished or slain. Thereupon the Seer adds the 
comment: “ Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints” 
(10°). But the Antichrist is not the sole demonic foe of the 
faithful. He is helped by a second monster—the heathen priest- 
hood of the imperial cult (11-18). ΒΥ means of this priesthood 
the claims of patriotism and religion were identified, in which 
the interests of religion were wholly subordinated to those of the 
State, and thus ensued the inevitable conflict between the 
imperial cult and Christianity. This final persecution of the 
Church was to be mainly carried out by this priesthood, 
which was to set up images of the Neronic Antichrist everywhere 
and enforce their worship on the world, and have αὐ that 


represents Satan. Here the two conceptions, Satan and the antichristian 
world power of Rome, appear side by side as master and servant. See note 
on xii. 3. This twofold development is as old as Dan. vii., where the monster 
of chaos is manifested in four successive world powers, which came up from 
the sea. 

But in the second Beast, z.e. the false prophet, we have a third conception, 
developed from the original conception of the monster of chaos—a conception 
already found in 2 Thess. ii., though there it has only a religious significance. 


334 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙ]. 18-XIII. §1-3. 


refused such worship put to death. Furthermore, this second Beast 
was to compel all men to bear the mark of the first Beast and 
to enforce the antichristian claims of the demonic Emperor of 
Rome by an economic warfare (16-17), that would make life 
impossible for all that did not bear the mark of the Beast. Next 
the Seer discloses in a cryptic verse the number of the name of 
the Beast, which was also the number of a man—Nero Caesar. 

Finally, just as the Seer in τοῦ declares that the faithful must 
endure captivity, exile, or death in the persecutions just foretold in 
to*, so here (xiv. 12-13)! he again declares the duty of the 
faithful—even endurance unto death in the worldwide persecu- 
tion that he has just witnessed in the vision in 16-17. Martyr- 
dom, he declares, is inevitable for those who keep God’s com- 
mandments and the faith of Jesus. And thereupon a voice 
from heaven declared the blessedness of those who suffered 
martyrdom in this strife; for that rest would follow thereupon 
and the victor’s joy. 

§ 2. But the meaning of the Hebrew sources which were 
used by our author is somewhat different. We shall now 
proceed to a detailed examination of the text, and in due course 
attempt to determine the present extent of such sources and 
their original meaning so far as the data render this possible. 


§ 3. Zhe diction and style of this Chapter come from the hand of 
our author, but it appears in part to be translated from 
Hebrew sources. 


XII. 18. ἐστάθη ἐπί. Cf. acc. as in iii, 20, vii. 1, viii. 3, 
xi. II, Xlv. 1, xv. 2. The same use of the passive aorist of this 
verb is to be found also in viii. 3, but in a derived sense in 
vi. 17: whereas ἔστησα is used in same sense in xi. I1, xviii. 17, 
which are probably from another hand. 

XIII. 1. ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης... . ἀναβαῖνον. On this order see 
note zm Joc. Observe order of numerals κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς 
ἑπτά (see note on Vill. 2). καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα 
isa gloss. 866 ποῖα 7m loc. The phrase ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλάς is char- 
acteristic of our author. 2... ὡς dpxov. Pregnant construc- 
tion: cf. i. 10, iv. I, 7, τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς τὸ στόμα. Cf. i. 15. 
8. ds ἐσφαγμένην. Cf. v. 6. πληγή here and in xiii. 12, 14 in 
the sense of “blow”=nz, Elsewhere as meaning “plague” 
in ix. 18, 20, xi. 6, xv. 1, 6, 8, xvi. 9, etc., a meaning also of 73». 
4. ὅλη ἡ γῆ. Elsewhere this adjective follows the noun as in 
ili, 10, vi. 12, xii. 9, xvi. 14. Also instead of this phrase ἡ 
οἰκουμένη ὅλη is used, iii. 10, Xil. 9, XVl. 14. ἐθαυμάσθη... 

1 xiv. 12-13 have been restored to their original position at the close 
of xiii. 


XIII. ὃ 8-4.] ITS DICTION AND STYLE 335 


ὀπίσω. This is not Greek: nor is it Hebrew. It may arise from 
a corruption in the Hebrew source. See ὃ 4. προσεκύνησαν τῷ 
δράκοντι. This use of προσκυνεῖν with the dative belongs to our 
author: see note on vii. 11. Contrast xili. 8, προσκυνήσουσιν 
αὐτόν, which also conforms to his usage, and xiii. 12. 

6. τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ. God’s abode, ze. heaven: cf. xxi. 3. 

7. On ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετά and νικῆσαι αὐτούς, see note 7” 
loc. φυλὴν καὶ λαὸν κτλ. See note on v. 9. 8. προσκυνήσουσιν 
αὐτον. See note on ver. 4 above. οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπί, c. gen. See 
note on iii. 10: § 4 below. On the remaining phrases see notes 
in loc. 9. Cf. ii. 7, iii. 6, 13, 22. 10. πίστις -- “loyalty,” “ faith- 
fulness.” Cf. ii. 19. 11. ὅμοια dpvia=pregnant construction 
frequent in Apocalypse. 12. τὴν ἐξουσίαν... πᾶσαν. This 
position of πᾶς occurs only twice elsewhere in Apoc. v. 13(?), 
viii. 3. Elsewhere always before its noun. τοῦς ἐν αὐτῇ 
κατοικοῦντας. Here only in Apoc. Most probably a close 
rendering of the Hebrew. See ὃ 4. ποιεῖ... ἵνα. Cf. iii. 9, 
xiii. 15, 16. προσκυνήσουσιν τὸ θηρίον. See note on 4 above. 
18. ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν. Order elsewhere καταβαίνειν 
ἐκ τ. οὐρ. 14. πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Cf. for verb 
ii. 20, xii. 9, ΧΡ]. 23, xix. 20, xx. 3, 8, 10, and for similar 
thought xii. 9. λέγων... ποιῆσαι. See note zz loc. 15. ἐδόθη 
... Sodvat. See vol. i. p. 54. On the form tva don... 
mpookuryowow . . . ἀποκτανθῶσιν, cf. ΧΙ. 4. 16. τοὺς μικροὺς 
k. τ. μεγάλους : cf. xi. 18, xix. 5, 18. (Contrast xx. 12.) τοὺς 
ἐλευθέρους x. τ. δούλους : cf. xix. 18, vi. 15 (reverse order). 

ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς. The genitive is also 
found in i. 20 but the acc. in xiv. 9, xx. 1, 4. This full form of 
the phrase has already appeared in x. 5, τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τὴν δεξιάν 
(cf. x. 2, τὸν πόδα αὐτοῦ τὸν δεξιόν), and in 1. 16, τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ 
αὐτοῦ, but the shorter form in i. 17, τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ (i. 20, 11. 1, 
v. 1, 7). Both forms are Hebraic {31° and j22-7, ἐπὶ τὸ 
μέτωπον αὐτῶν. See vii. 3, note. 18. On ὧδε see note ¢ Joc. 

From the above examination it follows that the diction of the 
entire chapter is from the hand of our author, with the exception 
of certain phrases explicable on the hypothesis of a Hebrew 
original (see § 4). There are, however, good grounds for 
regarding it, not as an original product of his pen, but to a 
great extent as a translation of a Hebrew source or sources. 
With this problem we shall now deal. 


§ 4. This Chapter exhibits many Hebraisms, which tn certain 
cases presuppose an independent source or sources. 


Now, as we shall see later, xiii. 3, 7°-8, 9, 124, 14° appear to 
be additions to this chapter made by our author and in 


336 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN’ [ΧΣ1Π.8 4. 


part from a Hebrew source. We shall, therefore, first study the 
Hebraisms in the rest of the chapter. 

(a) XII. 4. τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι pet αὐτοῦ — ondad Soy 3) 
AIAN, 

10. εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι, αὐτὸν (rd. αὐτὸς) ἐν μαχαίρῃ 
ἀποκτανθῆναι. See note 27: doc. on this Hebraism. 

11. ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων. There seems to be no intelligible 
explanation of this clause save on the supposition that it is the 
translation of a corruption in a Hebrew source. See note 
in loc. 

12. τὴν ἐξουσίαν... πᾶσαν. Since only twice (once ?) else- 
where, v. 13 (?), vili. 3, does πᾶς follow its noun it is not 
improbable that the Greek here is a rendering of the Hebrew 
> mwean ann jody: cf. Ezek. xxxii. 12, λοιμοὶ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν πάντες 
=nb3 ὩΣ ‘y"y, see also xxxii. 30; Jer. xlviii. 31. 

Again τὴν ἐξουσίαν... ποιεῖ is peculiar Greek but good 
Hebrew = “ exercises the authority”: cf. 1 Kings xxi. 7, nwy 
ΠΙΞῚ Ὁ = “ exercises sovereignty.” 

τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας. Our author expresses the idea 
contained in these words by the phrase τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς (nine times), and once by οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν γῆν (xvii. 2). 
This can hardly be accidental, seeing that these three forms 
of expression occur in the LXX and correspond as a rule in 
the later books to three different forms in the Hebrew. Our 
author’s own use is Clearly 1. πάντες of κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
Ze. PINT oy p’awn-5a: whereas 2. of κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ 
ΤΙΝ ΒΑ (or pasa sau-53), and 3. πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν 
γῆν ΞΞ  Π save-53. These phrases are comparatively frequent 
in the Prophets. In Isaiah the renderings are irregular (cf. 
XXIV. 5, XxVi. 9, 18, 21), but in Jer. and Ezek., though the LXX 
of these books comes from at least four hands (see Thackeray, 
Gramm. of O.T. in Greek, p. 11), the renderings are as a rule 
those given above. In Jer. xxix. (xlvii.) 2 the two latter Hebrew 
phrases occur, 2.6. ΚΝ 2 3) and YAN Aw, which are respectively 
rendered by τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας ἐν τῇ γῇ and οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν 

Vv. 
ἐν Hence I conclude that the forms of this phrase in xili. 12, 
Xvii. 2, which are abnormal, so far as our authors usage is 
concerned, are due either to his close rendering of a Hebrew 
source or to his use of a Greek source. But the evidence is 
against the latter hypothesis in xii. 12. 

XIII. 16. δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμαι The plural is here a 
Hebraism. (See note 7x doc.) 

(6) The Hebraisms in xiii. 3, 7°-8, 124, 14°.” 

XIII. 3. ds ἐσφαγμένην εἰς θάνατον -- ΡΝ maps, Cf. 2 Kings 


XIII. § 4-5.] 


ITS HEBRAISM 


337 


UX. B; mod... nbn. Next ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, = mani nD. 
Cf. xiii. 12, 14 for similar Hebraisms. 


ἐθαυμάσθη .. . ὀπίσω. 


This un-Greek and un-Hebraic expres- 


sion can be explained by retroversion into Hebrew (see note 


tn loc.). 
doublet. 


XIII. 3°. καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη 
ἡ γῆ T ὀπίσω f τοῦ θηρίου, xiii. 8, 
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες 
οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὗ 
οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν 
τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου 


In fact in xiii. 3°, 8 and xvii. 8 we have an undoubted 


XVII. 8. καὶ θαυμασθήσον- 
ται οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ 
τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς ἀπὸ κατα- 
βολῆς κόσμου, βλεπόντων τὸ 
θηρίον. 


τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου. 


Now in the note on xiii. 3 I have shown that καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη 
.. . ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου τε ΤΠ INN... AoNn\, where “NNN is 
corrupt for nixt (or M73), and thus the rendering should be 


καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη... βλέπουσα τὸ θηρίον. Thus the identity of 
the two passages is established. But xvii. 8 does not appear to 
be a translation from the hand of our author; for he uses ev τῷ 
βιβλίῳ (cf. xiii. 8, xx. 12, xxi. 27, xxii. 18, 19) and not ἐπὶ τὸ 
βιβλίον. Further, in rendering Hebrew he always, so far as we 
can discover, reproduces the Hebraisms of his source. But in 
xvii. 8 the αὐτῶν after ὄνομα is omitted, whereas it is carefully 
reproduced in xiii. 8. Yet the rendering in xvii. 8 is from a 
purer text, as we have seenabove. The abnormal position of ὅλη 
in ὅλη ἡ γῇ (elsewhere ὅλος follows its noun in the Apocalypse) 
is probably due to the order of the Hebrew pIsn}e. In the 
LXX, except in the free translation of Isaiah, ὅλος almost in- 
variably precedes the noun, or follows it in accordance with the 
order in the Hebrew. For the latter cf. Ex. xix. 18, τὸ ὄρος τὸ 
Sud... 6dov = 3D... °D Wn. See Ezek. xxix. 2, etc. 
The use of ὄνομα for ὀνόματα in xvii. 8, xili. 8, is a Hebraism 
(see note i Joc.), and προσκυνήσουσιν in xiii. 8 should be 
προσεκύνησαν in keeping with the tenses of the other verses 
in the vision, but προσκυνήσουσιν may be an_ unconscious 
reproduction of the imperfect tense in his original source: 
cf. xvii. 8. 

XIII. 14. With τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρας cf. Esth. ix. 5, 
ay ns2. 


§ 5. Order of Words. 


The verb precedes both subject and object (object and 
subject, xiii. 8), or object or subject 27 (28) times: subject 
VOL, I.—22 


338 THE REVELATION OF ST. ΙΟῊΝ [XIII. § 5-7. 


precedes verb 4 times, xiii. 2, 3, 15, 18 (the interrogative ris 
naturally precedes in xiii. 4 and the indefinite rus twice in xiii. 10, 
but these do not count): the object precedes verb 2 times (xiii. 
12, 13). The structure of the sentences is thoroughly Hebraic, 
and so far as the order goes no conclusions can be drawn as to 
the provenance of the different sections. 


§ 6. Conclusions from preceding Sections. Chapter based on 
Hebrew sources. 


The diction is that of our author. This follows from § 3. 
But there are certain features in the text which make it practi- 
cally impossible to assume that the whole chapter is his own free 
creation linguistically. Thus the position of ὅλη, xiii. 4 (see § 3), 
of πᾶσαν, xili. 12 (see 8 3), the form of the phrase τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ 
κατοικοῦντας, xiii. 12, are against our author’s usage. And yet 
these are not to be explained as due to our author’s use of a 
Greek source: for the style of the chapter as a whole is thoroughly 
his own. They could, however, be explained on the hypothesis 
that he used Hebrew sources. And this hypothesis is strongly 
confirmed by the fact that unintelligible clauses in xiii. 3°, 10, 
11 are hardly susceptible of any explanation save through retro- 
version into Hebrew. I therefore assume the use of Hebrew 
sources by our author in this chapter. One such source we have 
already discovered (see § 4) in xiii. 3°, 8, the translation of which 
is our author’s, whereas in xvii. 8 he makes use of a translation 
of it from another hand. 


§ 7. Theories of Erbes, Spitta, Wellhausen, and J. Weiss as to 
the sources of this Chapter. 


Erbes and Spitta discern in xiii. an Apocalypse written in 
the reign of Caligula, and reflecting the condition of Palestine 
in the years 39-41. According to Erbes this Apocalypse was 
Christian and consisted of chapters xii. 1-13, 18, xiv. 9°—12 (pp. 
1-33). It referred to Caligula’s attempt to set up his statue in 
the Temple in Jerusalem. Spitta’s criticism is much more drastic 
(see Offenbarung des Johannis, 136-141, 392 sqq.). The source 
was, as Vischer supposed, of Jewish origin. Caligula was sym- 
bolized by the sevenheaded Beast. Spitta attempts to recover 
the original Caligula Apocalypse by excising μίαν ἐκ τῶν... εἰς 
θάνατον in xiii. 3, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θηρίῳ. . . wer αὐτοῦ in 
xiii. 4, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία. . . δύο in xiii. 5, τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ 

. νικῆσαι αὐτούς in xiii. 6, 7, τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου in 
xiii. 8 and xiii. g-10 wholly, ὃς ἔχει. .. ἔζησεν in xiii. 14, ἢ τὸν 
ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος... ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν in xiii. 17-18. Finally 


XIII. §7.] THEORIES AS TO ITS SOURCES 339 


he adopts the reading 616 in xiii. 18. After these excisions xiii. 
1-8 could easily be interpreted of Caligula. Thus xiii. 3 would 
refer to his dangerous illness, xiii. 4 to the joy of the people on 
his recovery (see my note 7” /oc.), xiii. 6 to his attempt to set up 
his statue in the Temple, and xiii. 8 to the worship offered him. 
But Spitta’s interpretation of the second Beast by Simon Magus 
and Erbes’ interpretation of it by the Magi at the court of 
Caligula are wholly inadequate. 

Bousset (p. 376) thinks that this hypothesis belongs only to 
the region of possibilities. He observes that to carry it out 
Spitta i is obliged to excise one third of the chapter, and that xiii. 
7°, 16 betray the hand of our author, and must also on this 
hypothesis be excised. Further, he rightly objects to the accept- 
ance of so badly attested a reading as 616. 

Quite a different analysis of this chapter has been propounded 
by Wellhausen. He finds two sources in this chapter. The 
first referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 in the 33 
years’ war, and consisted of xiii. 1 (om. ἔχον. . . ἑπτά), 2, 4-7%, 
10*», This source dealt not with the duty of patient endurance 
on the part of the Christian during the persecution under 
Domitian, but with the wretched lot of the Jews after the 
destruction of Jerusalem. The σκηνὴ αὐτοῦ is Jerusalem: the 
Beast is not Nero but the Roman Empire. 

The second is of uncertain date and embraces only xiii. 11°, 
129, 16°, 17 (om. τὸ ὄνομα and ἢ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος 
αὐτοῦ). xiii. 18 was introduced by the same hand, which has left 
traces in xiii. 10°, xiv. 12, xvil. 9. In this source, as in the 
earlier, Nero vedivivus has been introduced by the Apocalyptist, 
and also the False Prophet as the ἄλλο θηρίον. This Beast, 
according to Wellhausen and Mommsen, represents the imperial 
power exercised in the provinces by the state officials. There 
was, however, only one θηρίον, and instead of ἄλλο θηρίον there 
stood εἰκών. Thus in XIV. 9, 11, XV. 2, XVi. 2, XIX. 20, XX. 4 the 
θηρίον and his εἰκών are mentioned together. The εἰκών is the 
alter ego of the empire just as Jesus was called the εἰκών of God. 

Thus in Wellhausen’s opinion xiii. 3, 7°-9, τοῦ, 11°, 124, 14- 
15, 16%, 17° are from the hand of the final editor. Let us deal 
with the last list of passages first. 

If these are additions of our author, then we find him writing 
first hand unintelligible Greek such as ἐθαυμάσθη... ὀπίσω, 
xiii. 3°, an unintelligible clause such as ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων, xiii. 11, 
and such a phrase as ὅλη ἡ γῆ, ΧΙ]. 3» whereas his universal 
practice is to write 7 γῆ ὅλη, or rather ἡ οἰκουμένη ὅλη. Again, i in 
ΧΙ]. 13 the pres. inf. in ποιῇ. ἫΣ καταβαίνειν is unusual in our 
author, and the order ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν unexampled. 
The occurrence of so many anomalies and breaches of our 


340 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙΠ]. §7-8. 


author’s usage in so few verses would be extraordinary, if this 
part of Wellhausen’s theory is right. But the rest is still less 
tenable. Wellhausen, as we have seen above, finds two distinct 
sources in this chapter. Since there is not even a hint that these 
sources are Semitic, he evidently assumes that they are Greek. 
But this is impossible. We have seen in § 3 that the diction 
and style of these two sources are decidedly those of our author 
save in certain passages, which are dealt with in § 4. Hence it 
appears impossible to explain this chapter save on the hypothesis 
that it is in a large degree translated from Hebrew sources by 
our author. 

J. Weiss (Offendarung des Johannes, pp. 93 8q-, 111) 115, 139- 
142; Schriften des NT. ii. 653-662) likewise assigns this chapter 
to two different authors: xiii. 11-18 to the original Johannine 
Apocalypse written about 60 a.D., and xiii. 1-2, 3-7 (written in 
strophes of four lines each) to a Jewish Apocalypse of the year 70. 
These two sources were united by the final Apocalyptist, who by 
means of various additions made the entire chapter refer to the 
Roman Empire, Nero vedivivus and the imperial cult. 

The original source of xiii. 11-18 dealt with a Jewish Anti- 
christ or False Prophet, but the final author in Weiss’s scheme 
transformed him into an agent of the Roman Empire, #e. the 
priesthood of the imperial cult. This False Prophet has thus 
become the ἄλλο θηρίον. 

There is much that is true in Weiss’s view as to different 
sources, but it is open to the same objections as Wellhausen’s, 
and perhaps in a greater degree. By taking δράκων in xiii. ΤΙ 
(Offenbarung, p. 94) as if it were 6 δράκων he tries to make the 
passage parallel to 2 Thess. ii. 9, but this is, of course, inadmiss- 
ible. He holds that xiii. 1-7 already existed in a literary form, 
but does not explain how the diction is with certain exceptions 
the same throughout the entire chapter, though on his hypothesis 
it is derived from three distinct authors. 


§ 8. The sources behind this Chapter according to the 
present Editor. 


(a) The two sources behind xitt.1-1o. We have already seen, 
§ 4, that xiii. 3°, 8 and xvii. 8 are doublets, and that in all prob- 
ability they are independent translations of the same Hebrew 
source, the former translation being by our author. In 
the next place xiii. 7°, 9 are clearly from the hand of our 
author. By the removal of xiii. 7°, 9 the original connection 
of the text is here restored, as Wellhausen has already recognized. 
Again xiii. 3°, 6° are characteristic of the standpoint and diction 
of our author, They transform the entire character of 


XI. 88] ITS SOURCES 341 


ΧΙ]. I-10. xiii. 3 interrupts the connection between xiii. 2 and 
xiii. 4-7. Of these additions xiii. 37°, 7°, 9 are obviously his 
own, whereas xiii. 3°, 8 are from a source. Furthermore, we shall 
see in the notes zm Joc. that xiii. 1° (καὶ ἐπί. . . διαδήματα) is 
probably a later addition. 

We are now in a position to reconstruct in some measure the 
source behind xiii. 1-10. It consisted of xiii. 1*°¢, 2, 4-73, 10, 
and was a Jewish Apocalypse written in Hebrew by a 
Pharisaic Quietist before or after 70 a.D., and dealing with 
the Beast that came up from the sea (1.6. the Roman Empire), 
the siege of Jerusalem (τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ) by the Romans for 
three years, and the woeful plight of the survivors (xiii. 10). 

Thus there are two sources behind xiii. 1-10, 2.6. xiii. 3°, 8, 
and that just given. This hypothesis accounts, so far as I am 
aware, for all the difficulties in the text. ‘The source as rendered 
by our author ran: 


Jewish Apocalypse directed against Rome—the impersonation 
of the Antichrist. 


XIII. 1. καὶ εἶδον ἐν τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον dvaBatvor, 
ἔχον κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτά, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ὀνόματα βλασφημίας. 


2. καὶ τὸ θηρίον ὃ εἶδον ἦν ὅμοιον παρδάλει, 
καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς ἄρκου, 
Ν a 3 ~ « λέ 
καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς στόμα λέοντος. 


καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ δράκων ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην, 
4, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ δράκοντι 

a 3}, AY 3 ’ “-᾿ , 

ὅτι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν TH θηρίῳ. 


καὶ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον, λέγοντες" 
“ , 
tis ὅμοιος τῷ θηρίῳ ; 
καὶ τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ; 
5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα καὶ βλασφημίας, 


καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ποιῆσαι μῆ ά 
δα δ oat μῆνας τεσσαράκοντα 
καὶ δύο. 


® 


καὶ ἤνοιξεν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εἰς βλασφημίας πρὸς 
τὸν θεόν, 

βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ, 

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ 
νικῆσαι αὐτούς" 


τί 


1] have omitted τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ as an addition 
of our Apocalyptist. The diction is his at all events, and the removal of 
the clause restores the parallelism, 


342 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIII.§8. 


10. εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, 
εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει" 
εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι, 
αὐτὸς ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. 


In this source the Beast isthe Roman Empire. The date of the 
composition is shortly after 70. The destruction of Jerusalem 
is referred to in xiii. 7, and the massacres that followed in xiii. ro. 

(ὁ) xiii. rr—-18.—We have now to deal with the source of 
xiii. 11-18. This is a more difficult problem than the former, 
but it is still possible to recognize the original character of this 
source, and the extent to which it survives in our text. Certain 
facts help to guide us in this quest. 

1. The style, though on the whole that of our author, 
postulates a Hebrew source (see ὃ 3, 4) in two verses, 11, 12", 
the very verses which have as their subject the False Prophet. 
The theme, then, of this fragment of the source is the False 
Prophet. We shall find that the same subject is dealt with in 
the greater part of this section. 

2. Next the False Prophet (wevdorpopyrys) is just as undeniably 
the theme of xiii. 13, 14", 16°, 17° as it is of verses xiii. 11, 12"; 
xiii. 11°¢ clearly defines the False Prophet, who, as in Matt. vii. 15, 
outwardly simulates the character of the Lamb (the ἀρνίον or 
Messiah), but is in reality an ἀπολλύων like his master the Dragon 
(see ix. 11: cf. also xi. 18, xix. 2). For his mission he is armed 
with the power of the Dragon, 12* (here δράκοντος and δράκοντα 
originally stood instead of wp. θηρίον and θηρίον τὸ πρ.), as in 
2 Thess. ii. gq-10: οὗ ἐστὶν 7 παρουσία κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν 
πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ 
ἀδικίας τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις : Didache, xvi. 4. The object of these 
signs and wonders is to deceive. Thus in xiii. 14 the False 
Prophet deceives those who dwelt upon the earth (cf. 2 Thess. 
ii. ro just quoted; Mk. xiii. 22, ἐγερθήσονται yap ψευδόχριστοι 
καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾷν 
εἰ δύνατον τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, Matt. xxiv. 11, 24, etc. Finally he 
causes all who have rendered him worship to place a mark on 
their right hand and on their forehead, xiii. 16°, and, to make 
this effective and universal, ordains that none shall buy or sell 
save such as have this mark, xiii. 17%.1 

3. From the foregoing—especially the parallel passages in 
the Gospels and 2 Thess.—it follows that the ψευδοπροφήτης was 
originally a Jewish or a Christian Antichrist. That he was the 


1 The object of the marking of the faithful in vii. 3 sqq. is to secure them 
against demonic or Satanic attack : the object of the marking of the followers 
of the Antichrist—at all events a secondary object—is to secure them against 
physical injury and to make physical life impossible for the faithful. 


XIII. ὃ 8.] ITS SOURCES 343 


former may be reasonably concluded from xiii. 16°, seeing that 
the Antichrist there requires his worshippers to place his mark on 
their sight hand and brow—an antichristian travesty of the 
practice of orthodox Judaism, which required the faithful to wear 
it on the left hand and forehead (see my note 2” Joc.). 

4. The above interpretation of the source xiii. 11, 12*°, 13-14%, 
16°, 17" is borne out by the subsequent references to the subject 
of this source as the ψευδοπροφήτης, Xvi. 13, XIX. 20, xx. 10. This 
word testifies to the meaning of the idea in the original source, 
i.e. the Jewish Antichrist conceived as a ψευδόχριστος or Ψευδο- 
προφήτης. See also Bousset, p. 378. But in its present context 
this Antichrist has been transformed into a mere agent of the 
Antichrist (ἄλλο θηρίον). 

5. We have already inferred that the ψευδοπροφήτης of this 
source was really the Jewish Antichrist (see 3), and not a mere 
agent of the Antichrist. This inference is confirmed by the fact 
that in xiii. 11° he is associated directly with the Dragon (2.6. 
Satan), and declared (xiii. 11: cf. 15) to be an ἀπολλύων like his 
master. Hence all phrases that transform this Antichrist into a 
mere agent of the Antichrist do not belong to the original 
source. 

6. From the above facts and inferences we conclude that the 
source did not mention a θηρίον as in 11, but an ἀντίχριστος 
or a ψευδοπροφήτης. Hence ἄλλο θηρίον, xiii. 11, and τὸ πρῶτον 
θηρίον in xiii. 12 are from the hand of our author as well 
as the additions οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη... αὐτοῦ, xiii, 12°, ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
Onpiov . . . ἀποκτανθῶσιν, xiii. 14°—15, τοὺς μικροὺς. . . δούλους, 
xiii. τό, τὸ ὄνομα... ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, xiii. 17°-18. By means of 
these additions the Jewish Antichrist was transformed into a 
secondary personage (ἄλλο θηρίον) that waited on the Antichrist 
(τὸ πρῶτον θηρίον), and formed, in fact, the heathen priesthood of 
the imperial cult. It was this priesthood that set up the εἰκών of 
the beast and required all the inhabitants of the earth to worship 
it on pain of death, xiii, 14°, 15. Thus the εἰκών is not an 
original constituent of the source, as Wellhausen supposed, 
but an addition of our author. By the above additions also 
Nero vedivivus is represented to be Antichrist: cf. xiii. 12°, 14°, 
18. These additions, as we have already seen, are in the style 
and from the hand of our author: the rest of the section is his 
translation from a Hebrew source. Finally, xiv. 12-13 should be 
read undoubtedly after xiii. 15. Just as the first stage of the 
persecution of the saints ended in the emphasizing of patience 
and faithfulness on their part (xiii. 10), so its final stage is ac- 
companied by a like emphasizing of the patience of the saints 
and a declaration of the blessedness of those who suffered martyr- 
dom in the Lord; xiv. 12-13 are from the hand of our author. 


344 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XTIL.§ 8. 


We are now in a position to sum up the character and present 
limits of the source of xiii. 11-18. J¢ was written in Hebrew. 
All that survives of tt is xiti. 11, 12, 13-14", 16-17%. It dealt 
with a conception of the Jewish Antichrist such as we find tn 
2 Thess. tt., who like that Antichrist was to claim the preroga- 
tives of Deity, i.e. the worship of mankind, and required all men 
to bear his mark, just as the faithful bore the mark of God. 
The date cannot be definitely determined. 

We might now hypothetically and partially restore this second 
source in the Greek of our author. It may originally have 
been written in verse. 


Jewish Apocalypse directed against the Antichrist in the 
Jorm of the False Prophet. 


XIII. 11. καὶ εἶδον τὸν ψευδοπροφήτην, 
, 
καὶ εἶχεν κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ, 
καὶ ἀπώλλυε ὡς ὁ δράκων. 
12. καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ δράκοντος πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώ 
πιον αὐτοῦ, 
4 A 4 lol ‘ > > A -“ 

καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας 
ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν τὸν δράκοντα. 


4 -“ - J ‘ A ~ aA 
13. Kat ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ 
καταβαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ανθρώπων. 


14. καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι, 
16.-17. καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς 
χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν, 
ἵνα μή τις δύνηται ἀγοράσαι ἢ πωλῆσαι εἰ μὴ ὁ 
ἔχων τὸ χάραγμα. 


The Two Beasts, xii. 18—xiii. 


XII. 18. καὶ ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης. 

There can be no question here as to the original text. The 
textual evidence in itself is overwhelming in behalf of ἐστάθη. 
In the next place the sense is in favour of it. The dragon 
foiled in his attempt to destroy the Messiah and His Community 
proceeds to the shore of the sea and summons from it the Beast 
(i.e. the Roman Empire) in order to arm it with his own power. 
Thus ch. xiii. follows naturally after xii. Again the order of the 
words in the next sentence, cai, ... ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον 
vaBatvor, is in favour of ἐστάθη : ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τ. ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης, 
καὶ εἶδον ἐκ τ. θαλάσσης θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον. And, finally, ἐστάθη 
preserves the continuity ἀπῆλθε, xii. 17, and ἔδωκε in ΧΙ. 2. 


XIII. 1.] THE FIRST BEAST 345 


The First Beast, xii. 1-10. 


XII. 1. καὶ εἶδον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, 
ἔχον κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτά, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ὀνόματα βλασφημίας. 


The order of the words ἐκ τῆς θαλ.. . . ἀναβαῖνον is unusual. 
It differs from that in Dan. vii. 3, τέσσαρα Onpia . . . ἀνέβαινον 
ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης : 4 Ezra xi. 1, Ecce ascendebat de mari aquila, 
and xi. 7, xiil. 11, xvil. 8 (vii. 2), in our text. On the other hand, 
we find one parallel in xvi. 13-14, εἶδον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ Spd- 
KovTos ... πνεύματα τρία. .. ἃ ἐκπορεύεται. The unusual 
order in our text may be due to the order in the Hebrew source 
or may be adopted for the sake of emphasis. Stress may be 
laid on the quarter from which the Beast comes. The second 
Beast comes from the land, xiii. 11. 

The first Beast is the Roman Empire. The description of 
this Beast in xili. r-2°*° is clearly based on Dan. vii. 2-7. It 
comes up from the sea, as the four beasts in Daniel did: the 
number of its heads may be directly derived from adding together 
the heads of the four beasts, though this characteristic has prob- 
ably an older history; its ten horns are from the fourth beast, 
and its likeness to a leopard, its possession of the feet of a bear, 
and the mouth of a lion, are borrowed from the first three beasts. 
It is evidently the representation of the fourth kingdom in Daniel, 
though it is a still more terrible monster than that depicted there. 

But in Daniel the fourth beast represents the Greek Empire 
of Alexander and his successors. When did the reinterpretation 
which appears in our text arise? Possibly, even probably, in the 
first century B.c. ; for with the assertion of the power of Rome 
in the East this reinterpretation was inevitable. Probably from 
Pompey’s time onward the Roman Commonwealth came in cer- 
tain circles in Palestine to be identified with the fourth kingdom. 
Thus in Pss. Sol. 11. 29 Pompey is called ὃ dpdkwv—a term 
associated with the Antichrist. He impersonates the power of 
Rome, as Nebuchadnezzar did that of Babylon in Jer. xxviii. 14. 
Rabbinic literature shows many traces of this identification. 
Thus, according to Cant. rab. ii. 12; Gen. rab. xliv. 20; Lev. 
rab. xii. ; Midr. Teh. Ps. Ixxx. 14 (see Jewish Encyc. x. 394), it 
was the last wicked kingdom whose end was to usher in the 
Messianic Kingdom. In the Aboda Zara, 2%, Sheb. 6°, Rome is 
declared to be the fourth kingdom in Dan. vii. 23. In the 
Rabbinic writings the usual designation of Rome is Edom 
(Schiirer, Gesch.8 ili. 236 sq.; Weber, Jiidisch. Theol.2 365 sqq., 
383 sq., 395). Though the date of the Jewish writings just 
mentioned is late, the fact of the reinterpretation of Dan. vii. 23 


346 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN | XIII. 1. 


is unquestionable in the first century A.D. In the Assumption 
of Moses, x. 8 (7-30 A.D.), and 2 Bar. xxxix. 5 sqq., XXxvi. 5-10; 
4 Ezra xii. 11 sq., this reinterpretation is not only given, but 
in the latter book it is implied that the angel, who instructed 
Daniel as to the fourth kingdom being Greek, was wrong. In 
Josephus (Anz. x. 11. 7) the same interpretation occurs, but the 
passage is rejected by Niese. Turning now to the Christian 
Church, we find the first identification of the Roman Empire 
with the fourth kingdom of Daniel in the Little Apocalypse as it 
is given by Luke xxi. 20; for, whereas in Mark xiii. 14; Matt. 
xxiv. 15 (ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως), the phrase of 
Daniel, τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, is used generally as referring 
to the profanation of the Temple by the Antichrist, this phrase is 
interpreted by Luke of the destruction of Jerusalem by the 
Romans—érav δὲ ἔδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. 
Thus the τὸϊα of the fourth kingdom is assigned by Luke in 
some degree to Rome. The date of this reinterpretation is 
probably between 70 and 80 a.p. From this period we pass 
onwards to the Ep. Barn. iv. 4-5 (100-120 a.D.), where the 
same interpretation of the fourth kingdom is set forth. 

From the above survey, therefore, we conclude that from 
30 A.D. onwards Jewish exegesis universally and Christian 
exegesis generally took the Roman Empire to be the fourth 
kingdom in Daniel. So far, therefore, as our text sets forth this 
view it contains no new development: it merely expresses a 
current and apparently undisputed interpretation. But there is 
more than this in our text, as we shall see, and we cannot on the 
above grounds as well as on others acquiesce in any interpretation 
of the mysterious numbers in xiii. 18 which would limit it to the 
disclosure of a mere exegetical platitude of the times. The first 
advance on this interpretation appears in xiii. 3, where see note. 

κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτά. This clause and the follow- 
ing present great difficulties. The first clause has already 
occurred in xii. 3 as a description of the Dragon save that the 
order of the heads and horns is reversed. What meaning did 
our author attach to the heads or to the horns? As the 
text at present stands, the heads refer to the Roman emperors. 
This is clear from xiii. 3 (μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ), 12, 17, 
18, and xvii. 9, 10. The reference here is clearly contemporary. 
This being so the horns cannot refer to the same persons. 

1 This latter illegitimate interpretation has been adopted by many who have 
accordingly concluded that the Apocalypse was written under the tenth Caesar. 
But, however the counting is done, it fails to lead to Domitian, under whom 
the Apocalypse was written. If, beginning with Caesar (as in 4 Ezra xii. 15) or 
Augustus, we include Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, we find the tenth in Titus or 


Vespasian : if we exclude these three we arrive at Nerva or Trajan. To reckon 
the three as one, as some do, and so make Domitian the tenth, is inadmissible. 


XIII. 1.] THE FIRST BEAST 347 


Since this reference has been excluded, it has been proposed to 
treat the phrase κέρατα δέκα as an archaic survival here, and 
therefore meaningless in the present context. We have already 
met with such archaic survivals in the preceding chapters, but 
this explanation is not so satisfactory here. If the phrase were 
such, would it have been given this emphatic position? for the 
horns seem to be placed before the heads in contrast to the order 
in xii. 3, and the diadems are shifted from the heads to the 
horns. The difficulty is increased when we turn to xvil. 3, and 
find there that the Beast has “seven heads and ten horns” like 
the Dragon. The only explanation remaining, and it is not 
satisfactory, is that the horns are mentioned first, because they 
first became visible as the Beast rose from the sea in the vision. 

Wellhausen thinks that xiii. 1° and xii. 35 ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ 
καὶ κέρατα δέκα, are additions, since they have no bearing on the 
text till ch. xvii. But the seven-headed monster is derived from 
tradition, and is not a mere symbol created by our author. 

That the number seven is not due to the fact that our 
author already knew or expected seven emperors we have 
already seen. See note on xii. 3. He gives an ancient tradition 
a new meaning by interpreting it of the seven Roman emperors. 

καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα. These words 
have been inserted in the text to prepare for the account in 
xvii. 12 Of the Parthian kings, where the horns are expressly 
said to denote ten kings. In Daniel’s visions a horn “ repre- 
sents either a king (see vii. 24, viii. 5, 8%, 9, 21) or a dynasty 
of kings (viii. 3, 6, 7, 8°, 20, 22) rising up in, or out of, the 
empire symbolized by the creature to which the horn belongs” 
(Driver, Daniel, vii. 7). The ten horns in Dan. vii. 7 refer to 
the successors of Alexander on the throne of Antioch—that 
is, to a single division of Alexander’s empire. Similarly here 
the ten horns would refer to the kings of the eastern division 
of the Antichrist’s empire, ze. the Parthian. διαδήματα are 
elsewhere assigned only to Christ, xix. 12, and to the Dragon, 
ΧΙ. 3. The latter conception is permissible since the Dragon 
is in many respects a caricature of Christ. It would be per- 
missible also, if the clause could be interpreted of the Roman 
emperors, since they could be regarded as incarnations of the 
Beast. But it is difficult to take them in connection with Rome’s 
vassal kings. The position of δέκα before διαδήματα is found 
only in xvii. 12 in our author: see note on viii. 2. Hence the 
clause may be a gloss. For the phraseology we might compare 
the Egyptian royal title ‘Lord of diadems.” (Mommsen, Rom. 
Gesch. v. 565, note, quoted from Erbes, p. 95.) 

καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ὀνόματα βλασφημίας. Cf. xvii. 3, 
Onpiov . . . γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας. The evidence for ὄνομα 


348 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIII. 1-3. 


and ὀνόματα is fairly balanced. If we take the singular then the 
blasphemous name on each head isno doubt Σεβαστός, 2.6. divus 
Augustus — a blasphemous title involving divine claims and 
connected with the imperial cult. The terms θεός and θεοῦ 
vids were freely applied to the emperors in inscriptions from 
Augustus onward.! This interpretation is found in Bede, as 
Diisterdieck has pointed out: “ Reges enim suos deos appellant 
tam mortuos et velut in coelum atque inter deos translatos, 
quam etiam in terris Augustos, quod est nomen ut volunt 
deitatis.” 

If, on the other hand, we read ὀνόματα, the seven heads are to be 
regarded as bearing respectively the seven names of the Caesars. 


2. καὶ τὸ θηρίον ὃ εἶδον ἦν ὅμοιον παρδάλει, 
καὶ ot πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς ἄρκου, 
καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς στόμα λέοντος. 
καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ δράκων τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ 
καὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην. 


Our text as it stands combines the characteristics of 
the three beasts which arise out of the sea in succession in 
Dan. vii. 1 sqq.—the lion, the bear, and the leopard. In 
Hos. xiii. 7, 8 the lion, leopard, and bear are referred to. The 
third line suggests a combination of the traits of the first beast 
(1.6. the lion), Dan. vii. 4, and of the fourth and unnatural ten- 
horned beast, which had iron teeth wherewith it devoured and 
brake in pieces, vii. 7. 

It is impossible to conceive the complex figure here 
portrayed by our author, unless we take it that he regards each 
of the seven heads as having a lion’s mouth. But the text 
appears to imply that it had only one mouth. The figure there- 
fore is wholly fantastic and not plastically conceivable. This 
inconceivableness is possibly somewhat in favour of regarding 
the line καὶ τὸ στόμα. . . λέοντος as a later addition. 

But this argument is hardly valid here. It is noteworthy, 
however, that we have here the full construction τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ 
ὡς στόμα λέοντος, whereas in accordance with what precedes we 
should expect τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς λέοντος as in i. 10, iv. 1, 7. 
Yet in ix. 8, 9 we have the same combination of full and pregnant 
constructions. 

8. καὶ μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην eis 
θάνατον. We must here supply εἶδον from ver. 1 as in iv. 4 


1 Temples were erected to Augustus in his lifetime bearing the dedication : 
θεᾶς Ρώμης καὶ Σεβαστοῦ καίσαρος (Dittenberger, Or. Gr. tmscr. ii. 11— 
quoted from Swete, p. Ixxxvii.). Hicks (λέξις, p. 150) records the 
following inscription at Ephesus [αὐτοκράτωρ] καῖσαρ θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ Ἰ]αρθικοῦ 
υἱὸς θεοῦ Νερούα υἱωνός, Τραϊανὸς ᾿Αδριανὸς Σεβαστός. 


XIIL 8] WOUNDED HEAD=NERO REDIVIVUS 349 


(both additions from the hand of our author). The phrase és 
ἐσφαγμένον has already occurred in connection with the Christ, 
v. 6. It marks the Beast, or rather one of its heads, as the 
Satanic counterpart of the Christ, and therefore as the Anti- 
christ. It has, moreover, a twofold significance. It not only 
implies that the being so described was put to a violent death 
(ἐσφαγμένην), but also that he was restored to life (ὡς ἐσφαγμένην) 
With these words the text makes a new advance. From the 
current identification of Rome with the fourth or last kingdom 
in Daniel, it proceeds to deal with one of the heads of the Beast, 
i.e. an emperor of Rome who sums up in himself all its anti- 
christian characteristics. The next step whereby this head is 
identified with the Beast itself is taken in xill. 12, 14. 

καὶ ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ κτλ. The αὐτοῦ limits 
the statement to the wounded head, though in xiii. 12, 14 this 
head is identified with the entire Beast. It is this head and none 
other that zs Aealed.1 Hence the interpretation (of Zuschlag, 
Bruston, Gunkel, Clemen, Porter) which would find a reference 
to Julius Caesar here is excluded. The choice therefore lies 
between Caligula and Nero. The former view was advocated at 
an early date by Weyers (see Ziillig, ii. 239), Holtzmann (Stade’s 
Gesch. Israels, ii. 388 sq.), Erbes (p. 29), and Spitta (392). In 
1885 Zahn proposed it by way of a jest (Z2.K.W. 568 sqq.). 
The words » πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου would then refer to a very 
dangerous illness of Caligula from which he recovered (Suet. 
Caligula, 14; Dio Cassius, lix. 8; Philo, Legatio ad Catum, ii. 548, 
μέμνηται yap οὐδεὶς τοσαύτην μιᾶς χώρας ἢ ἑνὸς ἔθνους γενέσθαι 
χαρὰν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ καὶ καταστάσει ἡγεμόνος, ὅσην ἐπὶ Ταΐῳ 
συμπάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης, καὶ παραλαβόντι τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ῥυσθέντι 
ἐκ τῆς ἀσθενείας. See Spitta, 139 sq., 369 sq., 392-95; Erbes, 
17 sqq.). There is much to recommend this view. It would 
explain many of the difficulties in this chapter. It is the natural 
explanation of the thrice-recurring clause relating to the healing 
of the wound, ΧΗ]. 3, 12, 14, of the wonder of the whole world at 
his recovery, xiii. 3 (cf. Philo quoted above), and of the horror 
in Palestine at his attempt to set up his statue in the Temple, 


1 Since the text refers to the healing of the wounded head and not to the 
healing of the Beast itself with seven heads, the interpretation of Diisterdieck, 
O. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, and Moffatt is also out of court here. These 
scholars explain the text as referring to the convulsions which shook the 
Empire to its foundation in 69 A.D. after Nero’s death, and from which it 
recovered only by the accession of Vespasian. Moffatt rightly observes that 
4 Ezra xii. 18, which refers to this crisis in Roman affairs, requires this 
explanation: ‘‘ Post tempus regni illius (z.e. Nero’s) nascentur contentiones 
non modicae, et periclitabitur ut cadat, et non cadet tunc, sed iterum 
constituetur in suum initium,” and compares Suet. Vesg. i. ; Jos. Bell. iv. 11. 
5, Vil. 4. 20 


350 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Κι τ]. 8. 


xiii. 6. Again it offers a satisfactory explanation of xiii. 8, καὶ 
προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, for we 
find in Joseph. “54. xviii. 8. 1 that all the subjects of the Roman 
Empire erected altars to Caligula and regarded him as a god: 
πάντων γοῦν ὁπόσοι τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῇ ὑποτελεῖς εἶεν βωμοὺς τῷ 
Γαΐῳ καὶ νεὼς ἱδρυμένων τά τε ἄλλα πάντα αὐτὸν ὥσπερ τοὺς θεοὺς 
δεχομένων. Spitta (p. 369) and Erbes (p. 18) in opposing the 
Nero vedivivus interpretation rightly argue: “Who in all the 
world would say of a wound, which was bringing a man to the 
grave, that he was healed because in a marvellous manner he 
rose again (as Nero redivivus) from the dead?” But however 
just these contentions may be, the text as it stands cannot refer 
to Caligula. To make it do so requires the change of the 
number 666 to 616, and the excision of xiii. 3%, 4.49, 5>, 6%, 74 
9-Ἰο, 14°, 18°, and a phrase in xiii. 8 (so Spitta). The text 
as it stands refers, as both Spitta and Erbes admit, to Nero 
redivivus. That, however, our author is probably using 
here an earlier source referring possibly to Caligula we have 
already seen (see p. 349). 

As the text stands the only satisfactory explanation is that 
which takes the text as referring to Nero vedivivus. The two 
renderings 666 and 616 can be explained thereby, and no 
excisions are necessary, though certain expressions are difficult, 
owing probably to the fact that they were applied differently in 
an earlier source. The origin and belief in Nero’s return has 
been investigated by Zahn, Ζ. Α΄. W.L. 1885-86 ; Bousset, Offend. 
Johannis*, 410-18 ; and Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, li--lxxiii. ; 
and in a revised form in the Appendix to chap. xvii. of the present 
work. Several forms of the Antichrist tradition lie behind 
different sections of our Apocalypse. There is the Beliar Anti- 
christ in xi. 7, which apparently had in its original form only a 
religious significance as in 2 Thess. ii. Of the first stage of the 
Neronic myth there is no trace, but there are ample traces of the 
second stage in xvi. 12 and in the original document or tradition 
behind xvii. 12-17, according to which Nero was to return from 
the far East at the head of ten Parthian kings for the destruction 
of Rome. The third stage which represents Nero redivivus, 
t.e. Nero as returning with demonic powers from the abyss, is that 
which was present to the mind of our author alike in the passage 
before us and throughout the book. See ch. xvii. and the 
Appendix. Only when so conceived “does the one head,” as 
Bousset remarks, “become the complete antitype of the ἀρνίον 
ὡς ἐσφαγμένον." The wounded head is identified with the Beast 
in xiii. 12, 14, xvil. 8, 11. 

καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη. .. ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου. We have here a 
construction which is neither Greek nor Hebrew, as Gunkel 


XIII. 3-4.] WORSHIP OF THE BEAST 351 


has observed. Blass (p. 129) observes rightly that the preposi- 
tional use of ὀπίσω is foreign to profane writers, and takes its 
origin from the LXX (=‘7nx), and compares in this connection 


the construction in Acts v. 37, xx. 30.! The present phrase 
ἐθαυμάσθη . . . ὀπίσω he admits (p. 118, note 3) is very strange, 
but he thinks it can be taken as a pregnant construction for 
ἐθαυμάσθη ἐπὶ τῷ θηρίῳ καὶ ἐπορεύθη ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ. Such an 
explanation can satisfy no one. Gunkel assumes that we have 
here a translation from the Hebrew ΠῚ ΠΠ ΠΝ AMNM, where 
ΠΝ is corrupt for ΠΤ. Thus we should have “and 
wondered at the end of the beast,” z#e. that it remained 
alive. But the meaning Gunkel assigns to the Hebrew here 
is quite unnatural. “The end” of the beast was ot this 
temporary restoration. And yet it is possible to explain the 
difficulty through retroversion into Hebrew: 2.6. ἌΚΟΣ mpnny 
mn nN, where NND is corrupt for ANNI (1.6. ANNA or 


mix, though this last is a rarer construction). Thus the Greek 
should run: καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη ἡ γῆ ἰδοῦσα (or βλέπουσα) τὸ 
θηρίον. This restoration is supported by the Parallel passage 
dealing with the very same subject in xvii. 8, καὶ θαυμασθήσονται 
οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς .. . βλεπόντων τὸ θηρίον κτλ. The 
construction recurs again in xvii. 6, ἐθαύμασα ἰδὼν αὐτήν. 

The meaning therefore of this clause is exactly the same as 
in xvii. 8. The world was astonished at the marvellous return 
of Nero redivivus. 

4. καὶ προσεκύνησαν. The power of the Roman Empire 
is derived from the Dragon, and the Dragon is worshipped as the 
source of this power. The words wherewith the inhabitants of 
the earth belaud the Beast are an intentional parody of certain 
expressions of praise in the O.T. Ex. xv. 11, τίς ὅμοιός σοι ἐν 
θεοῖς, κύριε; Ps, xxxv. 10, Ixxxix. 6, cxiil. 5; Isa. xl. 25, xlvi. 5; 
Mic. vii. 18. The motive for the worship is given in the words 
that follow, τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ; as Swete remarks, 
“it was not moral greatness | but brute force ‘which commanded 
the homage of the provinces.” 

In this verse our author takes up the theme which led really 
to the composition of the book as a whole, the worship of the 
Beast, the imperial cultus. Since this meant a subordination of 
the interests of religion to those of the State, it became the chief 
source of strife between Christendom and the Roman Empire. 
Again and again this subject recurs throughout the chapters that 
follow. 


1These passages are no more analogous to our text than 1 Tim. v. 15, 
ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ Σατανᾶ ; for all three admit of good Hebrew render- 
ings, but our text does not. 


352 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧὩΠ|.δ-6. 


5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα καὶ βλασφημίας, 
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ποιῆσαι μῆνας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ δύο. 

The words στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα are from Dan. vii. 8, 20: 
cf. Ps. xii. 3; 2 Bar. lxvii. 7. With καὶ βλασφημίας cf. Dan. 
xi. 36, where it is said of Antiochus, ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα 
(ὑπέρογκα, Th.) λαλήσει, and vii. 25, ῥήματα εἰς (λόγους πρὸς, Th.) 
τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει: also 1 Macc. i. 24. ποιῆσαι (=NYy) may 
mean either “to do,” “to act with effect”: cf. Dan. viii, 12, 
xi. 28. It could mean “to spend the time,” a sense that τῶν 
also has in Hebrew. On μῆνας κτλ. see note on xi. 2. Nero 
redivivus is to hold sway for the usual apocalyptic period. 


6. καὶ ἤνοιξεν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ eis βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 
βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ, 
καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας. 

With our text we might compare Dan. viii. to-12. The 
claims of the Empire were expressed in ever deepening terms of 
blasphemy. Cf. what is said of the Antichrist in 2 Thess. 
ii. 4, ἀντικείμενος Kal ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ 
σέβασμα . . . ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός : Asc. Isa. iv. 6 
(before 100 A.D.) “he will say: I am God and before me there 
has been none”: Sibyll. Or. v. 33-34 (=xii. 85, 86), εἶτα 
ἀνακάμψει ἰσάζων θεῷ αὐτόν. The impious claims of the Czsars 
are here in the mind of the writer. Of Caligula Philo writes 
(Leg. ad Caium, 23), 6 δὲ Tdios ἑαυτὸν ἐξετύφωσεν οὐ λέγων μόνον, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ οἰόμενος εἶναι θεός. Domitian’s claims here are very 
explicit: Suetonius, Domitian. 13, “ Dominus et deus noster hoc 
fieri jubet. Unde institutum posthac, ut ne scripto quidem ac 
sermone cuiusquam appellaretur aliter.” 

βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. Cf. Ass. Mos. viii. 5, where it is 
said that the Jews “will be forced . . . to blaspheme. . . the 
name.” Cf. Lev. xxiv. 11, QWATNN 20). 

The attempt to explain tiv σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ (see ὃ 8 in the 
Introd. to this chapter on the meaning of this phrase in the 
original source) of the earthly temple is against the context here 
and the usage of our author in xxi. 3, and especially the use of 
σκηνοῦν, as in Vii. 15, xii. 12, xxi. 3. It is probably heaven itself 
that is here referred to: not the temple in heaven. But it is 
possible that our author means τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ to be taken 
as meaning “ His Shekinah,” especially if the words that follow 
are original. See note on xxi. 3. Those who find a Caligula 
Apocalypse behind the present text interpret the σκηνή of the 
earthly temple, in which Caligula wished to have his statue set 
up, according to Jos. “4.12. xvill. 8. 2; Bell. ii. το. 1; Philo, Leg. 
ad Caium, 29, 43. σκηνή could be taken in the same sense also, 
if the source referred to the siege of Jerusalem under Titus. 


XIII. 6-8.] BEAST WARS AGAINST THE SAINTS 353 


καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας. The καί though weakly 
supported may be original. If the clause is original ai 
too is the καί, and the beings referred to are the _angels : 
xii. 12. In that case we should compare xxi. 3, ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ 
θεοῦ... καὶ σκηνώσει. Since we have οὐρανός definitely 
mentioned in this third phrase, τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ can hardly be 
taken as its equivalent. Hence again we conclude to its mean- 
ing “ His Shekinah.” 


7. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ 
lol , 
νικῆσαι αὐτούς, 
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλὴν καὶ λαὸν καὶ 
γλῶσσαν καὶ ἔθνος. 


The first line (as also xi. 7) goes back to Dan. vii. 21—to 
the Aramaic rather than to the Versions. Theod. has ἐθεώρουν καὶ 
τὸ κέρας ἐκεῖνο ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἴσχυσεν πρὸς αὑτούς. 
LXX has πόλεμον συνιστάμενον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ τροπούμενον 
αὐτούς. Νικῆσαι is our author’s own rendering here: cf. xii. II, 
Xvii. 14, etc., and ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετά is found in xi. 7, xii. 17, xix. 
19, and is a literal rendering of the Aramaic oy 27P_NTy. The 

réle of the little horn (1.6. Antiochus Epiphanes) in Daniel is here 
taken by Nero redivivus. The persecution referred to is not the 
first, #2¢. the Neronic, but in the future ; for it is to be world wide. 

1 Enoch xlvi. 7 speaks of the tulers and kings “ casting 
down the stars of heaven” (1.6. the righteous) in dependence on 
Dan. vill. 10. 

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλήν κτλ. See v. 9, note, on this favourite 
enumeration of our author. 

7-9, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία... ἀκουσάτω, like ver. 3, 
looks like an insertion. ΒΥ their removal we seem to recover 
the original form of the verses xiii. 1-10. See Introd. to Chap. 
xiii. ὃ 8, Ρ. 342 566. But the Present form i is due to our author. 

8. καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς͵ οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ 
ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. 

This verse combined with xiii. 3° forms a doublet of xvii. 8. 
See Introd., p. 337. The future προσκυνήσουσιν may be due to the 
fact that the author has dropt his réle of Seer and passed over 
into prophecy, or that he has translated nnnw™ in his original 
source as if it were MMW instead of NNAW. Cf. xvii. 8. In 


any case we pass here from the present to the future. All do 

not yet worship the beast. See 15. The phrase τοῦ dpviov 

TOU ἐσφαγμένου i is generally regarded by critics as a scribal gloss, 

but it appears to be from the hand of our author ; for, i in the first 

place, in xxi. 27 we find ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου, and, in the 

next, the phrase in our text forms a contrast to that in xili. 3. The 
VOL. 1.—23 


354 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (XIII. 8. 


subjects of the Neronic Antichrist who was ὡς ἐσφαγμένος εἰς 
θάνατον are set over against those of τοῦ dpviov τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου : 
(cf. v. 6, 12). 

The reading dy . . . τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν, though weakly attested, 
has something to be said for it. The use of ὄνομα, where a 
plurality is referred to, is a Hebraism. Thus in Num. xxvi. 33 
(in xxvii. 1 where the phrase is repeated we have the plural), 
xxxii. 38; Deut. xii. 3; 1 Sam. xiv. 49 OW is used with reference 


to a number. This Hebraism would explain the correction of 
ὧν. . . αὐτῶν into οὗ. . . αὐτοῦ on the one hand and of τὸ ὄνομα 
into τὰ ὀνόματα on the other. Cf. xvii. 8. 

The phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου is by almost all scholars 
connected with γέγραπται, as in xvii. 8. In favour of this connec- 
tion the following passages are quoted: Eph. i. 4, ἐξελέξατο 
ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ mpd καταβολῆς κόσμου, and Matt. xxv. 34, ἥτοιμασ- 
μένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμους Thus the election is 
from the beginning, and the presupposition is that only the elect 
can withstand the claims of the imperial cult backed by the 
might of the empire itself’ To acknowledge such claims 
on the part of the State is in reality to acknowledge 
the supremacy of Satan. The faithful are thus secured 
by their election from the foundation of the world. In 
vii. 3 sqq., having already exhibited their steadfastness in 
actual temptation, they have been marked on their brows as 
God’s own possession, and have thus been secured against the 
spiritual assaults of Satan but not against martyrdom. The 
above interpretation is right in the case of xvii. 8 but possibly 
wrong in the present passage, and Bede, Eichhorn, and Alford 
may be right in connecting the above phrase with ἐσφαγμένου. 
This connection is suggested by 1 Pet. i. 19, 20, ἐλυτρώθητε 
. 1. αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ. .. προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου. What has been foreordained in the counsels of God is 
in a certain sense a fact already. The principle of sacrifice and 
redemption is older than the world: it belongs to the essence of 
the Godhead. In favour of this view I would adduce further 
evidence. In the 2nd cent. B.c. Michael was regarded as the 
mediator between God and man, Test. Dan vi. 2 (see my note 
in loc.), and about the beginning of the Christian era this 
mediatorship was assigned to Moses in Ass. Mos. i. 14 (see next 
paragraph). If Judaism claimed that Moses was ordained to be 
mediator of God’s covenant from the foundation of the world, 
Christianity claimed that Christ was ordained as the Redeemer of 
mankind from that period. This, I think, is the meaning of the 
words in their present context, though it was not the meaning in 
the older form of the passage, which has been preserved in xvii. 8. 

The phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου is found eight times in the 


XIII. 8-10.] SAINTS—NOT TO RESIST 355 


N.T. outside the Apocalypse, but does not occur in the LXX. 
The word καταβολή is only once found in the LXX, Ze. in 
2 Macc. ii. 29, where it is used of the foundation of a house. 
The idea, however, is found in Job xxxviii. 4, pox ID'2; LXX, ἐν 
τῷ θεμελιοῦν με THY γῆν, and the phrase itself recurs three times in 
the Ass. Mos. i. 13, 14, “ab initio orbis terrarum,” the Greek of 
which is happily preserved in Gelasius of Cyzicum (see Fabri- 
cius, Cod. Pseud. V.T. i. 845, and my edition of the Assumption, 
pp. 6, 7, 58, 59), ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ ᾿Αναλήψεως Μωυσέως... 
καὶ προεθεάσατό με ὃ θεὸς πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναί με τῆς 
διαθήκης αὐτοῦ μεσίτην. Here as in our text the idea of pre- 
destination is forcibly expressed. 


9. εἴ τις ἔχει οὖς, ἀκουσάτω. See note on ii. 7. 
10. εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, 

εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει" 

εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι 

ἵἱ αὐτὸν ἡ ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι" 

ὧδέ ἐστιν ἣ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἧ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων. 


10. The textual evidence is very divided, and allows of 
three different forms of text. 

1. The first, ze. A, which I have given above, alone is right. 
Hort admits that ἀποκτανθῆναι gives the right sense but, failing 
like all other scholars to understand the construction, does 
not adopt it into his text. Wellhausen (p. 22, note) declares 
that ἀποκτενεῖ is impossible, and that it must be changed into the 
passive, It is strange that he does not refer to the reading of 
A. Its object is to enforce an attitude of loyal endurance. The 
day of persecution is at hand: the Christians must suffer 
captivity, exile or death: in calmly facing and undergoing this 
final tribulation they are to manifest their endurance and faith- 
fulness. This prophetic admonition undoubtedly suits the 
context and the tone of the entire Apocalypse. It has, more- 
over, the support of Jer. xlili. 11 and xv. 2, on one or other of 
which it is based. The former is 2¥5 rw nya nye? TWN 


sind sind ἼΦΝΥ 30, while the LXX of Jer. xv. 2 gives ὅσοι 
εἰς θάνατον, εἰς θάνατον" καὶ ὅσοι els μάχαιραν εἰς μάχαιραν"... καὶ 
ὅσοι εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν. 1 have printed the text of A: 
it is not Greek, but it is a literal rendering of a distinctively 
Hebrew idiom : ie. of mine 29n2 Nw ny ana Wwe. It might 
be explained as a mistranslation of ned sina nied sina ἼΩΝ 

Co ia Oh δπὶ ᾽ 


where the translator read mo? twice instead of mas. The αὐτόν 


is corrupt for αὐτός See xii. 7, note, where this idiom has already 
occurred. 


356 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN‘ [XIIT. 10. 


But the former, I have no doubt, is the right explanation, and 
the text should be rendered: “If any man is to be slain with 
the sword, he is to be slain with the sword.” This being so, 
αὐτόν is to be taken as a corruption of αὐτός. In αὐτὸς ἐν 
μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι we have a translation of the same Hebraism 
as in ὃ Μιχαὴλ καὶ of ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι in xii. 7. The 
Greek, it is true, differs in xii. 7 by the insertion of rod before 
the inf. But we find the same variation in the LXX. To 
render $ before the inf. in this idiomatic sense was evidently ἃ 


matter of no little difficulty to the Greek translators, who repro- 
duced it in many ways: 1. bya fut. ind. as in Ps. xlix. 15 ; Jer. li. 
(xxviii.) 49; 2. once (Ὁ) by δεῖ, cum. inf. See 2 Sam. iv. 10, ᾧ ἔδει 
με Sodvar=1 ‘nnd we; 3. by εἰ with the aor. ind., 2 Kings 
xiii. 19; 4. by a paraphrastic form consisting of two verbs, 
2 Chron. xi. 22; 5. frequently by τοῦ with the inf. as in 
Eccles. iii. 15 ; 1 Chron. ix. 25, and in our text in xii. 7; 6. once 
simply by the inf. Ps. xxxil. 9, ἐν χαλινῷ καὶ κημῷ... ἄγξαι 
(B x)=oa5 . . . anna. Here we have the same rendering as 
in our text, αὐτὸς (αὐτόν, A) ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. In xii. 7, 
just as here, SQ omit the τοῦ before πολεμῆσαι, but τοῦ cum 
inf. is a better rendering. There are also other renderings in the 
LXX of this idiom. 
2. The second form of the text is that of some cursives and 

Versions : 

εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ἀπάγει, 

εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει. 

εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτενεῖ, 

δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. 


This is the text preferred by Bousset. As in the former text 
so in this the parallelism of the two clauses is perfect. But the 
meaning is of course different. While in the former we have 
an appeal to the loyalty of the faithful, in the latter there is 
simply a promise of requital. The saints are assured that the 
jus talionis will be enacted to the full on their persecutors. 

3. The third form of text is that of the R.V., which agrees 
with the second save that it omits ἀπάγει. This third form 
is accepted by B. Weiss, Swete, and Moffatt, but, whatever the 
textual evidence is, it has the parallelism against it and also the 
source from which it is derived. Its advocates have supported 
it by maintaining that both clauses refer to the Christian: he 
is to suffer exile if necessary, xiii. 10%: he is to abstain from 
using the sword, xiii. τοῦ, if he would not perish by the sword. 
But here the idea of the law of requital is introduced. Hence, 
since according to this text 10*» enforces simply the duty of 
resignation, and 10 is clearly an expression of the law of 


XIII. 10-11.] SECOND BEAST 357 


requital, this third form of text combines two ideas consorting 
very ill with each other, inappropriate to their context and at 
variance with the source from which they are ultimately drawn. 
B. Weiss interprets the whole verse as expressing requital. 

It is true that this form is fairly supported by the textual 
evidence ; but it was probably due to Matt. xxvi. 52. 

The first corruption of the text (4. of ἀποκτανθῆναι into 
ἀποκτενεῖ as in the R.V.) seems to have been due to Matt. xxvi. 52, 
πάντες yap ot λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται. This 
change once effected, introducing as it did the idea of ἃ jus 
talionis, could easily lead to the next corruption, 2.6. the addition 
of ἀπάγει after αἰχμαλωσίαν (10). Thus this third form of text 
conveys to the Christians the promise that, whatever be the fate 
they endure, it will recoil on their persecutors. 


The Second Beast, 11-18. 


11. καὶ εἶδον ἄλλο θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς; 
καὶ εἶχεν κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ, 
καὶ + ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων jf. 


In our text this second Beast is identified with the False 
Prophet: cf. xvi. 13, ΧΙΧ. 20, xx. 10. Mommsen thinks that this 
second Beast symbolizes the state officials throughout the 
provinces, but the express identification of this Beast with the 
False Prophet renders Mommsen’s view untenable. From 
Victorinus downwards a number of notable scholars have 
identified the Beast with the heathen priesthood, but it is best with 
Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Bousset, J. Weiss to understand it in 
relation to the imperial priesthood of the provinces. 

In this second Antichrist figure we have an independent 
development of the Antichrist expectation. See p. 342 sqq. 
Originally this expectation had a radically different object, z.e. a 
Jewish false prophet in Jerusalem, or a Christian false prophet in 
the Christian community, as in 1 John ii. 18, 22, iv. 3; 2 John 7. 
But since the vision of our author is not limited to Judaism or 
Christianity, but takes in the entire world, he finds that the 
truths he had already learnt in Judaism and Christianity attained 
their fullest exemplification in the heathen world. Thus this 
Antichrist is now heathen and the scene of his activity the 
heathen world. 

This Antichrist comes up ἐκ τῆς γῆς. This phrase seems to 
indicate the locality of the beast, ze. the priesthood of the 
imperial cultus in Asia Minor. Some scholars trace it to 
Dan. vii. 17, but this can only be a mere accident. Moreover 
that passage is corrupt. It is true indeed that according to 


358 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XIII 1]. 


ancient tradition, 1 Enoch lx. 7 sqq.; 4 Ezra vi. 49 sqq., there 
were two monsters, Leviathan and Behemoth, the one inhabiting 
the deep, the other the dry land. These monsters sprang 
ultimately from the cosmological myths of Babylon, and, repre- 
senting the primeval chaos monster Tiamat, appear under many 
names in the O.T. as opponents of God, Isa. li. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 
Io sqq.; Job xxvi. 12 sq. etc. (see K.A.Z.3 507), but in Jater 
times they came to be regarded as the impersonations of the 
evil power in the last days, when cosmological myths were 
transformed into eschatological expectations—as in Isa. xxvii. 1 
(leviathan, serpent, dragon); Pss. Sol. ii. 28 sqq.; Rev. xii., xvi. 
13, xx. 2 (δράκων); 1 Enoch lx. 7 sqq.; 4 Ezra vi. 49-52; 
2 Bar. xxix. 4 (Behemoth and Leviathan); Dan. vii. (n‘n); 
Rev. xiii., Xvi. 13, Xvii., xix. 19 sqq. (θηρίον). See K.A.T. 508. 

κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ. This phrase may be illustrated by 
Matt. vii. 15, προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασι προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες. 
The words in our text therefore may point to the mild appear- 
ance of the second Beast. 

What is the meaning of ἐλάλει ὡς Spdxwy? Like Gunkel I 
must confess that I can make nothing of it. On the ground 
that it is unintelligible Gunkel, assuming a Semitic source, 
retranslates καὶ ἐλάλει into WNM, which he takes to be a corrup- 
tion of wwm—‘“‘and a form.” But the Hebrew equivalent of 
λαλεῖν is not ws but 137. I have two suggestions. The 
corruption lies either in the Greek or in the Hebrew behind the 
Greek. In the former case we should add the article before 
δράκων, which is meaningless without it. If then we might read 
ὁ δράκων, and take δράκων as synonymous with ὄφις as in xii. 9, 
14, 15, xx. 2, then the text becomes intelligible and would refer 
to the seductive and deceitful character of the serpent in the 
Garden of Eden. If this is right, the text would imply appeals 
to patriotism, gratitude for the great services of the empire, 
self-interest. If, on the other hand, the text goes back to a 
Hebrew original, then 939M) (2.6. καὶ ἐλάλει) might be corrupt (as 
in 2 Chron. xxii. 10, where 1359 is corrupt for JaNn: cf. 
2 Kings xi. 1) for Taxm\. The original would then have been ἼΣΝ ΠῚ 
pana. “And the beast had two horns like a lamb (herein 
simulating the Messiah—ro ἀρνίον in xiv. 1), but he was a 
destroyer (an ἀπολλύων) like the dragon ” (2.4. his master). This 
gives us the same antithesis as in Matt. vii. 15 (quoted above)— 
the fair outward show contrasting with the real nature. More- 
over, in confirmation of this view, the second Beast is called a 
ψευδοπροφήτης in Xvi. 13, XIX. 20, XxX. 10, just as the false teachers 
are in Matt. vii. 15. Furthermore in 738n we might have an 
allusion to ᾿Αβαδδών in ix. 11 ; for this being appears to be Satan 


XIII. 11-14] THE IMPERIAL PRIESTHOOD 359 


or the Dragon. If this is right, instead of ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων we 
ought to have ἀπώλλυε (or ἀπολλύων) ὡς 6 δράκων (cf. ix. 11). 


12. καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώπιον 
αὐτοῦ" 

καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας 

ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν τὸ θηρίον τὸ πρῶτον, 

οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. 

The construction τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας is strange on two 
grounds. First, the order is against the general usage of our 
author, though it is found occasionally. See note on xi. 4 
(p. 284). Observe that a strong minority of textual authorities are 
in favour of the order τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν αὐτῇ. Secondly, the 
construction κατοικεῖν ἐν is found here only in the Apocalypse. 
Nine times we have κατοικεῖν ἐπί and once κατοικεῖν c. acc. See 
note on xi. ro and § 4 of the Introd. to this Chapter. 

The imperial priesthood uses its delegated authority to 
enforce the worship of the Empire, which is here identified with 
Nero vedivivus. It is no longer the death stroke of one of the 
heads of the Beast (xiii. 3) that is spoken of, but of the Beast 
itself. 


Α - A 9 " A A 9 A 
13. kat ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ 
καταβαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 


iva has here the force of the classical ὥστε as in ix. 20: cf. 
1 John i. 9: John ix. 2. See Blass, Gram. 224 sq. 

In this verse the writer is thinking of the magic and lying 
wonders practised by the priesthood devoted to the worship of 
the emperors. They caused fire to come down from heaven. 
All oriental cults had recourse to such deceits. 

An outburst of miracles was expected to mark the advent of 
the Antichrist: cf. Mark xii, 225 ἐγερθήσονται ae - ψευδοπροφῆται 
καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα. πρὸς τὸ ΕΘΝ εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς 
ἐκλεκτούς ; 2 Thess. il. 9, οὗ ἐστὶν Ἃ παρουσία kat ἐνέργειαν 
τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους. 
Asc. Isa. iv. ro, ‘And there will be the power of his (ze. the 
Neronic Antichrist) miracles in every city: And at his word 
the sun will rise at night and he will make the moon to appear 
at the sixth hour”: also 4 Ezra v. 4; Sibyll. Or. iii. 63-70. 
See Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 99 sq. The special 
miracle recorded in our text recalls that of Elijah, 1 Kings 
xviii. 38. For diction cf. Luke ix. 54. 

14. καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ 
ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ 


360 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΠΠ|. 14-15. 


τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει Thy πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης 
καὶ ἔζησεν. 

πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας. The second Beast has power to 
deceive only the unbelieving world. This is explicitly the teach- 
ing of xix. 20 and implicitly that of xii. 9, xviii. 23, xx. 3, 8, 
10. 

The faithful received the mark of God on their foreheads, 
vii. 4 544. (see note 7” /oc.), ix. 4, and were henceforth secured 
against satanic assaults in the form of deception and temptation 
to sin. But the unbelieving world, which had received the mark 
of the Beast, xiii. 16, were thereby just as inevitably predisposed 
and prepared to become victims of every satanic deceit and 
temptation, and to believe a lie. We have here a deep spiritual 
truth. In the degree in which a man’s character approaches 
finality, he has in that degree, if he has been faithful, become one 
with God and been rendered secure against spiritual evil powers 
in whatever form. If, on the other hand, he has been faithless, 
he has in that degree by his own action predisposed and prepared 
himself to be at once the unconscious victim of further spiritual 
wrong and the helpless slave of evil powers. 

On the moral significance of the phrase τοὺς κατοικ. ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς, see note on xi. ro, and xiii., Introd. ὃ 4. 

There is no real occasion here and in iv. 11, xii. 11 to take 
διά in an instrumental sense as Bousset proposes. The imposture 
succeeds because of the signs that are wrought ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
θηρίου. The signs were wrought by the priesthood (the second 
Beast) before the official representatives of the emperor (the first 
Beast). 

λέγων. . . ποιῆσαι. For the construction see note on x. 9. 
The imperial priesthood made every effort to spread the imperial 
cult by the setting up of statues of the emperor and insisting on 
their religious significance. In our text the εἰκών is that of Nero 
redivivus, as the last clause of the verse shows. With this ex- 
pectation we might compare that expressed in Asc. Isa. iv. 11, 
“ And he (probably ‘ they’ should be read) will set up his image 
(1.2. that of the Neronic Antichrist) before him in every city.” 

15-18. The connection of these verses has been generally 
misapprehended. The meaning simply is—the worship of the 
Beast gives the right to assume the mark of the Beast: these two 
—the worship and the reception of the mark are always associated 
together: cf. xiv. 9, 11, xvi. 2, xix. 20, XX. 4, aS in xiii. 15°, 16: 
the mark cannot be had without the act of worship. Next, since 
the refusal of such worship inevitably entails death, xiii. 15°, in 
order to escape death all are forced to wear the mark (xiii. 16) in 
evidence of having rendered such worship. And that none 
should escape this requirement, the necessities of life are to be 


XIII. 156-16] | UNIVERSAL MARTYRDOM 361 


withheld from such as do not exhibit the mark, xiii. 17. Thus 
every individual is reached—small and great, rich and poor, 
bond and free, and none can evade the inquisition and none the 
dread alternative of worship or death. 

15. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ δοῦναι πνεῦμα τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου, ἵνα καὶ 
λαλήσῃ ἡἣ εἰκὼν τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ποιήσῃ ἵνα ὅσοι ἐὰν μὴ 
προσκυνήσωσιν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ θηρίου ἀποκτανθῶσιν. 

The belief in speaking and wonder-working statues was a well 
established one in the ancient world. According to Clem. 
Recognitions, iii. 47 (Clem. Hom. ii. 32), Simon Magus declared : 
“ Statuas moveri feci: animaviexanima.” Besides such wonder- 
workers as Apollonius of Tyana, and Apelles of Ascalon at the 
court of Caligula of the first century, we find remarkable parallels 
in the second century. Statues were regarded as the natural 
means by which gods or demons could have intercourse with 
their worshippers, and were accredited with the power of working 
miracles (Theophil. ad Awfo/. i. 8), and of possessing supernatural 
energies (Athenagoras, Zeg. 18). At Troas a statue of a certain 
Neryllinus (of. cé¢. 26) was supposed to utter oracles and to heal 
the sick, and the statue of Alexander and Proteus at Parium to 
utter oracles. Athenagoras admits the actuality of these pheno- 
mena but ascribes them to demons. 

Most oriental cults had recourse to magic and trickery, and 
that the imperial cult availed itself of their help, as our text states, 
there is no just ground for doubting. ‘The association of Roman 
officials and sorcerers is attested in Acts xiii. 6, Irenaeus, in his 
comment on our text, writes (v. 28. 2): ‘“‘ Haec ne quis eum divina 
virtute putet signa facere, sed magica operatione. Et non est 
mirandum si daemoniis et apostaticis spiritibus ministrantibus ei, 
per eos faciat signa in quibus seducat habitantes super terram.” 
See Weinel, Wirkungen des Geistes und der Getster, 9 sq. 

iva ὅσοι. - - ἀποκτανθῶσιν. As in 8 the writer passes over 
into the future, so here in 15. There a// the inhabitants of the 
earth who were not written in the Book of Life were to worship 
the Beast: Here a// that did not worship its image were to be 
put to death. That refusal to worship the image of the emperor 
carried with it capital punishment in Trajan’s time is clear from 
Pliny’s letter to Trajan (x. 96). Those who refused to recant 
“ποῖ jussi.” As regards the rest he writes: “Qui negarent se 
esse Christianos, aut fuisse, cum praeeunte me deos appellarent, 
et imagini tuae, quam propter hoc iusseram. . . afferri, thure ac 
vino supplicarent . . . ego dimittendos putavi.” 

16. καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς 
πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, 
ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ 
τὸ μέτωπον αὐτών. 


362 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XIII 17. 


17. καὶ ἵνα μή τις δύνηται ἀγοράσαι ἢ πωλῆσαι εἰ μὴ ὁ ἔχων τὸ 
χάραγμα, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου ἢ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. 

On the familiar τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους cf. xi. 18, xix. 5, 
and in reverse order in xx. 12: On τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς 
πτωχούς cf. Prov. xxii. 2; Sir. x. 22. τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς 
δούλους recurs in xix. 18 and in reverse order in vi. 15. 

iva δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα. On the impersonal plural cf. x. 11, 
xii. 6, xvi. 15. For the phrase διδόναι χάραγμα cf. Ezek. (LXX) 
ix. 4, δὸς σημεῖον (where, however, the Hebrew is a nnn) 
ἐπὶ τὰ μέτωπα. But διδόναι. . . χάραγμα is good Hebrew, and is 
found in Megillah, 24b, where in reference to the tephillah it is 
said inyp dy An». 

The mark! was to be placed on the right hand and on the 
brow of the followers of the Beast. This is full of significance. 
For the orthodox Jew wore the tephillin (which were translated 
in Greek φυλακτήρια---οἴ, Matt. xxiii. 5, πλατύνουσι yap τὰ φυλακ- 
THpta—owing to the circumstance they were practically amulets 
and used as a protection against evil spirits) on the left hand and 
on the head (see Schiirer, Gesch.3 ii. 485 ; Friedlander, Der Anti- 
christ, τοῦ sq., 161).2 Hence the worshippers of the Beast 
travesty (xiii. 16) this usage by wearing the mark on their right 
hand or their brow. In xiv. 9 and xx. 4 this double mark on 
the hand and the brow of the worshippers of the Beast is referred 
to, though which hand is not specified. In xili. 17, xiv. 11, xvi. 2, 
xix. 20 only the mark without specification of the brow or hand 
is mentioned, though it is defined simply as τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ 
θηρίου in xvi. 2, xix. 20, and in xiii. 17, xiv. rr the mark is said 
to consist in the name of the beast (or the number of his name, 
xiii. 17). In our present text, as in xiv. 9, the mark is said to be 
on the brow ov on the hand, whereas in xx. 4 it is stated to be 
on the brow amd on the hand. In the face of Jewish usage 
and xx. 4 we may fairly assume that the mark was in both places. 
It is to be observed that alike with regard to the faithful and the 
followers of the Antichrist the mark is placed on the brow (not 
over the brow), just as in Deut. vi. 8 the tephillin were to be set 
as frontlets “ between the eyes.” The Rabbis, however, declared 
that this usage was heretical, Megillah, 24b: ‘Whoever placed 
the tephillin on the brow or on the hand (17° DB 5y w ἸΠΥ by) 
follows the practice of the Minim,” and required that they should 


1 The word χάραγμα may, as Deissmann suggests, be chosen because it 
was the technical designation of the imperial stamp. 

2 Targum on Cant. viii. 1, ‘‘ The Community of Israel saith: I am 
chosen from among the heathen nations because I bind the tephillin on my lefc 
hand and about my head,” 'w2) ΝΟ 3 1 ἘΠ NWP NIN, and on the upper 
third of the right doorpost next the lintel, in order that evil spirits may have 
no power to do me injury.” 


XIII. 17.] MARK OF THE BEAST 363 


be worn over the brow and on the hands or rather forearms (171). 
Thus the worshippers of the Beast, as Friedlander (of. αἱ. 161 Sq.) 
and Bousset recognize, travesty in these respects the practice of 
orthodox Judaism in the first century of the Christian era, but 
not of the faithful in vii. 3 sqq., etc., of our text. The mark on 
the brow of the faithful in our author has no connection with the 
tephillin. Hence this fact points to the Jewish origin of this 
section with regard to the Antichrist or of part of it. But ulti- 
mately the marks on the brows of the faithful, vit. 3 sqq., etc., ana of 
the worshippers of the Beast had the same origin. Both were 
intended to show that the wearers of the marks are under super- 
natural protection—the former under the protection of God, the 
latter of Satan. The former marks were to be made on the brow 
only: the latter on the brow and right hand owing to the influence 
of the Antichrist expectation amongst the Jews, as we have just 
seen.! 
ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς. Upon the significance of the 
mark being upon the right hand see preceding note. See note 
on p. 335, on the order and fulness of this expression as 
contrasted with i. 17, 20, etc., as well as on the case. 
καὶ iva μή τις κτλ. The object of enforcing the wearing 
of the mark is not the minor one of cutting off the recusants 
from buying and selling (which the MSS which omit the καί 
would imply); for the penalty of such recusancy is immediate 
death. The necessaries of life are to be withheld from such as 
have not the mark of the beast in order to bring them under the 
notice of the imperial authorities, and that thus none should 
escape. A ruthless economic warfare is here proclaimed with a 
view to the absolute supremacy of the State. This is not 
represented as a fact of the present but as the future in store for 
the inhabitants of the earth. Thus shortly the sense of xiii. 


1 Other views propounded are: 1. The marks were those used in the case 
of domestic slaves. Those so marked were called στιγματίαι, literati, and 
such marks were regarded as a badge of disgrace. They were not used 
generally amongst the Greeks and Romans unless in the case of misconduct. 
2. Soldiers sometimes branded themselves with the name of their general: see 
Wetstein on Gal. vi. 17. 3. Deissman (zd/ical Studies, 241 sq.) thinks that he 
finds the clue in the seals (yapdyuara) which were stamped with the name and 
year of the emperor in Egypt in the first and second centuries on papyrus 
documents relating to buying and selling. But this practice does not explain 
the mark on the ferson. The mark of the beast was, as Ramsay observes, 
‘*a preliminary condition ” of buying and selling, ‘‘and none who wanted it 
were admitted to business transactions.” 4. Ramsay, Leéters to the Seven 
Churches (110 sq.), suggests that the mark was an official certificate of loyalty 
which was issued to those who had complied with the ritual of the imperial 
religion. But this does not meet the case. 5. Spitta, Erbes and Mommsen 
interpret the text with reference to the Roman coins bearing the image and 
superscription of the emperor. But this interpretation does not explain the 
stamping of the marks on the right hand and brow. 


364 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (XIII. 17-18. 


16-17 is: He made every one to wear the mark, and that none 
should escape his scrutiny he forbade the means of life to such as 
had not the mark. ἵνα μὴ. - ἀγοράσαι ἢ πωλῆσαι. For the 
diction cf. 1 Mace. xili. 49) | ot δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἄκρας ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ 
ἐκωλύοντο ἐκπορεύεσθαι εἰς τὴν χώραν καὶ ἀγοράζειν καὶ πωλεῖν. 

ὁ ἔχων τὸ χάραγμα. Our author when writing independently 
would probably say ὁ λαβὼν τ. x. See note on xvi. 2. 

τὸ χάραγμα, τὸ ὄνομα κτλ. The name and the number of the 
name are one and the same thing. In the former case it is 
written in letters: in the latter its equivalent is given in numbers 
by a kind of gematria. To the diction in our text τὸν ἀριθμὸν 
τοῦ θηρίου (18) and τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ (17) there are 
two exact parallels in the inscriptions given by Mau in the 
Bulletino del Lnstituto, 1874, p. 90, one of which is puro ἧς 
ἀριθμὸς φμε (cf. TOV , ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου) and the | second ἀμέριμνος 
ἐμνήσθη ἁρμονίας τῆς ἰδίας κ(υ)ρία(ς) ἐ ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ, ἧς ὃ ἀριθμὸς με (or 
aXe) τοῦ καλοῦ ὀνόματος (cf. τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ). 

18, ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν᾽ ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ 
θηρίου, ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι 
ἑξήκοντα ἕξ. 

ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν. With this expression Eichhorn compares 
the cabbalistic phrase 827 N's ΠΟΣῚ NM (Sohar Chadash, f. 
40. 3). ὧδε here as in xvii. 9 refers to what follows, but in xiii. 
10, xiv. 12 to what precedes. With the idea in 6 ἔχων νοῦν we 
should compare Dan. i. 17 (LXX), τῷ Δανιὴλ ἔδωκε σύνεσιν ἐν 

ξ ἐνυπνίοις καὶ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ν. 12 (Theod. ), σύνεσις ἐν αὐτῷ 
συγκρίνων ἐνύπνια καὶ ἀναγγέλλων κρατούμενα. Cf, ν. II, 14. 
The word vois is not found in the Versions of the canonical 
Daniel, but σύνεσις (1.6. 12°) has the same meaning. Thus in 


viii. 15, where Daniel has a vision, it is said that he “sought to 
understand it” ἐζήτουν σύνεσιν (Theod.). In ix. 22 an angel is 
sent συμβιβάσαι σε σύνεσιν (Theod.) in reference to the prophecy 
of the 70 years, and in x. 1 σύνεσις αὐτῷ. .. ἐν ὀπτασίᾳ. In 
such mysteries οὐ vojrovow .. . ἄνομοι (A), xii. το. νοῦς or 
σύνεσις (1.6. 1392) is what is needed for the interpretation of the 
problem in this verse. 

ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμόν κτλ. This passage is difficult and has 
been the subject of controversy since the second century. 
Much of it has been due to inaccurate interpretation of the 
words involved, but even when every care is taken there remains 
a hypothetical element in every solution that is offered. The 
two clauses that have caused difficulty are Ψηφισάτω.. . . θηρίου 
and ἀριθμὸς γὰρ. . . ἐστίν. Let us μὰς the latter first. This 
clause is susceptible of two meanings. 1. It has been proposed 
by a number of ‘oholare<-Ltstandiceks Holtzmann, Gunkel, 
Clemen, Swete, etc., to take ἀριθμὸς Δὐόρώπου as meaning a 


XIII. 18.] ITS INTERPRETATION 365 


human intelligible number, not a supernatural one. They 
compare xxi. 17, μέτρον ἀνθρώπου 6 ἐστιν adyyéAov. But whereas 
the statement in xxi. 17 15 significant, seeing that it is an angel 
that is measuring the heavenly Jerusalem, the emphasizing of the 
fact here that the number is such as a man uses is pointless. 
For the writer to set down any other than an intelligible number 
would be highly absurd. 2. Volkmar, Kliefoth, Corssen, Bousset, 
Jiilicher, Moffatt maintain that the number here is that of a 
certain individual. To this it has been objected that in that 
case τινός or ἑνός would have stood in connection with ἀνθρώπου. 
But this is not so: cf. Ps. ον. 17, ἀπέστειλεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν 
ἄνθρωπον (ws DMD nev’), “He sent a man before them.” 


The evidence, therefore, of the words themselves is in favour of 
the latter interpretation. But further, and this argument may 
fairly be regarded as conclusive, the Beast and one of its heads, 
though conceived separately in xili. 1, 3,are subsequently in xiii. 12, 
14 treated as identical. ‘The man here, z.e. one of the heads of the 
Beast, is himself the Beast. If we discover the name of the man 
it is for the time the name of the Beast. This conclusion is of 
paramount importance in the interpretation of the verse as a 
whole.! 

Having reached this conclusion, we have next to discover 
the form of cryptogram used by the writer, and here I will quote 


1 This conclusion is an answer (1) to P. Corssen’s contention in the Z. 
J. NTliche Wissenschaft, iii. 238-242, iv. 264-267, v. 86-88, that we have 
here an instance of isopsephism, which consists in establishing relations 
between two different conceptions—here the Beast and a man—by means of 
the numerical equivalence in value of the letters by which the two are 
expressed. As we have seen above the Seer identifies the Beast with one 
of its heads. Hence we have only to deal with a single conception in 
xiii. 18, and not with an isopsephism such as he quotes from Boissonade, 
Anecdota, ii. 459, to the effect that θεός Ξξ ἅγιος τε ἀγαθός, since the numerical 
value of each is od, Ζ.6. 284, that Παῦλος Ξε σοφία (Wra=781), κοσμᾶς Ξελύρα 
(pAa=531), and from Berosus according to Alexander Polyhistor, Eusebii 
Chronic., Liber I. (ed. Schoen, p. 14 sq.), ἄρχειν δὲ τούτων πάντων γυναῖκα 7 
ὄνομα ὁμόρωκα (read ὁμόρκα) εἶναι δὲ τοῦτο χαλδαϊστὶ μὲν θαλάτθ, ᾿λληνιστὶ 
δὲ μεθερμηνεύεται θάλασσα, κατὰ δὲ ἰσόψηφον σελήνη. ὁμόρκα (an Aramaic 
word τε Τρ Ν τΟΝ, ‘‘ mother of the depth ”) as σελήνη 301. 

Like isopsephisms have been discovered by the Rabbis in the O.T. 
Thus under πο x3’ in Gen. xlix. 10 mvp (Messiah) is found, because both 
expressions= 358. Similarly ΠῚ (‘‘Comforter’’) was found to be designed 
in nds (““ branch”) for each word =138. On the possibility of such a pheno- 
menon in Ezek. v. 2 see Bertholet on Ezek. iv. 5. A cryptographic acrostic 
has been detected by Jewish scholars in the initial letters of Deut. xxxii. 1-6. 
These =345= Moses. See Jewzsh Encyc. v. 580. 

(2) Secondly, it is an answer to all scholars who would discover the name 
of the Beast in the Roman Empire. The name of the Beast is the name of 
a man and the number is 666. Hence we reject on this ground Λατεῖνος first 
found in Irenzeus, and 7 Aarwh Baorkela=666, ἡ ἰταλὴ βασιλείατε 16 of 
Clemen. 


366 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XIII 18. 


my friend Professor J. A. Smith of Magdalen College, who, having 
had much experience in solving cryptograms, has sent me the 
following letter (Dec. 1910) : ‘The solution of a cryptogram with 
no further clue than that the numerical values of the letters 
composing the answer should add up to 666 was almost indeter- 
minate. I therefore suspected a restricting addition. Assuming 
that the digits, decads and hundreds must add up separately, 
I found the possible solution much narrowed. A very obvious 
one presented itself in 


Ι. T= 300 ν- το e= 
3 5 5 τειταν 


T= 300 t=10 a=I 


The clue that the answer must be “the name of a man” 
suggested the ending -os or -as. 


ΠῚ T = 300 v=50 | €e=5 Feenee 
o = 200 t=10 wale 
A+0=I100 | 
Ill. o = 200 v=50 e=5 
v= 400 | 6+-a=10 ὉΠ - ευανθας 





“1 thus seemed to have hit upon the method employed by 
Irenaeus or his authority. I next applied this to the number 
888 in the Sibyl. Oracles, i. 328 (afud Swete?, p. 176), and find 
it gives at once 


a = 200 0=70 7=8 
o = 200 t=10 Ἰησοῦς 
v=400 





“Tt then occurred to me to see if anything in the Apocalypse 
suggested this restriction, and I thought it might be contained in 
Wypirdtrw—literally to calculate with numbers. It was, I believe, 
common to use an abacus in a way which practically amounted 
to using a decimal system. You will see that if no column can 
contain more respectively than 6, 60 and 600 the number of 
possible solutions is greatly restricted. τειταν and Ἰησοῦς are 
rigorous solutions: each of the others requires the licence of 
once having a compound. 

*‘ As regards the Apocalypse itself, all this does not advance 
matters much. All, I think, I have shown is how Irenaeus got 
his solutions, and why he preferred recray, and that the method 
is found at least once elsewhere.” 

We are now in a position to deal with the problem before us. 
The Beast and the man are identical. In other words, the Beast 
is for the time incarnated in a man. There is no isopsephism 


XIII. 18.] ITS INTERPRETATION 367 


here, and all solutions which propose the name of a country or 
nation are thereby excluded. Next, if Professor Smith’s method 
is here valid, the name of the man must be such that in three 
columns of hundreds, tens and units, the total must in each case 
be six. The solution favoured by Irenaeus, 2.6. τειτάν, complies 
rigorously with the numerical postulates, and has recently been 
supported by Abbott (Votes on ΔΝ. 7. Criticism, 80 sq.). But 
τειτάν is not a man’s name, though it is construed as referring 
to Titus or to the Flavian dynasty, or to the third Titus, 2.6. 
Domitian. Abbott (of. cit. 83, note) points out that the Talmud 
transliterated tutos by DID. 

But this solution will not do. The references to “the man” 
in xiii, 3, 12, 14 could not be explained of Titus or Domitian. 
We are, therefore, thrown back on Nero vedivivus—the inde- 
pendent proposal of four scholars, Holtzmann, Benary, Hitzig and 
Reuss. The solution is to be sought not in Greek but in Hebrew. 
Nero Caesar ="Dp ἢ) = 666. It has been objected that “Dp is 
the proper spelling, but according to Jastrow’s Talmudic Lexicon 
“pp also is found. Besides καισάρεια is transliterated by PDP 
as well as by }p'p. The defective form 1Dp has therefore been 
chosen, because thereby the symmetrical 666 is attained, or 
because the number 666 is older than the name.!_ This solution 
appears to satisfy every requirement: for 

1. It explains every reference in our text: see notes on 
xiii. 1, 3, 12, 14, and on the present verse. 

2. It explains the twofold reading 666 and 616. In C, two 
lost cursives and Tyconius (see Iren. v. 30. 1), the reading 616 
occurs instead of 666. This can be explained from the Latin 
form of the name Nero, which by its omission of the final x 
makes the sum total 616 instead of 666. 

3. It satisfies the numerical method 


3+3=100 
1(= 
200 D=60 1=6 
1 =200 
Ῥ ΞΞ fore) 
600 60 6 


1 Trenaeus (v. 28. 2) says with regard to 666: In recapitulationem universe 
apostasiae ejus quze facta est in sex millibus annorum (see 29 and 30. 1). 
The number 6 is full of significance for him. Some recent scholars (Milligan, 
Baird Lecture, p. 328; Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, 324; Porter, Hastengs’ 
D.B. iv. 258; Vischer, Ζ. αὶ NTZleche Waissensch. iv. 167-174) take the 
number as having a symbolical force, as signifying the one who persistently 
falls short of perfection (z.e. the number 7), and support this view by the 
parallel of 34 years, or the period of the Antichrist’s reign, as symbolizing the 
destruction of evil within the half of the perfect period—seven. But to this 
it may be objected, why was 666 chosen? and not simply 6 or 66? The 
origin of this number is not yet clear. 


368 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIV. 12-13. 


I am not sure that this was intended; for among the many 
varieties of Gematria given in the Jewish Eencyc. v. 589-592, the 
above variety is not mentioned. It may, however, have been 
borrowed by the Apocalyptist from Greek usage.! 

XIV. 12-13. These verses have no connection with chap. 
xiv., but should follow directly on xiii. 17 or 18 as they do in 
this edition. 1. For there is no connection of thought between 
the endless torments of the worshippers of the Beast in Gehenna 
and the patient endurance of the saints. If xiv. 6-11 had 
been a description of the persecutions awaiting the saints, then 
such a statement as xiv. 12 and such a beatitude as xiv. 13 
would have been in the highest degree appropriate, just as 
xili. ro comes in most aptly after xiii. 10%. 2. At the close of 
xiii. ro we find xiv. 12* repeated with an additional phrase, and 
in the earlier clauses of xiii. 10 we find exactly such acts of 
persecution referred to as justify wholly the final clause of 
the verse ὧδέ ἐστιν ἣ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων. 

Hence we conclude that xiv. 12-13 should similarly be 
preceded by a persecution which issued in death (μακάριοι... 
οἱ ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες) On the part of all who refused to worship 
the Beast. Now in xiii. 15 we find such a persecution foretold 
in the vision of the Seer. We have here the final stage of the 
persecution described, and it is just in such a context and 
none other in the Apocalypse that xiv. 12-13 has its right 
setting. Hence xiv. 12-13 should be transposed to xiii., and 
read immediately after 17 or 18. It is possible that xiii. 18 is an 
interpolation. 

12. Here as in xiii. 10, 18, xvii. 9 our author abandons his réle 
as Seer and addresses words of admonition directly to his readers. 

ὧδε ἡ ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων. Cf. xiii. το. On ὑπομονή cf. i. 9, 
ii, 2, 3, 19, li. το. Practically all men are capable of some 
momentary exhibition of heroism or self-sacrifice, and exactly in 
the measure in which they show themselves capable in this 
respect they have affinity with all true saints and heroes. But 
it is not such temporary manifestations of self-sacrifice or 
heroism that form the distinguishing mark of the saints, but 
sustained persistent faithfulness in the face of continuous persecu- 
tion—even unto death. In our text the Seer has in his mind the 
last great tribulation, which would strengthen and mature those 
who encountered it faithfully. 

1Of the great number of suggestions which have been offered a few 
deserve to be mentioned. In Greek Γάϊος xaisap=616. In case a Caligula 
source lies behind this chapter, this suggestion would have much to say for 
itself. In Hebrew letters Manchot and Weyland propose o'D7 10p=666, 
and Ewald om 70'p=616. All these are under certain conditions possible, 


but not so Gunkel’s proposal m’nD7p onn=primal chaos, Tiamat (G. F. 
Moore, Journ. Amer. Oriental Soc., 1906, p. 315 sq.). 


XIV. 12-13.] BEATITUDE OF MARTYRDOM 369 


ot τηροῦντες Tas ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ. We have here a break in 
the construction which is characteristic of our author, and to be 
explained as in the note oni. 5. The participial clause defines 
the τῶν ἁγίων. This clause has already occurred in xii. 17. 
Here as in that passage the keeping of the commandments is 
combined with faith in Jesus. The especially Johannine char. 
acter of the diction is to be observed. Outside the Johannine 
writings the phrase τηρεῖν τ. ἐντολήν (ἐντολάς) is found twice in the 
N.T.—and not found in the LXX—where διατηρεῖν and συντηρεῖν 
are used: whilst in the Johannine writings exclusive of the 
Apocalypse it is found 9 times. But this is not all. Our author 
uses also the phrase τηρεῖν τ. λόγον (λόγους) in 111. 8, 10, xxii. 7, 9. 
Now this phrase occurs 9 times in the Johannine Gospel and 
Epp. and not once throughout the rest of the N.T. The use of 
τηρεῖν in 1. 3, lil. 3 is analogous. We might further observe that 
ἐντολή is a favourite Johannine word, occurring 27 times in the 
Gospe! and Epp. and 37 in the rest of the N.T. πίστιν Ἰησοῦ, 
i.e. the faith which has Jesus for its object: cf. ii, 13, τὴν 
πίστιν pov: Mark xi. 22, πίστιν θεοῦ: Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. 16, 
111: 2521} 7135..1}. τ: 

13. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. As the thought of the 
great tribulation, which was to involve the martyrdom of the 
entire body of the faithful, presses heavily on the heart of the 
Seer, he hears a new beatitude proclaimed from heaven on their 
behalf: ‘‘ Blessed are those who are martyred in the Lord from 
henceforth.” 

In such a conflict—with the world human and satanic arrayed 
against them—the faithful needed strong consolation, and the 
mercy of God stooped to the need that called it down. The 
ground, on which they were declared to be blessed, is that 
they are at once to rest from their labours and enter into the 
full recompense of their faithfulness on earth. Here for the 
first time the departed are described as μακάριοι. They have 
entered on the consummation of their blessedness ; for they have 
suffered martyrdom for their Lord, and with their martyrdom the 
roll of the martyrs is now complete. In vi. 9-11, though the 
martyrs were given white robes (2.6. heavenly bodies) and bidden 
to rest a little while till their fellow-servants, which should be 
martyred even as they, should be fulfilled, it is clearly implied 
that their blessedness is only in part consummated. But not 
so with the martyrs of this final persecution. They are to 
enter forthwith into their final blessedness ;! for with them the 
number of the martyrs is accomplished, and therefore the hour 
for judgment has come. 


1 This final blessedness of the martyrs will not be fully consummated til] 
the entire body of the righteous is fvlfilled. 


VOL. I.—24 


370 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIV. 18. 


In fact in xiv. 6-11, and in 14, 18-20 we have two proleptic 
visions of judgment. Of these the first summarizes the judgment 
of Rome, which is subsequently described in detail in xvi. 18—xviii., 
while the second, xiv. 14, 18-20, gives in brief a proleptic vision 
of the judgment which is to be executed in part before the 
Millennial reign and in part after it, and which is represented 
more fully in xix. 11-21 and xx. 7-10. Neither of these 
proleptic visions takes any account of the judgment to be 
meted out to the Beasts and the False Prophet (xix. 20) or to 
Satan (xx. 1-3, 10), nor do they refer to the final judgment of 
all the dead (xx. 12-15). But the righteous have little concern 
with these judgments ; for to none of them are they subjected. 
They have already been swept from the earth by a universal 
martyrdom, and before the plagues of the seven Bowls begin the 
Seer beholds them already standing before the Sea of Glass 
and singing the song of [Moses and] the Lamb. 

In xviii. 4 the faithful are apparently presupposed to be still 
on earth, but, as we shall see later, xviii. was originally a vision 
belonging to the reign of Vespasian, and xviii. 4, as well as 
some other passages, reflect the facts and expectations of that 
time. 

μακάριοι οἱ νεκροὶ ot ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι. With 
οἱ ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες cf. 1 Cor. xv. 18, οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν 
Χριστῷ; τ Thess. iv. 16, οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ; also iv. 14. ἀπ᾽ 
ἄρτι, “from henceforth,” is to be taken not with μακάριοι but with 
ἀποθνήσκοντες. 

The object of the beatitude is to comfort those who in the 
great tribulation need strength and consolation. In the age of 
the author it is a message for those called to martyrdom in the 
immediately-impending persecution, but it can rightly be used 
by the Church generally of those who die ἐν κυρίῳ. Real faith- 
fulness to Christ demands in all ages some measure of the 
martyr’s courage and endurance. Indeed the worst martyrdoms 
are not always, or even generally, those which terminate in a 
speedy and violent death. 

vat, λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα. On this clause cf. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29, 
111. 6, etc., xxii. 17. For ναί cf. i. 7 (mote), xvi. 7, xxii. 20. 

ἵνα ἀναπαήσονται κτλ. Cf. vi. 11. The iva here is practically 
equivalent to ὅτι (= “in that”). Cf. xxii. 14; John viii. 56, ix. 2. 
On the form of ἀναπαήσονται see Blass, Gram. p. 44. The use 
of é after ἀναπαύομαι is unusual, but it is found in Plato. 

τὰ γὰρ ἔργα αὐτῶν ἀκολουθεῖ pet αὐτών. ἀκολουθεῖν μετ᾽ 
αὐτῶν (a rare construction: cf, Luke ix. 49) means (as in vi. 8) 
“accompany them” (- ὉΠ mio (?): cf. Pirke Aboth vi. 9). In 
xiv. 4, 9, XiX. 14, ἀκολουδεῖν is followed by the dative and means 
“to follow after.” This slight distinction is important when 


XIV. 13.] WORKS = MANIFESTATION OF CHARACTER 371 


we come to consider ra ἔργα. But what meaning are we to 
attach to épya? Two explanations have been advanced here. 

1. Some scholars like Boklen ( Verwandschaft, p. 40) will have 
it that the idea in our text is derived from Zoroastrian sources. 
According to the Gathas the soul was escorted to blessedness by 
its good deeds, S.B.Z. xviii. 64. By virtue of these it passes 
over the Kinvat Bridge, xviii. 76 ; but the more general view in 
later Zoroastrianism is that the soul of the righteous man was 
received by its good works in the shape of a beautiful maiden 
(S.B.£. iv. 219, xviii. 47 note, 49 note, 54, 117 note, 150, xxiii. 
315 Sq., Xxiv. 19sq.). This maiden is his religion, the sum of his 
righteous deeds. It was also taught that the sins and good works 
of the soul were weighed in the scales of Rashnf, S.B.Z. v. 241 
586.» XVill. 232 note, xxili. 168, xxiv. 18. 

It is clear that the teaching of our text differs from this some- 
what crude realism, though originally they may have been related. 
In any case our author was not beholden to Zoroastrianism. 

2. Inside Judaism this subject was developed pretty fully. 
In the O.T. both the actions and the spirits of men are weighed, 
Job xxxi. 6; Prov. xvi. 2, xxi. 2, and the wicked are found 
wanting, Ps. Ixii. 9; Dan. v. 27. This idea of the weighing of 
men’s actions reappears in 1 Enoch xli. 1. In Enoch as in the 
O.T. this idea is not incompatible with the doctrine of divine 
grace. But in later works it tends to become materialised, and 
a man’s salvation depends on an actual preponderance of his 
good deeds over his evil: see Weber, Jud. Theol? 279-284. 

But not only are the works weighed: they have been stored 
up in heaven in advance, and preserved by God, 1 Enoch 
XXXVlii. 2, in treasuries, 2 Bar. xiv. 12. At the last judgment 
these treasuries will be opened, 2 Bar. xxiv. 1. Sometimes the 
righteous man is said to have a treasure of good works, 4 Ezra 
vil. 77; Shabb. 314. In these conceptions the personality tends 
to be resolved into a series of individual acts. A higher con- 
ception finds expression in Pss. Sol. ix. 9, where the righteous 
man is said to acquire for himself with the Lord life itself as a 
spiritual treasure (θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ xvpiw). Cf. Matt. 
vi. 19, 20. 

But none of these passages conveys exactly the idea of our 
text (ra yap ἔργα ἀκολουθεῖ κτλ.). But there is a nearer parallel 
in Pirke Aboth vi. 9: “In the hour of a man’s decease, not 
silver, nor gold, nor goodly stones, nor pearls accompany the 
man, but Torah and good works.” But, since the attitude of 
our author to the Law is absolutely different from that of the 
writer of this passage, it is probable that, though there is a literal 
likeness in the two passages, the thought conveyed is different. 

Let us, therefore, return to our text, and restudy it in the 


372 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ XIV. 13. 


light of the passages just dealt with, and in connection with the 
contexts in our author in which the word “ works ” occurs. 

3. First we observe that “works” are not laid up in heaven 
in advance, but accompany the righteous soul. Next, since our 
author takes up an antagonistic position to the Synagogue (ii. 9, 
iii. g), and deliberately omits all mention of the Law, we reason- 
ably infer that his conception of works must be different from 
that of the Synagogue. In other words, works are taken by our 
author not as goods in themselves, by means of which salvation 
is purchased, but are conceived as ¢he necessary manifestation of a 
life that is already redeemed in essence by Christ (v. 9, Xiv. 3, 4). 
They are wrought by virtue of their redemption through Him 
(xii. 11). There is, therefore, no reliance on works as in Judaism. 
Thus works in the mind of our author are the outward expression 
of the character of the soul that wrought them. 

Let us now test this view by a short consideration of the 
passages in our author, which are definitive on this head. These 
are ii. 2, οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου. 
Here the omission of gov after τ. κόπον binds τ. κόπον and τ. 
ὑπομονήν together. Nay, more, as has been rightly recognized, 
the first καί is used epexegetically, and thus the ἔργα are here 
defined as self-denying “labour and endurance.” ‘The next 
passage is still more instructive, ii. 19, οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν 
ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν διακονίαν καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου καὶ 
τὰ ἔργα σου τὰ ἔσχατα πλείονα τῶν πρώτων. Here “love, faith, 
service and endurance” are taken closely together and form a 
definition of the ἔργα. The third passage in ili. 2, οὐ yap εὕρηκά 
σου ἔργα πεπληρωμένα ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ pov. Here the ἔργα fell 
short of the divine standard, though the world approved of them 
(iii. 1). Lastly, iii. 15, οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα κτλ. The works here are 
neither hot nor cold. Even complete apostasy would be prefer- 
able according to the divine voice. And yet no special sin—such 
as those urged against the other Churches—is brought against 
the Church of Laodicea, save that its works lack spiritual fire 
and their doers are self-complacent. 

We may, therefore, conclude that works ave regarded by our 
author simply as the mantfestation of the inner life and character. 

In the Fourth Gospel we find this use of ἔργα: cf. v. 36, 
ix. 3, 4) X. 25, xiv. 10, etc. καρπός (though not used in our 
author with this meaning) has this significance in the Fourth 
Gospel (cf. xv. 2, 5, 8, etc.), and, so conceived, was a character- 
istic term on the lips of our Lord, as in Matt, vii. 16, 20, ἀπὸ τῶν 
καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς : also vii. 17, 18, 19, ΧΙ]. 33, etc. 
It is likewise used by St. Paul with a like significance: cf. 
Gal. v. 22; Phil. i. 11, etc. 

In keeping with this conclusion are our author’s statements 


XIV. 18.] WORKS = CHARACTER 373 


in regard to works and judgment. In ii. 23 Christ declares δώσω 
ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ Ta ἔργα ὑμῶν. This award (in some sense 
external) is spoken of as a recompense or wage, or reward in 
XXll, 12. 

3 Ὁ Ψ' , 

ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, 

καὶ ὃ μισθός μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ 

ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ. 


In the case of the righteous generally this μισθός is, in part at 
all events, the reception of spiritual bodies (see Additional Note 
on vi. 11, p. 1848qq.): in the case of the martyrs—spiritual 
bodies and a share in the Millennial Kingdom. 

From the conclusion thus arrived at, that ‘‘works” in our 
author are regarded as a manifestation of character and are in 
fact synonymous with character, we are enabled to deal with the 
perplexing words in xix. 8, τὸ yap βύσσινον τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν 
ἁγίων ἐστίν. This clause has been rightly rejected by many 
critics (J. Weiss, Bousset, Moffatt, etc.) as a gloss, but no definite 
and conclusive grounds have been adduced. But if, as we have 
seen in the note on iii. 5 and the Additional Note on vi. 11, the 
“fine linen” is the heavenly body of the righteous, and if, as 
we found in the present note, a man’s righteous acts are simply 
the manifestation of his inner character, then it follows that the 
clause above quoted in xix. 8 is the gloss of a scribe who failed 
to apprehend the views of our author on this question. ‘The 
fine linen,” 2.6. the spiritual body, is not identical with the char- 
acter but a product of it. 


END OF VOL. I. 


PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., EDINBURGH 






nid "δ es a τὰς 
νὰ ating δι ἤπερ ϑη A ron ᾿ 
on jae iL, ΣΝ Wy brea agit, * ἐν 
: ἰδ ἴὮ ΜΟΥ" icy tes: 
; eae) “δῖ ἐν δ᾽ 7 
ΟΣ ὙΦ ΔΆ pPmg 
ἡ τίν νὴ ΠΥ ᾽ν accra, aoe oh 


beet 








7 





ne Ἢ 





Charles, R. ἢ- 
Revelation of St. John. 





See 


NS δα P > - 


δας 
S 
SS