Π
|
Ι
ΟΕ
τ᾿ προ και RMT
πο
——_—_—_—_
2ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ----
Lo
™
Lo
©
©
il
—
eat
s
=
nes
ed
Lee
3.7. :
Ἢ
᾿ 4
ee
oe
ne
coe
δὴ
ee!
τὰ
τὸν
ἐς ae
a
os
me
Che International Critical Commentary
‘‘Scarcely higher praise can be afforded to a volume than by the
statement that it is well worthy of the ‘International Critical
Commentary’ Series.’”—Church Quarterly Review.
For Prices see Messrs. T. & T. Clark's latest Catalogue.
- GENESIS. Principal JoHN SKINNER, D.D.
NUMBERS. Prof. ἃ. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D.
DEUTERONOMY. Prof. 5. R. Driver, D.D.
JUDGES. Prof. G. F. Moore, D.D.
SAMUEL I. and II. Prof. H. P. Smitu, D.D.
CHRONICLES I. and II. Prof. E. L. Curtis, D.D.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. Prof. L. W. Batten, D.D.
ESTHER. Prof. L. B. Paton, Ph.D.
JOB. Prof. G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D. [in the Press.
PSALMS. Prof. Ὁ. A. Bricas, D.D. Two Vols.
PROVERBS. Prof. C. H. Toy, D.D. :
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. G. A. BarTon, Ph.D.
ISAIAH. Vol. 1 (Ch. i.-xxvii.). Prof. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., D.Litt.
AMOS AND HOSEA. President W. R. Harper, Ph.D.
MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, AND NAHUM, Prof. J. M. P. Smitu;
HABAKKUK, Prof. W. H. Warp; and OBADIAH AND JOEL,
Prof. J. A. BEWER. One Vol.
HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, Prof. H. G. MitcHeEtL; MALACHI, Prof.
J. M. P. SmitH; and JONAH, Prof. J. A. BEwer.
ST. MATTHEW. Principal W. C. ALLEN, M.A. Third Edition.
ST. MARK. Prof. Ἐς P. Goutp, D.D.
ST. LUKE. ALFrep PLuMMER, D.D. Fourth Edition.
ROMANS. Prof. W. SAnpay, D.D., and Principal A. C. HEADLAM, D.D.
I. CORINTHIANS. The BisHop oF EXETER and Dr. A. PLUMMER,
II. CORINTHIANS. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.
GALATIANS. Prof. E. D. Burton. [In the Press.
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. Prof. T. K. Assort, D.Litt.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. Prof. M. R. Vincent, D.D.
THESSALONIANS. Prof. J. E. Frame, M.A.
ST. JAMES. Prof. J. H. Ropes.
ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE. Prof. Cuas. Bice, D.D.
THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES. A. E. Brooks, D.D.
REVELATION. ArcHDEACON ΚΕ. H. CuHar.es, D.Litt. Two Vols.
1/7/20
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
BY
R. H. CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D.
VOLUME I
Also by Archdeacon R. H. CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D.
STUDIES IN; THE APOGALY PSE
Price 7/- net
‘*This volume on the Apocalypse, by one whose
knowledge of Jewish and Christian ‘ Apocalyptic’
is unrivalled among English scholars, will be wel-
come to all serious students of the New Testament.
. . » We are grateful for a book which is a real
contribution towards the scientific study of the
Apocalypse.” — Churchman,
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
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)
Vout
Ἄν:
0 2
0 Pa
ae
9
EDINBURGH
= = +. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1920
PRINTED BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED,
FOR
ὌΝΤΙ CLARK, EDINBURGH.
MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.
LONDON: SIMPKIN,
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS.
The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved.
TO
MY WIFE
TO WHOM
I AM IMMEASURABLY BEHOLDEN
IN THIS AS IN MY OTHER STUDIES
BUT IN THIS
BEYOND ALL THE REST
ae Coe
ἐν
rs
OE ee
te
a
\
ἐν»
one
ee,
oar ae
ae
ok a
ae a
are
a
ne
ies
Rates aed
ae
a
in
ἐν
ΤΠ ἢ
os
are
ὌΝ
ee
ae
ie
Pee μτ-
ae
pee
ects
cea;
5
a
x,
es
aes
Ἵ
ie
re
eae
Bey
a
τὰν
" oe nat Τα "
το 5 A τὴ irr et ess
gre : ne Chae
te,
;
᾽ς
a
ae
eG
ee δ
ΠΡ ce
bee paces
ee tae
ae
᾿
Pin "Ὁ
ὌΝ — "ἢ ΤΣ
aut roe fe τὲ
ee Ae
ane
ihe
ΠΝ
ἐς
oan
isa
᾿ oe
τὰ
ΓΆΡ ἢ
e156
δ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿
τ; ge ai) ; orn
er ee Stee ϑὉ
as
ἔν
ΕΣ ἢ
-
here
pape
PREFACE.
. a το σπου
ΙΝ 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
ΙΧ
Χ 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.—tin 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
‘I have already in part dealt with this subject in my Studies in the
Apocalypse*, pp. 79-102. I am glad to learn from the editor of Moulton’s
Grammar of Δ. 7. Greek that Dr. Moulton abandoned his earlier attitude on
this question after reading these lectures.
PREFACE x!
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 Asppar.
Crit. I had to call in the help of other scholars, since
Owing to over twenty years spent largely in the collation
of MSS and the formation of texts in several languages, I
felt my eyes were wholly unequal to this fresh strain.
ΧΙ PREFACE
When seeking such help, I had the good fortune to meet
the Rev. F. S. Marsh, now Dean of Selwyn College,
Cambridge. To his splendid services I am deeply in-
debted for the preparation of the Appar. Crit. At his
disposal I placed the photographs of the Uncials A
and 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 Appar. 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 evvata. 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 Tvranslation—The Translation is based on the
text. While the text diverges in many passages from
1 Mr. Cryer further helped me by verifying the references in the Intro-
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 Look 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.
ΧΥΪ 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 I 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 tui; st qua de meo, et Tu ignosce et tut}
jie τ ἔξ ὁ Ὁ:
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, 2¢ would be advisable for the serious as
well as for the ordinary student to read through the English translation first.
This will introduce him to the main problems of the book, and help him to
recognize that the thought of our author is orderly and progressive, and easier
to follow 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, 881, 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.
Sociianicilesdrneans
VOLUME I.
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. § 4. Words and phrases
with one meaning in JP! and another in J, p. xxxisq. § 5. Authors
of J@P and J were in some way connected with each other, pp. xxxii-
xxxiv. § 6. J andi. 2. 3J by the same author, pp. xxxiv—xxxvii.
§ 7. The importance of these conclusions for Johannine criticism,
Ῥ. XXXVIli.
III. Authorship of the Joharmine Writings. Evidence partly internal, but
mainly external. § 1. J@P not pseudonymous, but the work of John
the Seer, p. xxxviiisq. ὃ 2. The author of J@P 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
JP according to Dionysius, p. xl sq. 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 1 J, pp. xlii-xliii. § 6. If John the Elder is
the author of J and 1. 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. χὶν. 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 J#?=the Apocalypse, J the Gospel, 1 J the First Epistle, etc.
b xvii
xviil CONTENTS
effect, p. xlv 54. ; (δ) the Papias-tradition, p. xlvi; (c) the state-
ments of certain ancient writers (145-344 A.D.), pp. xlvi—-xlviii ;
(4) the Syriac Martyrology and certain Church Calendars, pp.
xl viii-l.
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 204-22
was reached. The interpolations in I-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; (ὃ 2)
Dislocations, pp. lvili-lx; (8 3) Lacunae, p. Ix sq.; (δ 4) Ditto-
graphs, p. lxi,
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
author. ὃ 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-Ixviii. § 3. Passages based directly on the Hebrew of the O.T.
(or the Aramaic of Daniel) ; these are hardly ever literal quotations,
pp. Ixvili-Ixxvil. ὃ 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 0’, p. Ixxviiisq. 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 probably, by a later form of 0’, 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. 8 7.
Passages dependent on or parallel with passages in the Pseudepi-
grapha, p. Ixxxii sq. ὃ 8. Passages in some cases dependent on,
and in other cases parallel with, earlier books of the N.T.,
pp. Ixxxiii-lxxxvi.
VIII. Unity of 78Ρ, § τ. Unity of thought and dramatic development,
Ixxxvli sq. § 2. Unity of style and diction. Examples of unity of
diction, lxxxviiisq. § 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. lxxxix), Sources
re-edited and incorporated, pp. 1xxxix-xci,
CONTENTS xix
IX. Date of JP. §1. External evidence. The Trajanic, Claudian, and
Neronic dates. The Domitianic date, pp. xci-xciii. ὃ 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. (a) Use ofearlier N.T. books. (6) The
present form of the Seven Epistles points to a Domitianic date, though
originally written under Vespasian, p. xciii sq. (c) The imperial
cult (though presupposed throughout J#P) not enforced till the reign
of Domitian, p. xciv sq. (4) 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. ὃ 1. No certain 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. xcviii-c. § 3. Two protests against its Johannine author-
ship and validity in the 2nd cent. (a) Marcion. (ὁ) The Alogi,
Ρ. 654. § 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.
xh) orjec 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. (a) 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,
p. 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. (d@) 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. (4) The exalted Christ. (c)
Unique Son of God. (4) High Priest and Lamb of God. § 3. The
Spirit. § 4. Doctrine of Works. § 5. First Resurrection ; Mil-
lennium and Second Resurrection ; Judgment, pp. cix—cxvii.
XIII. Grammar of the Apocalypse, pp. cxvii-clix. For contents, see p, cxvii.
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. I-4, p. clxv sq.
§ 5. Character of the Latin and Syriac Versions, and their classifica-
tion, pp. clxvi-clxix. § 6. Armenian, Bohairic, and Ethiopic Versions,
Their classification, pp. clxix-clxxi. § 7. Relations of Bohairic,
Sahidic, and Ethiopic Versions to each other, p. clxxi. § 8. Textual
value of the uncials, pp. clxxi-clxxiii. § 9. Cursives collated for this
edition, and their groupings, pp. clxxiii-clxxvi. ὃ 10, Origen’s
so-called text, p. clxxvi sq. § 11. Some account of the Versions,
pp. clxxviii—clxxxili
XV. Methods of interpretation adopted in this Commentary. § 1. Con-
temporary-Historical. ὃ 2. Eschatological. ὃ 3. Chiliastic. § qa.
Philological—in earlier form. ὃ 5. Literary-Critical, embracing
(a) Redactional-Hypothesis, (4) Sources-Hypothesis, (¢) Frag-
mentary-Hypothesis. § 6. Traditional-Historical. § 7. Religious-
Historical. ὃ 8. Philosophical. §9. Psychological. ὃ 46. Philo-
logical—in later form, pp. clxxxili-clxxxvil.
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.
1
§ 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.
xxl
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 αὐ 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.”
τ Πα 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 :p_by step from its very beginning til till
the reach their consummation and culminate at its cl
But unhappily the prophet did not live to revise his work, or
even to put the materials of 204—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., xxx sq. * See pp. xxix-xl, _
8 See pp. xli-xliii. 4 See pp. xxxii-xxxiv.
5 See p. lxxxix sq. note. 6 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. 2 See pp. lly.
PLAN OF THE BOOK XXili
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 right,? 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, 11°, the Apocalypse
proper, consisting of seven parts—a significant number—and an
Epilogue. The events in these seven parts are described in
visions 272 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: ze. 7917 10o-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 (circa 270 A.D.)
has dominated practically every school of interpretation from
that date to the present. So far is it from being true that the
Apocalypse represents more or less fully, under each successive
series of the seven seals, the seven trumpets and the seven bowls,
the same series of events, that the interpretation which is com-
pelled to fall back on this device must be pronounced a failure.
This principle of interpretation, like many other forlorn efforts
in this field, arose mainly from the non-recognition by scholars
in the past of the interpolations made in the text by the disciple
and editor of the Seer.
§ 2. Plan of the Book.
The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, 11-3, a letter consisting
of seven distinct parts: (1) 1429, (2) 2-3, (3) 4-5, (4) 6-203, (5)
219—2 22. 14-15. 17 20410, (6) 2011-15. (7) 275% 4d. 5b, 1-4abe 22°. and an
Epilogue, 215° 6b-8 226-7. 18a. 16. 18, 12. 10. 8-9, 20-21,
1 See pp. ly. 3 See pp. lvi-lx. 3 See p. xxv.
ΧΧΙΥ͂ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
The Apocalypse consists of a Prologue, the ite
proper—consisting of seven distinct parts, and an Epitogue. In
the Prologue, 1, 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,
2150. 6b8. by Christ, 22°7- 18. 16.18.10; and by John himself,
2 28-9. 20-21."
The seven parts and the Epilogue constitute a letter, 14-2271,
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”
(145), and ends with the words, “The grace of the Lord Jesus
be with all the saints. Amen.”
The Prologue and Epilogue are not mere subsequent
additions to the book. They are organic parts of it. Not to
mention other grounds, this is at once obvious from the fact that
the Prologue contains the first of the seven beatitudes of the
Apocalypse (ze. 1°), and the Epilogue the seventh (7.6. 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 81:55.2618_9, 1114. τ2, 15-20% Judg-
ments of the world. (5) 219-22% 1415.17 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-tabc 5585, = The
1 See note on i. 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 οἵ the Seer’s theme, sc. 7517 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 7!% the visionary gaze of the
Seer leaves for the moment the steady progressive unveiling of
‘the events of his future and beholds in 7%!’ 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 14!®, 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 ro—11) the
explanation is different. Our Seer sees Rome to be the
impersonation of sheer might, of wickedness and lawlessness, z.e.
the Antichrist. But before our Seer’s time in Christian circles
Jerusalem was expected to be the scene of the appearance of
the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2) and Rome was regarded as the
representative of order. This former view of the Antichrist
is preserved in this proleptic section, but no reference is made
again to it throughout the remaining chapters.
In the analysis which follows the three proleptic sections are
inserted on the right hand of the page:
Prologue, 11%, 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.
I. John writes to the Seven Churches 1*7, John begins his letter to the
to tell them that he has seen Christ Seven Churches with the blessing of
and been bidden by Him to send _ grace and peace. from the Everlasting
them the visions written in this God and Jesus Christ, Lord of the
book—1*?, dead and Ruler of the living, the
Redeemer,
1°20, John recounts his vision of
the Son of Man in Patmos, who bids
him to write down what he saw in a
book and to send it to the Seven
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.
f
-
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 Himself the guidance of
the destinies of the world in a series
of judgments.
6. First series of judgments affect-
ing all men alike, good and bad—the
first six Seals.
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.
79-17, Proleptic vision of ἃ vast
multitude of the faithful in heaven, z.e.
of those who had just been sealed and
had died as martyrs—a vision sub-
sequent in point of time to the visions
in 13,
81. 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.
g-11'#. First and second demonic
woes (heralded by trumpet. blasts)
affecting only those who had not
been sealed, with torment and death
respectively.
PLAN OF THE BOOK
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.
(4) 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 /
XXVil
10-1118, Proleptic digression on
x Antichrist in Jerusalem—a vision
contemporaneous in point of time
with 13.
114-19. Third and Satanic Woe
heralded by a trumpet blast. There-
upon two songs of triumph burst forth
in heaven declaring that God is King,
and faithful and faithless alike will
receive their due recompense.
12-13. Third or Satanic Woe.
Satan at last fully manifest. Climax’
of his power and his apparent
triumph on earth. In 12 the vision
is retrospective : it recounts the birth
and ascension of Christ and the casting
down of Satan to earth—facts closely
connected ; also Satan’s persecution
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.
, 14}, 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 20*6, and (4) in
148-11. 14. 18-20 of judgment of Rome
and of the heathen nations—a vision
contemporaneous with and summar-
sng 1S. 19)-* 207-1,
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.
15ὅ 8, The Seven Bowls of God’s
lager entrusted to the Seven Angels.
16. The Seven Bowls.
1716, Vision of the Great Harlot
seated on the Beast.
17°18, Interpretation of this vision.
181-19. 21-23d_ Vision of her destruc-
ion.
1830. 23f-24. The Seer’s appeal to
Heaven to rejoice.
19'%, Thanksgiving song of the
angels.
194 16°56, Thanksgiving song of
the Elders and Cherubim.
167, Thanksgiving song of the
altar beneath the throne.
19°8. Thanksgiving song of the
martyr host in heaven.
xxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
(8) Destruction of the Parthian Lost (though referred to prolep-
hosts by Christ and His elect. tically in 174 and presupposed in
198; possibly displaced by the inter-
polated passage, 19°°1°), -
Γ 19-21, The Word of God and
the armies of Heaven destroy the
(y) Destruction of the hostile | hostile nations. The Beast and False
nations by Christ and the armies of [ Prophet cast into the lake of fire.
Heaven. The Beast and False Pro-< 201, As Satan was cast down
phet cast into the lake of fire, and | from heaven on the fresh advent of
Satan chained for 1000 years. Christ, on Christ’s second advent he
is cast into the abyss and chained for
\ L000 years,
ΣΕ 2 oem go”. Vision of
V, Millennial Kingdom : Jerusalem | the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down
come down from heaven to be its | from heaven to be the abode of Christ
Capital. Reign of the martyred Saints ) and the glorified martyrs who are to
for 1000 years, reign with Christ 1000 years and
evangelize the nations.
: ‘ 207°, Close of the Millennial
Final attack of the evil powers on | Kingdom. Satan loosed: march of
the Saints in the Beloved City: their Gog and Magog against the Beloved
destruction and the casting of Satan City: their destruction and the casting
into the lake of fire. of Satan into the lake of fire.
( 2ol-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.
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 {( 2154 4d. 5b. I-4abe 223-5) The new
established in which God and Christ | heaven, the new earth, and the New
dwell with man. Reign of all the |Jerusalem. The faithful reign as
saints for ever and ever. kings for ever and ever,
( 21% ὅΡ-8 God’s testimony to John’s
book and His message to mankind
through John of divine sonship for
them that overcome.
226-7. 18a. 16. 13.12.10, Christ’s testi-
Epilogue. {mony to John’s book. The seventh
beatitude. Christ’s speedy coming to
judgment.
22°: % 20-21, John’s own testimony.
Christ’s final words. John’s prayer
(and benediction.
AUTHORSHIP OF JOHANNINE ΜΕΆΙΓΙΝΟῸΟ.. ΧΧΙΧ
Il,
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.
δι, 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 J?? and J. But such an assumption is made imprac-
ticable by the best modern research. Furthermore, our author’s
style shows no essential change in the interval of from 10 to 20 or
more years, which elapsed between the writing of the Letters to
the Seven Churches and the Apocalypse as a whole (see vol. i.
43-47). The reader will find the grammatical differences between
J? and J dealt with inthe 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
ἀνθοῦν in: J:-see 414 15 re 2952 ar iand 1 J 3°. ‘Again,
in J*? ἄξιος is followed by inf. ; in J by ἵνα.
§ 2. Differences in diction—Lists of words found in J*?
but not in J could be given here, or vce 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 wey... 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 100 and γάρ 65, and our author
13 and 16 respectively. Again our author has ἐνώπιον 34 times
and iva 45, whereas J has these once and 150 times respectively.
§ 3. Different words or forms used by these writers to express the
same tdea.—Our author uses ἀρνίον (= Lamb of God) 29 times
where J uses ἀμνός 2: μου or éuod! (= mine”) where J uses
ἐμός 36 times: αὐτός as an emphatic pronoun 37 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 ava μέσον where J uses μέσος : ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ where
J has Ἰεροσόλυμα3 Our author uses ἰδού (26), but J ἰδέϑ:
Ιουδαῖος, 2° 39 (=a member of the Chosen People of God, nearly
so in Ro 217-8), where J has Ἰσραηλίτης, τ. Again, whereas our
author defines the historic city Jerusalem as τῆς πόλεως. . . ἥτις
καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα, 118, J names it as’lepdovAvpa, 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 J λέγειν. Thus we have 1° τῇ
νήσῳ τ. καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ, 129 ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος, while J
writes 45 πόλιν. . . λεγομένην Συχάρ, 4535 Μεσσίας.. ὃ λεγό-
μενος Χριστός, 1116 θωμᾶς ὃ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος (cf. 188 52 gl! 1154 2024
212): and just as our author says, 11° ἥτις καλεῖται... Σόδομα,
so J 1917 says ὃ λέγεται... Τολγοθά. The divergence comes
still more into relief when we compare J*? 1616 τόπον τ. καλού-
μενον. . . Ap Mayedov and J 19! τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον.
On this as well as on other grounds 81! καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος
λέγεται Ὁ ἔΑψινθος 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 9. 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. xviii.), but J always οὐκέτι (12),
and ὡς with finite verb by way of illustration (237), while J uses
καθώς with finite verb (13! 151? 1778 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 ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ 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.
καθὼς ἐγώ (1519), our author says ὡς κἀγώ (277),4
ἄχρι (11 times), J uses ἕως.
ἄχρι.
Where J?? uses σφόδρα, 1671, 2. 3 J, uses λώαν.
ΧΧΧΙ
Where J says
Where J?? uses
Neither: ] nor.%. 2.4.4. mse
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.
ad\nOivds=true in word as opposed
to false (ΞΞ- ἀληθής).
ἀκούειν φωνῆς" ἀκούειν φωνήν.
αὐτός used as emphatic pronoun.
οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ 3--δ title of the
highest honour: οὗ, 11 (625) 73 τοῦ
4°" 197.
Swpedv, 21° 22!7=** freely.”
ἔθνος or ἔθνη (23)=Gentiles, 276 11?
15 etc., orall nations, including the
Jews (ἢ).
Tovdaitos, 29 3°—used in a good sense.
κόσμος τε created world, 11% 138
178,
λαός = Gentiles generally, but =Chris-
tian believers twice.
Ὃ Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, 19!’ —a conception
developed in Jewish thought.
οὖν (6), always illative,® a particle of
logical appeal.
ποιμαίνειν, 27” 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.
1515 οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους.
1555 “« 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 852).
‘O Aédyos, J 11844, This conception
is quite different and presupposes,
while opposing, Philonic specula-
tions.
195 times, and generally a narrative
particle, z.e. of historical transition.
21**-**to feed.”
1 J uses ὡς in a temporal sense (=‘‘ when”) 20 times: our author never.
On our author’s various uses of ws, see vol. i. 35 sq.
* The servant in J 15! 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 13!6 1918, and (4) a willing servant of God, whether prophet or other faith-
ful worshipper: cf. 11 27° 7
equivalent of 73y.
10” etc.
But in J δοῦλος follows the Greek usage as denoting a
Thus our author uses δοῦλος as the
bondman in the literal sense, cf. 15'°, and in the metaphorical sense 859
δοῦλος.
εν τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 132y is not used in this metaphorical sense. The verb
72¥, however, is used of idolatrous service.
See Abbott, Johannine Voc. 212,
227, 289-292, for the use made by the four Evangelists of this word.
9 Τὴ 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.
XXxil THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
προσκυνεῖν, c. dat. = ‘*to worship.” These constructions have exactly
δὰ c. acc. ““ἴο do homage to,” opposite meanings in J. See 07.
See note on 7": vol. i. 211 sqq. p, cx, amo vol. 1. 211-2333
Abbott, Voc. 137sqq.
ὕδωρ ζωῆς, 218 2217 {ie ζῶν, 4! 78, which phrase
ἐς ‘ includes the meanings of the two
ξύλον ζωῆς, 2722 14 8
phrases in J@P, See vol. i. 54 sq.
Again, though 7) 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τ. θρόνου ἱ σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς
is similar to J 114 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.
ὃ 5. Zhe Authors of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel
were in some way related to each other :
(2) The following phrases point in this direction :
APOCALYPSE. FOURTH GOSPEL.
2? οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι. 165 οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν.
20° ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν. 138 ἔχεις μέρος μετά.
22 ποιῶν ψεῦδος. 37! ποῖων τ. ἀλήθειαν (1 J 538 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, Supav, 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 (11°—J 11“) -- 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, 64—J 733: μικρὸν χρόνον, 2οὅ---} 12°;
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 1057) in the
rendering ἐξεκέντησαν against the LXX. See, however,
vol. 1. 18 sq. The use of the suspensive ὅτι; see
Gram. Pp. CXXXVii. ,
(4) 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: paprupia, g—J 14
(1 J 6 times, 3 J once): πιάζειν, 1—J 8: σημαίνειν,
1--- 3: φιλεῖν, 2—J 13: σφάζειν, 8—1 J 2 times.
AUTHORS OF J4? AND J IN SOME WAY RELATED xxxiii
(79) There is to be no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem—the
Capital of the Messianic Kingdom, 21”. Accord-
ing to J 431 the temple will cease to exist as the centre
of worship.
(g) The same Jewish and Christian ideas underlie the phrase
ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, J 17% 6, and the equivalent phrase τὸ
ἀρνίον in J*?,
(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, G7. 463).
The above facts, when taken together with other resemblances,
to which attention is drawn in the Grammar, point decidedly to
some connection between the two authors. The Evangelist was
apparently at one time a disciple of the Seer, or they were
members of the same religious circle in Ephesus. We find .
perfect parallels to the latter relationship in earlier days. The
authors of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs and of the Book
of Jubilees, who wrote at the close of the 2nd century before
the Christian era, studied clearly in the same school; for the
text of the one has constantly to be interpreted by that of the
other. Yet these two writers are poles asunder on some of
the greatest questions of their day. The former hopes for the
salvation of the Gentiles and sets forth a system of ethics with-
out parallel before the N.T. The author of Jubilees is a legalist
of the narrowest type: is mainly concerned with the Mosaic law
and the deductions to be drawn from it, and declares categori-
cally that no Gentile can be saved. The second parallel is to be
found between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The materials of these
two works are in certain respects complementary. The former
is all but hopeless as to the future alike of Judaism and the
Gentiles, whereas the latter is a thoroughgoing optimistic Jew,
who looks to Judaism for the conversion of the Gentiles, so far
as these can be saved.
In the Seer and the Evangelist we have got just such another
literary connection. But the literary connection is much less
close than in the case of the Jewish authors just mentioned, while
the theological affinities between the Seer and the Evangelist are
much closer than those existing between the Jewish writers.
The greater unity in spiritual outlook and theological concept
is explicable, however, from the fact that the variations
within the Christianity of the 1st century are infinitesimal as
¢
XXXIV THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
compared with those that prevailed in contemporary and earlier
Judaism.
§ 6. 7 and (1.) 2. 3 J were written by the same Author.—
That J and τ J are derived from the same author is
generally admitted. But from a very early date 2 and 3 J have
been ascribed to a different writer.1 But a study of the internal
evidence leads to the conclusion that all 2. 3 J and most
probably 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*? 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 foundin J. In 2 10 we have εἴ τις (ἔρχεται),
which occurs occasionally in J?P 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 J ° οὐχ ὡς γράφων, and in 75 14 56 138 but notin J.
But the usage is not really the same in 2 [8 δηά 139, 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 1°? τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον. . . καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν,
and in Col 17°, Hence no real weight can be assigned to these
coincidences in style.
On the other hand, the body of evidence in favour of a
common authorship of J and (1.) 2. 3 J carries with it absolute
conviction.
i. 2. 3 J are with one exception (2 J*) free from the solecisms
and tdtosyncrastes of 742,
il. Constructions common to 2. 3 J and 7, but not found in J”:
(a) 2 and 3 J use μή 3 times with the participle: J 11
times: 1 J ὃ 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 Epistles were rife in certain quarters: Jerome (De Vzris Zilust. 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 Z/zad does from the Odyssey.
(4) In 2 J the writer uses μή with the present
imperative, z.e. μὴ λαμβάνετε (3 J μὴ μιμοῦ) in
order to forbid an action not yet 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 3 we have the genitive absolute, which occurs
often in J but never in J? (nor 1 J).
_(d) The unemphatic possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ (or
αὐτῆς) (1.6. the genitive before its noun) occurs in
3 J 1° 1 J 2° and frequently in J, but never in J?
{save in a source 18°).
(6) otros is used resumptively in regard to a preceding
clause (consisting of 6 with part. or ὅς with finite
verb) in 2 J 9 and 4 times in J but not in J*?.
(/) μαρτυρεῖν takes the dative 3 times in 3 J and 4 in J,
but J?? always construes it withtheacc. μαρτυρεῖν
is followed by ὅτι in 1 J and by περί in J, but
by neither in J*?.
(9) In 3 19 the order of the words, 6 φιλοπρωτεύων
αὐτῶν Avorpépys, has several parallels in J but none
in J*? (or τ J). The author of J*? would have
written 6 Διοτρέφης ὃ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν. See
Gram. p. οἶν!. πολύς isa prepositive in 2 711] 4}
—J 65 10” 114” etc.; but always postpositive
in J®?, once in 1 J and in J 378 62 19 712,
(2) ἐρωτῶ σε. . . ἵνα, 2 J5—J 447 17 1938* but not
in J*?, αὕτη ἐστὶν... ἵνα, 2 76 C*)—J 1512 χη8
(x J 4311:-.:395), but not in 78}, 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.
lil. Words, particles, and phrases common to 2.3 J and 7 (1 ἢ),
but not found in J”.
(a) Words. ἀληθής, ἀληθῶς, ἀλήθεια, μείζων, μένειν,
ὀφείλειν, χαρά.
(6) Particles and phrases. ἀλλὰ καί, GAN οὐ, καθώς,
καὶ νῦν, περί (Cum gen.), τοιοῦτος, ὑπέρ : Kal ἡμεῖς
δέ, 3 115. 1 15%: ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, 2 J —J 8! 15% (1 J
11 2713.14 etc.): τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς
* The verb ‘‘ask” does not occur in JP though ἐρωτᾶν is found in 2 J and
J, and αἰτεῖν ἴῃ 1 J andJ. J uses also ἐξετάζειν, ἐπερωτᾶν, πυνθάνεσθαι.
XXXVI THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
2 JU—J 77 τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά : ὑπομνήσω, 3 J 1
—J 14%: τὸ κακόν, 3 JU—J 18%: τὸ ἀγαθόν
1 Τ 529,
iv. Words frequent in 1. 2. 3 J and J, but exceptional in
J”. ἐμός once in 3 J (in 15 verses), only once in J*? 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 1. 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 J.
v. Zhe following parallel expressions are in themselves strong
evidence of tdentity of authorship:
29 πᾶς 6... μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ J 7" (cf. 1813) ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν
τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἐμή.
This parallel is full of significance ; for in διδαχή is used only of
Christ’s teaching (as derived from God, 71"), whereas in JP it is
used only of heretical teaching : cf. 214 15. 24
2 J 5 ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. 7 τοὶ ὃ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ
τοῦ πατρός μου.
2 15 ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (1 J 3"). J 164 ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶπον.
2 [ὃ ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι καινήν (ἐντολὴν J 13°4 ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι.
καινὴν γράφω, τ J 27),
2 οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν. J 883 γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
213 (1 J 14) ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν 339 αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται
πεπληρωμένη ἢ. Ch. Ύ ΚΗ τοῦ,
3} ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει. J ο" ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω.
3 Ji! οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν θεόν. J 14° ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα.
3.13 ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν. J 8:5 ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου.
The connection of 2. 3 J with 1.J could be shown by such
examples as 2 J 9 θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει----ἰ J 5126... ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ :
43} ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν---ἰ 142: 2 17 ὃ ἀντίχριστος----ἰ J 218 22,
The conception of the Antichrist in 1. 2 J is quite different from
that in J??.
vi. There are no quotations in I. 2.3 J. In this respect they
show an affinity with J 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. 7
vii. The Greek of 2. 3 J is far more idiomatic than that of
ΤΡ. The order of the words exhibits none of the
monotonous regularity of J*”.
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 XXXVIl
_ 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.D., it could only
be regarded as purely legendary, seeing that according to the most
current view John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse and wrote
it in Domitian’s reign. If the Apostle were living about 95 a.D.
he could not, of course, have been martyred before 70 A.D. This
misconception has therefore vitiated the evidence of most Early
Church writers on this question,” and has proved an ignis fatuus
to many distinguished scholars of our own day. Hence it is not
astonishing that so little evidence of the Apostle John’s early
martyrdom—and yet, cumulatively considered, it is not little—
should have survived, but it is astonishing in the extreme that any
evidence of any sort as to John’s early martyrdom has survived at
all, seeing that the all but universal beliefs of the Church from
the earliest ages worked for its absolute deletion from the pages
of history. Happily such evidence has survived in out-of-the-
way corners of Church history and Church observance, which,
owing to the prevailing opinions on such subjects, must have
been a hopeless enigma to those who sought to understand
them. One Church writer—Gregory of Nyssa in his Zaudatto
5, Stephani and De Sasilio 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*?.
12J7 οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἴ. X. ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί presents no difficulty
in the face of 1 J 45. The ἐρχόμενον is timeless: ‘‘confess not J. Christ as
coming in the flesh.” Nor does the phrase ὁ πρεσβύτερος, 2 71 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 51 ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος.
But Peter has already called himself ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 13. 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 (οὖ. εἴγε. 180) and subsequent
writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, have lost all knowledge of the early
martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee.
XXXViil THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
III.
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. (0) 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. (ὦ) If John the Elder is the
author of 2. 3 J, then he is according to all internal evidence the
author of J andof 1 J. (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.D.
§ 1. Zhe Apocalypse ts not pseudonymous, but the work of a
John.—In Jewish literature practically every apocalyptic book
was pseudonymous. ἴ 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 priori reason for regarding the
Apocalypse as pseudonymous. Furthermore, its author distinctly
claims that the visions are his own, and that they are not for
some far distant generation, as is universally the case in Jewish
pseudonymous works, but for his own (221°). In four distinct
1See my Lschatology*, 173-205 (especially 198-205), 403 sq. ; Daniel,
Ρ. xi sq., Religious Development between the O. and N, Testaments, 41-46,
ΤᾺΡ AND J OF DIFFERENT AUTHORSHIP χΧχχὶχ
passages he gives his name as John (11: 5. 9. 228). He states that he
is a servant of Jesus Christ (11), 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 John. J*? is just as
assuredly the work of a John as 2 Thess 2 and 1 Cor 15 are
_apocalypses of St. Paul.2 Even the later Christian apocalypse of
the Shepherd of Hermas bears, as is generally acknowledged,
the name of its real author.
Finally, if the work were pseudonymous, it would have
gone forth under the aegis—not of a John who was a frophet of
Asia Minor and otherwise unknown, but of John the Apostle. ©
Furthermore he would not have ventured to claim the name and
authorship of a prophet in the very lifetime of that prophet and
in the immediate sphere of that prophet’s activity. There is not
a shred of evidence, not even the shadow of a probability, for the
hypothesis that the Apocalypse is pseudonymous.
There is manifold early evidence of the Johannine authorship.
Thus Justin, who lived about 135 A.D. in Ephesus, where one
of the Seven Churches had its seat, declares that J?? is by “John,
one of the apostles of Christ” (Dial. 81). Melito, bishop of
Sardis, another of the Seven Churches, wrote (γος 165) a lost
work on J?P (ra περὶ. . . τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννου : see Eus.
iv. 26.2). Irenaeus (cévc. 180) upheld the Johannine authorship
of all the Johannine writings in the N.T. For J®, see Haer.
lil, 11. I, iv. 20. 11, v. 35. 2, where John is called Domini dis-
cipulus (ὃ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητής) (a title, however, which does not
exclude apostleship; cf. ii. 22.5). Tertullian cites J*P as the
work of the Apostle John (¢. Aare. 111. 14, 24). So also Origen,
Hippolytus, and others: also the Muratorian Canon.
§ 2. John, the author of J%, ts distinct from the author of
/.—Tertullian,? Hippolytus,t 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 Apocalypse to the heretic Cerinthus by Caius
(200-220 A.D. See Eus. ii. 25, vii. 25) and the Alogi (Epiphanius, Waer. li.
3,4), in ancient times and by certain modern scholars, is an utterly baseless
and gratuitous hypothesis. 3 C. Mare. iii. 14, 24.
4 See his Comment. on Daniel, edited by Achelis, 1897, pp. 142, 240, 244,
ete., and his Περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου, xxxvi., Οὗτος yap ἐν Ildrup .. . ὁρᾷ ἀποκά-
λυψιν. ., λέγε μοι, ὦ μακάριε’ Ἰωάννη, ἀπόστολε καὶ μαθητὰ τοῦ κυρίου, τί εἶδες,
; > In Joann., tom. i. 14: φησὶν οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει 6 τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου
Iwdvyys : tom, v. 3: see also the quotation from Origen in Eus. vi. 25. 9.
xl - 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. AZ.
vii. 25. 7-27) accepts J*? 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
erounds. (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. (ὁ) 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 J*P
and J to the same author. ‘Thus the theory of Dionysius as to
diversity of authorship has passed out of the region of hypothesis
and may now be safely regarded as an established conclusion.
There were at all events two Johannine authors. Who were
these?
§ 3. There were, according to Papias, two Johns, one the Apostle
and the other John the Elder. Dionysius and Eusebius suggest
that the latter is the author of J%.—Eusebius in his history (iii.
30. 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
Ι.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 (Aéyovow).”
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 (ze. 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. vil. 25. 7), but that another John—one of the two Johns who
according to report had been in Asia and both of whose tombs
were said to be there—had written the Apocalypse (vii. 25. 16).
Jerome testifies to the belief (‘‘Johannis presbyteri . . . cujus
hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur,” De viris
illus. 9), and also to the fact that in his day the tradition was
still current that this John the Elder was the author of 2 and
3 J (tid. 18).
§ 4. But 2 and 3 John appear on examination of the language
and tdiom to proceed even more certainly than 1 ] from the author
of J1\—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. xviii).”2 With this
conclusion the present writer is in agreement.
But what as to the authorship of 2. 3 J? Some notable
scholars disconnect these two Epistles wholly from J and 1 J.
Thus Bousset (Offendarung, 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*?:
that this John was probably identical with John the Elder of whom
Papias tells us, with the Elder of 2. 3 J, with the unnamed disciple
in J 21, and with the teacher of Polycarp, of whom Irenaeus writes
in his letter to Florinus. Von Soden (Books of the N.T., pp.
1 I take J as it stands, since its relation to 1. 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.
* 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.
ΧΙ 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 τ J. Next, Schmiedel
(Johannine Writings, pp. 208-209, 216-217, 229-231, 1908)
attributes J*? 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 J 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
J*”, since an early tradition assigned the latter to John the Elder
and the opening words (6 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 opinion
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 J”, they are more tdiomatically connected with J than ts
I J, and postulate the same authorship.
§ 5. 275. then, (1.) 2.3 J and J are derived from the same author
and J” from quite a different author, and John the Elder ts admitted
to be the author of 2. 3 J, it follows Jurther that John the Elder
is the author not only of 2.3 J, but also of J and of 1 J.—
There is no evidence that John the Elder wrote J*? beyond
the conjectures of Dionysius and Eusebius. But there is some
external evidence and good internal evidence that the Elder
wrote 2. 3 J. The external evidence is of the slightest. It is
found in Jerome (De viris illus. c. 18), “rettulimus traditum
duas posteriores epistulas Johannis non apostoli esse sed
presbyteri.” But the internal evidence is strong. As Brooke
writes ( Johannine Epp. 166sq.): ‘The evidence of Papias and
Irenaeus points to a prevalent Christian usage of the word
(πρεσβύτερος), especially in Asia, to denote those who had com-
panied with Apostles. . . . It is natural to suppose that through-
out the fragment of his Introduction, which Eusebius quotes,
Papias uses the expression πρεσβύτερος in the same sense.” The
elders are the men from . . . whom Papias learnt the sayings
* 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*P I should have missed most of the points
that determine the question at issue.
ΤᾺΡ NOT OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP xliii
of the Apostles. ‘‘The absolute use of the phrase in Papias
(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# zs only natural to recognize the Elder,
mentioned in FPapias 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 by means of the results arrived at in 11. ὃ 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.
$6. Lf John the Elder ts 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 Asia 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 It has, however, been urged that an apostle could designate himself an
elder. This is true under certain conditions but notin 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 would 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 designate himself as an elder
(πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ συνπρεσβύτερος), 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 §0, 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 /¢eva//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 metaphorical 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, 229, who are God’s
servants in a special sense, 1} ro’ 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,
11, a brother! of the Churches of Asia and a partaker in their
sufferings, 19. He is commanded “to prophesy” to the nations
of the earth, ro. He designates his work as ‘‘ the words of the
prophecy,” 1%, or “the words of the prophecy of this book,”
227-10-18 Hence it may be safely concluded that the author of
J*® 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 hijs
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 315 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 150 A.D. as to
any vestdence of John the Apostle in Asia 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 (c77c. 96 a.p.) 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. Zhe above conclusions are confirmed by the tradition of
John the Apostle’s martyrdom, which, if 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 2070-23, and especially the words: ‘‘The cup that I drink shall
ye drink” (τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω πίεσθε καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ
βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε, ΜΚ τοϑϑ-- τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου πίεσθε,
Mt 2ο38).52 “Τὴ 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 123, 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 Zebedaet, 1904; Wellhausen and
J. Weiss on Mk 10%; Schmiedel, Zncyc. Bib. ii. 2509-2510; Burkitt,
Gospel History, 250 sq. 3 Moffatt, Zutrod. to Literature of the N.T.* 602 sq.,
613 sq.; Swete, Zhe Apocalypse, p. clxxix sq. ; Bacon, Fourth Gospel in
Research, 133, 147; Latimer Jackson, Problem of the Fourth Gospel,
142-150.
* If 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 accépts 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 ((Iwavyyns) μαρτυρίου κατ-
ηξίωται: Παπίας γὰρ. . φάσκει ὅ ὅτι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, πληρώσας
δηλαδὴ μετὰ τοῦ pheldes τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ αὐτῶν mpdppycw).
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 ὃ θεολόγος ῖ καὶ “IaxwBos ὃ
ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν). Swete (42οε. clxxix. sq.)
adds here the following pertinent comment: “If Papias made
it (this statement), the question remains whether he made it
under some misapprehension, or merely by way of expressing
his conviction that the prophecy of Mk x. 39 had found a
literal fulfilment. Neither explanation is very probable in view
of the early date of Papias. He does not, however, affirm that
the brothers suffered at the same time: the martyrdom of John
at the hand of the Jews might have taken place at any date
before the last days of Terusalem. ae
This Papias-tradition is rejected by Bernard, Studia Sacra,
260-284; Harnack, ZZZ., 1909, 10-12; Drummond, 227 56. ;
Zahn, Lorschungen, vi. 147 sq.; Armitage Robinson, Historical
Character of John’s Gospel, 64 sqq.; Stanton, Gospels as His-
torical Documents, i. 166 sq.; but such a rejection is hazardous
in face of the evidence furnished by subsequent and independent
authorities, not to speak of the results already arrived at inde-
pendently in this chapter.?
(c) Certain ancient writers tmply 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 Α.Ὁ. ), preserved
in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9). Heracleon in connec-
tion with Lk 12!!! states that “Matthew, Philip, Thomas,
1 ὁ θεολόγος i is, of course, a late addition. It is found in most cursives of
the Apocalypse in its title.
2 The italics are mine.
8 These results exclude the possibility of John the son of Zebedee being
the author of J*?, and also of 1. 2. 3 J, J, if, as is highly probable, John the
Elder wrote 2. 3. J. John the Apostle may have been the teacher of John
the Elder. This Papias-tradition would account perfectly for the absence
of his writings from the N.T.
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 Alartyrium Andreae
‘i. 2 (Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr. τι. 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 Ἰωάννης τὴν ἀνατολήν᾽ Φίλιππος τὰς πόλεις τῆς
Σαμαρίας καὶ τὴν “Aciav),andsoon. What is significant in this
legend is that it ignores wholly any residence of John in Asia
Minotr.?
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
(16. 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: rod ἁγίου
Ἰωάννου. . . προφητεύσαντος ἐν χρόνοις Κλαυδίου καίσαρος.
The same tradition of John’s martyrdom is attested in
Chrysostom (fom. |xv. on Mt 20%), though in Hom. Ixxvi. he
says that John long survived the fall of Jerusalem. :
According to Moffatt (p. 607), even Gregory of Nyss
(Laudatio Stephani: De Basilio Magno) mentions Peter, James,
and John as martyred apostles and places them between Stephen
and Paul. But Bernard (Studia Sacra, 280 sqq.) has rightly
objected to Gregory being cited as supporting such a thesis.
The fact is that Gregory is mystified naturally by this attestation
of the Church calendar to the martyrdom of John and seeks to
explain it away.
1 This reduplication in Matthew . . . Levi is found elsewhere.
2 As Latimer Jackson observes, ‘‘the allusion Gal 2° is significant ; it
suggests that John, extending the right hand of fellowship to Paul and
Barnabas (who had taken the Gentiles as their sphere of work), decides to
cast in his lot with the circumcision (p. 149).” But we have to remember
also that Peter went to the West and was martyred in Rome.
85. It is true that elsewhere Clement (Quis dives salv. 42) tells the story
of John and the robber, which, were it true, would imply his living to old
age.
xlvili 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 Α.Ὁ. at
earliest: cf. Polycarp, Ad Phil. ii. But the statement becomes
intelligible, if John’s apostolic activity belonged to the decades
before 70 A.D. Thus the older tradition discovers the element
of fact in this statement of the Muratorian Canon. For in
its enumeration of the works of St. Paul it proceeds: ‘‘ Ex quibus
singulis (non) necesse est a nobis disputari, cum ipse beatus
apostolus Paulus, seguens prodecessoris sui 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 discepulis. 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.
(d) 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 ἐ ἐν περοσόλύμνς
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 (a7c. 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. ΔΖ. 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.!_ Since he was martyred by the
Jews, he must have died before 70 a.D.
That the later testimony of Irenaeus that John the Apostle
resided in Asia, as well as the statement that Polycarp was a
disciple of the Apostle, must be rejected if the Papias-tradition
is correct, follows as a matter of course. Irenaeus is occasionally
very inaccurate. His*confusion of John the Elder with John
the Apostle? finds (111. 12. 15) an exact parallel in his confusion
of James the Lord’s brother, who in Acts 1513 takes part in the
Council of Jerusalem, with James the son of Zebedee, who has
already been martyred in Acts 12%. In iv. 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 AZ. iil. 39. 2, Eusebius charges Irenaeus with
wrongly representing Papias as a disciple of John the Apostle.
Irenaeus states on the authority of certain elders, who main-
tained that they had heard it from John, that Jesus did not die
1 Galatians is variously dated from 53 to 64 A.D.
2 Though Irenaeus has transferred to John the Apostle the labours of John
the Elder and the scene of these labours, he still distinguishes the Elder whom
he frequently quotes alike from the body of the Elders whom he also quotes, and
from John the disciple of the Lord ; cf. iv. 30. 4: ““ 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.
a
Ι 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 (γος 196 A.D.) and Proclus:
cf. Eus. iii. 31. 3-4, v. 24. 2; in Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
iii. 6. 52), Tertullian and Eusebius. See Zucye. Bib. (2511);
Moffatt, Zztrod.? 608 sqq.; otherwise Lightfoot, Colosszans, 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, c7c. 64 (?) and 70 A.D.
IV.
THE EDITOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.
From the section dealing with the Plan, pp. xxili—xxviil, 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 r-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 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 (1-20°) 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 20*-22. We are here first of
all seeking to learn his grammatical usages, though occasionally
we shall consider his opinions so far as they have led him to
change the text. He is a more accurate Greek scholar than
our author, and, as he shows no sign of really knowing Hebrew,
he was probably a native of Asia Minor.
As regards grammar, the construction in 20! τὸν καθήμενον
ἐπ᾽ Favrovt and 215 ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ f τοῦ θρόνου t, 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!" we find
this same construction twice: τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφάλης and
ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης ; and in 9g!" we find the same non-
Johannine construction τ. καθημένους ἐπ᾽ ἵ 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. 21° 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τῷ θρόνῳ ἡ
seems to be a primitive corruption for ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον.
In 20422 there are three other passages where the editor has
changed the text. In 20+ the οἵτινες is an insertion of the
editor to make the text possible Greek. But the construction
without the οἵτινες, 2.6. 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 li. 221-224), we shall return
presently.
But though a fair Greek scholar, the editor is very unintelligent.
He has made a chaos of 204-22, and wherever else he has
intervened he has introduced confusion and made it impossible
in many cases for students, who accepted his interpolations as
part of the text, to understand the author. In τὸ 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,
li 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 1° is singularly infelicitous
as well as being impossible. Not understanding that ὃ θεὸς ὃ
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 ὃ 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 88
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 1119 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 ds ἡμιώριον.
Besides, 87-12 is a weaker repetition of what is said elsewhere in
our author, and is frequently at variance with its adjoining
context.
In ‘91! 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 “EBpaiori ᾿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 6° and the note on 9},
The next interpolation due to this editor is 143°4>, 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
142-44, 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° 221%,
In 14}*2°, however, the editor reaches the climax of his
stupidity. Here by his insertion of the impossible verses, 145 17,
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 111
him—is called the harvesting of the earth, 1415 17 and the second
of which is called the vintaging of the earth, 141820, 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 Adyos 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 νὰ 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 pera 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, 15?4—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 pera ταῦτα eidov—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 165
καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων---ἃ Clause which he added in
order to introduce some actual sentences of our author, ze.
165>-7, These verses belong after τού. 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 i 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. 161-14 (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 ἣ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν 1 καὶ
with ἑπτά added after βασιλεῖς), which gives a second explanation
of the ἑπτὰ βασιλεῖς, appears also to be from his hand. 199-10
is quite clearly an interpolation (see vol. 11. 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 Ὁ
We now return to 20422 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 154 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 11! where proleptically the angelic song declares
that ‘the kingdom of this world hath become the kingdom of
our Lord and of His Christ.” The evangelization of the world is
thus committed to the glorified martyrs at once as their task and
the guerdon of their faithfulness in the past. They preach afresh
the Gospel to the nations of the earth, and all who receive it are
healed of their diseases, cleansed from their sins, admitted to
the Heavenly City, and allowed to eat of the bread of life.
Thus the Millennial Reign is one of arduous spiritual toil, and the
thrones assigned to these glorified martyrs are simply a symbol
of faithful service, which vary in glory in the measure of their
service.
Such is our author’s teaching, but through the edztor’s
rearrangement of the text the Millennial Reign is emptied of
all significance. The glorified martyrs return to earth with
Christ and enjoy a dramatic but rather secular victory, sitting
on thrones in splendid idleness for full one thousand years
(20%)!
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 20! 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” (24. 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” (r. vexpovs) 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.? 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 Tn addition to the arguments advanced in vol. ii. 222-223 against the
authenticity of 2118>-1®, we should observe that in the writer’s use of ἐπιτιθέναι
there is a play on the two meanings of this verb, z.e. ““ἴο add” and ‘‘ to
inflict.” The latter use is found in Luke 10%, Acts 163, and frequently in
classical Greek. Such a play on words is not found in our author.
2 The use of such anathemas by writers of an inferior stamp was quite
common as I have shown in vol. 11. 223-224.
lvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Υ. :
DEPRAVATION OF THE TEXT THROUGH INTERPOLATIONS,
DISLOCATIONS, LACUNAE, AND DITTOGRAPHS.
§ 1. Luterpolations.—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, zz /oc., and in footnotes to the English translation
in vol. 11. 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 tts intrusive character
both by tts 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 18 141-17,
First, as regards 1° we discover that this verse is impossible in its
᾿ς 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 ὃ παντοκράτωρ from
6 θεός by eight words, whereas it should immediately follow it, as
it is a rendering of the Hebrew genitive (msxa¥) immediately
dependent on ὃ θεός (nbs). Next, 1415!’ 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” (14:4) 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 19}!-2!,
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 87-12, 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 8% ®& 18
9118 τοῦ 1115 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 1.18 (ὃ ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τ. πυρός), 179 (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 οἵ. 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 appear to be due to the editor
are marked with an asterisk.
* 740 (καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ... . αὐτοῦ). See vol. i. 11-13. *18
(Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Αλφα . . . ὁ παντοκράτωρ). See footnote
on English translation 7m Joc., vol. 11. 115 (ὡς χιών).
25 (ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς). 222 (ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν ἐκ τῶν
ἔργων αὐτῆς). See footnote on Eng. trans. 27 /oc., vol. ii.
45 (ἃ ἐστιν τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ): 4° (ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ
θρόνου kat): 48 (κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν).
588 (αἵ εἰσιν αἱ προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων) : 5}} (καὶ τ. ζῴων καὶ τ.
πρεσβυτέρων). See vol. i. 145, 148 respectively.
68> (καὶ 6 ἄδης ἠκολούθει μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ). See vol. 1. 169 sq.
684 (ἀποκτεῖναι... ὑπὸ τ. θηρίων τ. γῆς). See i. 171.
*8? (οἱ ἐνώπιον τ. θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν). See 1. 221: also footnote
on Eng. trans. zm σε. 81:3. To adapt this interpolation
of the first four Trumpets to its new context, changes
were introduced in 82-6 18 gl-18 yo7 7115 and 8? trans-
posed from its original position after 8°. Seei. 219-222.
οὔς (καὶ ὃ Bacavicpos ... avOpwrov? See footnote: Eng.
trans.). 9119 (καὶ ἐν τῇ . . . ᾿Απολλύων). See i. 246.
*916b-17@ (ἤκουσα τ. ἀριθμὸν... ὁράσει). Observe that
the wrong construction, 7. καθημένους f ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἵ, is
due to editor. See i. 252. οἷν (καὶ & rais...
κεφαλάς). See 1. 254.
1 Hence practically every editor who accepts the entire work as from
John’s hand, whether he adopts or not the hypothesis of sources, is obliged to
resort to the ‘‘ Recapitulation Theory” in a greater or lesser degree, that is,
that the Apocalypse does not represent a strict succession of events, but that
the same events are either wholly or in part dealt with under each successive
series of seven Seals, seven Trumpets, and seven Bowls.
lviii
the
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
115 (καὶ itis... ἀποκτανθῆναι). See i. 284.
*1 43-4 (οἱ 7 “ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τ. γῆς. . . εἰσιν and καὶ τῷ ἀρνίω.
See il. 5-10, 422, footnote. *141!" καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος
. δρέπανον ὀξύ). See ii. 18-19, 20-22. 1418 (ὁ ἔχων
ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός). 1419 (ὁ ἄγγελος).
Be See ii. 30-32. 15° (τ. pony » 3» % Oeod καῦ. See
. 34. 15° (οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι ot ἔχοντες .. . πληγάς---
a aided tecats change for ἄγγελοι ἑπτά Owing to interpola-
tion of 15'). See ii. 31-32, 38.
¥ 162 (τοὺς € ἔχοντας. . εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ). See ii. 43. *16°4
(καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος) added by .
editor when he wrongly introduced 16°’, which
properly belongs after1g*. ii. 44, 120-123. # G18b-140
(ὡς βάτραχοι... σημεῖα). See ii. 47-48. 161% (καί
ἐγένετο... - μέρη). See ii. 52.
#179 (ὄρη εἰσίν. .. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν" καὶ and ἑπτά after βασιλεῖς).
See il. 68- -69. 175—a gloss on 17}. See 11. 72.
17} (καὶ ποιῆσαν μίαν γνώμην). See ii. 73.
1813 (καὶ ἵππώῶν. .. σωμάτων). See ii. 104.
198 (τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον. . . ἐστίν). See vol. i. 127-128.
199-10, doublet of 2.28.9, which has dislodged part of the
original text. See ii. 128-129. 1912 (ἔχων ὄνομα...
εἰ μὴ αὐτός). See ii. 132. 1916 (ἐπὶ τ. ἱμάτιον Kai).
See il. 137.
¥204 (οἵτινες). *20° (οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι
τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη). See note on text Ζ7: loc., vol. il.
372. 20! (κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν). *208 (ἡ θάλασσα---
an interpolation which has dislodged the original).
ii. 194 sqq. 2014> (otros ὁ Odvaros . . . πυρός). See
11. 199 56.
*21% (καὶ εἶπέν μοι Téyovav). See English translation, zz
loc. it. 443. *21> text changed by editor. See ii. 173,
*2211, See ii. 221 sq. *22!2 ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἵ ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ ft.
The order ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ is due to the editor. Our author
wrote αὐτοῦ ἐστί. *2218>19. See ii. 222 sq.
§ 2. Dislocations in 204-22.—In vol. ii. 144, I have emphasized
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 204-22,
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 1-20% 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"! (the first four Trumpets) to
its new context.
The remaining dislocations in 1-208 are as follows :—
227 has been restored after 27°», See Eng. trans. zm oc.
38° has been restored before 388, See Eng. trans. 2 Joc.
7°°-6 has been restored after 78. See vol. i. 207.
11182 has been restored after 1118, See vol. i. 295 sq.
11188 has been restored after 1118*. See vol. ii. 416, foot-
note to Eng. transl. zz oc.
13° has been restored after 13°", See vol. ii. 419, foot-
note to Eng. transl. zx loc.
1415:18 has been restored after 1318, See vol. i. 368 sq.
16°" has been restored after 194. See vol. ii. 120-123
1615 has been restored after 33°. See vol. i. 80 sq.
1714-17 has been restored as follows: 1717-1614. See voll. ii.
60 sq.
1814-23 has been restored as follows: 1815-19. 21. 14. 22a-d. 23ed,
22e-h, 23ab. 20, 286
The most startling of the above dislocations of the text is
that in 18'*8, How this dislocation arose we cannot determine,
but that the text is dislocated is beyond question. First, we
observe that 18!4 comes in wrongly between 1818 and 18, 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 18:9 and 18?! by
introducing an apostrophe to heaven between the descriptive
passages dealing with the ruin of Rome, 1819, and the dramatic
action of the angel, 1874. But, though it cannot stand after 1819,
it comes in with the most perfect fitness at the close of the dirge
over Rome (1815. 33:28). 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 19!
165b¢-7 τοῦ,
The dislocations in 75°8 1118 135>-6b 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 originally
after 16!4, 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, 141213,
1715.1 These two passages appear to have been inserted above
the written columns on the papyrus sheets, the first by the Seer
himself, the second by the editor. The scribe who copied the
original MS incorporated these marginal additions in the wrong
columns. It is noteworthy that 14128 is exactly the same
number of lines from 1.218 that 17) 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 2127; 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 14178 (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.¢. I 318, 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 17]. 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 lxi
interpolation, ζ.6. 19910 modelled on 2289) recounted the
destruction of the Parthian kings. Their destruction was
prophesied in 17!*, and the vision recounting their destruction
should have been given here. In 1717-16 there is a prophecy
of the destruction of Rome: in 18 a vision of this destruction.
In 1414-18-20 (see also 161%-!416) 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 19)l
(2071), 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 191°, where the Word of God is said to be
“clothed with a garment dipped in blood.” ‘That this is the
blood of the Parthian hosts follows from any just interpretation
of the text. See vol. ii. 133. |
A third lacuna occurs after 1872. The context makes the
restoration easy, Ζ.6. οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι. Again, in 2122,
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 11% These are
ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτῆς. See vol. ii. 170 sq.
§ 4. Dittographs——There are several dittographs, ze. (a)
138 8= 178; Ὁ) 19% = 215 = 22%; (c) 1010-- 228-9; (4) 2014
=e 21,
(a) Both members of the first, 2.6. 138° 8= 178, belong to our
text. See vol, 1. 337.
(ὁ) Here practically the same clause (καὶ εἶπέν μοι Οὗτοι οἱ
λόγοι πιστοὶ κ. ἀληθινοί) is repeated three times. In 215° 22%
it is a genuine part of the text. On 21°° see note 8 on English
translation, vol. 11. 443, in accordance with which the note in vol.
ll. 203 (ad fin.) sq. is to be corrected. In 19% it is manifestly
interpolated (see vol. 11. 128, 203 sq.), probably by the
editor.
(c) Here 228-9 is original and 19! is an interpolation of the
editor repeated in the main from 22°? 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 2014,
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, ζ.6. 71. ὃ 11118 12-13 (1558?),
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. (4) Sources he found in Hebrew
or Greek. (4) Sources he found in Greek. (c) Sources in
Hebrew.
(2) Chap. 718 (before 70 a.p.). 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 “216 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 τ En 661, 67, and in 2 Bar 64°44. The four
winds appear in earlier tradition. See vol. i. 192-193.
Chap. 7.8. From a Jewish or Jewish-Christian source. See
vol. i. 193-194. The “sealing” in our text is also derived from
tradition, but the meaning is wholly transformed from what it
bears in the O.T. and Pss. Sol 1510-18, which later work appears
to have been before our author.
(ὁ) Greek Sources, t.e. sources already existing in Greek, 111-18
12.* 17-18.
Chap. 11118 (before 70 a.D.). This section had originally
a different meaning and was borrowed by our author from a
source written before 70 A.D. 1118 consists: of two earlier frag-
ments, both of which presuppose Jerusalem to be still standing
(111-8), The diction, idiom, and order of words differ perceptibly
from that of our author, and they contain certain phrases which
bear a different meaning from that which they bear in our author.
In 11°18 our author’s hand is discernible in the additions 1 18»¢-9
and the entire recasting of 11’, so that what stood there originally
cannot be known. J/x 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 3!2, 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 Jutrod. 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 przma facie evidence that the sections in which
they occur are not original creations of our author but are derived
from traditional material. See vol. 1. 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. i. 299-300.
A full discussion of the two sources which underlie this chapter
and were translated from Semitic originals but not by our author,
is given in vol. i. 305-314. Our author most probably found
these sources already in a Greek form, and the conclusion
recorded in 1. 303 is here withdrawn. ‘These two sources, so
far as they survive in our text, consist of 121: 19-17 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 12°(?), 125
(ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ), 129 (ὁ ὄφις
ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὃ καλούμενος Διάβολος... . . ἐβλήθη), τ2}9 (καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία
τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ and τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν dislodging a Jewish
phrase), 1218 (ὅτε εἶδεν and ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν), 12}7 (τῶν
τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ).
The expectation expressed in 121. 16 is a survival of an earlier
time, being found by our author in his source. It referred to or
prophesied the escape of Jewish Christians before 70 a.p. But
the idea of such an escape during the entire sway of the Anti-
christ (12!4 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: 4, 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- 8b-6. 7. 18. 8-10 (greater part) 782-23. See vol. ii, 88-80,
94-95. B consisted of 1711 (ereater part), 12-18. 17.16. See vol. ii.
59-60.
Our author has adapted these sources to his own purposes
lxiv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
by inserting the following clauses: 17! (καὶ ἦλθεν .. ιν δείξω σοὶ),
88 (καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν ME... πνεύματι), 86 (καὶ κέρατα bed, 6b (καὶ ἐ EK T.
αἵματος... Ἰησοῦ), ὃ (ἣν καὶ οὐκ. . . ὑπάγει), and (ὅτι ἦν...
πάρεσται), ὃ (ὧδε 6 νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν), 11 (ὃ ἣν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν), and
(καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει),14. But the text of 174!" is in disorder.
175 is a gloss (see vol. ii. 72), 17!7 should precede 1716, and
1715 (our author’s addition) should follow immediately on 1716,
Hence the right order of the text (see vol. 11. 61) is 1711-18 17. 16. 14,
After 174 our author transferred 1718, which originally belonged
to A (see above), to the close of the chapter in order to introduce
chap. 18.
Chap. 18728**, 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 1873/24, Since 189 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. 23f 24 would thus form the close of
this chapter coming from our author’s hand and serving to
introduce the theme of 19! 1657 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 18-5 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). To the first source, written by a Pharisaic
Quietist before 70 A.D., is to be traced 13144. 2. 4-τὰ. 1 See vol. i.
340-342. To the second source, 1480: 8, of which we find a second
Greek translation from another hand in 178. See vol. i. 337.
To the third, 1311 12a». 18-14ab. léad-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: 131° (καὶ
ἐπὶ τῶν «. . διαδήματα), > (καὶ μίαν... ἐθεραπεύθη), 6¢ (τοὺς.
onuiinan, th (καὶ ἐδόθη... ἔθνος), ὃ τοῦ ἀρνίου. ες ἀκουσάτω),
ἴθ. (ὧδε. . ἁγίων), 12be (τὸ θηρίον τὸ πρώτον οὗ ras μυ ἢ
αὐτοῦ), 14b-15 7a ail .. ἀποκτανθῶσιν), 16 (τ. μικροὺς. SotAous);
17-18 (76 ὄνομα, ς .. €€).
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 15ὅ 96, 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. I-lv.
VII.
Books OF THE O.T., OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND OF THE
N.T. USED BY OUR AUTHOR.
§ 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, pagticularly 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, ὃ 7. But the direct evidence is not so convincing as
the indirect. Repeatedly in the commentary that follows it is
shown that without a knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha it would
be impossible to understand our author. As a few proofs of this
fact, see on 4° (the Cherubim), pp. 117-123; 68 (“a great
sword”), p. 165; 69 (Martyrs=a sacrifice to God, cf. 144), p.
174, vol. 11. 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
6
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 2430 before him, where our
author’s combination of Dan 718 and Zech 12! 15 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. 8°) form of the
command, ὃ ἔχων οὖς κτλ., Matt 11 139 etc., that our author was
familiar with. The dependence of 48, 164 on Matt 244% 4% 46 is
obvious at the first glance. 3° presupposes both Matt 10%?
and the parallel passage in Luke 12°, Other passages showing
dependence on Matthew, though not so conclusively, will be
found under 1°4 116 64 1118 below.
That our author used Luke appears certain, though the
evidence is less conclusive, from a comparison of 1° with Luke
1178, 35 with Luke 128, 116 with Luke 4%, and 1874 with Luke
ταῦ 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, z.e. the pesti-
lence, Luke 211} (λοιμοί).1}
Possibly 13° (τ. ἀρνίου τ. ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου)
implies an acquaintance with 1 Pet 11-20, Compare also 161°
and 1 Pet 518, and 1° and 1 Pet 2°.
§ 2. John translated directly from the O.T. text. He did not
guote from any Greek Version, though he was often influenced tn
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 (111-48 12-13.
17-18) derive such phrases and clauses directly from the Hebrew
(or Aramaic), or from ο΄ or from the Hebrew combined with o’?
(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.2, And this is no less true of the sources our
1 Tf, 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 ἢ
But if he had the Aramaic document behind the triple tradition in the Synop-
tics this would be explicable, since sma=‘‘ death” or ‘‘ pestilence.” If he
had the Little Apocalypse in Aramaic, we should have the explanation of this
and other difficulties.
2 It is important to recognize the results arrived at in 88 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 ο΄ 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 θ΄ 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 ο΄ (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 ὃ 5 we learn that
in 117 our text agrees not with o but θ΄ in Is 48!?: similarly 37
with θ΄ of Is 2222 and 3° with 6’ of Is 60!4. Again the quotation
1534 6 βασιλεὺς τ. ἐθνῶν" τίς od μὴ φοβηθῇ; agrees word for word
(though differing in case and tense) with 6 of Jer 10’, whereas οἱ
is here wholly defective. Finally, 16 (510) βασιλείαν ἱερεῖς is found
in & of Ex τοῦ where οἵ is different. Now one or more of these
_ might be coincidences, but it is highly improbable that all five are.
Hence we have good grounds for concluding that there existed
either a rival Greek version alongside 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. 1°-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, Beztrige, ii. 261-272) was
practically accepted by Salmon (/zzrod. p. 547) and by Swete (/utrod. to the
O.T. in Greek, p. 48).
Gwynn supports this hypothesis by evidence drawn from 1 Bar 115-230
Since the date of 17-38 is generally accepted as earlier than 80 A.D., and since
numerous passages in 11°—-2” are clearly based on θ΄ and not ¢ of Dan 917-19,
Gwynn (of. czt. 976) rightly infers the existence of a version of Daniel differ-
ing from οἵ 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 Zestzmonza. 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
Ixviil
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.
1 ὄψεται αὐτὸν πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ
οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν! καὶ
κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ
τ. γῆς."
119 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. . . ἤκουσα
φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄπισθέν μου.
118 (1414) ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου.
ἐνδεδυμένον ποδήρη.
περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τ. μαστοῖς ζώνην
χρυσᾶν. 15® where the text
recalls the present.
1146 ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες
λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν. ὃ
1140 (1013) οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ
πυρός.
οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ.
Zech 12! ο’ θ΄. ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς
μέ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο (θ΄. εἰς
ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν) καὶ κόψονται én’
(>0’) αὐτόν. 12! ο΄. κόψεται ἡ γῆ
κατὰ φυλὰς φυλάς.
Ezek 312 ἀνέλαβέν με πνεῦμα, καὶ
ἤκουσα κατόπισθέν μου. . . φωνὴν
σεισμοῦ μεγάλου.
Dan 7} (ο΄ 0’) ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.
Dan τοῦ 0°92 wa. οἵ θ΄. ἐνδεδυμένος
βύσσινα (θ΄. βαδδείν). Ezek 10?
renders the same words, ἐνδεδυκότα
τὴν στολήν.
Dan 10° ὩΠ33 onan yinn. 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΄. καὶ τ. τρίχωμα
τ. κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον λευκὸν
καθαρόν.
Dan τοῦ (0’ 6’) οἱ ὀφλαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ
λαμπάδες πυρός.
Dan τοῦ οὐ 6’ quite different.
exclusively with θ΄ (see 19°” where it agrees in part), and only a few times
literally with δ΄ in 2!7= Ps 68 (69)!°, 10%=Ps 81 (82)®, 12) ὅξε Ρ5 117 (118),
12°8 = Is 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 p17 as θ΄. But this proves nothing; for
ἐκκεντεῖν (ἀποκεντεῖν Or κατακεντεῖν) is its normal rendering in the Versions.
ο΄, of course, presupposes 1p3._ Cf. John 1957 ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν.
2The words κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ τ. γῆς agree exactly
with Matt 2459 save that the latter omits ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. Now, since Matt 24%
combines Zech 121° and Dan 778 just as our author does in 1’, it is highly
probable that our author was acquainted with Matt 24”, or that our author
and Matt 249 drew here upon an independent source—z.e. a collection of
O.T. passages relating to the Messiah. I have placed 17 ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ
τ. νεφελῶν under § 5, but possibly it ought to be under § 3, as 17°. In Zech 12!
the people mourn for him that is cut off, whereas in our text and in Matt 243?
they mourn for themselves. κόπτεσθαι ἐπ᾽ a’rév=‘* mourn in regard to
him.”
3 Our author here diverges greatly from θ΄, and here alone approximates to ο'
against θ΄ in Dan., though not necessarily presupposing a knowledge of o’.. Our
text and ο΄, however, really point to the same Aramaic ΠΡ2 2377 7Dy2 AWN ΡΟΝ,
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 ὡς φωνὴ Ezek 43? (ο φωνὴ τ. παρεμβολῆς
ὑδάτων πολλῶν.
1168 ἐκ τ, στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαῖα
serge Meee “OF. 217°: 19%,
7 ἔπεσα πρὸς τ. πόδας αὐτοῦ ws
νεκρός" καὶ ἔθηκεν τ. δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ
ἐπ’ ἐμὲ λέγων Μὴ φοβοῦ.
118 ζῶν εἰμὶ εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων.
214 ἐδίδασκεν. . . φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα
καὶ πορνεῦσαι.
218 τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς κτλ. See 114
above.
2°33 ᾿Εγώ εἶμι ὁ ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς καὶ
καρδίας, καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ
τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν.
485 ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον
τ. ποδῶν σου.
310 r. κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τ. γῆΞ.
3}17 πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ πεπλούτηκα.
319 ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ
παιδεύω.
3° ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τ. θύραν καὶ κρούω" ἐάν
Tis. . .« ἀνοίξῃ.
4) (7°) μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού.
ὡς φωνὴ διπλασιαζόντων πολλῶν.
But our text is a literal rendering
of the Hebrew Ὁ op dips adap.
Dan τοῦ is based on Ezek 437 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% 3.13 Heb, -ὸ ἼΒεη 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! (0’) 127, 1 Enoch 5!
Num 25)? ἐβεβηλώθη ὁ λαὸς ἐκπορ-
νεῦσαι. . . καὶ ἔφαγεν.
Jer 17° Ἐγὼ κύριος ἐτάζων καρδίας
καὶ δοκιμάζων νεφρούς, τοῦ δοῦναι
(nn?) ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ.3
Is 60!4 ο΄. πορεύσονται πρὸς σέ. θ'.
πορεύσονται πρὸς σέ, καὶ προσκυνή-
σουσιν ἐπὶ τ. ἴχνη τῶν ποδῶν σου :
ef. 48}
Though this construction occurs in
the LXX it is comparatively rare
and represents a special Hebrew
phrase: see vol. i. 289 sq., 336.
Hos 12°. See vol. i. 96.
Prov 34+ 13 μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου
.. . ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος ἐλέγχει
(ΝΑ παιδεύει).
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".
The clause omitted by o’ is supplied
by 6’, but as we see in a different form. See on 154 below under § 4, wherea
closely related text is derived from Ps 85 (86)°.
2 Alone in the O.T. does Jer 171° 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 24!
ἀποδίδωσιν (wn) ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. ἔργα αὐτοῦ : Ps 61 (62)}%,
Moulton and
Milligan, Voc. of G7, p. 160, try to explain this meaning of διδόναι by a
quotation: λίθῳ δέδωκεν τῷ vig pov (sc. πληγήν) τε “Πα gave it him with
a stick.” This is not a parallel. Our text involves no ellipse. It is a
Hebraism. Our author’s use of διδόναι here = ‘‘to requite” is due
wholly to Jer 17; for in 22!% he naturally uses ἀποδιδόναι in this sense
(=205 or 02%) as in Prov 24”, Ps 6115,
3 See note in vol. i. 99. 39 might be classed under § 4.
Ιχχ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
4° ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ
καὶ βρονταί.
45 κύκλῳ τ. θρόνου τέσσερα ζῷα γέμοντα
ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν.
47 ὅμοιον λέοντι. .. μόσχῳ. . . ἔχων
τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου. ..
ὅμοιον ἀετῷ.
485 ὃν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας
ἕξ,
4° λέγοντες ἽΛΎιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ
θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
5} ἐπὶ τ. δεξιὰν. . . βιβλίον γεγραμ-
μένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν, κατεσ-
φραγισμένον.
5° (512 138) ἀρνίον. . . ws ἐσφαγμένον.
ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, οἱ... ἀπεσταλ-
μένοι (DMOWD) εἰς πᾶσαν τ. γῆν.
5° φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ
ἔθνους.
511 μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες
χιλιάδων.
65:8 ἵππος λευκός. .. ἵππος πυρρός
.. εοἵππος μέλας. . . ἵππος χλωρός.
618 οἱ ἀστέρες τ. οὐρανοῦ ἔπεσαν. ..
ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τ. ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς.
6 ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τ. σπήλαια καὶ
εἰς τ. πέτρας τ. ὀρέων.
61:6 καὶ λέγουσιν τ. ὄρεσιν καὶ τ. πέτ-
pats Πέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε
ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τ. καθημένου
κτὰ. Contrast Luke 2359 which is
drawn from οἵ,
67 ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τ. ὀργῆς
αὐτῶν, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι ;
7} (208) ἐπὶ τ. τέσσαρας γωνίας τ. γῆς.
Ex 1916 ἐγίνοντο φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαί.
See vol. i. 116. Cf. Jub 25 ἄγγελοι
φωνῶν βροντῶν καὶ ἀστραπῶν.
Ezek 1° ἐν τ. μέσῳ ὡς ὁμοίωμα τεσ-
σάρων ζῴων. 138 πλήρεις ὀφθαλμῶν
κυκλόθεν. See vol. i. 118.
Ezek 11 ἡ ὁμοίωσις. . . πρόσωπον
ἀνθρώπου... λέοντος. . . μόσχου
Ἐν deTOU,
Is 6? ἐξ πτέρυγες τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ ἕξ πτέρυγες
τῷ ἑνί (anXd ὉΒ5)3 ww Ὁ"Β23 wy),
Is 65 ἔλεγον ἽΛγΎιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος
σαβαώθ. ;
Ezek 2° 19 ἐν αὐτῇ (1.6. χειρί) κεφαλὶς
βιβλίον... ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα
ἣν τὰ ἔμπροσθεν καὶ τὰ ὀπίσω.
Is 29" τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦ ἐσφραγισ-
μένου : Dan 856,
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? 0’ θ΄. χίλιαι χιλιάδες. .
μύριαι μυριάδες.
From Zech 15.61.8 Our author has
not used the Greek Versions but the
Hebrew freely for his own purposes.
See vol. 1: 161 sq.
Is 34) ο΄. πάντα τ. ἄστρα πεσεῖται
-.. ὡς πίπτει φύλλα ἀπὸ συκῆς.
Our text is independent of the οἵ
here, but like o’ and o’ presuppose
el (πεσεῖται) instead of the Mass.
2,
Is 21°19 εἰσέλθετε εἰς τ. πέτρας καὶ
κρύπτεσθε. . . καὶ τὰ χειροποίητα
. εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τ. σπήλαια.
See vol. i. 182.
Hos 108 καὶ ἐροῦσιν τ. ὄρεσιν Καλύψατε
ἡμᾶς, καὶ τ. βουνοῖς Πέσατε ἐφ᾽
ἡμᾶς. Is 2! κρύπτεσθε εἰς τ. γὴν
ἀπὸ προσώπου τ. φόβου κυρίου.
Joel 211 μεγάλη ἡμέρα τ. κυρίου. ..
καὶ τίς ἔσται ἱκανὸς αὐτῇ (1352);
2ν πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ἡμέραν κυρίου τ.
μεγάλην. Nah 1° ἀπὸ προσώπου
ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται (Ἴ)}))-
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°,
not found in any version of Isaiah,
This epithet, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, is
SEL Ue rT i 2
SEV fee SO SE ne Nee Ney aCe ae ee ee
PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T.
78 (94 141 224) ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν. . .
ἐπὶ τ. μετώπων.
7 ἡ σωτηρία τ. θεῷ.
716-17 οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι οὐδὲ διψή-
σουσιν ἔτι, κτλ.
717 (214) ἐξαλείψει. .. πᾶν δάκρυον
ἐκ τ. ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.
[82 ἐνώπιον τ. θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν.
88 ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τ. θυσιαστήριον.
84 ἀνέβη ὁ καπνὸς τῶν θυμιαμάτων.
[87 χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα.
οὐ ζητήσουσιν. . . τ. θάνατον καὶ οὐ
μὴ εὕρωσιν αὐτόν.
97 τὰ ὁμοιώματα τ. ἀκρίδων ὅμοια
ἵπποις ἡτοιμασμένοις εἰς πόλεμον.
98 οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῶν ὡς λεόντων.
95 φωνὴ ἁρμάτων ἵππων. . . τρεχόν-
των.
9” οὔτε βλέπειν. . . οὔτε ἀκούειν 1
οὔτε περιπατεῖν (or under § 4).
10! of πόδες αὐτοῦ ws στύλοι πυρός.
ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ βιβλαρίδιον.
10? ὥσπερ λέων μυκᾶται.
10°°6 ἣρεν3 τ. χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τ. δεξιὰν εἰς
τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ ὥμοσεν ἐν τ. ζῶντι εἰς
τ. αἰῶνας.
10% ὃς ἔκτισενϑ 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.
10” τὸ μυστήριον τ. θεοῦ, ws εὐηγ-
γέλισεν τ. ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τ. προφή-
τας.
10? τὸ βιβλαρίδιον καὶ λέγει μοι...
μέλι.
ΙΧΧῚ
Ezek 94 δὸς σημεῖον ἐπὶ τ. μέτωπα."
Ps 39 τ, κυρίου ἡ σωτηρία (ayn ma),
Is 401. See vol. i. 216.
Is 258 ἀφεῖλεν, . . πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ
παντὸς προσώπου AYO. . . ANd)
op-ba-dyn),
{A common Hebrew expression. ]
Amos 9g! τ. κύριον ἐφεστῶτα ἐπὶ τ.
θυσιαστηρίου.
Ezek 8 ἡ
ἀνέβαινεν.
Ex 9535 (see i. 233). ]
eb 372 οἱ ὀμείρονται τ. θανάτου καὶ
οὐ τυγχάνουσιν.
Joel 2΄.ὅ ὡς ὅρασις ἵππων ἡ ὅρασις
αὐτῶν". . παρατασσόμενος εἰς
πόλεμον (i. 244).
Joel 1 (i. 245).
Joel 24° (i. 245).
ἀτμὶς τ. θυμιάματος
Ps 11318-)5 (115-7) odk ὄψονται οἷς
kal οὐκ ἀκούσονται . . . Kal ov
περιπατήσουσιν.
Dan τοῦ (θ΄. τὰ σκέλη. οἵ. οἱ πόδες).
Ezek 29 ἐν αὐτῇ (2.6. χειρὶ) κεφαλὶς
βιβλίου.
Hos 11! ὡς λέων ἐρεύξεται.
Dan 127 (0 0’) ὕψωσεν τ. δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ
. . « (>0’) εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ ὥμοσεν
ἐν τ. ζῶντι (τ. ζῶντα els 0’) τ. αἰῶνα.
Ex 20!" 0’! ἐποίησεν (mvy) κύριος τ.
ovp. καὶ τ. γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν
αὐτοῖς : Neh 9°.
Amos 37 ἐὰν μὴ ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν
(=701) corrupt for mo=7. βουλὴν
αὐτοῦ θ΄ and μυστήριον in our text)
πρὸς τ. δούλους αὐτοῦ τ. προφήτας.
Ezek 318 (i. 267-268).
1 But Dan 5” was doubtless in the mind of our author: θ΄. θεοὺς...
. of οὐ
βλέπουσιν καὶ οἱ οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, seeing that the preceding words in our author,
τὰ εἴδωλα τ. χρυσᾶ καὶ τ. ἀργυρᾶ, xrX., are based on Dan 538.
2 Both o’ and @’ read ὕψωσεν, but o reads τ. ζῶντα εἰς τ, αἰῶνα θεόν instead
of the last five words in θ΄.
7 xw3, but Daniel has here on".
αἴρειν is the usual rendering of x3 in the phrase
5 Our author uses κτίζειν as a rendering of πῶ, but none of the O.T.
versions do so.
In 147 he uses mwovetv—the usual rendering. Hence 14? is
given under § 4. Observe that ο΄ > καὶ τ. Od.
4 The idea first suggested by Ezekiel is reproduced in the Pss. Solomon
and the Little Apocalypse in t
e Synoptics.
But in our text the idea is
wholly transformed : see vol. i. 194 sqq. While the Pss. Solomon use σημεῖον
(2.6. 18) our author uses σφραγίς (2.6. Onin).
in connection with Eph 430,
See later (p. 1xxxv) on this verse
xxii
112 μῆνας τεσσεράκοντα Kal δύο.
114 αἱ δύο ἐλαῖαι καὶ αἱ δύο λυχνίαι αἱ
ἐνώπιον τ. κυρίου τ. γῆς ἑστῶτες.
11° πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τ, στόματος
αυτῶν καὶ κατεσθίει.
117 (13! 178) τ. θηρίον τ. ἀναβαῖνον
ἐκ τ. ἀβύσσου.
117 (137) ποιήσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν πόλεμον
καὶ νικήσει αὐτούς.
1115 τι κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τ. Χριστοῦ
αὐτοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τ. αἰῶνας
τ. αἰώνων.
123 ἔχων. . . κέρατα δέκα.
124 σύρει τ. τρίτον τ. ἀστέρων τ.
οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τ. γῆν.
12° ἔτεκεν υἱόν, ἄρσεν.
128 οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν.
129 ὁ ὄφις. . . ὁ πλανῶν.
1332 τὸ Onplov . . . ὅμοιον παρδάλει. ..
ὡς ἄρκου. . . ws. . . λέοντος.
137 ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τ. ἁγίων καὶ
νικῆσαι αὐτούς. See above under
117. Here our text agrees closely
with 6’.
138 (178) γέγραπται. . . ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ
τ. ζωῆς.
138 τ. ἀρνίου τ. ἐσφαγμένου.
13 ef τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, | εἰς
αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει" | εἴ τις ἐν
μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι | Ἴ αὐτὸν Τ ἐν
μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. Ourauthor
combines the first two clauses in
the Hebrew.
14? φωνὴν. . . ὡς φωνὴν ὑδάτων Tod-
λῶν. See on 11 above.
14° καὶ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐχ εὑρέθη
ψεῦδος.
148 ἔπεσεν, ἔπεσεν Βαβυλών.
148 Βαβυλὼν . .. ἢ ἐκ τ. olvov [r.
θυμοῦ] τ. πορνείας αὐτῆς πεπότικεν
πάντα τ. ἔθνη. See on 188 below,
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Dan 7” 12? (i. 279).
Zech 4? λυχνία χρυσῆ. 43 δύο ἐλαῖαι.
4.32 παρεστήκασιν κυρίῳ πάσης τ.
γῆς.
2 Sam 22° πῦρ ἐκ τ. στόματος αὐτοῦ
κατέδεται. Cf. Jer 514 δέδωκα τ.
λόγους μου εἰς τ. στόμα σου πῦρ
. . . καὶ καταφάγεται.
Dan 7° θ΄. τέσσερα θηρία...
ἐκ τ. θαλάσσης.
Dan 77! θ΄. ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τ. ἁγίων
καὶ ἴσχυσεν πρὸς αὐτούς. ο΄. πόλεμον
συνιστάμενον πρὸς τ. ἁγίους καὶ
τροπούμενον αὐτούς.
Ps 22 κατὰ τ. κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τ.
Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ. ο51 (10'*) βασιλεύσει
κύριος εἰς τ. αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τ. αἰῶνα τ.
αἰῶνος.
Dan 77 θ΄. κέρατα δέκα αὐτῷ.
Dan 830 (θ΄) ἔπεσεν (ἐρράχθη, 0’) ἐπὶ τ.
γῆν ἀπὸ τ. δυνάμεως τ. οὐρανοῦ καὶ
ἀπὸ τ. ἄστρων.
Is 667 ἔτεκεν ἄρσεν (Mass. 721 13).
Dan 2285 (θ΄) τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς.
This clause is missing in οἵ,
Gen 3} 6 ὄφις ἠπάτησέν με.
Dan 7° 6’ ο΄. θηρίον ὡσεὶ πάρδαλις (ο΄.
πάρδαλιν). .. 7° ὅμοιον ἄρκῳ (οἵ.
ὁμοίωσιν ἔχον ἄρκου) . .. 74 ὡσεὶ
λέαινα.
Dan 73,
. ἀνέβαινεν
Dan 12! θ΄. ὁ γεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βίβλῳ.
Ps 68 (69)3 ἐκ βίβλου ζώντων.
[5 537 ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγήν.
Jer 15? 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, Kal
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 nav ΟῚ
pms asa xd, ex
Is 21° ο΄. πέπτωκεν, πέπτωκεν (B).
So also θ΄.
PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T. Ixxiii
14” πίεταε ἐκ τ. οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τ.
θεοῦ τ. κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου ἐν τ.
ποτηρίῳ τ. ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ.
1413 ἐπὶ τ. νεφέλην καθήμενον. See
1™ in § 5 below.
[14 πέμψον τὸ δρέπανόν cov xai
θέρισον, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα θερίσαι, ὅτι
ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς γῆ.
1415 πέμψον σου τ. δρέπανον τὸ ὀξύ,
καὶ τρύγησον τ. βότρυας τ. ἀμπέλου
τ. γῆς, ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ
ἢς 1
αὐτῆς.
14” (1915) ἐπατήθη ἡ ληνός.
153 μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ τ. ἔργα σου.
153 δίκαιας καὶ ἀληθιναὶ αἱ ὁδοί σου
(cf. 167 197).
15° ἐνδεδυμένοι | λίθον 1.2 But λίθον
Ξεῦτὺ, which should here have been
rendered βύσσινον. See vol. ii. 38.
περιεζωσμένος περὲ τ. στήθη ζώνας
χρυσᾶς. See on 1% above.
15° ἐγεμίσθη ὁ ναὸς καπνοῦ... καὶ
οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. ναόν.
163 ἐγένετο ἕλκος κακὸν καὶ πονηρὸν ἐπὶ
τ. ἀνθρώπους.
Is 591} ἡἣ πιοῦσα ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου τ.
ποτήριον τ. θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ. Ps 74
(75)? ποτήριον ἐν χειρὲ κυρίου, οἴνου
ἀκράτου πλῆρες κεράσματος-.3
Joel 3 (4)}3 ἐξαποστείλατε δρέπανα
ὅτι παρέστηκεν τρυγητός (702 53
4
7359).
Joel 3 (4). See preceding passage.
Is 633 125 "na 7M: ο΄. πληρὴς κατα-
πεπατημένης. σ΄. ληνὸν ἐπάτησα.
Lam 1 o. ληνὸν ἐπάτησεν κύριος.
Ps 110 (111) μεγάλα τ. ἔργα κυρίου.
138 (139)'* θαυμάσια τ. ἔργα σου.
Ps 144 (145) dixasos κύριος ἐν πάσαις
τ. ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. 118 (119)! πᾶσαι
αἱ 660i σου ἀλήθεια.
Dan τοῦ θ΄. ἐνδεδυμένος βαδδείν.
Is 6* ὁ οἶκος ἐνεπλήσθη καπνοῦ. Ex
407- ὅ οὐκ ἠδυνάσθη Μωσῆς
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. σκηνὴν τ. μαρτυρίου
- . « καὶ δόξης κυρίου ἐπλήσθη ἡἣ
σκηνή.
Ex 9g” ἐγένετο fxn... ὧν τ.
ἀνθρώποις. Deut 2855 ἕλκει πονηρῷ.
1 Just as the interpolation 14}5 refers only to the harvest of judgment—an
idea which is not used metaphorically by our author (see ii. 19, 20 sqq.}—so
145 refers only, and rightly, to the vintage of judgment.
2 This tracing
corruption of λίνον.
of 15° to Dan Io? rests on the supposition that λίθον is a
But the use of this word is questionable in itself, and our
author does not use it, but βύσσινος. See vol. ii. 38.
3 In Ps 75° οἴνου ἀκράτου is a rendering of 7 ΚΣ where the Mass. punctu-
ates differently.
Cf. Jer 32" (25:5) where we find τ. οἴνου τ. dxpdérov. The two
terms are brought together in Pss. Sol 8 ἐκέρασεν . . . οἴνου ἀκράτου.
By our
author, o and Pss. Sol 1p is taken as=‘‘ unmixed wine,” but it is pointed
129 and rendered ‘‘ (which) foams” by modern scholars.
In 14” 16" the cup is God’s cup of judgment, whereas in 17* 18° (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.
*The Mass. Ὑτρ-- θερισμός, whereas o’ presup
vsa. These words
are confused in Jer 48* where some MSS read one and some the other.
Possibly sp in Is 16° is also corrupt for vs2 (=o’). Thus in our text 145
follows the Mass. sp. But "3 is only used here in O.T. of the ripening of
grain, if indeed it is so used. In Gen 40% it is used of vines, and so possibly
it should be here. Thus vsp would be corrupt for 1s2, and Joel 4" would
rightly relate only to the vintage (so R.V. in marg.), just as m 14" 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 ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἄνθρωποι
ἐγένοντο ἐπὶ τ. γῆς.
16:9 δοῦναι αὐτῇ τ. ποτήριον τ. οἴνου τ.
θυμοῦ τ. ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ.
1671 χάλαζα μεγάλη.
171} τῆς καθημένης ἐπὶ ὑδάτων πολλῶν.
172 μεθ᾽ Hs ἐπόρνευσαν οἱ βασιλεῖς τ.
γῆς
ἐμεθύσθησαν οἱ κατοικοῦντες T. γῆν.
17° ἀπήνεγκέν we... ἐν πνεύματι.
See 211° below.
17* ποτήριον χρυσοῦν ἐν τ. χειρὶ αὐτῆς.
178 γέγραπται. . . ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς
ζωῆς. See 138 above.
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. See 138
above.
1716 μισήσουσι τ. πόρνην καὶ ἠρημω-
μένην ποιήσουσιν αὐτὴν καὶ γυμνήν.
181 ἡ γῆ ἐφωτίσθη ἐκ τ. δόξης αὐτοῦ.
182 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
14° 27%.
188 of βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐπόρ-
νευσαν. See 17? above.
184 ἐξέλθατε ἐξ αὐτῆς ὁ λαός μου.
18° ἐκολλήθησαν αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι
ἄχρι τ. οὐρανοῦ.
18° 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. τ᾿ καὶ
μετέβαλεν (but Mass. 571) :-Ξ ἐγένετο)
πᾶν τὸ ὕδωρ. . . εἰς αἷμα.
Ps 18 (19) See on 19? below.
Dan 12! θ΄. οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ᾽ ἧς
γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐν τῇ γῇ (ἐπὶ τ. γῆς,
AK).}
Jer 321 (25°) Λάβε τ. ποτήριον τ, olvov
τ. ἀκράτου. See on 14!° above.
Ex 974 χάλαζα πολλή.
Jer 28 (51)!8 κατασκηνοῦντας (= "nw
κατασκηνοῦσα, ΟἹ) ἐφ᾽ ὕδασι πολλοῖς.
Is 2327 ἔσται ἐμπόριον (ANIN = πορνεύσει)
πάσαις T. βασιλείαις ᾿ς . T. γῇ.
Jer 28 (51) ποτήριον. . . Βαβυλὼν
«ον μεθύσκον πᾶσαν τ. γῆν.
Jer 28 (51)7 ποτήριον χρυσοῦν. . . ἐν
χειρὶ κυρίου.
Ezek 2329 ποιήσουσιν ἐν σοὶ ἐν μίσει
καὶ ἔσῃ (31»}} γυμνὴ καὶ αἰσχύνουσα.
Ezek 432 ἡ γῆ ἐξέλαμπεν ὡς φέγγος
ἀπὸ τ. δόξης, IID ΠῚ ΝΠ parr,
Is 1321 Possibly a combination of
Dy yy 12% or based on
1 Bar 4585 κατοικηθήσεται ὑπὸ δαι-
μονίων.
Jer 28 (51)7 ποτήριον χρυσοῦν Βαβυλὼν
οὖν μεθύσκον πᾶσαν τ. γῆν. ἀπὸ τ.
οἴνου αὐτῆς ἐπίοσαν ἔθνη. 421 (25:5)
λάβε τ. ποτήριον τ. οἴνου. .. καὶ
ποτιεῖς πάντα τ. ἔθνη. See note on
ii. 14.
Jer 51% Heb. ‘py mand is. ἢ» ο΄.
Jer 28 (51)® ἤγγικεν (y33) els οὐρανόν.
Ps 136 (137)® ἀνταποδώσει cor... ὃ
ἀνταπέδωκας ἡμῖν.
See above on 14}.
Is 4778 εἶπας Εἰς τ. αἰῶνα ἔσομαι
ἄρχουσα . . . ἣ λέγουσα ἐν καρδίᾳ
αὐτῆς. οὐ καθιῶ χήρα οὐδὲ
. γνώσομαι ὀρφανείαν.
1 Our text and 6’ agree in adding the last three words ἐπὶ τ. γῆς and ἐν τ.
γῇ.
Dan 12! in the first cent. A.D.
I am inclined to infer the existence of γῈΝ3 in the Hebrew text of
ee ee
PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF O.T._ Ixxv
189 of βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς of μετ᾽ αὐτῆς
πορνεύσαντες.
18:9 ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων.
18:8 τίς ὁμοία τ. πόλει τ. μεγάλῃ.
18:9 ἔβαλον χοῦν ἐπὶ τ. κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν.
ἔκραξαν.
1833 φωνὴ. .. μουσικῶν . . . οὐ μὴ
ἀκουσθῇ... ἔτι.
φωνὴ νυμφίου καὶ νύμ-
18%ed 228:}8} gms... καὶ φωνὴ
233 μύλου. . . καὶ φῶς
λύχνου.
[187° οἱ ἔμποροί σου ἦσαν οἱ μεγισ-
τᾶνες τ. γῆς.]
192 ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι αἱ κρίσεις
αὐτοῦ. See 158 167 above.
194 ᾿Αμήν, ᾿Αλληλουιά.
19° ὡς φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ... ὡς
φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολλῶν. See 1
above.
19°? ἐβασίλευσεν κύριος . . . χαίρωμεν
καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν.
191} εἶδον τ. οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳγμένον, καὶ
ἰδού.
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρίνει.
1912 οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ, κτλ. See 115
218 above.
19 ἐκ τ. στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται
ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα.} Cf. 116,
ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη.
καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ
avdnpg.2 Cf. 277 125. This line
will be treated under § 4.
πατεῖ τ. ληνὸν τ. οἴνου τ. θυμοῦ. .. τ.
θεοῦ. See on 1429 above.
19!7-18 λέγων πᾶσι τ. ὀρνέοις. . .
Δεῦτε συνάχθητε εἰς τ. δεῖπνον. ..
τ. θεοῦ. 18 ἵνα φάγητε σάρκας
βασιλέων . . . καὶ σάρκας ἰσχυρῶν.
197! πάντα τ. ὄρνεα ἐχορτάσθησαν ἐκτ.
σαρκῶν αὐτῶν.
204 εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ᾽
αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς.
See 172 188 above.
Ezek 2713 ἐν ψυχαῖς ἀνθρώπων.
Ezek 252 θ΄, τίς ὥσπερ Τύρος ;
Ezek 27°° ἐπιθήσουσιν ἐπὶ τ. κεφαλὴν
αὐτῶν γῆν.
Ezek 27° κεκράξονται.
Ezek 26% ἡ φωνὴ τ. ψαλτηρίων cov οὐ
μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἔτι.
Jer 2519 φωνὴν νυμφίου καὶ φωνὴν
νύμφης, t ὀσμὴν μύρου καὶ φῶς
Avxvov. (Here φωνὴ μύλου in
Apoc. is right =o" Sip),
Is 23° of ἔμποροι αὐτῆς ἔνδοξοι, ἄρχοντες
Τ. γῆς.
Ps τ (19)!° τὰ κρίματα κυρίου ἀληθινά,
δεδικαιωμένα ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (5) ὌΞΦΟ
ὙΠ ἸΡῚΣ NDdN), Ps 118 (119)? 187,
Ps 105 (106) γένοιτο.
Dan τοῦ θ΄. φωνὴ ὄχλου (ο΄. φ.
θορύβου).
Ps 96 (97)! ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν,
ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ γῆ, εὐφρανθήτωσαν.
Ezek 11 ἠνοίχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ
εἶδον.
Is 116 pisa paw. o presupposes a
different text—xpive? ταπεινῷ κρίσιν.
Is 114 πατάξει γῆν τ. λόγῳ τ. στόματος
αὐτοῦ.
Ps 2° ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ.
Is 638, For diction, cf. Lam 115,
Ezek 394. See ii. 138.
Ezek 394 τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μετὰ σοῦ δοθή-
σονται εἰς πλήθη ὀρνέων... κατα-
βρωθῆναι. 303 καὶ ἐμπλησθήσεσθε.
Dan 7° θ΄. ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι
ἐτέθησαν. 7° τὸ κριτήριον ἐκάθισεν.
772 τὸ κρίμα (τ. κρίσιν o’) ἔδωκεν
(+7. ο΄) ἁγίοις (+7. 6) ὑψίστου.
—
1Cf. Heb. 412 ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. . . τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν
δίστομον.
2 These ideas οὗ smiting the Gentiles with the word of His mouth (Is 114)
and of breaking them in spieces like potter’s vessels (Ps 2°) have already been
combined in Pss. Sol 1779-27. 89,
Ixxvi
201} εἶδον θρόνον. . . καὶ τ. καθή-
μενον.
201? βιβλία ἠνοίχθησαν.
20}2 ἄλλο βιβλίον ἠνοίχθη, ὅ ἐστιν τ.
ζωῆς.
218 ἡ σκηνὴ τ. θεοῦ μετὰ τ. ἀνθρώπων
καὶ σκηνώσει μετ αὐτῶν καὶ αὐτοὶ
λαὸς αὐτοῦ ἔσονται.
214 ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον.
above.
2145 τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν. . . ἰδοὺ
καινὰ ποιῶ.
See 7}
215 τῷ διψῶντι. . . δώσω EK. .-. τ΄
ὕδατος τ. ζωῆς δωρεάν (221).
211 ἔσομαι αὐτῷ θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται
μοι υἱός.
21° ἀπήνεγκέν pe ἐν πνεύματι ἐπὶ
ὅρος. .. ὑψηλόν. Cf. 17° above.
21}3 ὀνόματα. . . τ. δώδεκα φυλῶν
υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ. 217% ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς
πυλῶνες τρεῖς καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ πυλῶνες
τρεῖς, κτλ.
2118 ἡ ἐνδώμησις τ.
ἴασπιξ.
2119 ὁ θεμέλιος. .. ὁ δεύτερος σάπ-
φειρος.
21% (225) ἡ πόλις οὐ χρείαν ἔχει τ.
ἡλίου οὐδὲ τ. σελήνης ἵνα φαίνωσιν
αὐτῇ, ἡ γὰρ δόξα τ. θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν
αὐτήν. ᾿
21% καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τ.
φωτὸς αὐτῆς καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τ. γῆς
φέρουσιν ᾿ τ. δόξαν αὐτῶν...
21” καὶ οἱ πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ κλεισ-
θῶσιν ἡμέρας. ..
21% καὶ οἴσουσιν τ. δόξαν.
εἰς αὐτήν.
2121 οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ...
τείχους αὐτῆς
.. τ. ἔθνων
πᾶν κοινὸν.
εἰ μὴ οἱ γεγραμμένοι ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ τ.
ζωῆς. See 13° 178 above.
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Dan 7° @’ ο΄. ἐκάθητο.
αὐτοῦ >o’.
Dan 7?° 6’ ο΄. βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν.
Ps 68 (69) βίβλου ζώντων.
Ezek 372’, Lev 26%): 13,
. - ὁ θρόνος
See li. 207.
Is 43.819 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 714 ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα
καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν.
Ezek 40!? ἤγαγέν με ἐν ὁράσει θεοῦ
. καὶ ἔθηκέν με ἐπ᾽ ὄρος ὑψηλόν
(π22 97 Seaman... ἈΝ2Π).
Ezek 4858] αἱ πύλαι τ. πόλεως ἐπ’
ὀνόμασιν φυλῶν τ. ᾿Ισραήλ᾽ πύλαι
τρεῖς πρὸς βορρᾶν. 485": καὶ τὰ
πρὸς ἀνατολὰς. . . πύλαι τρεῖς κτλ.
Is 54)? θήσω τ. ἐπάλξεις σου ἴασπιν.
Is 541} 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
Is 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: z.e. ‘‘ that
men may bring unto thee the wealth of the nations and their kings led (by
them).” As modern scholars recognize, 0°97} (= ‘‘ led”) is corrupt for o°373
=‘ Jeading.”
by their people.
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.
2138 is nearer the Mass. 79 12° ona Son,
‘“the wealth of the nations shall come unto thee.”
Our author either read
32) instead of 3853, or followed the Mass. in 6014,
PASSAGES BASED DIRECTLY ON HEBREW OF Ο.1.
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.
2285 πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι.
223 ὄψονται τ. πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ.
225 οὐκ ἔχουσιν χρείαν φωτός, κτλ.
See 2125 above.
κύριος ὁ θεὸς φωτίσειϊ ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς.
2235 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός
μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ.
22!2> ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς
τ. ἔργον
ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ.3
2217 ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω...
δωρεάν. See 21° above.
[22'8b-19 ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπὶ αὐτά, ἐπιθή-
σει. -. καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ, KTA. |
. ὕδωρ ζωῆς
Ixxvii
Ezek 47! ὕδωρ ἐξεπορεύετο. . . ἀπὸ
νότου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον Zech
148 ἐξελεύσεται ὕδωρ ζῶν ἐξ "Tepov-
σαλήμ.
Ezek 47! ο΄. ἐπὶτ. ποταμοῦ ἀναβήσεται
ἐπὶ τ. χείλους αὐτοῦ ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν
. οὐδὲ μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ"
τῆς καινότητος αὐτοῦ (YYIN?) πρωτο-
βολήσει, ὅτι. .. ἔσται... ἀνάβασις
αὐτῶν (andy) els 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 141} ἀνάθεμα (OM) οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι.
Ps 16 (17) 25 minx. But ο΄. has
ὀφθήσομαι τ. προσώπῳ gov. Con-
trast Mass. and o’ in 83 (84)’.
Ps 117 (118) θεὸς κύριος καὶ ἐπέφανεν
nuiv—an abbreviated form of the
Aaronic blessing: see ii. 210-211.
Is 40!° [dod kipios. . . &pxeTar. . .
ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ wer αὐτοῦ. 62%,
Prov 2412 ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ.
ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Cf. Ps 61 (62)}3 ἀποδώ-
σεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τ. ἔργα αὐτοῦ.
Is 55] οἱ διψῶντες πορεύεσθε.
Deut 4? οὐ προσθήσεσθε πρὸς τ. ῥῆμα.
. . « καὶ οὐκ ἀφελεῖτε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
ΤῊ 18! our author renders ΠῚ ΝΠ of Ezek 432 by ἐφωτίσθη, just as he
renders WN}, Ps 117 (118)”" by φωτίσει.
Clem. Rom. ad Corinth. xxxiv. 3 has a close but independent parallel
to 22!4b, 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 οἵ of Is 62" is ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μισθόν, καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ πρὸ προσώπου
αὐτοῦ. The order of the words, ὡς τ. ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ, is not our author’s:
see p. clviiad fin. Theclause=inbyp3. ὡς 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. 223).
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.”
lxxvili
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, tn others possibly)
by ο΄.
14 ἀπὸ ὁ ὦν.
154 ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός.
15> ὁ πρωτότοκος τ. νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων
τ. βασιλέων τ. γῆς.
2335 ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ.
2380 δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τ. ἐθνῶν.
277 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ,
ὡς τ. σκεύη τ. κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται.
3° οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω τ. ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τ.
βίβλου 1 τ. ζωῆς.
3% ἐγὼ ἠγάπησά σε.
42 (γ}9 194) ἐπὶ τ. θρόνον καθήμενος.
[58 θυμιαμάτων, αἵ εἶσιν αἱ προσευχαί.
5° (14°) ἄδουσιν δὴν καινήν.
[68 ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ
καὶ ἐν θανάτῳ καὶ ὑπὸ τ. θηρίων τ.
ς.
Pe aH πότε. . . ov κρίνεις καὶ
ἐκδικεῖς τ. αἷμα ἡμῶν ἐκ τ. κατοι-
κούντων ἐπὶ τ. γῆς ; cf. 193.
614 ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον
+ ἑλισσόμενον t.
714 ἔπλυναν τ. στολὰς αὐτῶν... ἐν
r. αματι, Cf. 223
g? ἀνέβη καπνὸς.
καμίνου.
ἐσκοτώθη ὁ ἥλιος.
. ὡς καπνὸς
11° πατάξαι τ. γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ.
1111} πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τ. θεοῦ εἰσῆλθεν
ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔστησαν 2 ἐπὶ τ. πόδας
αὐτῶν.
r1!74-188 ἐβασίλευσας
ὠργίσθησαν.
καὶ τ. ἔθνη
Ex 314 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὦν.
Ps 88 (80)88 ὁ μάρτυς ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός.
Ps 88 (89)*8 κἀγὼ πρωτότοκον θήσομαι
αὐτόν, ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τ. βασιλεῦσιν τ.
γῆς.
Ezek 337” θανάτῳ ἀποκτενῶ (Mass.
wn’ 7273).
Ps 28: δώσω σοι ἔθνη τ. κληρονομίαν
σου. . . ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺυς ἐν ῥάβδῳ
σιδηρᾷ, ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντ-
ρίψεις αὐτούς. See vol. i. 75-77
and Pss. Sol 176,
Ex 32°78 ἐξάλειψόν με ἐκ τ. βίβλου
σου. Ps 68 (69) ἐξαλειφθήτωσαν
ἐκ βίβλου ζώντων See i. 84.
Is 434 ἐγώ σε ἠγάπησα.
Is 61 τ. κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου.
I Kings 2219 θεὸν. . . καθήμενον
ἐπὶ θρόνου αὐτοῦ.
Ps 140? ἡ προσευχή μου ws θυμίαμα.
Ps 143 (144)? φδὴν καινὴν dooual σοι.
Is 42”,
Ezek 1472 ῥομφαίαν καὶ λιμὸν καὶ
θηρία πονηρὰ καὶ θάνατον (733).
2 Kings 9! ἐκδικήσεις τ. αἵματα τ.
δούλων μου. .. ἐκ χειρὸς TefdBenr.
Is 344 ἑλιγήσεται ὡς βιβλίον ὁ οὐρανός.
Gen 491} πλυνεῖ ἐν οἴνῳ τ. στολὴν
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν αἵματι. :
Ex 1τ9'ὃ ἀνέβαινεν ὁ καπνὸς ὡς καπνὸς
καμίνου.
Joel 2!° ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη συσκοτά-
σουσιν.
1 Sam 48 οἱ θεοὶ οἱ πατάξαντες τ.
Αὔγυπτον ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ (. . . Ὁ 327
Π30 23).
Ezek 37! εἰσῆλθεν
πνεῦμα καὶ.
αὐτῶν.
Ps 98 (99)! κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν" ὀργι-
ζέσθωσαν λαοί.
εἰς αὐτοὺς τὸ
Μ ‘
.« «ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τ. πόδων
1 Here and in 20" our author appears to use βίβλος owing to ο΄ in the first
passage and @’ in his second. For, when writing independently, he uses
βιβλίον, even when using the phrase τὸ βιβλίον τ. ζωῆς, 13° 2157 (cf. 178). In
all βιβλίον occurs 23 times (3 times in an interpolation),
2 Our author uses ἐστάθην (8° 12"8) as the aorist of ἵστημι.
Chapter 11 is
a source, and the use of ἔστησαν in it may be due to ο΄.
8 The ideas in the Apoc. 15* and Ps 838 (89)** are wholly dissimilar, but the
dependence in case of the diction is clear.
PASSAGES INFLUENCED POSSIBLY BY Ο’
11184-8 7, δούλοις σου τ. προφήταις Kai
τ. ἁγίοις καὶ τ. φοβουμένοις τ. ὄνομά
σου τ. μικροὺς καὶ τ. μεγάλους.
12:05. σημεῖον ν᾿ . . Yuen. . « ἐν
γαστρὶ ἔχουσα καὶ κράζει ὠδίνουσα
. .«« τεκεῖν.
125> ποιμαίνειν πάντα τ. ἔθνη ἐν
ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ.
1212 εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί.
14 τ. ποιήσαντι τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. γῆν
καὶ θάλασσαν. Contrast 10° under
§ 3 above. On this phrase see
Acts 474 14),
14" ὁ καπνὸς .. . εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων
ἀναβαίνει. . . ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός.
158 ἄδουσιν [τ. ὠδὴν Μωυσέως τ. δούλου
τ. θεοῦ].
154 δοξάσει τ. ὄνομα σου.
154 πάντα τ. ἔθνη ἥξουσιν καὶ προσ-
κυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου.
τοῦ περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τ. στήθη ζώνας
χρυσᾶς.
16° δίκοιος εἶ . . . ὅσιθν,
αἷμα. . . πεῖν.
1716 καὶ τ. σάρκας αὐτῆς φάγονται.
195 ἐξεδίκησεν τ. αἷμα τ. δούλων αὐτοῦ
ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῆς. See on 6!° above.
19° ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει eis τ.
αἰῶνας. See on 14" above.
19° αἰνεῖτε τ. θεῷ ἡμῶν, πάντες ol
δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ, οἱ φοβούμενοι αὐτόν, οἱ
μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι.
19) ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη" καὶ
αὐτὸς rand αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ
σιδηρᾷ. See 252] above.
209 ἐπὶ τ. πλάτος τ. γῆς.
κατέβη πῦρ ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέ-
φαγεν. (This could be registered
under § 3, since the Hebrew could
hardly be rendered differently. )
21! οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν.
215(21}9) τ. πόλιν τ. ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλήμ.
212 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός
μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. Already registered
under § 3 above.
Ixxix
Amos 37 τ. δούλους αὐτοῦ τ. προφή-
ras. Ps1137(11 54°) 7. φοβουμένους
᾿ς κύριον τ. μικροὺς μετὰ τ. μεγάλων.
Του Ὁ σημεῖον" ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν
γαστρὶ ἕξει (NA λήμψεται, B). 267
ἡ ὠδίνουσα ἐγγίζει τεκεῖν, ἐπὶ τῇ
ὠδῖνι αὐτῆς ἐκέκραξεν.
See on 2m above.
Is 4913 εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί. Cf. 44
Ex 20! (quoted on 108 alee ig 3
above). Neh 19° ἐποίσηας τ. οὐρανὸν
τ τὸ Ὧν Φ νι » T Oaddooas.
Is 3410 νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας. .. kal...
εἰς τ. αἰῶνα , χρόνον καὶ ἀναβήσεται ὁ
καπνὸς αὐτῆς.
Ex 14%! Μωυσῇ τ. θεράποντι αὐτοῦ.
Ex I τὰ ἦσεν Μωυσῆς. . . τ. φδὴν
ταύτην.
Ps 85 (36) δοξάσουσιν τ. ὄνομά σου.
Ps 8 5 (86) πάντα τ. ἔθνη. . . ἥξουσιν
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου,
See on 179 under 8 3.
Ps 144 (145)} δίκαιος κύριος. . . καὶ
ὅσιος.
Is 493 πίονται. . . τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν.
Is 4935 φάγονται . . « Τ. σάρκας
αὐτῶν.
Ps τῆι... (125). aivetre 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----ΑἹ
T. Ys.
2 Kings 119 ο΄ exactly as in our text.
Is 6517 ἔσται yap ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ
ἡ γῆ καινή.
Is 52! ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, πόλις ἡ ἁγία. Cf.
Dan 95 6’,
Is 40! ἰδοὺ κύριος κύριος . - ἔρχεται
«ον. ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ per’ αὐτοῦ.
3 . Possibly this passage should have been given under § 3.
2 Our snthor rightly follows the Hebrew here, m7 "32, against οἵ.
ΙΧχχ
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 ts preserved in Theodotion θ΄.
1! ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.
Dan θ΄. 233. 39. 46 ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.
1® (519 206) ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν Ex 19% θ΄. βασιλεία ἱερεῖς, which=
ἱερεῖς τ. θεῷ.
1ἴ5 ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ 1 τ. νεφελῶν.
1170 (28 2218) ᾿Ε! γώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ
ἔσχατος.
1139 ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα.
37 ὁ ἔχων τ. κλεῖν... ὁ ἀνοίγων καὶ
οὐδεὶς κλείσει καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς
ἀνοίγει.
4959 ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον
τ. ποδῶν σου. See on 155 under
§ 4.
4) ἃ del γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. See on
119 above.
9” τὰ δαιμόνια Kal τ. εἴδωλα 3 τ. χρυσᾶ
καὶ τ. ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τ. χαλκᾶ καὶ τ.
λίθινα καὶ τ. ξύλινα, ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν
δύνανται οὔτε ἀκούειν οὔτε περι-
πατεῖν.
10° ὥμοσεν ἐν τ. ζῶντι εἰς τ. αἰῶνας.
puna ποῦ, But the Mass. has
“3. nabno, and also ο΄. βασίλειον
ἱεράτευμα. See vol. i. 16.
Dan 7}8 θ΄. ἰδοὺ μετὰ τ. νεφελῶν. . .
ἐρχόμενος = Mass. nx 2} OY NR. 0’.
ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τ. νεφελῶν. . . ἤρχετο.
Ts 4813 (cf. 445) PINN ὯΝ AR PENI IRN.
Is 48 θ΄, ᾿Εγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ
ἔσχατος. ο΄. ᾿Εγώ εἰμι πρῶτος καὶ
ἐγώ εἶμι εἰς τ. αἰῶνα.
Dan 239 0’, τί δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα
»ο.
Is 22” θ΄. δώσω τ. κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαβὶὲδ
.. καὶ ἀνοίξει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται 6
ἀποκλείων᾽" καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται
ὁ ἀνοίγων. οἵ. δώσω τ. δόξαν Δαυεὶδ
. . καὶ ἄρξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντι-
λέγων, καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ
ἀνοίγων.
Is 6014 θ΄. καὶ πορεύσονται... παροξυ-
νάντων. . καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν
ἐπὶ τ. ἴχνη τ. ποδῶν σου. ο΄ om.
last eight words.
Dan 533 θ΄ (> 0’). τ. θεοὺς τ. χρυσοῦς
καὶ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χαλκοῦς καὶ
σιδηροῦς καὶ ξυλίνους καὶ λιθίνους,
ot οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ of οὐκ ἀκούουσιν
(o’< entire passage). Cf. Ps 113
(114) 1ὅ το εἴδωλα... οὐκ ὄψονται
- . + Οὐκ ἀκούσονται. ᾿ . OU περι-
πατήσουσιν.
Dan 127 θ΄. ὥμοσεν ἐν τ. ζῶντι τ.
αἰῶνα.
1 Our author knows only oy, as does 6’, whereas 0’ presupposes Ὁ". In
1413 ἐπὶ τ. νεφέλην καθήμενον does not presuppose >, for καθήμενον requires
ἐπί here. Thus oy is presupposed by μετά in Rev 17, Mk 14% ἐρχόμενον
μετὰ τ. ved. : by ἐν in Mk 13% ἐρχόμενον ἐν ved., Lk 2177: whereas Matt 2430
26 ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τ. ved. presuppose ο΄ and Sy. See vol. i. 18.
3 This combination of demons and idols is first found in 1 En 99’.
3 ο΄ has this phrase also in 328: 39. but since there is no other passage in
our author based on Daniel that agrees with ο΄ 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 54, support
᾿ the order xp. καὶ dpy., there can be no doubt that the Mass. is wrong here
and that our author and @ attest the true order in 5%. Our author is follow-
ing 5” here, as the concluding clauses prove.
ECHOES OF THE Ο.Τ.
1214 καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ
καιροῦ.
13° στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα.
137 ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τ. ἁγίων.
13 ὅσοι ἐὰν μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τ.
εἰκόνα.
148 Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη.
15°4 ὁ βασιλεὺς τ. ἐθνῶν" τίς οὐ μὴ
φοβηθῇ ;
20" τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς (cf. 128).
20" εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τ. βίβλῳ τ.
ζωῆς γεγραμμένος.
22” un oppaylons T. Adyous... T.
βιβλίου τούτου.
§ 6. Phrases and clauses in
O.T. passages.
2° τὴν γυναῖκα ᾿Τεζάβελ.
5° ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τ. φυλῆς ᾿Τούδα.
ἡ ῥίζα Δανείδ (cf. 225).
ο ἐξῆλθον ἀκρίδες εἰς τ. γῆν.
913 τ. ποταμῷ τ. μεγάλῳ Εὐφράτῃ.
9?! φόνων". .. πορνείας . . . κλεμ-
μάτων.
φαρμάκων. .. πορνείας.
10 δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ
λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν... καὶ βασι-
λεῦσιν.
11 κάλαμος... μέτρησον τ. ναόν.
11? ἐδόθη τ. ἐθνεσιν καὶ τ. πόλιν τ.
ἁγίαν πατήσουσιν.
118 πνευματικῶς Σόδομα.
1110 δῶρα πέμψουσιν ἀλλήλοις.
poBos .. . ἐπέπεσεν ἐπί.
11? ἀνέβησαν εἰς τ. οὐρανόν.
1113 ἔδωκαν δόξαν τ. θεῷ (cf. 147).
τ. θεῷ τ. οὐρανοῦ (cf. 16"),
11 βασιλεύσει εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων.
ΙΧΧΧΙ
Τὴ 12} - θ', ο΄.
(AQDL) καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ.
Dan 7° 6’ ο΄, στ. Nar. pey.
Dan 77! θ΄. ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τ.
ἁγίων. ο΄. πόλεμον συνιστάμενον
πρὸς τ. ἁγίους.
Dan 3° @ ο΄. ὃς ἂν μὴ (- πεσὼν ο)
προσκυνήσῃ (τ. εἰκόνι).
Dan 451 6’ ο΄. Βαβ. ἡ μεγ.
Jer 107 0” (>0’). τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθή-
σεται, βασιλεῦ τ. ἐθνῶν ;
Dan 2* θ΄. τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς.
ο΄. ὥστε μηδὲν καταλειφθῆναι ἐξ
αὐτῶν.
Dan 12! θ΄. πᾶς (+6 εὑρεθείς AQ) ὁ
γεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βίβλῳ. οἵ. ὃς ἂν
εὑρεθῇ ἐγγεγραμμένος ἐν τ. βιβλίῳ.
Dan 123 θ΄. σφράγισον τ. βιβλίον. οἵ.
oppayiwa 7. BiBrlov. 12° 67,
ἐσφραγισμένοι οἱ λόγοι. ο΄. ἐσφραγ-
loméva τὰ προστάγματα.
καιρὸν καὶ καιρδὺς
CL 7.
our Author which are echoes of
1 Kings 20 (21) "Ief{dBer ἡ γυνὴ
αὐτοῦ.
Gen 49° σκύμνος λέοντος, ᾽᾿Ιούδα.
Is 11! ἐκ τ. ῥίζης Ιεσσαί.
Ex 10!? ἀναβήτω ἀκρὶς ἐπὶ τ. γῆν.
Gen 1518 τ. ποτ. τ. wey. Εἰὐφ.
Ex 20" (Mass., but different order in
o’).
2 Kings 95 ai πορνεῖαι ᾿Ιεζάβελ. ..
καὶ τ. φάρμακα αὐτῆς.
Jer 1 ἰδοὺ καθέστακά oe...
ἔθνη καὶ βασιλείας.
ἐπὶ
Ezek 40° ἐν τ. χειρὶ αὐτοῦ fv...
κάλαμος μέτρον. 41 διεμέτρησεν
κατέναντι τ. οἴκου.
Zech 12° θήσομαι τ, ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ λίθον
καταπατούμενον. Dan 9525 (θΊ) τ.
πόλιν τ. ἁγίαν.
Is 14° Israel addressed as ‘‘ Sodom.”
Esth 919 ἀποστέλλοντες μερίδας ἕκαστος
τῷ πλησίον.
Frequent in the O.T.
2 Kings 2!) ἀνελήμφθη. ..
οὐρανόν.
Josh 7}. Jer 1.3} etc.
Dan δ 27% % δὴ - 9’ οἵ, 2%,
Ps 951 (10!8) βασιλεύσει κύριος εἰς τ.
αἰῶνα.
εἷς T.
1 See note on 3° under § 4.
instead of his own word βιβλίον.
Bt .
θ΄ explains our author’s use of βίβλος here
ΙΧΧΧΙΙ
147 φοβήθητε τ. θεόν.
14 πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ.
15] πληγὰς ἑπτά.
161 ἐκχέετε τ. φιάλας τ.
θεοῦ.
1610 ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἐσκοτω-
θυμοῦ τ.
vn.
1613 ἐξηράνθη τ. ὕδωρ αὐτοῦ.
189 κλαύσονται καὶ κόψονται.
1814 σου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ψυχῆς.
1832: Suggested by
209 τ. πόλιν τ. ἠγαπημένην.
214 οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος
οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι.
2110 τ, δόξαν τ. θεοῦ.
2116 ἡ πόλις τετράγωνος κεῖται.
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Eccles 1218,
Gen 1953.
Lev 267! πληγὰς ἑπτά.
Jer 107 ἔκχεον τ. θυμόν σου ἐπὶ ἔθνη.
Ex 107 γενηθήτω σκότος ἐπὶ γῆν
Αἰγύπτου.
Ex 147! ἐποίησεν τ. θάλασσαν ξηράν.
2 Sam 112 ἐκόψαντο... . καὶ ἔκλαυσαν.
Deut τ25 9 20 21, Ps 20 (21)? etc.
Jer 28 (5 1)®*4 λίθον... ῥίψεις καὶ ἐρεῖς
Οὕτως καταδύσεται Βαβυλών.
Ps 77 (78)® τ. ὄρος τ. Σειὼν ἠγάπησεν.
86 (87)? ἀγαπᾷ κύριος τ. πύλας Σιών.
Is 3510 ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ
στεναγμός.
Is 588.
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.
211 ὄνομα καινόν.
See on 1414
41 καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεῳγμένη ἐν τ.
εφὐρανῷ.
45 (157) θάλασσα ὑαλίνη.
611} ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται. . . ἕως πληρω-
θῶσιν. .. οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ
μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι.
6!2 ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας... καὶ ἡ
σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα.
T. Lev 18} δώσει τ. ἁγίοις φαγεῖν ἐκ.
τ. ξύλου τ. ζωῆς. See vol. i. , 54.
T. Lev 8:4 ἐπικληθήσεται αὐτῷ ὄνομα
καινόν.
1 En 14” καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄλλην θύραν ἀνεῳγ-
μένην {te é. in heaven): T. Lev 5},
2 En Ks ‘*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. 47.
“41 saw the Head of Days when He
seated Himself upon the throne of
His glory. . . . And the hearts of
the holy were filled with joy,
Because the number of the righteous
had been offered.” 1
Ass. Mos. 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
14‘ (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 ἣ 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."
9” ἵνα μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τ. δαιμόνια
καὶ τ. εἴδωλα.
1419 βασανισθήσεται ἐν
ἐνώπιον τ. ἀγγέλων.
wept 1
1414 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου."
1713 (Cf. 19:6) 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 Maywy.
2018 ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ddns ἔδωκαν τ.
νεκροὺς τ. ἐν αὐτοῖς.
22? τ. θρόνου τ. θεοῦ καὶ τ. ἀρνίου.
lxxxiii
See vol. i. 204, 192 (note), where this
conception is shown to be in I
Enoch.
1 En 1813 ὡς ὅρη μεγάλα καιόμενα : 21°
ὁμοίους ὄρεσιν μεγάλοις καὶ ἐν πυρὶ
καιομένους.
1 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° ‘* As straw in the fire, so
shall they burn before the face of
the holy.”
1 En 46! which first applies to the
Messiah, this phrase which in Dan
78=‘*the saints.” 4 Ezra 13?
where the Syriac presupposes ὅμοιον
vig ἀνθρώπου. See vol. ii. 20.
1 En 95 (Gs?) Κύριος τ. κυρίων καὶ
βασιλεὺξ τ. βασιλευόντων (E=
βασιλέων).
Pss. Sol 1776-27-39 quoted in vol. ii.
136 where already Is 114 and Ps 2°
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 62® 5, See vol. ii. 175sq. The
throne is the throne of God and of
the Son of Man.
§ 8. Passages in some cases directly dependent on and in others
parallel with earlier books of the N.T. Our author appears to
have used Matthew, Luke, 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
N.T. is 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
2
interpolated passage 8115 the ‘“‘burning mountain” in 88 and ‘‘the
burning star” in 81° 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 14” ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ 6
ἑωσφόρος. :
ὃ Combined worship of demons and idols first mentioned in 1 En 997,
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.
Ιχχχὶν
1} δεῖ γενέσθαι.
18 μακάριος. . . καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τ.
λόγους . . . καὶ τηροῦντες.
ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.
1* χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη.
1 ὁ πρωτότοκος τ. νεκρῶν.
1 τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς.
τ΄ 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
T. γῆ."
17 ναί, ἀμήν.
116 ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει.
118 νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν.
21 ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω 8 (seven times).
29 οἷδά σου.
πλούσιος εἶ.
. Τ. πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ
210 τὶ στέφανον τ. ζωῆς. 9
2209 πλανᾷ τ. ἐμοὺς δούλους πορνεῦσαι
᾿ καὶ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα.
24 οὐ βάλλω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος" πλὴν
ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε.
2% 7, βαθέα τ. Σατανᾶ.
33 ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, ἥξω ὡς
κλέπτης καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν ὥραν
ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ.
τ6᾽}5 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ws κλέπτης" μακάριος
ὁ γρηγορῶν.
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Matt 24°, Luke 21°.
Luke 11°73 μακάριοι of ἀκούοντες τ.
λόγον τ. θεοῦ Kal φυλάσσοντες. Ἷ
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 val. ᾿ς τὸ ἀμήν.
Matt 17? ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ
ὡς ὁ ἥλιος.
2 Cor 69 ἀποθνήσκοντες καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν.
Matt 11% 13% Luke 88 14% ὁ ἔχων
ὦτα ἀκουέτω : Mark 4% 35 ὃς (εἴτις)
(433) ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.
2 Cor 6!° ὡς πτωχοὶ πολλοὺς δὲ πλουτί-
ζοντες. Jas 2ὅ τ. πτωχοὺς τ. κόσμῳ
πλουσίους ἐν πίστει.
Jas τἴ2τ. στέφανον τ. ζωῆς.
Acts 1528 ἔδοξεν. . ἡμῖν μηδὲν
πλέον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμῖν βάρος πλὴν
.. ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων... καὶ
πορνείας.
I Cor 2!° +. βάθη 7. θεοῦ:
Matt 24% γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε
ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν ἔρχεται.
24% 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! 15 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 1376, Luke 2157, 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 ”’)
is peculiar to our author and Matt 24°. On the other hand, our author keeps
to the Hebrew in rendering μετὰ τ. νεφελῶν, whereas Matt 2430 reads ἐπὶ τ.
ved. aso’. Observe that our author has ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (so Heb. and LXX), but
not Matt.
8 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.
4745 112 contains the earliest instance of the phrase. Cf. T. 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 24% 4: 4 is obvious.
7 φυλάσσειν is a Lucan word: cf. Luke 1851, Acts 7°3 164 2794, whereas our
author does not use φυλάσσειν at all, but uses τηρεῖν in the same sense.
PASSAGES BASED ON THE N.T.
38 δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν cov θύραν ἠνεῳγ-
μένην.
3° ὁμολογήσω τ. ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐνώπιον τ.
πατρός μου καὶ ἐνώπιον τ. ἀγγέλων
αὐτοῦ.
314 ἡ ἀρχὴ τ. κτίσεως τ, θεοῦ.
. καὶ οὐκ οἶδας
See on
3)? πλούσιός εἰμι...
ὅτι σὺ CO... πτωχόν,
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.
6717 71, Subject-matter of the Seals
suggested by the Little Apocalypse.?
610 ἕως πότε... OU... ἐκδικεῖς TO
αἷμα ἡμῶν.
612-13 ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος
τρίχινος καὶ ἣ σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς
αἷμα, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες τ. οὐρανοῦ
ἔπεσαν εἰς τ. γῆν. -
615-16 οἱ βασιλεῖς T. γῆς. . . καὶ πᾶς
δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς
εἰς τ. σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τ. πέτρας τ.
ὀρέων" καὶ λέγουσιν τ. ὄρεσιν καὶ
τ. πέτραις ἸΠέσατε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ
κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου, κτλ. ὃ
6117 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
5° ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης. ..
ἔρχεται.
1 Cor 16° θύρα γάρ μοι ἀνέῳγεν. 2 Cor
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 177 τ. πλοῦτος τ. δόξης τ.
μυστηρίου... ὅ ἐστιν Χ. ἐν ὑμῖν.
115 πρωτό-
Col 3! τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ Χ. ἐστιν ἐν
δεξιᾷ τ. θεοῦ καθήμενος. Eph 258
συνεκάθισεν ἐν τ. ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χ.᾽1.
Luke 7} (8°) μὴ κλαῖε.
Matt 10%4 μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν
εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τ. γῆν" οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν
εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν.
Matt τ % 2 and parallels in
Like’ 23% ἐσ δι See. yol,.. i.
158 sqq.
Luke’ 18” 8 ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ τὴν
ἐκδίκησιν τ. ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ, ..
ποιήσει τ. ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν ἐν τάχει.
Matt 2439 ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ
ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τ. φέγγος αὐτῆς
καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τ.
οὐρανοῦ. So Mark 1325 save that
for last four words it reads ἔσονται
ἐκ τ. ovp. πίπτοντες. Luke 21”
ἔσονται σημεῖα ἐν ἡλίῳ Kal σελήνῃ
καὶ ἄστροις.
Luke 2389 τότε ἅρξονται λέγειν τ.
ὄρεσιν Ilécare ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ τ. βούνοις
Καλύψατε ἡμᾶς.
Luke 21° ἀγρυπνεῖτε. . . ἵνα κατι-
σχύσητε. . σταθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν
τ. υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρώπου.
Eph 4” ἐσφραγίσθητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπο-
λυτρώσεως.
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.
2 The parallelism of 615-18 with Matt 24
See vol. i. 158-160.
is very close, but not with Luke.
It is not, however, dependent directly on the former.
Ὁ There is a remote parallelism with Luke, but not with Matthew.
‘The meaning of σφραγίζω, 7*8, may be partly due to Eph 4° 118: cf,
2 Coe 1™.
In fact, in Eph 159 the sealing gives the faithful assurance of their
spiritual preservation to the day of redemption, and this thought is allied to
Ixxxvi THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN
717 τὸ ἀρνίον... ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς. 1 Pet 27, ποιμένα. . . τ. ψυχῶν ὑμῶν.
9” οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (20°). Luke 184,
118 προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας) Luke 4” ἐκλείσθη ὁ οὐρανὸς ἔτη τρία
διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. καὶ μῆνας ἕξ. Jas 5}7 οὐκ ἔβρεξεν
116 κλεῖσαι τ. οὐρανόν, ἵνα μὴ ὑετὸς ἐπὶ τ. γῆς ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ μῆνας
βρέχῃ τ. ἡμέρας τ. προφητείας αὐτῶν. ἕξ,
1115 ἡ βασιλεία τ. κόσμου. Matt 48 τ. βασιλείας τ. κόσμου.
129 ὁ Σατανᾶς. . . ἐβλήθη εἰς τ. γῆν. Luke 10'8 ἐθεώρουν τ. Σατανᾶν ὡς
ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τ. οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα.
138 τ. ἀρνίου τ. ἐσξφαγμένου ἀπὸ κατα- τ Pet 1153 ἀμνοῦ. . . προεγνωσ-
βολῆς κόσμου. μένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.
131} θηρίον (ἴ.6. ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, 1618 Matt γ1 τ, ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες
19%) . . . εἶχεν κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασι
ἀρνίῳ καὶ ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων. προβάτων ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσιν λύκοι
ἅρπαγες.
143 οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ἂν Luke οὔ ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅπου ἂν
ὑπάγει. ἀπέρχῃ. Cf. Mk 215 τοῦ;
147 τ. ποιήσαντι τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. γῆν Acts 453 14 ὁ ποιήσας (ὃς ἐποίησεν,
καὶ τ. θάλασσαν. 1415) τ. οὐρανὸν καὶ τ. γῆν καὶ τ.
θάλασσαν.
1413 οἱ ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες. I Thess 46 οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ.
1713 κύριος κυρίων ἐστὶν καὶ βασιλεῦς 1 Tim 6” ὁ βασιλεῦς τ. βασιλευόντων
βασιλέων.3 καὶ κύριος τ. κυριευόντων.
17:3 κλητοὶ καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί. Matt 20% 2214 Ὁπολλοῖ γάρ εἰσιν
κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.
1619 (148 175 εἰς.) Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη. 1 Pet 518 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι (=Rome as in
Apoc. ).
184 ἐξέλθατε ἐξ αὐτῆς. . . ἵνα μὴ συν. 2 Cor 67 ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν.
κοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις. Eph 51} μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε τ. ἔργοις
; snc pe σκότους,
1874 αἷμα προφητῶν καὶ ἁγίων εὑρέθη Luke 11° ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ τ. αἷμα πάντων
καὶ πάντων τ. ἐσφαγμένων ἐπὶ τ. τ. προφητῶν τὸ ἐκκεχυμένον ἀπὸ
γῆς. καταβολῆς κόσμου.
19’ χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν. ὃ Matt 513 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε.
19° μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τ. δεῖπνον τ. γάμου Luke 146 ἐποίει δεῖπνον μέγα... καὶ
. κεκλημένοι. ἀπέστεϊλεν. .. τοῖς κεκλημένοις.
2144: 5b τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν᾽ ἰδοὺ καινὰ 2 Cor 5} τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ
ποιῶ πάντα. γέγονεν καινά.
2119 ἀπήνεγκέν με ἐν πνεύματι ἐπὶ ὄρος Matt 4° παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν. . . εἰς
μέγα καὶ ὑψηλόν, καὶ ἔδειξέν με. ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν, καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ.
Some form of this grace is found at
2251 ἡ χάρις τ. κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ μετὰ the close of the Pauline Epp. and
πάντων τὸ ἁγίων. Hebrews, and in them only in the
N.T. Cf. Eph 65: ἡ χάρις μετὰ
πάντων τ. ἀγαπώντων τ. κύριον
ἡμῶν᾽1. X., Col 418 ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.
that of our author, according to whom the /az¢hful 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’ is closer verbally to Acts 4*4 than to any
of the O.T. passages.
2 See list of passages influenced by Pseudepigrapha.
3 The thought in both passages is not unrelated. The words in Matt. come
in at the close of the Beatitudes which promise that the righteous shall inherit
the earth. 19” in our author represents in vision the fulfilment of this promise.
UNITY OF THOUGHT lxxxvii
VIII.
UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.
§ 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 ro—1 118 1.41511- 14. 18-20, breaks with the chronologi-
cal order and in 7%1!7 141-1. 14. 18-20 adopts the logical, that he
may show the blessed future in store for those that were faithful
in the tribulations which are recounted in the text immediately
preceding these sections. ‘The dramatic movement of the book
is independent of all these sections. But the superiority of the
Apocalypse to other apocalypses in this respect is not merely
relative but absolute, as a short study of the Plan of the
Apocalypse (see p. xxiii sqq.) will abundantly prove.
Smaller unities! maintained and developed within the
Apocalypse might be brought forward, such as: (a) the Seven
Beatitudes, 13 16! (which is to be restored after 480) 1418
19% 2214 208 227. (6) The judgment demanded by the souls
under the altar is dealt with in various stages of fulfilment in 88:2
918 1418 167 (which with 165° is restored in this edition to its
original context after 19). (2) The promises of the re-evangeliza-
tion of the heathen world in 11) 1467 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 1}. 1011 41 τοῦ 8, In 10! it is
possible that λέγουσιν is an oversight for λέγει, which 025 Tyc Pr gig vgdfv s
arm bo eth attest. But the adoption of sources (111-18 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 55 71*-1’, the
Cherubim in 61" 5: δι 1; This fact prepares us for the intervention of one of the
Seven Angels of the Bowls in 17} 215" 10 221, 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
Seex 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
(219-222 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 101? 544. one of the holy watchers, 816 544. Gabriel, and possibly in 10! "44.
Many angels act in this capacity in 1 Enoch 21-36: two angels in 2 Enoch.
Ixxxviil THE REVELATION OF. ST. JOHN
219-227. 1415.17 when restored to their right 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 11!!8 12. 17. 183; see p. lxii 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.
(a2) Chaps. 1-3 and 204-22.
1} δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ yevéo-
θαι ἐν τάχει.
18 μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ. ..
τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας. . .
τηροῦντες.
117 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος.
27 τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει.
211} τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου.
228 τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν.
34 ἔρχομαι ταχύ.
212 τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, ἡἣ κατα-
βαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ μου.
(ὁ) Chaps. 1-3 and 4-- 203.
1 δεῖξαι... ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.
16 ἐποίησαν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ
εᾧ.
119 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι.
113 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου.
118 περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς
ζώνην χρυσᾶν.
114 οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρός.
2’ τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει.
216 πολεμήσω μετ᾽ αὐτῶν.
271 μετανοῆσαι ἐκ.
2% ἐν θανάτῳ (= “' by pestilence ”).
277 ποιμανεῖ (= ‘* shall break ”’).
31 ὁ ἅγιος ὁ ἀληθινός, where ἀληθινός
(= ‘‘ faithful ’’).
3° ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον
τῶν ποδῶν σου.
410 τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης:
310 τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (in ἃ
technical sense).
22° δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ
γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει.
22 μακάριος ὁ τηρῶν τοὺς λόγους
τῆς προφητείας.
2218 ἐγὼ. . . ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος.
22" τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νυμφὴ λέγουσιν.
218 ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος (cf. 20°).
2216 ὁ ἀστὴρ. . . ὁ πρωϊνός.
2212 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ.
21? ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ καινὴν κατα-
βαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ.
4! δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.
5° ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν
βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς.
4" ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι.
1413 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου.
15° περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στήθη ζώνας
χρυσᾶς.
19)? οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλόξ πυρός.
148 λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα.
134 πολεμῆσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ: cf. 1714,
οἷν. 21 761,
68 ὁ θάνατος.
10 {12}
5.
151 ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν
σου.
10}».1634.
61 813 13°,
UNITY CONSISTENT WITH USE OF SOURCES | lxxxix
The above examples could be increased indefinitely. But
there is still weightier evidence. The recurrence of idioms—in
many cases idioms unique and peculiar to our author’s style—
throughout the Apocalypse, from the earliest chapters to the
last, presents still stronger proofs of the unity of authorship.
Since these are recorded in the introduction to each chapter and
summarized in the Grammar, I shall not dwell further on them
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 ts not the case. Our author has, as we have seen elsewhere,
used sources.—These sources, together with earlier visions of his
own, he has re-edited and brought in the main into harmony with
their new contexts. But the work of editing has not been
thorough. Certain incongruities survive in the incorporated
sections, which our author would no doubt have removed if he
had lived to revise his work. ‘Traces 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 112. 18 combined with 176°, In 112 seven candlesticks and only seven
are visible, and in 115 seven stars and only seven stars. Now, since from
1° we learn that the seven candlesticks are the Seven Churches—7.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 178
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 418 our author re-edits a vision of his own, 42-3: 5-8acde,
See vol. i. 104-106 and the commentary zz loc. In the course
of incorporation certain infelicities have been incurred. It is
said of the Seer in 435 ἐγενόμην ἐν mvevpari—a phrase which
denotes the state of trance as in 1% 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 7! our author makes use of traditional material, but the
language is his own. See vol. i. rg1-199. 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 1118 our author has made use of two sources (111? 11-18),
both written before 70 A.D., in which, if the text is taken literally,
the historic Jerusalem is supposed to be standing (117-8), and the
Temple to be inviolable (111). These references have been taken
literally by many scholars as determining the date of the whole
Apocalypse, especially by those who accept its absolute unity and
its composition by one author. But to construe such statements
literally implies a complete misconception of our author’s
attitude to the earthly Jerusalem. Our author could not possibly
have regarded the earthly Jerusalem as τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν (117).
Such a definition he reserves for the New Jerusalem, the eternal
abode of the saints (213), 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 114" She. θὰ
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 the spiritual security of the Christian community despite
the attacks of Satan and the Antichrist. But such spiritual
security does not exclude martyrdom, as 11°18 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}. 117. 29 36 18. 22 (see vol. i. p. 45) of αἱ ἐκκλησίαι.
The larger thought of all the Churches seems to be here before him.
DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE xcl
vol. i. 269-270. 1118 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 1212
οὐρανοί instead of οὐρανέ: in 1215 ἀπὸ προσώπου ΞΞ “because of.”
Contrast 610 2011, Hence I here withdraw the thesis maintained
in vol. i. 300 sqq. § 3, that our author translated this source
himself. See also p. clvili ἢ.
1215-15, though full of significance in their original context and
at their original date, do not admit of interpretation from the
standpoint and date of our author’s work (see vol. i. 330).
In 17-18 our author has edited two sources already existing
in a Greek form (see p. Ixiii sq., vol. 11. 56-58, 88 sqq.). But
traces of the original date of their composition survive in 1710-1! and
184. See vol. il. 59 sq., 93. Another trace of 18 being a source
survives in 182, where it is stated that Rome has become κατοικη-
τήριον δαιμονίων καὶ φυλακὴ . . . πάντος ὀρνέου ἀκαθάρτου, whereas
our author himself in τ98 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 ro—1118
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
xcli 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, z.¢., 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. 2072: 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.... μετὰ δὲ τὴν τελευτὴν
Τραϊανοῦ ἐπάνεισιν ἀπὸ τῆς νήσου... εἰσὶ δὲ of 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 γὰρ 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.). 5% ee
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 (/Zaez. 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. 180-19<)). In his account of the
persecution of Christians by Domitian, Eusebius (111. 18. 3)
quotes the following words from Irevaeus: εἰ δὲ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν
ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτὸ, du ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ
καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ «'ρὸ 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, /xzrod. p. c.
DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE XClli
Clement of Alexandria. In his Quzs Dives, 42, we find: rod
τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν
"Edecov.
Origen (185-253). 725. Mz. xvi. 6 (Lommatzsch, iv. p. 18),
6 δὲ Ῥωμαίων βασιλεύς, ὡς ἡ παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε τὸν
Ἰωάννην 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 (crc. 270), Eusebius, and Jerome are quite
explicit. Victorinus in his Zw Apoc. 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 1729 * Unus exstat sub quo scripta est Apocalypsis, Domitianus
scilicet.” Eusebius, 4. Z. iii. 18. 1: Ἔν τούτῳ κατέχει λόγος τὸν
ἀπόστολον ἅμα Kal εὐαγγελιστὴν ᾿Ιωάννην ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα,
τῆς εἰς τὸν θεῖον λόγον ἕνεκεν μαρτυρίας, Πάτμον οἰκεῖν καταδικασ-
θῆναι τὴν νῆσον. iil. 20.9: Τότε δὴ οὖν καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον ᾿Ιωάννην
ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον φυγῆς τὴν ἐπὶ ᾿Εφέσου διατριβὴν ἀπειληφέναι
ὁ τῶν Tap ἡμῖν ἀρχαίων παραδίδωσι λόγος. iil. 23. 1: ᾿Απόστολος
ὁμοῦ καὶ εὐαγγελιστὴς ᾿Ιωάννης τὰς αὐτόθι διεῖπεν ἐκκλησίας, ἀπὸ
τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον μετὰ τὴν Δομετιανοῦ τελευτὴν ἐπανελθὼν φυγῆς.
Jerome (De virts 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. Jnternal 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*P 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. ΝΥ, 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 1711! (see vol. ii. 59-60,
ΧΟΙ͂Υ 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
(2.6., in 1118 12 (Ὁ). 131% 1°) 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-lxxxvi.
There it is shown that our author most probably used Matthew
and Luke. If this is so, it makes the Vespasianic date
impossible, unless these Gospels were written before 70 or 75 A.D.
(ὁ) The present form of the Seven Letters, although in their
original form of Vespasianic date, point to a Domitianic.—The
Church of Smyrna did not exist in 60-64 A.D.—at a time when
St. Paul was boasting of the Philippians in all the Churches. Cf.
Polycarp (Ad 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 31°, of the universal martyrdom that is taught
or implied in the rest of the book. Nor again is there a single
clear reference to the imperial cult of the Caesars, unless possibly
in 3% (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 tt appears in J” 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 inthe J*?
before the closing years of Domitian’s reign. In the reign of
Vespasian the Christians, as Moffatt (/z¢vod.° 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 romtischen Staat, 1905,
66 f.) that anything occurred either under him or Titus to call
forth language so intense as that of the Apocalypse.” Moreover,
Vespasian did not take his claims to divinity seriously. But
Domitian insisted on the public recognition of these claims, and
in the last year of his reign he began to persecute the Church in
the capital of the Empire. Thus in Rome he had his own cousin
Flavius Clemens executed, and his niece Flavia Domitilla
and others banished for their faith to the island of Pontia.
Eusebius (#7.£. 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. J@P 23-18 38 1211 204) was
tantamount to a refusal to accede to the Emperor’s claims to
divinity, and thereby entailed the penalty of death (13:5). 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 (11).
(4) The Nero-redivivus myth appears implicitly and explicitly
in several forms in our text, the latest of which cannot be earlier
than the age of Domitian.
The Jewish source lying behind 17117 was probably written:
1 On the persecution under Domitian, see Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. τ. i.
104-115.
XCVi 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 11”), but with which we are not here’con-
cerned, is dealt with in vol. 11. 83. But the last phase of this
expectation attested in our text is givenin1z3and17. Atthisstage
there isa fusion of the Nero myth with those of the 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. 11. 84—87.}
I do not see how it is possible to assign 13 and 17 7m 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 1710}, 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 dut 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, 171°! must be regarded
as a survival from sources belonging to the time of Vespasian
and Titus. In its present context, therefore, 17!°11 does not
admit of precise interpretation. For Domitian cannot be iden-
tified with Nero redivivus. This brings us to the first offence.
Domitian cannot be identified with Nero redivivus. 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. 11. 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 πάρεσται. SO
again in 171}, where it is further added that he ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν.
See also 11%. Another description is given in 13° καὶ μίαν ἐκ τῶν
κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην εἰς θάνατον, καὶ ἣ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου
αὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη. Cf. 13!4. Now I have shown in vol. 11. 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 ὃ ἦν would require. (y) It cannot be said of
him that he is ἐκ τῶν érrd. (δ) It is impossible to connect μίαν
ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν ws 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 ἀβύσσους (Lf) There is
no ground for making Domitian the leader of the Parthian hosts
against Rome, as Nero redivivus is represented in 171215. 17. 16,
and fighting against the Lamb, 1715, (y) Nor can we conceive
Domitian in 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.
§ 1. Zhere are most probable but no absolutely certain traces
of J” in the Apostolic Fathers—In the Shepherd of Hermas,
Vis. il. 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
74 τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης, and 3! τῆς ὥρας. .. τῆς μελλού-
1 If it were possible to ascribe the Apocalypse to the reign οἵ Vespasian
the objections given in 8, y, 6 above would be fatal to the identification of
Domitian with Nero redivivus. § and ἡ would also stand in the way.
2 The fact that Hermas used the same imagery as J®P may be rightly used
as evidence that he knew it. Thus the Church, /’7s. ii. 4, is represented by
a woman (cf, J@P 12'844-) ; 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. 1, 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 313, 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, J@? 6" etc., 210 34; Hermas, Szm, viii. 2. 1, 3.
ὅ
XCVill THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
ons ἔρχεσθαι, ES 3; πνεῦμα eae ἀπήνεγκέν με διὰ ἀνοδίας, is
reminiscent of τὴ: ἀπήνεγκέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι. Barn.
ΧΧΙ. 3, ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὃ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ, seems to suggest
some dependence on Rev 221! 12 ὃ καιρὸς yap ἐγγύς ἐστιν. ..
ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχὺ καὶ ὃ μισθός pov per ἐμοῦ. (See, however,
Is 4019,))Ί 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 17) ὄψεται αὐτὸν
πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν. . . ἐνδεδυμένον
ποδήρη. (See, however, V.7Z. in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 16.)
But as for the passages in Ignatius, dd Pfil. vi. 1 (see vol. i.
92) has nothing to do with Rev 412, nor Ad Eph. xv. 3, ἵνα
ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοί, καὶ αὐτὸς ἦ ἐν ἡμῖν θεός, with Rev 213: nor
does Barn. vi. 13, λέγει δὲ Κύριος Ἰδοὺ ποιῶ τὰ ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ
πρῶτα, reflect Rev 21° ᾿Ιδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα (see vol. ii. 203):
for the sense is absolutely different. Nor should we connect
Clem. Rom. Ad Cor. xxxiv. 3 (see p. Ixxvii, footnote) with Rev
4915.
§ 2. Ln 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 τοῦ 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 (ZZ. iii. 39). The statement, however, in 111. 39. 12
which he attributes to Papias, seems to be an echo of J*? (χιλιάδα
τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσθαι μετὰ τὴν 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 καὶ 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: Dad.
Ixxxi. 15, παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωάννης, εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων
τοῦ 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 ΧΟΙΧ
writings in the N.T., but the evidence for his views has to be
drawn from the great work which he wrote as bishop of Lyons:
see below. Apollonius, a writer against the Montanists in
Phrygia (circ. 210 a.D.), used J*P of John as an authority in his
controversy (Eus. v. 18. 14).
In Western Syria.—Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in the
latter half of the 2nd century, Cites hy in a treatise against
Hermogenes (Eus. iv. 24), ἐν ᾧ ἐκ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου
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, Against all
Heresies. In this work he uses such expressions as Joannes in
Apocalypsi, iv. 14. 2, 17. 6, 18. 6, 21. 3, v. 28. 2, 34. 2.
Ioannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi, i 1V, 20, τ, ν, 26. x}
“in Apocalypsi videt Ioannes, v. 35. 2; per Ioannis Apocalypsin,
i. 26. 3. See Zahn, Gesch. V.T7. Kanons, 1. 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.
v. I. 10, 45 (where τῇ παρθένῳ μητρίΞτετῃ8 Chastan Church), 55,
58) in which reference is made to Apoc. 14* 121 19° 221), the last
being introduced by the N.T. formula of Canonical Scripture—
ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.
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 (Jz Joann. tom. v. 3; Lommatzsch,
1. 165; Eus. vi. 25. 9). The upholders of Millenarianism in
Egypt, against whom Dionysius wrote, appealed to the Apocalypse
(Eus. vii. 24).
In Rome.—On the very probable use of our author by Hermas
we have adverted above. Of this work the Muratorian Canon
writes: ‘Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe.
Roma Hermas conscripsit.” But whether Hermas used our
author or not, this Canon implies that J*? 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 fl.), 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 Kupiov
(36). See Zahn, i. 203 (note).
8 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 2nd century. Tertullian cites quotations from
eighteen out of its twenty-two chapters. He knows of only
one John, the Apostle, and he is unacquainted with any doubts of
its canonicity save on the part of Marcion. He names it the in-
strumentum Joannis (De Resurrectione, 38) and the instrumentum
apostolicum (Pud.12). See Zahn, i. 111, 203 sq. The Acts of
Perpetua and Felicitas show many traces of dependence on our
author, as ὃ 4, ‘‘circumstantes candidatos milia multa”: § 12, “‘intro-
euntes vestierunt stolas candidas . . . et audivimus vocem unitam
dicentium Agios agios agios sine cessatione . . . et vidimus in
medio loco sedentem quasi hominem canum .. . et in dextra et
in sinistra seniores viginti quattuor.” See Zahn, i. 203 sq.
Thus throughout the Christian Church during the 2nd cent.
there is hardly any other book of the N.T. so well attested and .
received as J*?.
§ 3. There were, however, two distinct protests against tts
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 (ili. 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 (7.67. li. 3)! 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
ΤῊ 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. 2.7... iii. 28. 1-2).
There is no conclusive evidence that Caius and his school
rejected the Gospel.
1 φάσκουσι τοίνυν οἱ "Αλογοι. ταύτην γὰρ αὐτοῖς τίθημι Thy ἐπωνυμίαν.
CIRCULATION AND RECEPTION οἱ
The writing of Caius was answered by Hippolytus1 (215 a.p.)
in a work entitled Κεφάλαια κατὰ Ταίου καὶ ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ τ.
ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿ἸἸωάνου, 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 ᾿Ἔπαγγελιῶν) are preserved in Eusebius (vii.
24-25). This book was written as a refutation of a work by
Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, entitled “EXeyxos ᾿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. vii. 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 1 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 Asia 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. 111. 39. 6). He is doubtful
(ili. 24. 18, 25. 4) whether to reckon it among the accepted
(ὁμολογούμενα) 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 ἐν δευτέρῳ. καὶ ὅσα μὲν ἐν ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ἀναγιν-
ώσκεται, 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 (εἴγε. 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.
cil THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
(Zahn, li. 177 sqq., 197 sqq.), nor in the list of Gregory of
Nazianzus (οὖ. 389). Amphilochius of Iconium (οὖ. 394)
states that J*? is rejected by most authorities (οἱ πλείους δέ ye |
νόθον λέγουσιν). 7
The school of Antioch did not look with favour on J’.
Chrysostom (οὖ. 407) represented this school in Consiantinople.
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, J” was
either tgnored 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—cv, and Bousset’s Ofendarung, 26-28. But it took
centuries for J*” to establish itselfin 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 (οὖ. 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).
§ 7. J” was always accepted as canonical in the West, and
this same attitude towards tt was gradually adopted by the Eastern
Churches.—In the Church of the West, notwithstanding the
attacks of Gaius and the rejection of its apostolic authorship by
Dionysius, writers were unanimous after the elaborate defence by
Hippolytus of the canonicity of J*. Only Jerome takes up a
doubtful attitude towards it; for, while in 222. ad Dardanum,
129, he appears inclined to accept it, elsewhere (Jz 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.
In Alexandria, Athanasius (293-373) recognized its Johannine
authorship and canonicity, and in due course the Greek com-
mentaries of Oecumenius, Andreas, and Arethas.
Thus throughout the world the full canonicity of the
Apocalypse was accepted in the 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, Offenbarung, 19-34; or the present writer’s Studies in
the Apocalypse, 1-78.
XI.
OpjEcT OF THE SEER AND HIS METHODS—VISION
AND REFLECTION.
8 1. Zhe 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 »n ceaselessly and inexorably till, as in
Civ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
1 Cor 15%4-?’, 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; (4) 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! 45 71; in 1 Enoch 83-90, 2 Enoch 1? etc.; Test.
Naph. δ᾽. 6! 7'; 4 Ezra 11+ 12° 13+ 15. Such -dreams are
assigned to a divine source and are regarded as conveying
revelations of God. Now such dreams are in many of these
passages called visions: cf. Dan 4° 71 81844 ; τ Enoch 83—go, where
the two dreams 85! are called two visions in 837; Test. Levi,
where the vision of 8! is called a dream in 8:8. Test. Naph.,
where what is called dreams in 7! is called visions in 5!; 4 Ezra,
where what is called dreams in 11! 13! is called visions in
1210 732125 7417, 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.
(δα Sam 28% %, Deut 1.21.5, Jer 23355? 27° 208, Joel 2%. But it
is remarkable that dreams fall into the background in the rst
cent. A.D. in Christian literature.| Thus the Hebrew Test.
Naph. (date uncertain) 2! 4! 715 speaks only of visions, and in
3/8 treats a dream as no true source of divine knowledge. See
my edition of the Zest. ΧΙ 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
disbelief the exception. Cf. Berakhoth 55-58, Sanh. 30%, Ber 284, Hor 13°.
Sirach, on the other hand, declares that dreams are vanity, 31 (34)'®. See
Jewish Encyc. iv. 654 sqq.
DREAMS AND VISIONS ὃν
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.
(6) Dreams combined with a translation of the spirit of the
Seer.—Test. Levi 259 51-7. This combination reappears in
Hermas, Mis. i. 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 81 18,
(B) Visions tn a trance-—Cf. Ezek 11, Test. Jos 191, 2 Bar
221 551-8 761, Acts 1019, Apoc 110844 (ἐγενόμην ἐν
πνεύματι) and passim where καὶ εἶδον is used. Yet
the latter may be otherwise explained, as we shall see.
(y) Visions tn which the spirit is translated.—Ezek 3}! 4 8°,
Dan 8!4; 1 Enoch 71* 5, 2 Enoch 3', 2. Bar 6°42,
Asc. Is 6-11, Apoc. 4 17% 21%, St. Paul (2 Cor
12°) does not know whether in his vision he has
experienced an actual translation of the spirit
or not.!
(δ) Waking visions——Daniel seems to experience a trance
when awake in 10°, 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,
2 y 5% 4d. 5b. 1-4abe 2 23-5,
§ 3. Value of such psychical experiences depends not on their being
actual experiences, but on thetr source, their moral environment, and
their influence on character.°—Of the reality of such psychical
experiences no modern psychologist entertains a doubt. The
value, however, of such experiences is not determined by their
reality, but by facts of a wholly different nature. Real psychical
experiences were not confined to Israel. They were familiar
at the oracular shrines of the ethnic religions. The most
‘For similar psychical experiences in heathenism, cf. Reitzenstein,
Poimandres, 5, 9 sq. etc. ; Dieterich, Zine Mithras-Liturgie.
2 See on the whole question of this chapter, Joyce, Zhe Inspiration of
Prophecy, 1910; Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des hetligen Geistes, 1899; Weinel,
Die Wirkungen des Geistes τ΄ αἱ 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 the prophet, and moral and
religious claims received a progressive and ever deepening
response. Now prophet and seer alike had dreams, visions,
and trances, and these psychical experiences in Israel were
distinguished from those of the heathen seers not by their
greater reality, for they were in the main equally vea/ in both
cases, but by quite a different standard, i.e. dy the source from
which they sprang, the environment in which they were produced, and
the influence they exercised on the will and character. In all these
respects prophecy and apocalyptic were duly authenticated in the
O.T. as they are in the N.T.
§ 4. Literal descriptions of such experiences hardly ever pos-
sible. The language of the seer 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 11154 15844, 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 generally unequal to the task of apprehending
the full meaning of the heavenly vision, and his powers of expression
were frequently unable to set forth the things he had apprehended.
In the attempt to describe to his readers what was wholly
beyond the range of their knowledge and experience, the seer
had thus constant recourse to the use of symbols. Hence in his
literary presentment of what he has seen and heard in the
moments of transcendent rapture, the images he uses are
symbolic and not literal or pictorial. In fact, symbolism in
regard to such subjects is the only language that seer and
layman alike can employ. The appeal of such symbolism is
made to the religious imagination. In this way it best discloses
the permanent truth of which it is the vehicle and vesture.
§ 5. Highest form of spiritual experience.—There is a higher
form of spiritual experience than either that of the prophetic
audition or the prophetic vision. In this higher experience the
divine insight is won in a state of intense spiritual exaltation, in
which the self loses immediate self-consciousness without
becoming unconscious, and the best faculties of the mind are
quickened to their highest power. Therein the soul comes into
direct touchwith 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.
8 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 perhaps in 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 ;
(4) in his creation of allegories ; (ὦ) 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
evill 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 Ὁ 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.
(ὁ) 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 Pilerim’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-Ixxiv, 4 Ezra 11-12, are undoubtedly freely
invented allegories.
The work of the seer is not affected injuriously by his
adoption of this literary form in order to publish his message to
the world. The question of importance is not the form in which
it 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, 748, and the
Heavenly Jerusalem, 219-222 1415-17, are constructed and re-
written largely out of pre-existing material, but their meaning is
in the main transformed. In not a few cases the sources have
not been wholly adapted to the contexts into which they have
been introduced by the Seer. See p. Ixii sqq.
DOCTRINE OF GOD cix
(4) 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
J*® 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*49, τ Cor 545, 1 Tim 12°, Such words are not merely
men’s words; cf. τάδε λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα, Acts 211, as Agabus
declares, also 7°6. In τ Tim 4! the words τὸ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει
are equivalent to “ἃ 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.
Xf.
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 fresh
and in some respects unique.
§ 1. The doctrine of God.—lIf 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 16°: cf. 48 610). He
is the True One, 610 (ἀληθινός = ἀληθής in our author), who keepeth
covenant; with this truthfulness is associated His righteousness in
judgment, 15° 167 19!-%. From these spring His wrath against
sin, 617 1118 τοῦδ, and His avenging of all the wrongs done on
the earth, 610 τοῦ. He is the Judge of all the dead, 2011-15,
(4) 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, τὸ 227 3°21 141, 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 6 ἦν καὶ 6 dv καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, τ΄ 48; ὃ ὧν Kal ὃ ἦν,
1117 165 (see vol. i. 10 54.) ; ὃ ζῶν εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων, 49 108 157.
Next, He is omnipotent. Our author’s favourite expression for
this idea is κύριος (> 1614 19!) ὁ θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ, 48 1117 153
167-14 796 15 2122; He is also designated ὃ δεσπότης, 610. ὃ κύριος
(+ ἡμῶν, 1115), 1115 141 3154; κύριος ὃ θεός, 225; ὁ κύριος Kal 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 pari 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, 41} 518 712 1115,
(4) He is the Creator, 411 147. Yet see ὃ 2 (c) on the cre-
ative activity of Christ.
(6) He is the Judge of all the dead, 201-1,
§ 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,” 19 1217 14)? etc., occasionally by
the originally official name “ Christ,” 11 121° 20% 6, and by the
combination of the two, 11 25 2271, 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!* >, 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, 21”, which Jesus zs originally
and uniquely (1° 27” 3521 341). He has twelve apostles, 2114;
His crucifixion in Jerusalem is referred to, 118; His resurrection,
15 18. and ascension, 32! 12°,
(4) 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,” 115 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 τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ δου, 118. He
is the Supreme Head of the Church, the Centre of all its life
(ἐν μέσῳ τῶν λυχνιῶν, 118 21) and the Master of its destinies (ἔχων
ἐν TH 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, 27 1. 17. 26-28 35.12 21; 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 1915; for He is “King of kings and Lord of lords,”
17/4 1916 And to Him is committed the Messianic judgment,
εἴ 1414. 18-20 yoll-21 207-10 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 35.21 y4l, He is “the Word of God,” 1918, “the Holy,
the True,” 3’, even as God is, 62°; ‘‘the First and the Last,” 117
28 2218> ; “the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,”
2218—titles that are used by God of Himself in 21° as denoting
the source and goal of all things. In the light of these words we
can rightly interpret 3!4 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Geot. This does
cxii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
not mean the first κτίσις of God (as in Prov 8??), 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,” 14 48. He sits with God on His
throne, 37! 7!” 125, **the throne of God and the Lamb, 22" 8.
The divine worship offered to Christ in 512 is described in the
same terms as that offered to God in 419, and the same hymn of
praise is sung in honour of both Christ, 518, and God, 519,1 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, 278, 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 4109: as Yahweh’s garments in Is 631 2, His are
sprinkled with blood, 1918; and as Yahweh in Deut 1o!’, He also
is Lord of lords, 17/4. 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 6 ἦν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος, τό 48 (1117 165).
Yet see 117 28 2243 above. Next, the final Judgment belongs to
the Father alone, 2ο "18, Thirdly, though He is the active prin-
ciple in creation, 414, it is the Father who is the Creator, 411 147.?
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, 22%.
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,” 59.
Again in 26-8 Christ promises to make those that conquer rulers over the
heathen—even as He too had received this power from His Father, and in 374
DOCTRINE OF CHRIST exlii
(4) 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—dédpviov .. . as ἐσφαγμένον, 5° 12
121! 138 and elsewhere. The second idea—derived from
t Enoch and Test. XII Patr.—is that of a lamb who is a leader
—either a spiritual leader, as in 71’ 141 4, cf. 1 Enoch 89* where
Samuel is so symbolized, or a military leader, 5°, ze, 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—ro ἀρνίον νικήσει
αὐτούς (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.
1 See Lxposttor, 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, 89 (161 B.c.), Samuel as a
leader is called a lamb, and likewise David and Solomon, 8945: 4°, before they
were anointed kings. All the faithful in the early Maccabean period are also
called lambs, 90% ὅ, 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 198 (109-107 B.c.), where the words, προῆλθεν ἀμνός, καὶ...
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 6115, Levi 8.1 18, Jud 24!8, Jos τοῦ ἢ), 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 .he Messiah: see vol. i. 358.
3. See Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im
ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend, 1888.
cxIV THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
explained, as already foretold under the influence of such a
passage as Is 53” “ 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 89283 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 (15
TO ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ TOV ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν καὶ
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, 135—the Lamb was slain from its foundation. And he
who would follow Christ must conquer in like fashion (37! ὃ 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° 71’, and the throne of God is His throne,
221-3, everything that is affirmed of the Son is to be affirmed of
the Father. The Son is a revelation of the Father on the stage
of the world’s history. Hence, as the Father is supreme in
power, He is supreme in love going forth in sacrifice. Thus the
principle of self-sacrificing love belongs to the essence of the
Godhead. God’s almightiness is not only a moral force, as we
have already seen (see ὃ 1 (c) ad fin.), but a redemptive one,
which can only realize itself in moral and spiritual victory.
Thus divine omnipotence and divine love and self-sacrifice are
indissolubly linked together for the world’s redemption—from
eternity and for evermore.
§ 3. 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. 1. 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. 29
3% 18.22; for in all the seven Epistles the Speaker is Christ.
DOCTRINE OF WORKS Cxv
The same is true in 1413 2217, See vol. ii. 179; vol. i. Introd.
xi. § 6 (a).
§ 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, 1714, 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 13! and can also be so in
218 7412,
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 2! we have a very instructive definition,
οἷδά σου τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν Kal 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
1 In 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, 25, to faithfulness in persecution, 2138 131,
even when this ends in death, 210 1413, In 218 1412 πίστις is
followed by an objective genitive, in 219 13!9 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, 20*®. 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, 2124 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,
212427, 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
‘yanish 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,” 201%, 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. 193-1098.
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 ἴω ς 21
Millennial Reign enter the city and eat of the tree of life, 2235.
All the remaining righteous coming forth from the “treasuries 7!
and the wicked from Hades? receive their final award.
ΧΠΙ.
A SHortT GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE.
CONTENTS.
§ I. Noun, adjective, and verb forms, p.cxvui. ὃ 2. The article,
p. cxix. § 3. Pronouns, p. cxxi. οι τῆ aks oe ἃ ς.
Prepositions, p. cxxvil. §6. Conjunctions and other particles,
p. cxxxiv. § 7. Case, p. cxxxvili ὃ 8. Number, p. cxli 8.9.
Gender, p. cxli. § το. PThe Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse,
cxlii.
ε 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. (ἡ Hebrew construc-
tions impossible and unintelligible in Greek, p. cxlvi.
(4. ε. f) Further Hebraisms. (g) Secondary meanings
of Hebrew words attributed to Greek words where
these words agree in their primary meaning, p. cxlvil.
(4. ἢ Other Hebrew idioms literally reproduced,
Ρ. cxlviil.
ii. Other commonplace Hebraisms, p. cxlviii. i. 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.
δ τι. Unique expressions, p. cli. ὃ 12. Solecisms due to slips
on the part of our author, p. clii. ὃ 13. Primitive corruptions
due to accidental or deliberate changes, p. cliv. § 14. Con-
structions in the interpolations conflicting with our author's use,
Ρ. εἶν. § 15. Order of words, p. εἶν. ὃ τό. Combimation 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 fis. On the “‘ Abyss” see vol. i. 239-242.
cxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
§ 1. Moun, Adjective, and Verb forms.
(i.) Vouns.—Words ending in -ρᾶ form their gen. and dat. in
-ρης, py, aS paxaipys, 13/41 μαχαίρῃ, 131°), 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 7 forms are certainly original
in only 2. -pys forms become practically universal under the
Early Roman Empire.
(ii.) Adjectives.—xpvoav, ANC (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 2!. On the other hand,
βαθέα (βάθη, 8 025), 274, is original.
(iii.) Verbs.—(a) Irregular or unusual forms.—Present. δύνῃ,
22 (only once so in LXX) for δύνασαι, presupposes δύνομαι (see
Thackeray, Gr. 218). It is found in the poets and in prose
writers from Polybius onward. ἀφεῖς, 27°, and ἀφίουσιν, 119,
presuppose ἀφίω (which is found in Eccles 218) and not ἀφίημι.
Schmiedel suggests a present ἀφέω (Thackeray, 251). διδῶ, 49,
and ἀποδιδοῦν, 222, presuppose διδόω, but διδόασιν, 17}, δίδωμι.
In like manner ἀπολλύων, 91! (so also Jer. 23! BA, Sir 2072),
presupposes ἀπολλύω as δεικνύοντος does δεικνύω (cf. Ex 258;
Thackeray, 245). All these instances but the first show the
transition from forms in -μὲ to -w forms.
(6) Imperfect and Aorists with a instead of ε forms, or ending
in -α or -αν.----εἶχαν, 9° 9 (NA). ἀπῆλθα," 10° (A: -θον, SC 025. 046).
ἀπῆλθαν, 211 (AN: -θον, 046. -θεν, 025): ἀπῆλθαν, 214 (A: -θεν, 8 046).
ἀφῆκας, 24 (AN°* 025. 046: -Kes, N*C). εἶδα, 17% (AN (ia): εἶδον,
025): (ε)ἶδα, τη8 (Α : εἶδον, 8 025). πέσατε, 616 (A025): ἐξέλθατε,
184 (Ax). See Thackeray, Gr. 211-212.
(c) Perfects with termination -es (2nd sing.) for -as, κεκοπίακες .----
(a) 23 (AC); πέπτωκες, 2° (δὲ. -κας, AC 046). It is rare in the LXX
(Thackeray, Gy. 215) and in the papyri. See Robertson, Gv.
337. 1 have generally with A adopted the -as form. (8)
Perfects ending in -av } πέπτωκαν 7, 18° (AC. πεπτώκασιν, & 046:
πέπωκαν O25: πεπώκασιν, ILO, 17 ae Rd. πεπότικεν) : εἴρηκαν, 19%
(Ανὲ 025): [γέγοναν 21° AN®: γέγονα, τὲ 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.
1Jt is noteworthy that in 131° & 025. 046 twice change μαχαίρῃ into
paxatpa against AC, and that 025. 046 make a corresponding change in 1314,
against NAC.
2 Cf. xarédvva Ps, 142°(RTN**). See Thackeray, Gr. 211.
THE ARTICLE Cxix
Hence our author did not apparently use the perfect ending in
κασι.
(4) Various Aorist forms.—évaBa, 41, ἀνάβατε, 1112: ἐρρέθη,
611 94 : στήρισον, 37(AC 025): πεῖν, 166 According to Thackeray
(Gr. 64), πεῖν (or wiv) occurs 21 times, while πιεῖν occurs 97 times
in the LXX (SAB).
(6) 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, Gv. 201).
(9) Augment.—3? ἔμελλον (ANC 025): 104 ἤμελλον (AC 046).
Our author uses ἐδύνατο, 79 (ANC 046), 143 (ANC), 158 (AC: 7dvr.
8 025. 046). Hence it should be read in 5° with & against A
025. 046. In ἀνοίγνυμι our author augments the preposition in
ἤνοιξεν, 63, ἠνοίγη, 1119 155, ἠνοίχθησαν, 20120), and trebly
augments the participle in ἠνεῳγμένος, which should perhaps be
read in 3° with & 025 against ἀνεῳγμένος (AC 046), seeing that only
046 supports ἀνεῳγμένος in 41 107 8 το}} against the other chief
uncials.
§ 2. Zhe 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 118 1214 1612, With
great aptness the art. is used in τὸν πόλεμον, 1614, eis τὸν πόλεμον,
208, τὸν πόλεμον, 1919, because the war here is the great Mes-
sianic war at the world’s close. On the other hand, compare
the phrase eis 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 20% 218,
(iv.) The art. can appear with the predicate when the
subject and predicate are convertible or identical! Cf. 117 20
238 ἀν 1718 18% [198] 218 2218-16, After οὗτος the pred. has
the art. on this principle; cf. 714 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, 209 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 αἱ ἑπτά belongs to the
predicate. See vol. ii. 389, footnote,
ΟΧΧ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
Egypt, 118: cf. 86 οἱ... ἄγγελοι of ἔχοντες, 1718 ἡ πόλις ἡ
μεγάλη.
(ὁ) The same rule holds good in the case of prepositional
phrases coming after an articular noun:! 14 ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις
ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασία: 2%: 55 ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τ. φυλῆς: 1116 119 1417
16% 12 1014.2] 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 οὐρανῷς It rightly appears in 119 ὃ ναὸς τ. θεοῦ
ὃ ἐν τ. ovpava. 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. 4558 τέσσερα ζῷα. ..
τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα: 5°8 ἀρνίον. . . τοῦ dpviov: 131617 χάραγμα. ..
τὸ χάραγμα: 15° θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην. .. τ. Oar. τ. tar. etc.
(a) Hence in τι the art. must with δ 025. 046 (against
s*A which om.) be read before εἴκοσι τέσσαρες. Hence,
further, it follows that 2217 ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν must be trans-
posed before 21° τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν. The need for
the rearrangement of 204-22 has been shown at length in vol.
11, 144-154.
(ὁ) In 17°, however, we find γυναῖκα καθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον
although the θηρίον has been frequently mentioned previously.
Similarly in 141 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 17° ἄγγελοι τ. ἑ. ἐκκλησιῶν, 2°
συναγωγὴ τ. Σατανᾶ, 6", 616 ἀπὸ προσώπον τ. καθημένου,3 774 15?
1 χὴν βλασφημιάν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων in 2° is difficult. ἐξ s+? read τὴν ἐκ,
while 025 and several cursives om. éx. 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 ὃ 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 204-22, to the disciple of the Seer who edited these chapters after the
Seer’s death,
PRONOUNS ΟΧΧΙῚ
κιθάρας τοῦ θεοῦ, 21! υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, 21! δώδεκα ὀνόματα τ. δ.
ἀποστόλων, 222 εἰς θεραπείαν τ. ἐθνῶν.
(6) The art. is frequently omitted in prepositional phrases.
ἄχρι θανάτου, 21° 121! 133: ἐν θανάτῳ, 238: ἐν πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, 141°:
εἰς φυλακήν, 219: cf. also 223 1310,
(c) The art. is omitted before proper names. Ἰησοῦς and
Ἰωάννης are always anarthrous. We have ὃ Χριστός when used
alone, 1115 1210 20% 6, but anarthrous in ᾿Ιησοῦς X., 14575. Into
Βαλάκ, 213, the art. is inserted because the name is indeclinable.
In 1613 the art. before Εὐφράτην may point to the earlier mention
of this river in 914. The text in 2615 presents a difficulty.
NixoAairév 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 2). In the predicate the art. is
found before proper names: cf. 68 [81] 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. 11+ 815, but we find
ἐν κυρίῳ, 14), and κύριος κυρίων, 1713 1916, When combined with
other names, 6 κύριος ὃ θεός, 2172 22%, ὃ κύριος Ἰησοῦς, 2271, but also
κύριος ὃ θεός [18] 48 τοῦ 225. In the vocative we find κύριε, 154,
κύριε ὃ θεός, 1117 15° 167, or the Semit. voc. ὁ κύριος ὃ θεός, 43}.
(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 1319 175, and of διὰ τό before
it in 274,
(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, ὁ
μάρτυς ὃ πιστός, 229 τὴν γυναῖκα “lela Bed, ἣ λέγουσα. On this
Hebraism see below, p. cxlix sq.
§ 3. Pronouns.
(i.) Possesstve.—On vernacular and ordinary possessives see
notes on 2219 and footnote in vol. ii. 208, where it is shown
that though oov 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 s! 2), in 21° 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 18°, but this is a source.
See Abbott, Gz. 414 sqq., 601 sqq. ἐμός only once in 27°, 1
17 has it 39 times. In J we find also (ἡμέτερος only in 1 J 1° 2?) σός,
ὑμέτερος, ἴδιος (15 times), not one of which occurs in our author. Seeing that
CXxil THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
(ii.) Personal.—(a) αὐτός is used as an emphatic personal
pronoun,! cf. 320 1410 r915(*) 217, It is used intensively (=
“ self”) in [1411] 1711 (source) 1912, The phrase καὶ αὐτός, “he
also,” “himself also” (in J 710), 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 4321 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 1915 (05) 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
1087, 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. (4) otros refers to what precedes,
7it 11% [144] etc. But not always in J, 1 J. Cf. J 6% 1512;
1 J 15514 where it refers to an explanatory clause introduced by
iva, ἐάν, OY ὅτι. (ὦ) ἐκεῖνος is used only as an adjectival pronoun
in our author in temporal phrases, 9° 1118, but in J constantly
as a substantival pronoun. See Abbott, Gr. 283 566.
(iv.) Ladefinite.—eis = “a”: cf. 818 ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ, 918 φωνὴν μίαν,
1917 ἕνα ἄγγελον. Notin J. Both authors, however, use εἷς ék ;
while J uses εἷς τις ἐκ, 114%, once in this sense, or simply τις with
a noun, 42 55, or with a proper name, 11 127°. τις is found only
in εἴ τις, ἐάν τις in Our author, save in 7! (0).
(v.) Relative—(a) ὅστις is mostly used of ἃ class of persons
or things, 17 274 οὐ etc.; but it is also used of an individual, 11
1218 τοῦ: cf. 112, Similarly in J. I have followed the advice
given in Abbott’s Gv. (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
1 1. 7".
ἐμός and kindred possessive adjectives had all but ousted μου in Asia Minor,
Moulton (Gr. 40 sq.) infers that our author must have been a recent immi-
grant there. If this is right, J must have been settled there for some time.
The possessive 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, 274 378 4* 44, but not so our author.
2 It is once found in a source, Ζ.6. 18%,
THE VERB CxXili
§ 4. The Verb.
(i.) Present and future tenses.—(a) The text wavers frequently
between the present and the future. But these changes are not
arbitrary.1 The context must be carefully studied in each case.
Thus in certain contexts the future is rightly used, since the con-
text is obviously prophetic: cf. 716°99- οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι οὐδὲ
διψήσουσιν ἔτι, κκλ. 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! 171484 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. οὗ 844 17-20 1.211 sqq.
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. 510 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, Ζ.6. 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, 1478, and both the above-mentioned compounds in 10%,
In 148 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 a special purpose. No unity of time appears to be observed in it. 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, 111-58, 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, 114°; but the presents ἐκπορεύεται,
κατεσθίει, etc., can be taken as futures. In 1178 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,
1110 (but the presents here also are practically futures). Finally, in 111-3 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, Zesses, ὃ 14 (y), 81; Is 9'°.] Hence 113-8
is a prophecy rather thana vision. The past verbs in 209"! 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 perfeci,
whereas 111-18 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, ze. 124). It is
therefore of infrequent occurrence. But it is used with special
force in relative clauses, 1/2 2!4 69: also in descriptive sentences,
s* καὶ ἔκλαιον, 514 [68] 19! 21%. In 71} ἱστήκεισαν (pluperf.) is
used as a past imperf. = “‘ were standing.”
(4) But the place of the past imperf. (or historic present) is
frequently taken by the (imperfect or perfect) participle: ἔχων
(for εἶχεν, or possibly in one or more cases for ἔχει), 116 47-8 625
102 122 211% 14: ἐκπορευομένη, 11°: 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, Gv. 323 sqq.
The past aorist! in English does not always correspond to
the Greek aorist. The Greek aorist has three uses. (a) When
this aorist is used as the historical tense in pure narrative, the
English past aor. is the right rendering. (ὁ) 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. “1 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 114), pres. impf. λύω, pres. perf. λέλυκα : past aor. ἔλυσα, past impf.
ἔλυον, past perf. ἐλελύκειν.
RENDERING OF GREEK AORISTS AND PERFECTS ΟΧΧΥ
can be timeless or refer to an indefinite time: cf. 2* ἀφῆκας, J 15%
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, outside
the pure narrative, to an indefinite past, and be practically time-
less. (Ὁ 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 «?des—“ 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 (6) or (¢).
The following passages fall naturally under (4), where the aor. is
practically timeless. 1° καὶ ἐποίησεν, “and hath made us”: 2*: 24
ἔγνωσαν = “ have recognized” = “know”: 34 οὐκ ἐμόλυναν, “have
not defiled”: 38 érypyoas . . . καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω, “hast kept...
and hast not denied”: 31° ἐτήρησας : 5°19 pydpacas . . . ἐποί-
noas: 7!4 érAvvay . . . ἐλεύκαναν : 118 ὠργίσθησαν : 14* 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, 17)
οὔπω ἔλαβον, 1717 ἔδωκεν : ἐκολλήθησαν and ἐμνημόνευσε in 18°,
186 ἀπέδωκεν... ἐκέρασεν, 187 ἐδόξασεν. . . ἐστρηνίασεν, τ814
ἀπῆλθεν. .. ἀπωλετο. Under (c) when the aor. refers 20 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”: 22! ἔδωκα. .. καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν 2 - “1 have
given... but she 88 refused”: 11? ἐδόθη: 1115 17 ἐγένετο . .
ἐβασίλευσας : 1118 ἦλθεν, which recurs in the same sense in 147
1810 ro7: 1210 ἐγένετο. . . ἐβλήθη: 12) κατέβη: [141° ἐξηράνθη]:
1418 ἤκμασαν : 165 ἔκρινας : 181% 19 μιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρημώθη : 18” ἔκρινεν :
102 ἔκρινεν. .. ἐξεδίκησεν : 197: 8 ἡτοίμασεν. .. ἐδόθη: 2216
ἔπεμψα.
(v.) Greek Perfects and their rendering into English.—Blass
(Gr. 200) and Moulton (G7. 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 5’ 85, though the R.V. takes it as=a present, and
Robertson (Gv. 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.
2 The failure to recognize this use of the aorist here led to the change of
ἠθέλησεν into θέλει.
ΟΧΧΥῚ 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 τοῦ, no doubt as to the aoristic sense can be entertained.
(vi.) dorists used by our author and his sources.—(a) Of
ἵστημι 3 our author uses ἐστάθην, 88 1218, whereas ἔστην is used in
his sources, 11} 1817, (6) Again our author uses ἐθαυμάσθην, 13°
=‘*T wondered” (as a middle: always passive in o except in
one doubtful instance—Thackeray, Gv. 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, 119 15°, and ἠνοίχθην in connection with the
books, 2012) (as in Dan 7?! ο΄ 6’). Since Matthew and Luke
in Acts use both forms in connection with the same subjects, no
safe inference is possible here.
(vii.) Zmperative-—The aor. imper. occurs about 40 times in
our author: the present 20 times, nine of these in chaps. 1-3.
The aor. imper. is sharper and more urgent than the present,
and while the latter ‘‘is used in general precepts (even to individ-
uals) on conduct and action,” the former is used “in injunctions
about action in individual cases” (Blass, Gr. 194). Hence we
may distinguish 3! κράτει ὃ ἔχεις and 2% ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε in
connection with their contexts.
With negatives, μή with the pres. forbids an action already
begun: 117 210 μὴ φοβοῦ, 5° μὴ κλαῖε, while μή with the aor.
subj. or imper. forbids an action not yet begun: 8 66 τὸν οἶνον μὴ
ἀδικήσῃς, 7° μὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν, τοί σφράγισον... Kal μὴ αὐτὰ
γράψῃς, 11% 2219, Thus our author’s usage agrees at once with
the classical and later usage (cf. Moulton, Gm 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-
revonte. In all other cases μή with the imper. is rightly used in
See Moulton, (77. 125 sq.
(viii.) Znfinitive.—(a) Our author generally uses the aor. inf.
save in the case of certain verbs. Thus βλέπειν is never found
1 This use of εἴληφα as an aorist is certainly strange, seeing that our
author uses ἔλαβον in 58 10!” 17! (source) 204; aor. subj. 31! 184 (source) ;
aor. imper. 10% 9 22!7; aor. inf. 4! 5% 1? 64,
2 The pres. perf. of this verb, ἕστηκα (‘‘I have taken my stand”), is used
as a pres. imperf. (hence=‘‘I am standing’) in 37°, 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 ἔστηκεν from στήκω in the same sense. Some éditors,
however, read ἕστηκε here (cf. σύρει in the preceding clause).
8 This is the general rule; but it needs qualification: cf. Moulton, 125.
Some scholars maintain that the above distinction is a growth, which
‘beginning in classical times was nearly crystallized in N.T. Greek.” Cf.
Moulton, 247.
PREPOSITIONS CXXxvii
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 24. στρέφειν occurs in 11% (source). καταβαίνειν,
1318. After μέλλειν the pres. follows inf. regularly (10 times)
except in 32 16 124. In J the pres. inf. follows without exception.
The usual construction in classical Greek is μέλλειν with the
fut. inf.
(6) On the infinitive=a finite verb in a conditional clause
and also in the principal sentence, see 1.310 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+ 9. 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, ὃ 4, li. (ὁ). Present
and perfect participles occur frequently, but never the future
part. The last is found once in J 6%. ὃ 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 = OND as in 4}
511-12 111. 1ὅ 146 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 (=3M) is encouraged through Hebrew precedent. Cf.
Blass, Gr. 74; Robertson, 395 sq.
§ 5. Prepositions.
Moulton (Gr. 98) gives the statistics for the relative frequency
of prepositions in the N.T. For every 100 times that ἐν occurs
he finds the relative frequency of the prepositions with which we
are here concerned as follows: εἰς, 64 ; ἐκ, 343 ἐπί 323 πρός, 25;
διά, 243 ἀπό, 24; κατά, 173 pera, τῇ ; brd,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; Kata, 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, τι; κατά, 5% πρός, 5.1 Here the
most notable differenc’s are in the case of ἐπί (J*P 89 -- 7 16), διά
1 These numbers refer to the entire text, including sources and interpola-
tions.
CXXVIii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
(ΤΡ 11 —J 26), πρός (73 ς -- 7 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 ev more than twice as often as eis, while the κοινή uses εἰς
nearly twice as often as ev. 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 -Ξ “apiece,” in 48 ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ. Cf. J 2% Found
also in Matthew and Luke. The phrase ἀνὰ μέσον, 71", is a
compound preposition, but ἀνά is an adverb in ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος
in 2131, These latter uses not in J.
(ii.) ἀπό. 36 times. (a) with μακρόθεν, 181 117 (source).
Not in J.
(4)= “at a distance from,” 1429 ἀπὸ σταδίων, cf. J 1138 218,
Not elsewhere in N.T. It is not necessary to explain it as a
Latinism; cf. Moulton, Gz τοῦ. sq.; Robertson, Gr 575;
Abbott, Gv. 227. It is found in Strabo, Diodorus, and Plutarch.
For an analogous construction with pera, cf. Test. Reub. 17 pera
ἄτη δύο τῆς τελευτῆς : T. Zeb. 14 μετὰ οὖν δύο ἔτη τοῦ θανάτου---ἃ
construction also found in Plutarch. And with πρό, cf. J 12},
Amos (o’) 1! 47.
(c) ἀπὸ προσώπον. This phrase occurs three times, 610
1214 20. 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
‘9p. In 61:6 2011 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 5)
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 cursiyes omit. But since AN 025. 2040 attest
it, it goes back to the archetype as edited by the Seer’s disciple.
For two other departures from the Seer’s usage in 20% 14, see vol.
ii. 182. This phrase is absent from J.
PREPOSITIONS CXXix
(4) Abnormal use of ἀπό before 6 dv. This is deliberate on
our author’s part.
(6) After passive verbs: ἀπεκτάνθησαν, 918; ἡτοιμασμένον, 12°,
This came to be the rule in later writers.
(57) After ἀπέρχεσθαι and ἀπολλύναι, 18!4: ἀφαιρεῖν, 2219:
κρύπτειν, 616 (ἀπὸ προσώπου, where J 12°° has simply ἀπό) : φεύγειν,
ο΄ 20! (J 10°).
None of the above usages appear in J save (4) and one
instance of (/).
(iii.) ἄχρι 212% 26 7211 1429 185 (source).
(iv.) διά. (a) with gen. 14 217% In J 15 times. (6) 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] 1.)4. 9. 18. 7419 C8) 7821 2810.14.15, save
in 1416 (interpolated) where we have βάλλειν... ἐπὶ τ. γῆν.
Contrast 14% But ἐπί when the noun is a person, cf. 274
βάλλω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (cf. 11”), Similarly after καταβαίνειν we have εἰς
τὴν γῆν, 13'%, but ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, 1671. Our author uses
either ἀἶἷ τὴν yav,-5* 63°: 8% ὁ" 5:12 5 % 18 x4 161? etc, even
after πίπτειν, 618 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 :
cf. J 7 16!%. As object, 219 ἐξ ὑμῶν, 3° 5° (in 217 we have
genitive alone—rod μάννα: cf. 2 J* ἐκ τῶν τέκνων). ἐκ Occurs often
after εἷς in a partitive sense: cf. 55 61 7} etc., but in 17! (source)
ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά -- “one of the seven.” For els ἐκ, cf. J 141 68 ΤΌ. Τί
7°09 etc. This appears to be the best explanation of 29 τὴν
βλασφημίαν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων, “the blasphemy of certain people
who say”; or the é 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 ᾿Βρινύων, “hymn of the Erinyes” ;
Soph. Ant. 95, ἡ ἐξ ἐμοῦ δυσβουλία.
(ὁ) ἐκ. .. ἀπό, 3132 21210, where the prepositions may
signify respectively heavenly origin and divine mission. But
in J 1** 74! 42 1τὶ (Abbott, Gv. 227 544.) 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 shoulu 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 is to be taken with λαβεῖν, as in 5’ 101° 184 (source).
Ζ
ΟΧΧΧ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
voetv,! πίνειν, ποτίζειν, φαγεῖν, χορτάζεσθαι. It follows ἀγοράζειν,
5°; but this verb is followed by παρά, 5418, and ἀπό, 14°: 4. In τ88: 19
πλουτεῖν is followed by ἐκ and in 1815 by ἀπό.
(4) ἐκ is used after a passive: cf. 1318 πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός,
18! ἐφωτίσθη ἐκ τ. δόξης αὐτοῦ.
(6) ék=“ by reason of,” 818 ἐκ 7. φωνῶν, 161! ἐβλασφήμησαν
. « EK T. TOVWV QAUTWV.
(23) ἐκ is used with the material of which anything is formed :
cf. 181? πᾶν σκεῦος ἐκ Evrov. This usage is common to Greek
and Hebrew: cf. Xen. Symp. 8, στράτευμα ἐξ ἐραστῶν : Aesch.
Suppl. 953, ἐκ kpOdv péOv. See (a) above ad fin.
(vii.) ἔμπροσθεν. This twice occurs in a local sense in the
phrase ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν, 19!° 228, the first of which is an
intrusion: also as an adverbin 4°. In J its meanings are various:
it denotes superiority in 115: 80, priority in time in 378, and has a
local sense in τοῦ 12°7,
(viii.) 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 (G~., 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 2233, and ἐν ῥάβδῳ, τ Cor 431. To this
claim Abbott (Gz. 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
ἐν in our author. No adequate explanation can be found save
in its origination in a mind steeped in Semitic. Even Moulton
(p. 61 ἢ.) 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, 59: ἀδικεῖν, 99: ἀποκτείνειν,
223 68 920 1.210 (δ) yo2l: βασανίζειν, 1419: καίειν, 197°; but without
ἐν, [88] 218 (due to editor ?) : κατακαίειν, 1716 185: καυματίζειν, 168:
κηρύσσειν, 52: κιθαρίζειν, 147: λευκαίνειν, 715: λύειν, 1°: μιγνύναι, 87:
πατάσσειν, 118 19): πλανᾶν, 1929 τ838; περιβάλλεσθαι, 35 44
(Ὁ ἐν, A): ποιμαίνειν, 277 125 19): πολεμεῖν, 216 (1911): χρυσοῦν,
1816 évis used locally after καθίζειν in 37! 05) (but ἐπίο. acc. 204):
1Cf, 271 [22] 920.21 761, μετανοεῖν ἀπό is found in Acts 8” and Jer 86
(LXX). But μενανοεῖν ἐκ does not occur inthe LXX. It probably represents
j2 1 in our author’s mind. :
PREPOSITIONS | CXXXi
after κατοικεῖν, 13? (but this is not our author’s use. He uses
ἐπί C. gen.).
(4) ἐν is used temporarily in 110 218 οὐ τοῦ 1118 etc.: see
temporal phrases without ἐν in 182 16 19 μιᾷ si (source).
(Ω é év is used generally after γράφειν, 15.115. 201% 15 2151 9918, 19
(but εἰς is found in 1, and ἐπί in 17°: see under ἐπί).
(ἢ ἐ ἐν 15 found i in the phrases ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρί, 119: ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ,
21: ἐν τ. χειρί, 65 79 τοῦ etc.; but ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν, 5'. Also in
ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, after λέγειν, 1 147 " (but without ἐν in 513 818),
ἐν is never used in this phrase after κράζειν, 610 7? 108 (see vol. 1.
260 ad fin., ii. 22 ad init.) except in passages from another hand
or source, 14) 18%, It is also omitted in this phrase after φωνεῖν,
14%, ἐν μέσῳ is always followed by gen. 118 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,
ΐ.6. 20°, and twice in I. 3 J.
The frequent occurrence of this word, which, it is true, is
found sporadically in the κοινή (see Moulton, 677.» pp. 99, 246), is
best explained as due to Semitic influence.
(x.) ἔξωθεν, 147.
(xi.) ἐπάνω. Only twice. Really an adverb but used as a
preposition, 65 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 γῆς pHs, 5% 10-18 7} 107 ἢ 8 oe —never ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (for
1416 is an interpolation). If our author wishes to use γῆν he
writes εἰς τὴν γῆν, 5° 613 85 gt etc. See vol. i. 191. (8) ἐπὶ τῆς
θαλάσσης---50 always. 513 Ἐ 71 τοῦ 5-8 except in 15%, 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 ace. See vol. i. 262 ad med., ii. 34 ad init. Our author’s use
comes out forcibly in 7! ἵνα μὴ πνέῃ ἄνεμος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μήτε ἐπὶ
τῆς Oana μήτε ἐπὶ πᾶν (δὲ 025: cf. 716 οὐδὲ μὴ. .. πᾶν
καῦμα : 92 215) δένδρον. Observe the ἐπί with the acc. at the
close, (y) ἐπὶ τὴν (τὰς) κεφαλήν (-άς). Only in 121 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 riser and is
supported by Pr gig vg 5" 3 arm bo eth.
ΟΧΧΧΙΙ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
if he uses the pl. ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων. See vol. 1. 206 ad med. In
149 we find + ἐπὶ rod μετώποῦ + ; but this verse is corrupt. See
vol. ii. 15. ad fin. (ε) 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 1316, ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς
120, and ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα, 14° 2ο]- 4: ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν, 5], See vol. i. 335
ad med.
(ὁ) 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 Opdve.!
ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον
(or ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην)
(or ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον).
(α) ὁ καθήμενος
τὸν καθήμενον
So in 455 625 1126 1,34 roll, This usage of our author is
generally not observed in the interpolations or edited portions.
Thus 9!" τ. καθημένους ἐπ᾽ + αὐτῶν ἡ seems due to a reviser of
the preceding words: 1416 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τ. νεφέλης (AN: τ.
νεφέλην, C ο25) occurs in the interpolation 141517; 2011 τὸν
καθήμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (A: ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, &), and 7! 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ
t τ. θρόνου F (Ax: τῷ θρόνῳ, 025. 046), are due to the editor of
20422. 215 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τ. θρόνῳ, is a primitive corruption.
On 14° see vol. 11. 12.
(8) τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ. So 4° 515 γἱῦ τοί, In 64 τῷ
καθ. éx + αὐτόν ἵ 15 a primitive corruption, while τῷ καθ. ἐπὶ τ.
νεφέλης occurs in the interpolation, 1.457
(y) τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. So 41° 51-7 616; cf. 17}
(τῆς καθημένης ἐπὶ ὑδάτων 1019. 21 (τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου
both times). Hence 19!8 τῶν καθημένων ἐπ᾿ Ff αὐτοῖς t (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 18!9 (source): (8) γράφειν ἐπί with acc. 217 312 75.8
(source) 196 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 214, Luke 5?” 21, J 12°: exception, Acts 8; and that
when it is in the gen. it is followed by ἐπί with the gen. in Matt 24% 27)9:
exception, Mark 13°. But whereas these may be coincidences, in our author
the use isa law. In Mark 13° we have καθημένου followed by εἰς, whereas
Matt 24° has ἐπὶ τ. ὄρους τ. ἐλαιῶν.
PREPOSITIONS CXXXIii
(δ) ἱστάναι ἐπί with acc. 37° ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν (contrast
J 1816 εἰὐνήκει mpos τῇ Ovpa), 7) 85. εὐ, .γ2}8. 141 15% (e)
καθίζειν ἐπί with acc. 204. (€) κατοικεῖν ἐπί with gen. Seevol. i.
289, 336, 11. 12 ad fim. This construction is characteristic alike
as to meaning and form. ‘Two other constructions are found in
1312 17? where they appear due to sources: (7) κόπτεσθαι ἐπί with
acc. 17=“to wail because of” (but in Zech. 121° (0), 2 Sam.
1176 (A) “to wail for”). So far as I am aware this usage is not
Greek. Sy 4D 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 5y?
We could also render the Greek “to wail in regard to him.”
In 18° this phrase = “to wail over.” (0) πίπτειν ἐπί with acc.
616 711. 16 810 γ711. 16. but with εἰς τὴν yqv, 618 οἱ, since our
author does not say ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (see (a) above). (ι) σκηνοῦν ἐπί
with acc. 75. (x) τιθέναι ἐπί with acc. 117, but in 10? with
ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης in conformity with his usage (see (a) above).
(A) μαρτυρεῖν and προφητεύειν are followed by ἐπί (= “‘con-
cerning ἢ) with dat. in 2216 (δὲ 046) rol, ἐπί has this meaning in
J 1216 ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ yeypappeva. But in 2216 A vg bo read ἐν. See
ἐπί with dat. after δεδέσθαι, 915; ὀργίζεσθαι, 1217; εὐφραίνεσθαι, 189,
(4) After ἐξουσία ἐπί there follows sometimes the gen. 226 116>
(source) 1418 20°: sometimes the acc. 68 137 16° 2214, J has
neither of these constructions, but the gen. without ἐπί, 172,
or the inf. 11? 527 rol8 ) etc. A similar usage occurs in 1718
βασιλείαν ἐπὶ (=“ over”) τῶν βασιλέων : cf. Rom. 9°.
(xill.) κατά. (@) with gen. 2+ 14 20 κατὰ σοῦ, “against thee.”
Once in J 19" in the same sense. (ὁ) With acc. (a) =
“according to,” 238 186 (source) 201% 18, (8) Temporally in 22?
κατὰ μῆνα. (y) Distributively in 48 & καθ᾽ ἕν : cf. J [89 2135].
(xiv.) κυκλόθεν as a prep. in 48: 4: as an adv. in 48,
(xv.) κύκλῳ as a prep. 45 511 711,
(xvi.) μετά. 52 times (41 with gen. and 11 with acc.). (a)
pera with gen. after ἀκολουθεῖν [68] 1415 (=“to accompany”):
δειπνεῖν, 5339: ἔρχεσθαι (μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν), 17: καθίζειν, 321 %);
λαλεῖν, 117 τοῦ 171 219:1δ: μοιχεύειν, 233: [μολύνεσθαι, 144]:
ποιῆσαι πόλεμον, 117 1217 137 1019: πολεμεῖν, 216 127 134 1η14- -ἃ
decided Hebraism, only in our author in the N.T. An
occasional instance of it has been found in the papyri: πορνεύειν,
175 18% (source). This construction is not classical Greek,
which requires the acc. So also μοιχεύειν. (6) μετά with acc. 15
only found in the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα, except in 11! μετὰ τὰς τρεῖς
1 Perhaps we might trace it to such an expression as that in Is. 23}
y7RA mpd 52 nx any. πορνεύειν μετά is found in Ezek. 1684, but the
Hebrew does not explain the werd. Similarly 4x3 (ΞΞ μοιχεύειν) is followed
by nx (Ξξ μετά) in Jer. 29% ; but not ο΄, which gives ἐμοιχῶντο τὰς γυναῖκας.
CXXxXIV THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
ἡμέρας. μετὰ ταῦτα has two meanings in our author—its ordinary
one, “after these things,” 119 4? οἷ 203, and a technical one,
which, when combined with εἶδον, always introduces a new and
important vision, 41 1.5 τοῦ 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. 213 322 44 51 6! 71 19%) 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.).
(xviii.) πρός. 8 times (1 with dat. and 7 with acc.). In J,on
the other hand, πρός with acc. occurs about too times, and with
the dat. 4. πρός c. dat. is found in our author only once, 118:
elsewhere in N.T., Mark 521, 1816 2011 12), He uses πρός
with acc. after verbs of motion, 329 τοῦ etc. (6 times). πρός --
“ acainst,” in 13° ἤνοιξεν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εἰς βλασφημίας πρὸς τ.
θεόν. Here eis would be more natural: cf. Mark 429, Luke 120,
Acts 6, This preposition is much more varied in meaning in J.
(xix.) 6wé. Only twice, and one of these in an interpola-
tion, 68,
(xx.) ὑποκάτω. 4 times. Really an adverb but used as a
preposition.
§ 6. Conjunctions and other Particles.
(i.) ἀλλά. 13 times, but over 100 times in J and 20 times in
OL Sa va
(ii.) ἄν. (a) As a particle in a relative clause ἄν occurs only
twice, in 235 ἄχρι οὗ ἂν ἥξω, and in 141 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.
(ὁ) 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
420 [2218 19] ἐὰν μή is followed by the subj. 2° 3%, but in 2339 (an
interpolation) by the indicative.’ In J ἐάν is once used as a
1 Thus ἐάν is substituted for ἄν 3 times (319 and 11° 13” 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 f significant of the character of & that it changes ἐάν into ἄν in 319 13%
and thus represents our author as using ἐάν only I out of 4 times. C changes
it in 118. Notwithstanding the untrustworthy character of 025. 046, they are
here more trustworthy than δὲ 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 ἄν 14 times in the apodosis
of an impossible supposition, but our author does not use this
construction.
(iii.) ἄρτι, 12), and ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι, 141%. Itis hard to decide whether
apti= ‘fat this moment,” as occasionally in J (see Abbott, 67.
25 Sq., 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 2025 In 17} we find ἄχρι τελεσθήσονται.
But this is a source.
(v.) γάρ. circ. 17 times. In J nearly 70.
(vi.) δέ. 6 times. Very frequent in J and with different
shades of meaning : see Abbott, Gv. 271 loc.
(vii-) εἰ. εἰ is found only in combination (a) with τις :* 115
[x15] 13% 10 7) 4911 2015 (εἴ τις οὐχ)---ἃ very Common com-
bination not once in J: (4) with μή (ΞΞ except”), 217 οἱ 1317 148
19! 2177, This use is found in J 3 6” etc.: or with δὲ μή (=
“otherwise ”), 25 5: also in 7 14. But J uses the former
combination in other idioms.
(vill.) ἔξωθεν (as adverb = ἔξω) 11? 5! (some MSS).
(ix.) ἔτι. 18 times, including a restoration of ἔτι for ἐπί in 716
2211 is an interpolation.
(x.) ἕως. With subjunctive (=“‘till”), 64. In J with ind.
οἶδ 2122.28, Tn 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 ἵνα 2 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 5 respectively ; in ii/A.D. 79 and 13; in iii/A.D. 13 and 5; in
iv/A.D. 12 and 7. These amended numbers show more clearly how the
scribe of δὲ introduced later forms into his text.
1 εἴ τις is only found once in the Johannine writings outside the Apoca-
lypse—2 J 10 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 14} as almost
equal to ὅτε ‘‘in that.” But here also it may express purpose. Thus μακ-
άριοι οἱ νεκροὶ οἱ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες. . . ἵνα dvarajocovrar=‘*‘ Blessed:
are the dead that die iu. the Lord: yea, saith the Spirit, in order to rest,”
etc. Cf. 2215 δηά J 8° 9? ris ἥμαρτεν. . . ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ ; 1175, and see
Abbott, Gv. 114-128, who insists that iva expresses purpose in J.
CXXXV1 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
ing to observe the sequence of tenses adopted by him after ἵνα
or iva py.
‘Pres. ind. followed by pres. ind. . : I
pres. subj. ὃ : 5
Aaah aor. subj. ; ; 1
= fut. ind. ‘ ; 4
Past. ind. pres. subj... 5
Ῥ aor. subj. i : 13
re fut. ind. ; 7
Fut. ind. fut. ind. : ; I
Imperative
(pres. or aor.) pres, subj: |. 2 I
is aor. subj ; ; 2
(xiii.) μή. Never with the participle in our author, but τὸ
times in J and 11 times in 1. 2.3 7. μή with pres. imperative, 117
210 etc.; with aor. subj. 66 73 τοί, the use of these two tenses
being carefully distinguished ; see above, p. cxxvi. py...
pure. ο΄. gare. 7) *: also μή. ο΄ς οὐδὲ... , οὐδέ in ο΄, but
never py... μηδέ, as in J (bis) who never uses pire; nor μηδὲ
μηδέ. ᾿οὐδὲ pty... οὐδέ, 736,
(xiv.) ὄπισθεν as prep. 11° 4%, as adv. 51.
(xv.) ὀπίσω as prep. 121 133, and also in 110 (XC) 10! in NC
025.
(xvi.) ὅπου, 2138 (06) 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: ὅπου. ..
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, Gv. 969. See, however, under ὅταν : also Vocabulary
of G. T. (Moulton and Milligan) under ἄν.
(xvii.) ὁσάκις. 11° (source).
(xviii.) ὅταν. This particle takes the aor. subj. οὔ 117 124
17/9 20’, or the pres. subj. 107 189,1 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 δὲ 025) is quite incorrect according
to Blass (Gr. 218). Yet it is found in the κοινή : cf. Mark 1
ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο ἐξεπορεύετο ἔξω τ. πόλεως: Ex 16°: cf. ὡς ἄν
in Gen (Tischendorf’s ed. ) 3 2780 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 31}
1 As Abbott (Gv. 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
1125; similarly ὅπου av, Mark 65% On ὅταν with fut. ind. see
Robertson, G7. 972.
(xix.) ὅτε Occurs 13 times and always with aor. ind. In J
21 times (4 with fut. ind.).
(xx.) ὅτι. 63 times. (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 -ε ““ because,” and he
cites as examples outside these writings Gal 4°, 1 Cor 125.16,
Rom οἵ, In J 159 (ὅτι εἶπόν cor. . . πιστεύει) 1419 151° 16°
20%, In like manner in our author we must render 4}
‘* Because (ὅτι) thou hast kept the word of my endurance I also
will keep thee,” 326 17 187.1
(2) 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.” Ch at 4 5& 9 61 etc: etc.
(c) Next it means “that” after εἶδον, οἶδα, γιγνώσκω, ἔχω κατά
τινος OF ὄμνυμι, 23: 4 30. 38. 21. 8,9. 16 106 ete,
(4) Finally, it is used before direct discourse (2.6. ὅτι “ recita-
tive”), 217 187,
(xxi.) οὗ = “where” [1715]. Our author as also J uses ὅπου
and not οὗ.
(xxii.) of. Wefind οὐ... οὐδέ, 716 970 128 204 21%: οὗ...
οὔτε, 971: ovdeis . . . οὐδὲ... οὐδὲ. «. οὗτέ, ἘΠῚ οὔδει A ai,
οὔτε, 54.
(xxiil.) οὐ μή. τς times. Always followed by subj. in our
author except in 18!4 (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 1213 (a source) by the acc. In 1810.16.19 (a
source) by the nom. It is a noun in 912 065) 1114 (#9),
rt οὐκέτι. 10°: in 184-14 with neg. (source). 12 times
in J.
(xxvi.) οὖν. (a) Used of logical appeal 6 times, 119 25 16 etc.
(4) 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 (Gr. 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 is important, 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
ε.. J,
(xxvil.) οὔπω. 17112 (source). 13 times in J, 1 J once.
(xxviil.) οὔτε. We find οὔτε... οὔτε, 315 16 920 214: οὐδεὶς
. οὔτε, 5%.
(xxix.) πλήν τ “only,” 225: cf. Phil. 316 for this meaning.
Blass (Gv. 268) would assign this meaning to πλήν also in 1 Cor.
1111 Eph 588, Phil 414,
(xxx.) ὧδε = (a) “hither,” 41 1112; (4) metaphorically (= ‘‘ here
is need for"), 12.0.15 148 179,
(xxxl.) 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, 9&9 1215 133 187! 212 221,
Hence 16 εἶδον... πνεύματα τρία. .. ds ἵ Barpaxot 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 ἴῃ 1. 2.3 J. J uses ὡς 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 2213 os=“according as,” followed by substantive
verb—a usage not found elsewhere in the Johannine writings.
(xxxll.) ὥσπερ. 103,
Bo. Case.
(i.) (a) The nominative stands in the case of a proper noun
without regard to the construction, in place of the case normally
required. 91} ὄνομα ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων. This is good Greek (cf.
Xenoph. Oecon. vi. 14, τούς ἔχοντας TO σεμνὸν ὄνομα τοῦτο TO καλός
τε κἀγαθός), but it comes from the hand of the editor and not
from the author, whose construction will be found in 68,
(ὁ) Mominativus 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 ΟΧΧΧΙΧ
Abbott, Gz. 83 sq. In the Apoc. 178 θαυμασθήσονται οἱ
κατοικοῦντες. .. OV... βλεπόντων is not a gen. abs. But
for this intervening ὧν the text would have read βλέποντες or
ὅταν βλέπωσιν.
(6) Temporal genitive. This genitive denotes the whole
period of time during which something happened: 48 7) ἡμέρας
καὶ vuktos—a phrase that should be restored in 81? 21%,
(iii.) Dative. (a) Instrumental dative. This dative is of
infrequent occurrence. It is found in 4* περιβεβλημένους ἱματίοις,
1913 βεβαμμένον αἵματι, 187 ὁρμήματι βληθήσεται (source), 2214
τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν, 218 [88] καιομένῃ πυρί, τ53 μεμιγμένην
πυρί, 51 κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν, 174 τ816 κεχρυσωμένη χρυσίῳ.
φωνῇ μεγάλῃ is found after λέγειν, 512 (61) 818 (yet with ἐν, 147 9):
after κράζειν, 610 7? τοῦ 19!” (but with ἐν in passages from another
hand, 14! 18): 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.
(ὁ) Dative of time, μιᾷ ὥρᾳ in 181 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 18° 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. cxlviii (1) (6).
(iv.) Accusative of point of time. 48 ποΐαν ὥραν. Cf. J 4°2
ὥραν ἑβδόμην. See Abbott, Gr 75; Acts 20! τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς
πεντηκοστῆς. This usage (Blass, G7. 94) occurs in connection
with wpa in Attic Greek and in the papyri. Moulton, G~. 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 9” τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ
κωφὸν πνεῦμα: J 19° χαῖρε ὃ βασιλεὺς τ. Ἰουδαίων. In the latter
passage there is a note of derision: βασιλεῦ τ. Ἰουδαίων 3 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 mais ἀκολούθει ( = ““ you
there, the lad I mean, follow”’).
2 Moulton (Gy. 71) uvserves 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 5x and ovndx in the vocative
by ὁ 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. 41!
ὃ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν,2 610 ὁ δεσπότης ὃ ἅγιος, 1212 153 165
184 20 τρῦ In contrast with this prevailing usage, we find,
however, κύριε ὃ θεός, 1117 153 167: κύριε, Ἰησοῦ, 2279,
(vi.) Verbs with different cases or constructions.
(a) ἀκούειν. Our author uses this verb with gen. of person,
61. 8. 5 818 765. 7; and acc. of thing, 13 73 916 228.3 But ἀκούειν takes
both the gen. and acc. of the thing, as, for instance, with φωνή.
Now in J ἀκ. φωνῆς ἐΞεῖο hear so as to obey: cf. 525 28 10% 16,
while dx. φωνήν τεῖο hear without further result: cf. 48 5%,
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 3?
1112 (NC 025 but not A 046) ἀκ. φωνῆς -- “1Ἃ΄ο obey.” In 918
rot 8 1112 1210 yy? (δ) 784 τ01.6 the phrase dx. 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 9’ where ἀκ. φωνῆς τε “to hear
a sound” (without understanding its meaning), and in 94 264 ἀκ.
φωνήν = “to hear intelligently ” °
(ὁ) γράφεσθαι. Always γράφεσθαι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ in our author :
cf. (18) 20!2 2127 and especially 13°; but in source, γραφ. ἐπὶ τὸ
βιβλίον, 178. This latter construction is found in quite other
phrases: 217 ἐπὶ τ. ψῆφον... γεγραμμένον, 315 1916
(c) διδόναι. This verb is followed by the partitive gen. (τοῦ
pavva) in 217; not so elsewhere in N.T.
(4) edayyeditew. In 107 c. acc. of person, and in 14° 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 Biblisch. Aramaischen, p. 148 sq.
2 ὁ κύριος as a vocative is not found except in this passage (Abbott).
3 In 518 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.”
5In 1. 2. 3 ἀκούειν takes a gen. of the person and an acc. of the thing
except in 3 J 4 where it is followed by an acc. of the person.
NUMBER cxli
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 ‘fa 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 451: 252 938, it has not the
full meaning of worship which is implied in 47-24, Hence our
author and J again differ here.
(f) περιβάλλεσθαι 11 times c. acc. ; once c. ἐν.
(5) φωτίζειν. In 2173 c. acc: in 225 φ. ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. Here
there appears to be a Hebraism: see p. cxlviii (4) (ὦ.
§ ὃ. Number.
(i.) When several subjects follow a verb and the first is in
the sing., the verb is in the sing.: cf. 87 9? 17 1118 1210 1820 1920
2011; but if they precede, the verb stands in the pl.: cf. 614 1817
201884, So also in J:.see Abbott, Gr. 307.
(ii.) (a) The neuter per is generally followed by the pl.
verb: cf. 129 (ἃ εἰσίν), 37 4 (ἃ οὐκ nese [4°] 514 (ra τέσσερα
ζῷα ἔλεγον), 939 (ἃ... δύνανται), 1118 τοῦ 1679 (dpy. . . εὑρέθησαν),
2013 arf, The pl. verb may precede the neuter pls: eh. 74"
(δώσουσιν τὰ ζῷα), 118 (ἀπεκτάνθησαν δ τ ὀνόματα) [τ614 (εἰσὶν
γὰρ πνεύματα), 1823 (ἐπλανήθησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), 22°: This
construction can generally be explained κατὰ σύνεσιν, the neuter
nouns being conceived of as masculine or feminine.
(ὁ) But the sing. verb occasionally follows the neut. pl.: cf.
119 (ἃ μέλλει), 227 [(ἔθνη) ... συντρίβεται ?|, 48 (τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα...
ἔχων 1), 1314 (ἃ ἐδόθη), 1413 Ὡς γὰρ ἔργα . . . ἀκολουθεῖ), τ814
(τὰ λιπαρὰ. . . ἀπώλετο), 19!4 (τὰ στρατεύματα... ἠκολούθει) ;
less often the sing. verb precedes: cf. 88 (ἐδόθη. . . θυμιάματα),
agi ee.
(iii.) The plural verb follows certain collective nouns in the
ge ὄχλος πολὺς. . . ἑστῶτες, 79: ὄχλου πολλοῦ... . λεγόντων
9" ®, but generally :n 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. ;
cexlii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
674 74 1212, In J 7# 12! 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, G7. 307. λαός has the pl. verb in 1814 and yf 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 Coa .. . λέγοντες, 1314 τῷ θηρίῳ ὃς ἔχει, 171}
Onpiov . . . αὐτὸς ὄγδοός ἐστιν, 1716 τὰ δέκα κέρατα. .. καὶ τὸ
θηρίον, οὗτοι. In 15! 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%), 1914 τὰ
στρατεύματα ἐνδεδυμένοι, 5° πνεύματα ἀπεσταλμένοι, 51° πᾶν κτίσμα
. . « λέγοντας (8), 9° ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς (2.6. ἀκρίδες). With φωνή there
are several such wrong concords: 41 7 φωνὴ... λέγων: cf.
also 511-12 918.14 1116 Τῃ 125 vidv, 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 Oxyrhynchus,
assuming the extent of Greek education to be the same.”
HEBRAISMS OF Jj‘? 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 Apocalypse ts absolutely
unigue.+
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 /iterary 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
1In the next edition of Moulton’s Prolegomena, the Hebraic style of the
Apocalypse is accepted, us 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 it 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: ‘‘ 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°6 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 ἄδοντας, in
152%, 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 15 Pr fl
gig vg (arm?) s? eth render “‘ qui dilexit et fecit” (τῷ dyarGvr...
καὶ ἐποίησεν) : in 2? and 2° Pr gig vg s? eth render ‘‘qui se dicunt.. .
et non sunt” (τ. λέγοντας. .. καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν) : in 2529 gig sl}? arm eth=
qui dicit . . . et docet (ἡ λέγουσα. . . Kal διδάσκει), 272 arm! * 3¢=ego
sum qui scruto . . . et do (ἐγώ εἶμι ὁ épavvGy . . . καὶ δώσων : in 713 Pr gig
vg 51 arm eth=qui venerunt (or veniunt) . . . et laverunt (οἱ ἐρχόμενοι. . .
καὶ ἔπλυναν) : in 147% 743. 1075 52 arm bo eth=citharizantes et cantantes
HEBRAISMS OF 1 exlv
“Tt is,” writes Driver (Hebrew Tenses, 163), “a common
custom with Hebrew writers, after employing a participle or
infinitive, to change the construction, and if they wish to subjoin
other verbs, which logically should be in the participle or
infinitive as well, to pass to the use of the finite verb.” Here
we have the explanation of a dozen of passages in our author,
which have been generally mistranslated in all the versions.
In a few cases they are rightly translated, and then only
through deliberate emendation of the text.
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% 28, Ezek 22°. But it is rendered liter-
ally comparatively seldom in the LXX, whereas in our text it
occurs ten times and most probably eleven originally, as we
shall see presently. In a few cases the Syriac, Latin, Bohairic,
and A.V. are right, but probably unconsciously. This idiom
emerges in the first chapter in > and recurs in 18 2? 9. 20.23 39 714
1473 758, (a) In 156 we have τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς
... καὶ 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 2% ἐγώ εἰμι 6
épavvav . . . καὶ δώσω another example of this idiom=‘I am
He that trieth ... and giveth.” Here the Hebrew in our
author’s mind would be ‘nny ᾿Ξ] or even jmNi: cf. Dan 123,
and see vol. ii. 392 n. For a further treatment of this idiom the
reader can consult the note in vol. i. 14 sq. (6) 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 is Obviously an insertion made
by John’s literary executor, who edited 204~—22 after John’s death.
(κιθαριζόντων . . . Kat Gdovow): in 155 δὲ Pr fl vg s! arm eth=stantes
. . . habentes. . . et cantantes (ἑστῶτας. . . ἔχοντας. . καὶ ᾷδουσιν).
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 treeted 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
exlvi THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
See vol, 11. 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 1473 ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς κιθαρῳδῶν κιθαριζόντων
ἐν ταῖς κιθάραις αὐτῶν ' καὶ ἄδουσιν ὡς ὠδὴν 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) 279 ἡ λέγουσα
ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν καὶ διδάσκει =“ who calleth herself a prophetess
and teacheth ” (hot “‘and she teacheth,” R.V.).
(ὁ) In 138 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 ἱ αὐτῇ ἵ δοῦναι
.. καὶ ποιήσῃ τε νυ) .. πὸ nbd 5} - ‘And it was given
unto him to give . . . and to cause.” See vol. ii. 420, footnote.
(c) Just as in (a, 4), the constructions under this head are quite
impossible and unintelligible as Greek, but are full of meaning
as literal reproductions of a Hebrew ididm. (a) The first is 127
6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ (> 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 1310 where only A has preserved
it in a slightly corrupt form: εἴ tis . . . ἀποκτανθῆναι, ἵ αὐτὸν F
ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι (-Ξηπὸ ΝΣ Pata Wes) = “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 22? βάλλω εἰς
κλίνην as a piece of Greek is meaningless in its context but full
of significance if retranslated into Hebrew. See vol. i. 71.
1 Here all modern editors insert a full stop before καὶ ddovow. Both the
Syriac versions could be rendered καὶ ἀδόντων. The Bohairic requires this
rendering here. It is true that s! has an internal corruption Ξε κιθαρῳδὸν
κιθαρίζοντα ἐν ταῖς καθάραις αὐτοῦ" ὃ καὶ ἄδοντας.
2 Cf. Ezek 26" for this form of the Niphal infinitive.
HEBRAISMS OF J*? exlvii
(ec) 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 (=X WWD) = “his face was as
the sun shining” (not ‘‘shineth”). See vol. i. 31.
(f) The Greek phrase κύριος ὃ θεὸς ὃ 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 191 14,
Hos 125®, Amos 338 418 514 etc. (=Mmixayn sds mn‘), and often
κύριος παντοκράτωρ, Hab 218, Hag 1% ὅ, Zech 18, Next it is to
be observed that ὃ παντοκράτωρ in all these cases is a rendering
of mNa¥ (with or without the art.) following the construct case.
Hence ὃ 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 ὁ θεός and
ὃ παντοκράτωρ. They belong inseparably together, and 6 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
6 παντοκράτωρ: cf. 48 1117 153 167 14 19% 16 2172.1 ‘Thus we see
that on textual grounds 18 (κύριος 6 θεός, 6 ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν Kal 6
ἐρχόμενος, ὃ 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. 11. 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
αὐτοῦ 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 τοῦ for the same reason: see
vol. i. 75 sq. (y) Again in 1° 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 s? wrongly insert ἡμῶν
between ὁ θεός and 6 παντοκράτωρ in 1906. Α 51 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 6%, 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 ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
It is significant of the independence with which our author deals with O.T.
phrases that he changes ΠΊΝΩΝ mn? (Ξε κύριος σαβαώθ, LXX) in Is 68, on which
his text is based, into κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ in 48 117 15° 167 τοῦ 21%, or
into 6 θεὸς 6 παντοκ. in 164 19",
cxlviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
the Hebrew 33. Cf. Job 1818 where nw Won= “the most
deadly disease,” and Is 1429 oot “yan=“the poorest.” See
note on 15 in the Commentary. (8) Possibly in 17 κόπτεσθαι ἐπὶ
we have an instance in which a secondary meaning of y is
assigned by our author to ἐπί.
(Δ) Other Hebrew idioms literally reproduced in the Greek
need to be retranslated in order to appreciate their exact
meaning. (a) 238 δώσω -- ‘to requite,” as jm) in Jer. 172° on
which 278 is based. (8) 3° δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν σου θύραν -- “1 have
set,” etc. See vol. i. 41. (γ) 3° ἰδοὺ διδῶ = “ behold I will make”:
vol. i. 41. (8) 5° ἐν peow . .. ἐν péow=“ between . . . and”:
see vol. i. 140. (ε) 6! λέγοντος ὡς φωνή (AC 046 and most
curss.) βροντῆς. Here ὡς φωνή -- 3, which our author may
have had in his mind, and which=os φωνή or ὡς φωνῇ. By a
slip our author wrote the former. The same misrendering is
found in Is 5!” εἰς. : see vol. 1. 161. (ζ) 121! ἐνίκησαν διὰ τὸ αἷμα
τοῦ dpviov . .. καὶ οὐκ ἠγάπησαν, κτλ., where the καί is to be
rendered by “seeing,” as vav in Hebrew. The καί (=vav)
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%, (η) 1214 ἀπὸ
προσώπου τοῦ dpews=WNIT IDN—“ because of the serpent”:
see vol. i. 330. (6) 218 rots δὲ δειλοῖς. . . τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν --
npon . . - a5 sand. The dative is to be explained as a repro-
duction of the Hebrew idiom where 2 introduces a new subject :
see vol. ii. 216, footnote. (ι) 225 6 θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. Our
author uses φωτίζειν as a transitive verb in 18! 2135, 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! 2138 and give a most excellent
meaning to the passage: “will cause his face to shine upon
them”: see vol. il. 210 sq.
(ii.) Other Hebraisms.—(a) 37° καί introducing the apo-
dosis (cf. τοῦ 14!) (6) 57 (cf. 85. τὸ 219) ἦλθοι καὶ
εἴληφεν. (ὦ) 68 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος =
“ΣῚ wow ὃν 23π. Here observe the non-Greek sense assigned
to θάνατος : cf. 233 188, (4) 6! μίαν ék=“the first of.” (e) 88 ἵνα
δώσει (1.6. θυμιάματα) ταῖς προσευχαῖς -- “to offer it upon” = ΠΡ}
mban ὃν: cf. Num 19} or 1812, (f) 108 ὕπαγε λάβε. (9) 12°
υἱὸν dpoev= Σ᾽ 13. (1) 13° ὄνομα = ὄνόματα (cf. 17%).
(¢) The future is to be rendered by the pres. in 4510; 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 mis-
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 13° 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 719 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 276
12.21 ὃ νικῶν 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., 27. 17 (21°) τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ, 64 τῷ
καθημένῳ ἐπ’ ἵ αὐτὸν t ἐδόθη αὐτῷ : cf. Matt. 54°. This construc-
tion is very frequent in the LXX owing to its frequency in the
Hebrew.
(ὁ) The oblique forms of the personal pronoun are added to
relatives. 48 ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὐτήν, 77 οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς,
9? Sy...» αὗτόν, 13° 5. 208: οἵ, also 125 Ἢ (ὅπαᾳν... . . 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
98 (οἷα... οὕτως), 13°, J 17”, Acts 151%. 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.
(ὃ (2) 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. 23% 12)? is a well-
established idiom in the Greek text of the Apocalypse. Our
1 This occurs also elsewhere in the N.T., Matt. 416 12°6, Luke 1279,
Acts 7%.
2 This anomalous construction is concealed by the wrong punctuation in
Swete’s edition in both passages, and in one of them in Tischendorf’s. But
the art. does not occur in the Greek, as it was not in the Hebrew.
3 This idiom occurs e€xcv ptionally 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 τοῦ
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,:1> 218.30 212 [80] οἷ4.1.418 20%, In these
passages observe that the nom. is always preceded by, the art.
15 ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὃ μάρτυς 6 πιστός, 229 τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ,
ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν, 3)2 τῆς καινῆς ᾿ἸΙερουσαλήμ, ἡ κατα-
Baivovea, [89 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
prevedes it. bee og τῷ ἀγγέλῳ, ὃ ἔχων τ. σάλπιγγα, and 7?
gl? 13! 146 15? 18! 201 ἄγγελον .. » ἔχοντα τὴν κλεῖν. (y) But
ΑΒ rule does not apply to λέγων. Thus in 1456 we have εἶδον
ἄλλον, ἄγγελον πετόμενον . . . ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον. «νον λέγων. But
λέγων (or λέγοντες) stands by itself: it appears almost indeclin-
able. This may be due to the fact that it may reproduce siond
in our author’s mind. Cf. 4! 9 φωνὴ... λέγων: 5! 6
ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν... λέγοντες, 11! ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος. . . λέγων,
1145 φωναὶ... λέγοντες. This solecism is, of course, found in
the LXX: cf. Gen 15? 2279 3818 451° 48” etc. (δ) € ἔχων follows
an acc. when not preceded Ἢ the art. in 5° ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς πα
ἔχων, 1414 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπον, ἔχων, 17° θηρίον... . ἔχων. But
in 5° 173 it seems corrupt for ἔχον. In 1414 ἔχων is right and
καθήμενον ὅμοιον, which precedes, is a slip for nom.
(iv.) (a) There are passages which need to be retranslated in
order 20 discover the corruption or mistranslation in the Hebrew
sources used by our author.
We have already seen (see p. 1xii 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 ere Hebrew original are 138: 11 and 15°® (a) As regards
133 I have shown in vol. 1. 337 that ἐδευμτοθη- . . ὀπίσω τοῦ
θηρίου is corrupt, and that the corruption did not originate in the
Greek.but in the Hebrew; for since 1485 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 (G7. 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 J4? cli
Hebrew original), we are enabled to discover the origin of the
corruption. Thus the clause in 13°°=f'nn “INNO... AMNN,
where the “INND is corrupt for MN, or rather NWI3 = βλέπουσα.
Thus we have: “the whole earth wondered when it saw the
beast,” which brings it into line with 17% ‘‘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 131! 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. 7)
‘‘ 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 }9N5 as “373 instead of }'3MD; and, since
καὶ ἐλάλει = 727M), the latter is most probably corrupt for 73NM, as
in 2 Chron. 221° (cf. 2 Kings 11}. 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) that this second Beast put all to death that did
not worship the first Beast. (y) Again in 155 6 there are two
expressions, ἠνοίγη T 6 ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου T ἐν TO
οὐρανῷ, and ἐνδεδυμένοι fF λίθον ¢ 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, 15° ὃ ναὸς τῆς
σκηνῆς TOV μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ -- ὩΣ ἽΝ) Sax Son, which
was corrupt for ὩΣ ods Son = ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
a phrase which we find exactly in 11/9 accompanied by the same
verb ἠνοίγη and the repeated article. In 15° + λίθον ¢ is to be
explained by a mistranslation, of ww which can be rendered
either by λίθος, μάρμαρος, or by Bicowos. 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 ior 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 1214-16 184 (see
vol. 1. 330-332, 11. 96 ad fin.) are meaningless survivals of earlier
expectations. Unhappily the work was revised by one of his
disciples who was quite unequal to the task, and to whom we
owe some of the worst confusions in the Book. See, however,
p. Ixiv ad fin.
(c) For other passages which need to be retranslated in
order to discover their meaning, see 18” (μουσικῶν), 1819 ἐκ τῆς
τιμιότητος αὐτῆς. . . ἠρημώθη.
§ 11. Unique Expressions in our Author.
(i.) τ΄ ἀπὸ ὁ ὦν. Our author knows perfectly the case that
should follow ἀπό, but he refuses to inflect the divine name.
See vol. 1. το.
(ii.) τ΄ ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν καὶ ὃ ἐρχόμενος : cf. 1117 16°; see vol. i. 10.
(iii.) 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 itis 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.) 110 ἤκουσα φωνὴν... ὡς σάλπιγγος ἵ λεγούσης { (for
λέγουσαν): cf. 66 14° 161 where the construction is normal.
(ii.) 1% οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ ἵ πεπυ-
ρωμένς t (for πεπυρωμένῳ, a correction rightly introduced in ἐξ,
some cursives, s!-? etc.).
(111.) 120 τὸ μυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων... Kal ἵ Tas ἑπτὰ
λυχνίας ¢ (for τῶν ἑ. λυχνιῶν).
(iv.) 227 συντρίβεται for συντριβήσονται or συντρίψει (9).
(v.) 44 καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ἵ θρόνους... τέσσαρας...
πρεσβυτέρους καθημένους περιβεβλημένους. .. στεφάνους χρυ-
aovst. 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 49". He seemingly in-
serted it as the object of εἶδον. It is obviously a slip.
(vi.) 61 λέγοντος ὡς t φωνή t, where we should have φωνῇ : see
§ το. 1. (2). (€) above, and vol. 1. 161.
(vii.) 614 ὡς βιβλίον ἵ ἑλισσόμενον t. This is rightly corrected
in δὲ and some cursives into ἑλισσόμενος.
(viii.) 79 + περιβεβλημένους ¢ στολὰς Aevkds. 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... λαλοῦσαν... καὶ λέγουσαν ἡ
(for λαλοῦσα... καὶ λέγουσα : see vol. 1. 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.
(xi.) 11° προφητεύσουσιν. . . ἵ περιβεβλημένους F.
(xii.) 114 ai ἐνώπιον Tod κυρίου... } ἑστῶτες 7. 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.
(xiii.) 133 καὶ μίαν ἐκ τ. κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην. This
is ἃ slip exactly like that in 45 above. It is an addition of our
author, and was added seemingly as the object of εἶδον in 13}.
(xiv.) 1467 εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον πετόμενον... ἔχοντα...
ἵ λέγων ἡ. But it is perhaps best to take λέγων as a Hebraism =
ἽΝ 2: cf. 41. For analogous cases see p. cl ad med.
(xv.) 1414 εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη λευκή, Kal ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην T
καθήμενον ὅμοιον ᾿ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, ἔχων. Cf. 4? εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ
θρόνος... καὶ ἐπὶ i. θρόνον καθήμενος, 194 εἶδον. .. καὶ ἰδοὺ
ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὃ καθήμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτού, where we have the normal
construction.
cliv THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
(xvi.) 1429 τὴν ληνὸν. . . T τὸν μέγαν Ἷ.
(xvii.) 192° τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς ἵ τῆς καιομένης t. The fact
that the Hebrew and Aramaic words for “fire” (16. WN and NR)
are feminine, may have led to our author’s forgetting himself for
the moment and writing τῆς καιομένης. In Rom 114 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 ya. The influence of the Hebrew is to be
traced in Mark 12!! (= Matt 214), where in the quotation from
the LXX (Ps 1188) the αὕτη -- ΠΝ, though we should expect
τοῦτο, ἘΣ Gen’ ἘΠῚ 31-36! Ps σοῦ 11g etc. Possibly in
13° of our text the fem. αὐτῇ in ἐδόθη αὐτῇ may be due to mn;
and the fem. art. in ἡ οὐαί (19! 1114) may be explained by the
gender of nin.
(xvill.) 219 τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς ἑπτὰ φιάλας ἵ τῶν γεμόντων FT τῶν
ἑπτὰ πληγῶν. It is hard to explain how such a slip as τῶν γεμόν-
των (AN 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 τὰς. . . φιάλας. Contrast 157.
(xix.) 2114 τὸ τεῖχος τῆς πόλεως ἵ ἔχων F.
(xx.) 22? ξύλον ζωῆς fT ποιῶν ὦ. . . 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 : οἵ, 2214 18124), Tf the gender of yy led to his writing
ποιῶν, he would on revision either have corrected or written
ἀποδιδούς 50 as to bring it into line with the former participle.
§ 13. Primitive Corruptions—due either to (a) accidental
. or (b) deliberate changes.
These are due to an early scribe, or in some cases (7! 204 11-18
21%5 2212) to the editor.
(i.) (a) 179 αἱ λυχνίαι ai 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 οἷν
the art. before the second ἕπτά, since the predicate is coexten-
sive with the subject. (See chap. xiii. § 2. iv.)
(ii.) (a) 64 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτόν Ff.
(iii) (6) 735 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τοῦ θρόνου fF.
(iv.) (a) 813 + ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ νὺξ ὁμοίως fF for ἡμέρας καὶ ὁμοίως
νυκτός (as in Bohairic).
(v.) (6) 917 τοὺς καθημένους ἐπ᾽ { αὐτῶν ἡ. Contrast 191% 21,
(vi.) (a) 14° ἐπὶ ἵ τοῦ μετώπου F.
(vii.) (a) 1918 τῶν καθημένων ἐπ᾽ fT αὐτούς t (A).
(viii.) (ὁ) 204 τῶν πεπελεκισμένων . . . καὶ [οἵτινες] od προσ-
εκύνησαν. <A correction by the editor of John’s Greek.
(ix.) (ὁ) 201! τὸν καθήμενον ἐπ᾽ ἵ αὐτοῦ 7. Editor’s correction
of John’s Greek as in 71 9}",
(x.) (ὁ) 2018 ἔδωκεν t ἡ 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 fF.
(xii.) (a) 219 f τῶν γεμόντων | AN 025 for τὰς γεμούσας.
(xiii.) (ὁ) 21% of πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ κλεισθῶσιν ἡμέρας ἵ νὺξ
γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ ἡ. 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 Joc.
(xiv.) 2127 ὑ πᾶν κοινόν t. Read πᾶς κοινός.
(xv.) (ὁ) 2213 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 20%-22, to be traced to the editor. See
below, §15, 11. (6).
8 14. Constructions in the interpolations conjitcting with
our authors use.
18 6 θεός, ὁ ὧν... ὃ παντοκράτωρ. See above, ὃ το, i. (/).
272 ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν. Our author does not use the indica-
tive after ἐὰν μή.
811 καὶ τ. ὄνομα τ. ἀστέρος λέγεται Ὃ ᾿Αψινθος. 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. γ15 917 201} in ὃ 13 above, and
145’ 16 in this section). :
14) τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης.
1416 6 καθήμενος ἐ..ὃ 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 15},
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. (Ax® 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.
1η9 ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν. Our author does not use
this construction, but ὅπου alone: cf. 218 (Ψ) 778 2010,
1715 οὗ ἡ πόρνη κάθηται. Our author uses ὅπου, not ob.
1818 καὶ ἵππων. .. καὶ σωμάτων. An addition conflicting
alike with the syntax and the sense of the context.
1910 προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ (7.6. anangel). See note on 162° 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 Gv. 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. If, however, the article is omitted in
the case of both nouns, then the noun in the genitive case can
precede the noun that governs it: cf. 717 ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων.
(6) 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 με πατήρ. Contrast 16°
τὸν πέμψαντά pe), 88) τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ ᾿Ιουδαίους.
ORDER OF WORDS clvii
they must follow the noun with the art. repeated: cf. 1119 6 ναὸς
τοῦ θεοῦ ὃ ἐν τῷ otpavd. 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 Pr τῷ 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 universaliy 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 éxxd., 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
--τῷ ἐν “Edéow ἐκκλησίας.1
(c) But though a participial or prepositional phrase may not
intervene between the art. and its oun, it is inserted many
times between the art. and the farticeple dependent upon it:
1116 οἱ... πρεσβύτεροι of ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενοι, 141° 1714
ῬΑ also 11* 121% 1.9% 4% 39% etc.
(ii.) Lhe Pronoun.—(a) The genitive of the possessive noun
does not precede its noun, unless when it is used unemphatically
(z.e. vernacularly): see notes in vol. i. 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 (WV. 7. in Greek, ii. ‘‘ Notes on select Readings,” p. 137) point
out that inscriptions in Asia Minor connected with temples dedicated to
the Emperor always omit the art. before 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 3! 10% 1316 141%, The genitive of the noun can be separated by an attri-
butive adjective from the noun it depends on: cf. 19!" rd δεῖπνον τὸ μέγα τοῦ
θεοῦ : also 6117 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 gov 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. 149
βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, 215 319 g5: δ. 38 (4) 79%. 47 736.14 7817 985
2028, See vol. i. 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, Gv. 409. Often in J the point ofa
passage depends on otros 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 18!5 (source) we have οἱ ἔμποροι τούτων, though the attributive
position would be the more regular: see Blass, Gram. 169.
Contrast J 547 τοῖς 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 110
we have ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, 3° μικρὰν δύναμιν, 20° μικρὸν χρόνον
(yet χρόνον μικρόν in 611), 128 (source) ὅλῃ ἡ γῆ (elsewhere
always post-positive—3! 613. 129 τ614ἡ, μέγας is always post-
positive except in τό] μεγάλης φωνῆς (always elsewhere in our
author the adj. is post-positive in this phrase—ze. 18 times).
1821 (source) ἣ μεγάλη πόλις. ἰσχυρός is Once pre-positive in 18?
(source) ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ. Elsewhere post-positive (5 times, in-
cluding 181°),
Thus, save in four passages of our author (11° 38 16! 203), the
adjective always follows the noun. The other instances (133
18” 21) are in sources.
(iv.) Zhe Mumerals.—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 (2.6. 12! ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς instead of ἐπὶ τ.
κεφαλήν), 1214 ὅπου. . . ἐκεῖ (instead of ὅπου alone), 127 τοῦ before the inf.
(whereas inf. is used in the same sense twice without τοῦ in 131), 12! οἱ
οὐρανοί (instead of οὐρανέ), οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν (instead of οὐαὶ τῇ γῇ : cf. 815), 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 ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν
. σιδηρᾷ in 125: 12° (modelled on 1273) : ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος ὁ καλούμενος...
ἐβλήθη, 129: τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν in 12! 12} : ὅτι εἶδεν and ὅτι. .. εἰς τὴν γῆν
in 12}8 1217-18, See Commentary 272 ἤθε.
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 1]. 15 αὖ
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, 17)? (in 13! καὶ ἐπὶ τ. κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα is inter-
polated), δώδεκα, 2131, 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 7*8 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 1118 (see
vol. 1. 272 sq.) and 18. In other sources—translations from
Hebrew such as 12. 17—the order is Semitic.
᾿ (6) 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 110, 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 τι19 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 This non-Johannine order is not mentioned in the list of grounds for
rejecting 87:12 in vol. i. 213-222.
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.
δ 1. Zhe relative values of ASC 025. 046. 051 according to their
respective attestation of certain Greek and Hebraistic constructions
in our author, which are in some cases unique in Greek literature
and in others rare or comparatively rare save in our author.—
(a) The most notable of these constructions which is practically
unique is one which occurs seven times, once in the title of each
letter to the Seven Churches. Thus in 2! John unquestionably
wrote τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν Edéow ἐκκλησίας and not τ. ayy. τῆς ἐν "E.
ἐκκλησίας, as we find in most texts of 13}, 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, 2019. 2050, and of four versions, Ζ.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 2° 12 314 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 (3). 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. 51 supports it in
2&7 37-14; arm@ in 2!2 314, armé-y in 21%, arm! in 25, fl in 2΄. In the
readings of 52 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 2® !2 3!4 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
ΤῸ 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. ὃ 15. (i.) (4), vol. 1, 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, δὲ 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-§ 18 and C in 2! (preserving a hint of it also
in 218), Of the 223 cursives, 2050 directly supports it in 212,
2019 indirectly in 2!, and 2040 indirectly in 2°.
Thus the vast superiority of A (C) to & o25 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: δὲ in 21-1218 31: 93 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 41. 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.
(6) The next construction which is of a unique character in J*? is
that which follows, ὃ (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 141-7, and two in 20!! 215 where the wrong
construction save in 21° is to be traced to the editor.
In the remaining 24 cases A is right in 20 and wrong in 4
1 Weiss (Texthkritische 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 71 917 1918): C (defective) is right in 9 and wrong in 2
(64 917): & is right in 17 and wrong in 7 (Z.e. 518 64. 16 715 gol 746
1918): 025 right in 16 and wrong in 8 (2.6. 429 518 64 715 ol7 146
19*): 046 right in τῇ and wrong in 7 (49 6% 16 710.15 giv 748),
C o25 correct the text rightly in 14! and 025. 046 in 20}1.
From the above statistics we conclude that & 025. 046 are
practically of equal value. A stands much above them.
(Ὁ In the case of certain Hebraisms we find δὲ 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 τ our author wrote τῷ dyarvt . . . Kal
ἐποίησεν. Here the finite verb must be translated as if it were
ποιήσαντι. O46 min” have actually so corrected the text. Again,
1573 s min? correct the Hebraism ἔχοντας... . 2 καὶ adovow
into ἔχοντας. . . ϑκαὶ adovras. Another Hebraism, Ζ.6. in 239,
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 312 τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ,
ἡ καταβαίνουσα is corrected by N° into τῆς k. Ἴερ. τῆς καταβαινούσης,
and by 046 into ἣ καταβαίνει. Again in 127 6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ
ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι, δὲ 046 min™ omit the τοῦ. In 13),
where the same Hebraism occurs twice, every uncial save A and
all cursives remove the Hebraism by drastic corrections. In 19°
δξ 025. 046 min” Tyc Pr gig vg s? arm®@ insert ἡμῶν between
ὃ θεός and 6 παντοκράτωρ, against A min® Cyp s! 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.
§ το. (1.) (72), p. cxlvii. Such examples show the vast superiority
of A (C) to & 025. 046 as witnesses to the primitive type of text.
§ 2. The absence of conflate readings from A (C) and their
(rare) occurrence in δὲ 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 51 arm? eth, and
τῆς γῆς that of 046 al?™ gig arm’. Cyp Pr read τῆς γῆς ὅλης, and
bo (-Ξ- αὐτῆς μετὰ 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 s§ 046 min™ read ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε, and in 6? & min!”
alone attest this reading. But since the phrase καὶ ide is not used
by our author, but καὶ idov, 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 2 025 min? read ὁμοίως ὃ μισῶ---ἃ conflation, though ὃ μισῶ
RELATIVE VALUES OF THE UNCIALS clxiii
is found as yet only in a few cursives and arm*. Again in 2’, 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 19! we have the conflate reading ὀνόματα γεγραμμένα
καὶ ὄνομα γεγραμμένον.
§ 3. Zhe 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 §§ 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 AN or A 025, and more than twice
as many times as A 046. The combinations of C and x 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 o25 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 8 025 and 046, 025 stands first according
to this reckoning. As regards x and 046, the former takes
precedence of the latter, and is in certain respects much superior —
to it.
1] am beholden to Mr. Marsh for the materials on which Tables I.-III.
are based. They are to be regarded as approximately, not literally, exact. I
have not taken account of 051 since I possess no complete collation of it, and
it is very late. It is defective, eleven chapters being missing. Its value is
not as great as one of the best cursives, as its readings in chaps. 12. 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, 129. In 12 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 οἱ οὐρανοί. In 16% 10: 2 (+4 ἄγγελος) it agrees
with cursives against uncials, also in 16'4 (δαιμόνων and εἰς πόλεμον) 1615
(βλέπουσιν). In 16% 10. 14. it agrees with δὲ and cursives against all other
uncials: in 16° (ζῶσα) with & 025. 046 and cursives against A, in 1618 (oi
ἄνθρωποι) with δὲ 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
TABOO ke.
rece Peculiar to the
ἤσαν Possibly eee ᾿κωῖο
Right readings. po πα Ὁ clase Wrong. aeons en
alternatives | margin. pattie meet ut
ΤᾺ ἘΙΑΤΡ in brackets.
AX = 5 1 S844-7 13) 7 12 154 229 (- 27)
(ρθουν 1 | koe I 67 69 (+10)
a. sing [8 18% 22%) | 2(12719”) oe 414 425 (+47)
xe iss ee oe 12 12 (+1)
these τς τον Ἐπ ἘΣ 7 7
οὗν, 4 OAS Aas Ke 000) 4 τυ Ὁ 103 114 (+21)
046. 21:3 ae fer me 350?
AG? .:4 1:39 ἊΣ 2 38 (+13)
Am. ,120 01. 2 Ι 5 37 (+16)
A 025 . | 30 6 συ 43 (+4)
A 046 . | 24 7 sos 2 33 (+21)
Cozy .| 2 Bee 12 14
C046 .1 22-8) cs 6 "
Ch. 44 pn 12 16
nRo2z5 2 5 21 28 (+12)
NC O25. coe I 4 6
xo046 .| 7 2. 5 44 59 (+5)
ΟΖ iy 046| 4 (44 0 τοῦ 211%) |2 I 28 49
The classification of the uncials from the above data is thus:
TABLE II.
Class i. ° ° . ° : Α
ae She : ; : δ : C
a 1; . . ° . : 025 δὲ 5 046
ΠΕ 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., ze. 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.
a The inferior character of the text of δὲ for J*? has been amply proved both
by Weiss and Gwynn, Afocalypse of St. John in Syriac, p. xl sqq.
RELATIVE VALUES OF THE UNCIALS clxv
TABLE III.
A. Cc. 025. x, 046.
Standing alone . . 62 Ι 6 6 2
In combination . ° 155 sO ft -49 46 47
21) 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.
AxC.1 AXC o25. ANC 046. ΑΝ 025. ΑΝ 046. AC o25. AC 046.
13 5.6 1* 9. 12. 16. 18 15 23. 7.15 41 4" 8. 11 4" ὃ. 11 113 2? 9. 24 210. 16.17
. . . '. χ . —_—= — 2.
22 225 7 10. 13. 14 (δέ). 24 37 εἶν Ἐξ 42. =3
=4 32 (045). 8. 1. 9. 12 τις πὶ
= 19
AC 025. 046. AC 046. A 025. 046. ΝΟ o25. NC 025. 046. RC 046. C 025. 046.
17 16. 20 210.17 18.18 214 19 220 15 7. 20 113 216. 17 3?
Qi. 18. 19. 20 =2 4) 4, 9. 10 ΞΞ 22. 18, 22 =3 =I
38-9. 14 =7 =6
=10
1 According to Weiss (of. czt.), 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 1 wrong basis on which Gwynn (of. cét. 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 Q.”
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,
Θ᾽ e . e . I 99
gen, ; : ee ae
Ν Ξ . . : . ee | eee
046. ὁ . ‘ : τ τσ Bye
There are two points that call for explanation here. (a) First
the numbers of C 025 δὲ 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. If C025
ἐξ 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 δὲ 046 uphold this text in a considerably
weakened form, δὲ replacing it to a considerable extent by readings
often of an early date, and 046 by readings of a later growth.
(2) 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 ὃ 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 δὲ 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. li. 447-451.
8 5. The character of the Versions—The versions differ
1 Compare in 1! τοῦ δούλου (A) for τῷ δούλῳ: in 15 A > ἡμῶν : in 19 ἐν
Χριστῷ (A) for ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ : in 1” λαλεῖ for ἐλάλει: in 116. > 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 from a 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 fl! and the parallel sections
in the other versions and Greek MSS will suffice to prove this.
Thus in τό ἀπὸ ὁ dv (ANC 025) is supported by fl gig vg (51:3)
arm bo eth, while Pr supports 046 ἀπὸ θεοῦ ὃ av (and Tyc a
further development of this reading). In 1° λύσαντι (ANC) is
supported by Pr fl 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) vg4, but the corrected text X° βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς by
Pr gig vg? arm) 34; 025 arm®*%¢ read βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς : 046
βασίλειον ἱερεῖς, while s+? Ὀο -- βασιλείαν ἱερατικήν, and eth=
βασιλ. ἁγνίαν. In 18 the addition ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ (τὸ) τέλος N* is
supported by Tyc gig vg bo against Αἰ Ο 025. 046 Pr ἢ (5: 3)
armeth. In 19 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ N° 046 is supported by Tyc Pr vg4
5}. 2. arm? 3 against Ἰησοῦ AN*C 025 ἢ gig vg“@ arm‘ bo eth.
In 115 τῶν λυχνιῶὼν AC 025 is supported by Tyc Cyp Pr fi s!-2
arm!-?.4¢ bo eth against τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν δὲ 046 gig vg arm’, In
116 ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει AC 025. 046 Tyc gig vg 51: 2 arm!-? 8: α eth
against φαίνει ὡς ὃ ἥλιος ἐξ Pr Cyp fl arm* (Ὁ) bo. In 2! τῷ
ἀγγέλῳ τῷ AC Pr [in Comm.] (fi?) s! arm‘ against τῷ dyy.
τῆς N 025. 046 Tyc gig vg arm!23-¢ bo eth. In 87 ὁ πρῶτος
ΑΝ 025. 046 51:3 arm‘ against 6 πρῶτος ἄγγελος 2020 al Tyc
Pr gig vg arm!-?3¢ bo eth. In 89 τὸ τρίτον A 025. 046 51:3
against τ. τρίτον μέρος & Tyc Pr ἢ gig vg arm bo sa eth.
In 8! all the uncials and cursives are wrong. The true sense
is either preserved or recovered in bo eth and partially in
Pr fl. In 9? καμίνου μεγάλης AN 025 Tyc Pr fl vg arm!-2¢
bo eth against καμ. καιομένης 046 s? and Kap. pey. καιομένης
2020 gig st arm* (~?), In ο' ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων AN 025 gig
vg*%4 against ἐπὶ τ. μετώπων αὐτῶν 046 Tyc Pr fl vg*8¥ sh?
arm (bo) eth. In οὗ φεύγει A(®) 025 against φεύξεται 046 Tyc
Pr fl gig vg 51: 2arm bo eth. In 1116 γοῦ θεοῦ ANC 025 Tyce Pr
fl gig vg s! arm? 3: 4 « bo eth against τ. θρόνου τ. θεοῦ 046 s? arm’.
In 11° ὁ ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ AC gig fl arm bo eth against ἐν τ. οὐρ. N
025. 046 Tyc Pr vg 512 and τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ (> Tyc bo) AC
025 Tyc gig vg 51" 3 arm! 3: 3 4 bo against τ. διαθήκης τοῦ θεοῦ N fl
eth: τ. διαθήκης κυρίου 046. In 123 μέγας πυρρός A 025 Tycvgs! sa
eth against πυρρὸς μέγας NC 046 Pr fl gig 52 arm bo. In 126 ἐκεῖ
1 There are only 61 verses in fl (Codex Floriacensis), z.e. 1-21, 87~9}2,
1116-124, 14-16%, fl does not show such remarkable faithfulness to’ the
primitive text in the later sections as in 1)-2},
clxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
A® 025.046 51 arm? 4; > C Tyc Pr fl vg s? arm? 2-4 (bo ὃ) eth.
In 141° ἐθερίσθη ἣ γῇ all Greek MSS and Versions (-— vg‘ fl
arm1- 2-8-2) against ἐθέρισεν τ. γῆν vg’ fl arm) 23, :> bo. In
1418 ὃ ἔχων AC Tyc gig vg 5}. 3 arm eth against ἔχων & 025.
046 Pr fl bo: φωνῇ AN 046 Tyc fl gig vg s! arm! 3: 8. eth
against κραυγῇ C 025 s? bo: ἤκμασαν ai σταφυλαί (ΑΝ 025
fl gig vg 51:3 against ἤκμασεν ἣ σταφυλή 046 arm eth: > bo.
In 152 ἐκ τ. Onp. καὶ ἐκ τ. εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ AC 025 5} 2. arml-2¢
against 8 Pr fl, which > ἐκ 3, Tyc gig vg bo eth give a different
construction. In 15% ἄδουσιν AC 025. 046 against ἄδοντας ὃὲ
Tyc Pr fl vg bo eth: τῶν ἐθνῶν AX® 025. 046 (Pr) fl gig bo
eth against τῶν αἰώνων ἐξ ἢ Ὁ Tyc vgs? Here arm? 8: 44 is con-
flate. In 15* φοβηθῇ AC 025. 046 Pr fl gig arm bo against of.
σε S$ 051 Tyc vg st? eth. In 15% of ἔχοντες AC 51:2 arm bo
eth against ἔχοντες ἐξ 025. 046 (Tyc Pr ἢ gig vg): ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ
ANC 025 Tyc ἢ gig vg 5(1)3 arm‘ bo eth against 046 Pr arm}?
which omit: {λίθον | AC vg against λίνον (-otv) 025. 046 Tyc
(Pr) gig vg and λινοῦς & fl bo: > eth. In 16! μεγάλης φωνῆς AC
046 (arm*) bo sa against φωνῆς pey. 8 025 Pr fl gig vg sl?
arm? 8. α : φωνῆς eth. ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ ANC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig vg sl?
arme against 046 arm® which omit: while arm* bo sa eth = ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ and arm! 3. 6 -- ἐν τ. vad: ἑπτά ANC 046 Tyc Pr gig vg
51. 2 arm against 025 fl bo eth which omit. In 163 δεύτερος AN®
o25. Tyc Pr ἢ gig vg arm* eth against devr. ἄγγελος 046 st?
arml-2:8a4bo, In 164 τὰς πηγάς ANC 025 Tyc Pr fl gig arm bo
against eis τ. πηγάς 046 51" 2 eth.
Now, taking the Latin and Syriac versions in the above thirty-
three passages (812 1416 155 not being included) we arrive at the
following results :
Tyc. Pr: fl. gig. vg. Sl, 52,
Right. ‘ > 17 14 18 21 12 (70) 721 16
Wrong ° ° 14 16 15 ees) 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 53.
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 % 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. Ν. xe, Cl 025. 046.
Right . 33 15 3 23 23 14
Wrong. oO 14 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 δὲ and 046.
From the above study, therefore, we conclude that αὐ the ver-
sions may in a given case support a reading that is wholly wrong.
In the order of general trustworthiness they stand as follows:
s! gig 52 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, 2.6. 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, Bohairic, and Ethiopic Versions.—The
Armenian version is difficult to compare with the other versions.
In Mr. Conybeare’s edition five texts are distinguished, arm}: 2: 34
andarm*. The last is a recension of the 12th 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!:2:3 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! 3: 8.6 jn supporting the true text. In the
sections which we have usetl for purposes of comparison, z.e. the
sixty-one verses which alone survive of fl, there are two conflate
1 C is defective in some of these sections.
2 It must be borne in mind that there is no critical text of Tyc. Tyc may
appear in better company when this is published.
clxx THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
readings in arm. Thus arm‘ (together with 2020 gig 5}) 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.
arm? (alone
against one, two,
or more members bo. eth.
of arml- 2 3. a),
arml. 2. 3. 4. 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}? ὃ: α it stands in the second column. arm? is
only twice wrong against combinations of arm! 3 4,
It is now possible to arrange the versions in the order of
their merit in the sections preserved in fl, 2.4. 11-21, 87-912, 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
51 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 }-2- 5a,
» Σὲ eth s? Tyc vg.
9s Ψ.. DOE.
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 213 it enjoys the honour
of attesting the original text together with 2050 s! arm* @ against
all the uncials and all the remaining versions.
§ 7. Relations of bo sa eth to each other.-—-These versions form
one group over against the rest. (4) 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.) : 22° (crit. note ad fin.).
(ὁ) bo sa agree against eth and all else in 20! μέγαν θρόνον
(~ rest): in 2218+ ὅτι before ἐάν τις bo sa agree with certain
authorities against eth and others: 195 καὶ λέγει pou? with AN
etc.: > eth & etc.: 201! 4 γῇ καὶ ὃ οὐρανός with AN etc.
(instead of ὁ otp. x. 4 γῆ with 35. 432 Pr eth).
(c) bo sa eth stand alone in 18? ἡ μεγάλη +7 πόλις : 20! in
transposing order of ἅλυσιν μεγάλην: 21° ποιήσω πάντα καινά.
bo sa eth agree with some other authorities in 16! τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
42. 367 arm (for τοῦ ναοῦ): 166: 19%: 218 οὐρανοῦ 025. 046
etc. (for θρόνου).
(4) sa eth agree with certain authorities against bo: 1819
ovat? with AC etc.: > bo with Netc. 19° τοῦ γάμου with AN°
etc.: >bo with x* etc. 2214 πλύνοντες τ. στολὰς αὐτῶν with A&
etc. against ποιοῦντες τ. ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ bo with gig 046 Cyp ete.
(6) bo eth agree against sa: 1919 αὐτῶν bo eth x etc. against
αὐτοῦ sa A etc.
(7) bo stands against eth: 18° ποτηρίῳ eth AC etc. against
ποτ. αὐτῆς bo & etc. 1812 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 iz 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. tere it is that it differs 7” 47nd 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 (0. 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
ἐς 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 025 represents on the
whole the uncial type of text, 046 represents the cursive type.
While slightly over half the variants of 025 from the other uncials
find support among the cursives, more than four-fifths of the
variants of 046 find such support.
But though 046 is largely cursive in character, its record
compares favourably with 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 o46 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 14 we have πνευμάτων ἅ -ἰ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον. 15 τῷ
ἀγαπήσαντι. τ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς. 19 συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει
καὶ (-- ἐν τῇ) βασιλείᾳ. 29 τὴν βλασφημίαν A τῶν λεγόντων. 218
ἐν τ. ἡμέραις -- ἐν αἷς. 217 δώσω αὐτῷ Ὁ φαγεῖν. 259 τὴν γυναῖκα
. τὴν λέγουσαν. 41 ἣ φωνὴ ao λέγουσα. 52 κηρύσσοντα
A φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. 5° ἀρνίον... ἔχον. 7 ὄχλος oe ἑστῶτες,
ἐνὸν περιβεβλημένοι. 818 ἀγγέλου πετομένου. This change is
due not to the scribe’s idea of syntax, but of the sense of the
passage. 9! φωνὴν . . . λέγουσαν, τοὶ καὶ ~ ἦρις, corrected
CURSIVES COLLATED FOR THIS ΕἘΡΠΙΤΙΟΝ 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:
149 175 325
18. 35** +201 617 456 } 337. 632%. 919. 920. 1849. 2004. 2040 (1-11").
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 xal+ ἐκεῖ : 116 χειρὶ αὐτοῦ τῇ δεξιᾷ : 235 ἀνοίξω (for
ἂν ἥξω): 32 ἀποβάλλειν for ἀποθανεῖν : 3* ὀλίγα ἔχεις ὀνόματα
(order): 437 εἰ μὴ ὃ ἀνοίγων.
§ 9. Cursives collated for this edition.—The list of the 22
cursives collated for this edition is given in vol. ii. p. 234,
where attention is drawn to such as are defective. Of these the
most interesting and valuable are 2020. 2040. 2050.
2020 is a good cursive and would stand close to 025 δὲ in the
third class. It agrees with A 201g in 2!8 and in 110 save that
for ὄπισθεν it reads ὀπίσω, and with A and certain cursives in 1°.
Over against seven agreements with A, it supports & in 18
passages and 025 in 13.
920. 2040. 2040 (xi-xii cent.). 920 (x cent.). Though
2040 is written by the same hand throughout, it exhibits two
distinct types of text. From 1-11" it is of the late cursive type
and seems to have been copied from 920 (x cent.). These two
MSS eontats unique readings in the oe passages : Ὁ τῶν
ζώντων : 38 τὰ ἔργα (for τὸν λόγον) : 3132 τῷ ὀνόματι (for τῷ vad) :
4° + καὶ προσκυνήσωσιν (-σουσιν, 920) τῷ ζῶντι and another
addition in 8% In 410 they omit ἐνώπιον τ. θρόνου and have
other omissions in 4* 515 74 9%. They invert the order in 38
and attest the same mripousible: readings in 5! 614 7! 9,
From 119 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. 114 εἰσῆλθεν ἐν αὑτοῖς, 12! οἱ οὐρανοι)
and δὲ and less often o25. But its excellence is still more
clearly shown by the fact that in 119-201! 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 ἐξ.
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 14 it reads ἀπὸ ὃ ὧν with ANC 025 al? fl gig vg 51:3 bo
against 046 and most cursives. In 1° ἐν Ἰησοῦ with NC 025.
2020 gig vg s! bo against the rest ; Ἰησοῦ (without Χριστοῦ) with
ΑΝ 025 al? fl gig vg? arm¢ against the rest. In 112 καί (without
ἐκεῖ AN 025. 045 al Tyc Pr fi vg 512 bo against the rest. In 118
λυχνιῶν (without preceding ἑπτά) ACP al! Tyc Pr ἢ s2
arm!- 2.44 bo against the rest. In 215 Σ» τὰ ἔργα cov καί (added
by 046 al?! s? arm**) with ANC 025. 2020 and versions (—s?
arm*a): ὃ πιστός μου AC 61. 69 Or® 53 against rest. These
suffice to show the character of this cursive. This cursive shows
some slight affinities with A, as in 18 4* 54 221! etc., and still
more with &. Thus with the latter it agrees in 18 (+7) ἀρχὴ xrA.),
115 πεπυρωμένῳ (a correction), 117 ἐπέθηκεν, 279 429 etc. It agrees
with 025 in 1) χάλκῳ λιβάνῳ, al® : 22° τὴν λέγουσαν (also N° 415), etc.
This cursive has a conflate reading in 227 καὶ συντρίψει
αὑτοὺς ὡς TA σκεύη TA 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 1/6 2050 with 920. 2040 Tyc ἢ
gig vg read δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ against all other Greek authorities. Is
there a trace of Latin influence here?
149. 886. 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. 214 ἐδίδασκεν τ. Βαλαάμ, 314 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς πίστεως, 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? (Σ» πεπληρωμένα) : 314
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς πίστεως: 107 ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (also 1): 11* of ἐνώπιον :
1418 βοτάνας: τ5ῦ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγ. ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ οἱ ἔχοντες τ. ἑπτὰ
πληγάς (also s! bo): τ6}7 τοῦ θρόνου -- τοῦ θεοῦ. This is a con-
flation of τοῦ θρόνου, A 046 al?!, all versions ( -- gig) and & τοῦ
θεοῦ, 187 εἰμὶ καθώς, 204 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 617 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—r1o® 17% 18% 72 τοῦ. 11.18. 2012 216.27
228-12. 18, 16. 20.21, τὴς and 617 several times agree where 1934
diverges: 1816 197° 20° 21° 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.
825. 456. 468. The first two members of this group are
closely connected. They stand alone in adding in κατά gov in
25 and the marginal note ἐν ἄλλῳ B in 14”, in omitting καὶ
ἐνώπιον... αὐτοῦ in 3° and ἔχων... τέταρτον ζῷον in 47, in
reading (325**) δῷ in 49 and χρόνον for ἔτι xp. μικρόν in 64, in
omitting γεμούσας in 15%. In very many passages these two
cursives attest the same text in conjunction with a variety of
others: cf. 627 75 8% 929 148 etc. 468 agrees frequently (but
apparently always in conjunction with others except in 15° ot ayy.
ot ἑπτά) with 325. 456. See 1° καὶ ποιήσαντι ἡμῖν βασίλειον
ἱεράτευμα and Σ- εἰς τ. αἰῶνας, 222 βάλω, 37 τήρησον, 7? τοῦ θεοῦ
ζῶντος. See also 9® 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
οὗ uncials, these two cursives agree in over 110 passages. This
number would be still greater but that 184-209 (=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 AN and ANC; 2 times with AC 025; 5 with A;
1 with A 046. ΑἹ] 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. 67} (7). 104(?). 205. 468**, 620(?). 632**. 1957. 2075.
2019 (?). 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067, etc. I add here
three examples of the influence of 025 on later MSS. 2° éxzéz-
twxas (instead of πέπτωκας) 025. 1. 35. 104. 205. 620. 1957.
2015. 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067. 21+ 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. 29 βλασφημίαν ἐκ (>025) τῶν
λεγόντων. Here this obvious correction is followed by 1. 35.
205. 1957. 2015. 2019. 2023. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2041. 2067
t.
Of groups of the second or third class 35. 205 follow xC
* 35, but not 205, adopts the correction of 046 in 313, ze. ἣ καταβαίνει.
Some 20 other cursives do likewise.
ΟἸΧΧΥῚ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
025, 8 025. 046, 8 046 once each: & (or δὲ) C 025 3 times:
S025. 11: & 6.
205 presents two conflate readings in 131} 14°.
Thus group (35. 205) has quite the value of an uncial—
superior in the main to 046, but falling short of 025.
δ το. Ovrigen’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 & and 025, while it is certainly superior
to the text of 046 and Andreas.”
But this text is not deserving of such praise. (a) It has
nothing to do with the text that Origen used. I will compare
the texts in a few passages. In 37 Or® reads: rade λέγει ὃ
ἄγγελός ἀληθινός... ὃ ἀνοίγων Kal οὐδεὶς κλείσει αὐτὴν Kal κλείων
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει, εἰ μὴ ὃ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίξε. 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 o46and most cursives). Again
Origen > ἀκούσῃ τ. φωνῆς pov καί always when quoting 529, but not
so Or’. This may be an accident. In 51 Origen reads ἔσωθεν x.
ὄπισθεν and also ἔμπροσθεν x. ὄπισθεν, but Or’ ἔσωθεν x. ἔξωθεν.
In 5° Origen rightly reads ἀνοῖξαι, but Or*® ὃ ἀνοίγων with 046 and
cursives. In 7% Origen reads μήτε τ. θάλασσαν, but Or® καὶ τ.
θάλασσαν, and ἄχρι against Or® ἄχρις οὗ, In 1® Origen (c. Celsum,
Vill. 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 Or§ and determine its position with reference to
the main texts of 1[5Ρ. We shall find that ¢hzs position ts not high
amongst the uncials, as Harnack would have it, dut low amongst
the cursives. It will not be necessary to bring forward the entire
evidence, but the following will suffice.
(a) Or ts full of corrections like 046, or rather in dependence
on tt.—In 179 it reads ἀστέρων ὧν with o46. But our author
never uses the attracted relative. After 046 it corrects 229 τὴν
1 Naturally some points of agreement are found. Cf. the addition with
N alp in 18 ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος and others, for any MS of JP has of necessity many
points of contact with every other,
ORIGEN’S SO-CALLED TEXT clxxvil
γυναῖκα... ἧ λέγουσα into τὴν yw... . ἣ λέγει, and 3” τῆς
καινῆς Ἴερ. ἣ 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. 519 βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς into βασιλεῖς x. ἱερεῖς.
(6) It makes additions to the text with 046: 218-: τὰ ἔργα σου
καί: and with 8 046: 29+74 ἔργα καί.
(c) In 813 we have a conflation of A and 046: καὶ τὸ τρίτον
αὐτῆς μὴ φάνῃ ἡμέρα καὶ ἣ ἡμέρα μὴ φάνῃ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς, where
046 comes first and A second. Another conflation appears in
48 (see (g) below).
(4) A few of the passages where it follows 046 and some
cursives.—1™ φωνὴν ὀπίσω μου μεγάλην : 112 καὶ - ἐκεῖ : 21° παθεῖν :
ἰδοὺ + δή. δή does not belong to our author’s vocabulary. 2!*+
καί before φαγεῖν : 4* τοὺς θρόνους -- τούς : 47> ὡς before ἀνθρώ-
που: 41} ἡμῶν - ὃ ἅγιος : 55 6 ἀνοίγων (where the text is ἀνοῖξαι) :
9? καμίνου καιομένης.
(6) Directly or indirectly tt follows 025 tn the following correc-
tions.—2° τὴν βλασφημίαν τῶν λεγόντων : 217 δώσω aitot φαγεῖν :
η9 ὄχλος. . . περιβεβλημένοι.
(7) Or ts not unfrequently without any support but that of
cursives.—1'® δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ χειρί: 214 ὃς ἐδίδαξεν τὸν Bad.: 37 τοῦ
before Δαυείδ : 418 ἵνα ἐγχρίσῃ : 51° ὅσα ἐστίν : 6° ἐσφραγισμένων
(for ἐσφαγμένων !): τοῦ γράφῃς with only 205: 11ἴ}» καὶ ὅταν
τελέσωσιν with 617. 920. 2040 arm? 8: 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 éori): 48 κυκλόθεν ἔσωθεν καὶ
ἔξωθεν, where 61. 69 have κυκλ. ἔξωθεν x. €owfev—conflations of
κυκλ. κι ἔσωθεν AN etc., and κυκλ. x. ἔξωθεν 1957. 2050: 115
ἐκπορεύσεταί : 13° πολεμῆσαι (instead of ποιῆσαι): 1315 ἀποκταν-
θῆναι (instead of ἵνα... ἀποκτανθῶσιν). In 4318 with 69 alone
Or® reads φανῇ for φανερώθῃ.
Again with 61. 69 418 Or* agrees against all authorities in 1°
βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα: with 046 in 1216 ἐνέβαλεν (where ὅτ. 60,
however, have ἀνέλαβεν) : in 3° γνώσει with & 69 γνώσῃ.
From (g) it follows that Or® 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 9th or roth century. Hence it should be numbered as
cursive 2293.
m
clxxvill THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
§ 11. Some account of the Versions.
(i.) Latin Versions: (4) Tyconius; (4) Primasius ; (c) Codex
Floriacensis (= fl) ; (4) Codex Gigas (=gig); (6) Vulgate.
(a) Zycontus.—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,” 1. Z.S.,
April 1913.
(ὁ) Primasius (= Pr).—Haussleiter has published a critical
edition of Primasius’ text in his work, Dée lateinische Apocalypse,
1891, pp. 80-175.
(c) Codex Floriacensis (=fl).—Only fragments of this Latin
version made in Africa survive. These amount to 61 verses:
1-21, 87-g!%, 1116-1444, 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 Vécole des chartes,
xliv. (1883) pp. 445-451, Belsheim in 1887 ; Berger, Ze 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 fl render mutual service to each other. They make
the detection of intrusions of vg in one or other of these two
versions an easy task. The canon of criticism here is that where
Pr and 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).
(6) 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* c. Ὁ, f. g. h. v) are used:
a—Amiatinus (vli—viii) cent. g—Sangermanensis (ix).
c—Cavensis (ix). h—Hubertianus (ix—x).
d—Armachanus (812 A.D.). v—Valliqellanus (ix).
f—Fuldensis (vi).
_ ii, Syriac Versions: (a) Philoxenian, (6) Harkleian or Syriac
Vulgate,
THE VERSIONS clxxix
(a) Philoxenian (=s'). 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.). Itis
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 1310 s! gig sa eth read ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀποκτανθή-
σεται: in 917 51 Tyc Pr gig vg arm)? 8:8 read τοῦ στόματος : but
this is found in one Greek cursive—35. The presence of acommon
Latin (Ὁ) element in s! 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.
51 exhibits conflations in 51° 62 111! 1817 ὃ ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ἐπὶ
τόπον πλέων.
Gwynn puts forward two hypotheses to account for the form
of the text of 5. 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 (op. cit.), pp. [xxi-Ixxv, Ixxxi-]xxxiv.
ili, Armenian Versions. — The Armenian version was
admitted into the Armenian canon in the 12th 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! 2 3
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!23, Conybeare
ascribes arm!*3to a 5th century text and arm‘ to a redaction
of the early 8th.
As in the case of s!, 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, Ze.
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}: *-%-«, seeing that it represents a
more ancient type of Greek text than arm!:2%¢, Armé# 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
(1617-1918) from a text which hedoes not give, and print a text (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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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 οΟἾχχχιὶ
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
Ps
Most primitive form A somewhat normalized and
(280-450 A.D.) of very corrupt form of text
text, in which cor- which replaces a whole class
rection has made of the author’s constructions
some progress by more normal Greek
Se ae | |
Fi FS Fe F? (4th cent.)
(3rd to 5th cent.) δὲ (4th cent.)
ΔΕ ΦΆ
BAe ay
mn s! Tyc Pr fl gig arm 4
ce UC ame ee
ACG Uk
(5th cent.) vg (4th cent. )
|
C (5th cent.)
| |
025 046
(8th cent. recension) 8th cent.
many cursives
|
2040 (119-20"). 2050 35. 205 Main body of
(10th cent. ) (roth cent.) cursives
1 Possibly these three versions should be represented rather as |
but the uncritical text of eth does not easily admit of this arrange- sa »
ment. .
ΟἾΧΧΧΙΙ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
For the meaning of the above symbols and abbreviations of
MSS and versions, see vol. ii. pp. 227 sqq., 234 sqq. For Fl 2-3-4
(z.e. Papyri Fragments), see vol. ii. pp. 447-451.
Though the above table must in many of its features be
regarded as purely hypothetical, the editor is convinced of its
general accuracy down to A& Fl234; 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. o25 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
44 ἐπὶ τ. θρόνους (+ τους 046) εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους is
undoubtedly right where A& are wrong and C is defective; for
sl. 2 arm? 3-44 Pr gig vg bo eth here support 025. 046. In 68
6 θάνατος of 025. 046 is right, where A is corrupt and Cx wrong.
In 910 οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις of 025. 046 is again right against
the greater uncials, and also in 19! 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 025 and 046 are related differently to A and
ἐξ. 025 is more closely associated with the text of A, and 046
with that of 8. 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!§ 025 unites
with C in reading κραυγῇ (a wrong reading) against φωνῇ of
A®& 046: in 14) in reading ἐν Χριστῷ against ἐν κυρίῳ of all other
MSS. This connection is represented in the above table.
Certain cursives, Ze 35. 205. 2040 (118-201! 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. The internal
relations of the Latin versions Tyc Pr fl gig which are still un-
METHODS OF INTERPRETATION clxxxiil
determined, and likewise the influence of the Latin versions (or of
the Greek MSS from which a large part of this peculiar (?) Latin
element may be derived) on arm s! 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 51, I have placed
these versions in close connection on the above table. But the
Latin influence on bo eth is not represented, nor is s? even men-
tioned.
XV.
THE 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. ii. 86, ‘‘no great prophecy receives its
full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events.
In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against
which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or seer. But if it
is the expression of 9 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 far as these future events arise naturally out of contemporary
events their elucidation can to a certain extent be brought under
§ 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, Chiliasns
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 (cave.
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 § 9 under the heading 8 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 zmfasse. in the
Apocalypse there is no such rigid unity of authorship and con-
sistency of detail as has been constantly assumed. A new
method of interpretation was initiated by Grotius—the Literary-
Critical. Grotius, observing that there were conflicting elements
alike in tradition and within the text itself, conjectured that the
Apocalypse was composed of several visions written down at
different times and in different places, some before and some after
the destruction of Jerusalem. This method finally gave birth to
three different hypotheses, each of the three possessing some
element of truth, but especially the third. These hypotheses are:
(a) The Redactional-Hypothesis.
(4) The Sources-Hypothesis.
(c) The Fragmentary-Hypothesis.
(a) The Redactional-Hypothests.— Many interpreters have
availed themselves of this hypothesis, but a thorough study of
John’s style and diction makes it impossible to recognize the
Apocalypse as the result of the work of a series of successive
editors, such as we recognize in the Ascension of Isaiah. That
the Apocalypse suffered one such redaction appears to the present
writer to be a hypothesis necessarily postulated by the facts; see
vol. i. pp. 1--ἰν, vol. ii. pp. 144-154.
(ὁ) The Sources-Hypothesis.—This 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 have sought to show in 718 7#8 114-3 12. 13. 17. 18
(see pp. lxii-lxv) Some of these sources are purely Jewish,
or Jewish-Christian in origin, and one at least of them—z.e.
chap. 12—is derived ultimately from a heathen expectation of
a World Redeemer (see vol. i. 310-314). But this theory,
which breaks up the entire book into various sources, cannot
explain the relative unity of the work as a whole—nay more,
a unity which might be described as absolute in respect to its
purpose steadily maintained from the beginning to the close,
its growing thought and dramatic development, its progressive
crises, and its diction and style, which are unique in all Greek
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 Fi.gmentary-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. Traditional - Historical Method. — This method was
applied first by Gunkel to the Apocalypse, and subsequently by
many other scholars in an extravagant degree. Each new
apocalypse is to some extent a reproduction and reinterpretation
of traditional material—whether in the form of figures, symbols,
or doctrines. Hence it is necessary to distinguish between the
original meaning of a borrowed symbol or doctrine and the new
turn given to it by our author. This is done in the introduction
to each chapter in this Commentary. In nearly every case our
author has transformed or glorified the borrowed material.
Thus the sealing in 718, which in its Jewish source carried with
it the thought of security from physical evil, is a pledge of God’s
protection from sfiritual 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 12/816 184), 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. 1i. 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 clxxxvil
8.9. 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°. The Philological Method in its later form.—This method
has already been dealt with in the order of its historical appear-
ance under § 4* above. But its value in determining some of the
chief questions of the Apocalypse has never yet been appreciated.
It has therefore been all but wholly neglected, and no writer has
made a really serious study of the style and diction of our
author save Bousset, and that only in a minor degree. Hence
on every hand individual verses and combinations of verses
have been unjustifiably rejected as non-Johannine, and others
just as unjustifiably received as Johannine. After working for
years on the Apocalypse under the guidance of all the above
methods, I came at last to recognize that no certain conclusion
could be reached on many of the vexed problems of the book
till I had made a thorough study of John’s grammar. Qn 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 wice 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 :- abbreviated as much as possible. For fuller biblio-
graphies in various directions the reader should consult Liicke, Zz/. zx d,
Offenbarung®, 518 sqq., 952 544. ; Bousset, Offenbarung Johannis, 1906, pp.
48-118 ; Holtzmann-Bauer’s Hand-Commentar, iv. 380-390; Walch, 4761.
clxxxviii THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
which are referred to by Jerome, De vir. tllustr. 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. 4. vi. 14. 1) commented on the Apocalypse,
and Origen recorded his intention of so doing, Ja 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 Sttzungs-
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, P.Z. v. Haussleiter is engaged on a critical edition.
Tyconius (iv-v cent. See Souterin 7. Z:S. xiv. 338sqq. A critical
edition is promised by Haussleiter) ; Primasius (vi cent., ed. by
Haussleiter, Die Lateinische 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. 7
There were some Syriac Commentaries, the most important
of which is that of Barsalibi (see Gwynn in Hermathena, vi-vii).
In the mediaeval period the most important commentator
was Joachim, abbott of Floris, 1195 (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, Aznota-
tiones in IV.T., 1516; Bibliander, Comment. in Apoc., 1549 ; Bul-
linger, Zx Apoc. Conciones, 1557; Ribeira, Ju sacram ὦ. Loannts
. . . Apoc. Commentarius, Lyons, 1593; Pereyra, Disputationes
selectissimae super libro Apocalypsts, Venice, 1607 ; Salmeron, Jz
Johannis Apoc. Praeludia, 1614; Alcasar, Vestigatio arcani sensus
in Apoc., Lyons, 1618 ; Juan Mariana, Scholiain... NV.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, Cogttationes in Apoc.,
1673; Marckius, Zz Afoc. . . . Commentarius, Amsterdam,
1689; Vitringa, ᾿Ανάκρισις Afpocalypsios*, 1719; I. Newton,
Theol. selecta, iv. 760 sqq.; Stosch, Catalogus rariorum in Apoc. Joannts
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, V.Z. Graecum, 2 vols., 1751-52,
Amsterdam ; Eichhorn, Commentarius in Apoc., Gottingen, 1791.
Amongst the Commentaries of the nineteenth century should be
‘mentioned: Vogel, Commentationes vit. de Apocalypst, Erlangen,
1811-16; H. Ewald, Comm. in Afpoc. Joannis, 1828, die Johan-
netschen Schriften, Gottingen, 1862; Lticke, see Studies, below;
Zillig, Offenbarung Johannis, Stuttgart, 1834-40; M. Stuart,
Comm. on the Apoc.*, 1845; De Wette, Erklarung der Offenbarung,
1848; Hengstenberg, Die Offenbarung .. . erliutert, Berlin,
1849-51; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae*, 4 vols., 1851; Ebrard;
Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1853; G. Volkmar, Commentar zur
Offenbarung, Zurich, 1862 ; C. Wordsworth, ew Testament, vol.
ii, London, 1864; Kliefoth, Offenbarung des Johannis, Leipzig,
1874; C. J. Vaughan, Revelation of St. John, London, 1870;
J.C. A. Hofmann, Offend. Johannis, 1874; A. Bisping, Erklirung
der Apoc., Minster, 1876; C. H. A. Burger, Offend. Johannis,
1877; J. P. Lange, Bidelwerk®, 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; Kiibel, Ofendbarung 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, Apoc. of St. John, i.—i1., London, 1908 ; Holtzmann-
Bauer, Offenbarung des Johannis* (Hand-Comm.), Tibingen, 1908 ;
J. M. S. Baljon, Openbaring van Johannes, Utrecht, 1908 ;
Moffatt, Revelation of St. John (Expositors Gk. Test.), London,
1910; E. C. S. Gibson, Revelation of St. John, London, 1910;
A. Ramsay (Westminster N.T.), 1910; Diobouniotis und
Harnack, Der Scholien-Kommentar des Origenes zur Apokalypse
Johannis, Leipzig, 1911; J. T. Dean, Edinburgh, 1915.
Studies, Exegetical and Critical.—Liicke, Versuch einer voll-
standigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis*, Bonn, 1852;
F. Bleek, Vorlesungen iiber d. Apocalypse, Berlin, 1859; F. Ὁ.
Maurice, Lectures on the Apocalypse, Cambridge, 1861; Milligan, —
Discussions on the Apocalypse, London, 1893; Selwyn, Zhe Chris-
tian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse, London, 1900; F. C.
Porter (Hastings’ D.P. 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 NV.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. VoOlter,
LEnstehung der Apokalypse (designated as “ Volter i.” in my Com-
mentary), Freiburg, 1885 ; Ofendarung Johannis (as “ Volter ii.”
in my Commentary), Tiibingen, 1886; Das Problem der Apok-
alypse (as ‘“ Volter ili.”), 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, LZ’ Origine de ? Apocalypse,
Paris, 1887; Spitta, Ofenbarung des Johannes, Halle, 1889;
Erbes, Offenbarung Johannis, Gotha, 1891; Schmidt, Die Kom-
postition der Offenbarung Johannis, Freiburg, 1891 ; Bousset, Zur
Texthkritik der Apokalypse, (Textkritische Studien zum .T.),
Leipzig, 1894; Rauch, Ofenbarung des Johannes, Haarlem, 1894 ;
Hirscht, Die Apokalypse und thre neueste Krittk, Leipzig, 1895 ;
J. Weiss, Offenbarung des Johannes, Gottingen, 1904; Well-
hausen, Analyse der Offenbarung Johannts, Berlin, 1907.
Texts.—B. Weiss, Die Johannes-Apokalypse (Textkritische
Untersuchungen und Textherstellung), Leipzig, 1891, 2nd ed.
1902; Souter, V.Z. 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) & 18 21. 1. 14 is τῷ ἀγγέλῳ
τῷ, though among the uncials A has preserved it only in three
passages and C in one. Souter follows A in 21-8 but not in 238,
Von Soden has rejected the right reading in the seven passages,
and branded it (p. 2070) as a “ Willktirlichkeit” 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. 1. pp. clxvi—clxxi, vol. ii. 234 sq.
SoME OF THE ABBREVATIONS USED IN THIS WORK.
Versions.!
Aq. ora’ . . . . Version of Aquila or a.
ANG oe ον 14, Soorine” ‘Version.
LAX. Of eo 4 ac. Ὁ Seppaarat,
1 For those used in the Greek text see vol. ii. 227~235.
ΙΝ ΠΣ
Symm. or σ΄
Theod. or θ΄.
Abbott, Gram.
og ae
Blass, Gram. .
DAMS
DB.
Pie ae
ἢν, 4.
ap
K.ATS
M.-W.’s Gram.
Moulton, Gram. .
αὶ...
Robertson, Gram.
RG 2 OF ONAN
Thackeray, Gram.
Volter i..
iy.
ie.
Wiss
Lida dees
ΖΕ Ni dae
ΖΑ ee he
ABBREVIATIONS ΟΧΟΙ
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
N.T., 1914.
Sacred Books of the East (edited by Max
Miller), Oxford.
Thackeray, Grammar of the O.T. in
Greek, vol. 1., 1909.
Theologische Literaturzeitung.
Weber’s Jidische Theologie, 1897.
Westcott and Hort, Zhe V.7: in Greek.
See above under the Section ‘ Studies
mainly Critical.”
3) 5 9
3) 3)
3) 3)
Lettschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wis-
senschaft. ;
Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fiir die Neutesta-
mentliche Wissenschafe.
Lettschrift fiir Kirchliche Wrssenschaft
und Kirchliches Leben.
Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Theologie.
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.
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
XIX. 4.
Page 297, line 8. Delete “A slip for the dative.” See also
text in vol. ii. 306: 415, 416 footnote.
ἘΠΕ REVELATION
OF ST. JOHN.
preiemeesa tele Mtoe
CHAPTER I.
§ 1. Zhe 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 Zoc.).
VOL. I.—I
2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. ὃ 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. g—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 11.—ili. to which it forms
an introduction, just as x. does to ΧΙ. I-13.
In 17°-18 the Son of Man declares who He is (even as God
does in 8), 1.4. 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 δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. This
clause recurs as a whole in xxii. 6 and in part ἴῃ iv. 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. ΧΧΙΙ. 16, 18, 20.
τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ καὶ τ. μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ. Cf. i. 9, vi. 9, xii. 11
(τ. λόγον τ. μαρτυρίας), 17 (τ. μαρτυρίαν Ἰηφοῦ 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. 9, xx. 6, xxll. 7, 14.
5 yap καιρὸς ἐγγύς. Cf. xxii. To.
5. ὁ μάρτυς ὃ πιστός. Cf. ii. 13, ll. 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 A καὶ TQ... ὃ dv καὶ ὃ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὃ παν-
τοκράτωρ. Cf. i. 8, iv. 8, xi. 17, Xvi. 5, XXL. 6, ΧΧΙ]. 13.
Κύριος ὁ θεὸς... ὃ παντοκράτωρ. Cf. iv. 8, xi. 17, xv. 3,
Xvi. 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 ἀνθρώπου. 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. 1, 15. Sik, τὸν
15. ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὑδάτων πολλῶν. Cf. xiv. 2, xix. 6.
16. ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς 6 ἥλιος. Cf. x. 1.
ἔχων ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτά. Cf. il. 1, ill. τ.
ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαία δίστομος ὀξεῖα. Cf. 11. 13.
17. ὁ πρῶτος καὶ 6 ἔσχατος. Cf. ii. 8, xxii. 13.
19. οὖν. Here used (probably owing to its fourfold occur-
rence in ii—iii.) of logical appeal, never of historical transition
as in the Fourth Gospel: cf. ii. 5, 16, ili. 3, 19. In the later
chapters our author uses διὰ τοῦτο instead: cf. vii. 15, ΧΙ. 32
[xviii 8]. Thus this exézve chapter is most closely connected
by its distinctively Johannine phraseology with ii.—vi., x.—xi.,
XiV.—xVi., xIx.-xxll. Let us now turn to the most striking idioms
in this chapter.
(ὁ) Ldiom.—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 ὃ ὧν... éyxdevos—this title recurs wholly or in part
in i. 8, iv..8, xh by awh. §.
5. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 6 μάρτυς πιστός, This anomalous con:
4. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN fr, 8
struction of the nominative in apposition to an oblique case
recurs 1]. 13, 20, τ τῶ, ‘Vil. 4, VIL g, I. ἸΏ; xiv. 12, 14, Xx. ἃ;
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, lil. 9, Vil. 14, xiv.
2-3, KV. 33
10. φωνήν... ὧς σάλπιγγος λεγούσης. Here we should
expect λέγουσαν. But cf. iv. 1.
18. ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπουι Cf. xiv. 14 for this otherwise
unexampled construction. See Additional Note, p. 36.
16. ἔχων -- εἶχε or ἔχει as elsewhere in our author: cf. x. 2,
ΧΙ. 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 ὃ ἥλιος φαίνει though not found else-
where in this Book, is closely akin to our authors many
Hebraisms, especially in connection with os=23. See p. 36.
20. tas 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.-xvi., xx.-xxi. There can be no doubt as to the
genuineness of the text.
§ 3.. Order of Words.
The order is Semitic. Thus the verb is before the subject
and object once, before the subject twice, before the object five
times. It stands at the beginning of the clause or sentence
followed by adverbial phrases eleven times. On the other hand,
the verb follows -the subject (9) once, the object (a pronoun)
once. The participle, where it stands for a finite verb, occurs
once at the close of a clause (16°). These facts are in keeping
with our author’s style.
᾿Αποκάλυψις “lwdvvou.
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), xii. 1, While ἀποκαλύπτειν is found in
Amos iii, 7, ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν πρὸς τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς
I. 1-3.] 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. li, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 47, x. τ. It
appears in the title of 2 Baruch—‘“‘ The Book of the Apocalypse
of Baruch the son of Neriah”—the publication of which was
nearly contemporary with that of our Apocalypse. It signifies a
vision and its interpretation. Elsewhere in the N.T. it is found
with the same meaning in the Pauline Epistles (Rom. xvi. 25 ;
2 Cor. χὴν 13 Gal. 1. 12, ete.) > Ins: Pet. 1.0; 13, ἵν. 13; Luke Ἡ,
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. 352D, Gorg. 460A; while ἀποκάλυψις is found in Plutarch,
Paul. Aemil. 14, Cat. Maj. 20, Quom. Adul. ab Am. 32 -(a7ox.
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 veve/azio in Latin
was unknown to the heathen world.
ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου was the title of our Book in the znd
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
ἑωρακότος) ; 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. 1.
I. 1-38. 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—édwxev αὐτῶ ὁ 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
Taxerin xxii. 6. Next, Christ sent and signified it through His angel
to John—éonpaveyv ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ
αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννῃ (cf. the declaration of Christ in xxii. 6-7, 16, 13,
12, 10, 185). 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 [1
attested by Christ—rov λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ὅσα εἶδεν (cf. the testimony of John in xxii. 8-0,
20-21). This correspondence between i. 1-2 and xxi. 6>-8,
Xxll. 6-21, is, therefore, not accidental. But if we desire further
confirmation of the close connection of 1-3 with the xxi.—xxil.,
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 ᾿Ιησοῦ 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: “Ingots
alone nine times; Κύριος Ἰησοῦς 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, xl. 15, ΧΙ. το. In
the Johannine Epistles Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs nine times, Ἰησοῦς
six, 6 Χριστός three times.
ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὃ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ. Cf. Amos
ili. 7, οὐ μὴ ποιήσει Κύριος 6 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.
xX. 7, ΧΙ. 18, xxii. 6. δεῖξαι. This word is characteristic of our
author when it means to communicate a divine revelation by
means of visions.
ἃ δεῖ 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 det γενέσθαι ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν), 29. a...
ἐν τάχει recurs in xxii. 6.
ἐσήμανεν---ἃ Johannine word: cf. John xii. 33, xviii. 32, ΧΧΙ.
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 = 12 ΓΦ», Ex.
1.1.8.] THE SUPERSCRIPTION 7
iv. 13; Matt. xi. 2, πέμψας διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ: Acts xi. 30,
ἀποστείλαντες... διὰ χειρὸς Bapva Ba.
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. (2.¢., 33 +10= 43
times). The aorist ἐμαρτύρησεν is epistolary: the author trans-
ports himself to the standpoint of his readers.
tov λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ 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 etdev—to the revelation made in this Book.
Kindred expressions occur in xii. 17, τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ. ..
τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ, 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 to the 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 (1°) and the visions of the Seer are here closely com-
bined, as also later.
3. This verse consists of a stanza of four lines. We have here
the first of the seven beatitudes in the Apocalypse (xiv. 13, xvi.
15, xix. οὗ, xx. 6, xxil. 7, 14. The last beatitude, which is pro-
nounced by Christ and is given in xxii. 7° (for the present text of
XX. 4-ΧΧΙ]. 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. 6 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
m entioned in this capacity in Tertullian (De Praescr. 41). The
books which were read were originally those of the O.T., as in
the synagogues, and afterwards the books of the N.T., as well as
the sub-apostolic epistles: cf. Justin Martyr (Afol. 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 xill. 15; 2 Cor. iii. 15. Amongst the Jews the Scripture
8 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (1. 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
Schirer’, 11. 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 Kat 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 xxii. 7, 10, 18 the
Seer claims for his Book a place in the forefront of prophetic
literature.
ὁ γὰρ 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. 11; 1 Cor. vil. 29, 6 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 τῇ Acta. 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 Tradl. 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. 4.1 INTRODUCTION 9
but particularly in our Author: cf. i. [42] 12, 16, iv. 5, v. 1, 6
ἔγη. 2}, Mo 5, Wee {πῆ 3} ae, αν, 6, 9, 8. xvi. 5, "xvil. 2,
etc.
ἐν τῇ ‘Acia. According to the usage of the Maccabean Books
(it Mace, ‘Mill; Ὁ» ὦ χὰ XM. (30); MUL 232 Macc. mi, 3, %..24;
3 Macc. iii. 14; 4 Macc. iii. 20), Asia embraces the empire of the
Seleucids. In the Sibylline Oracles, ili, 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 11. 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 Agia in the N.T. is all but universally
(contrast Acts ii. 9) identified with Proconsular Asia.
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν Kal ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος
[καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων τῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ].
ὅ. καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὃ πιστός.
In these three lines the second is beyond question an inter-
polation of a later hand (probably early in the 2nd cent.).
Since xxii. 8—9, and (possibly) xix. 9-1ὸ 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, ze. in xxii. 21, where this spiritual
endowment is derived from Jesus Christ. See notes on χάρις
and εἰρήνη in Sanday’s Romans, 10 sq., 15 sq.; Milligan, 1 Zhess.
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
10 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1. 4.
Epistles the phrase is exactly as here, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη,
while in r and 2 Timothy it stands as in the preceding
sentence. :
ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν Kal ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Cf. 1. 8, iv. 8, and ὃ ὧν κ. ὁ
ἦν in ΧΙ. 17, ΧΥ]. 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, z.¢. ἀπὸ τοῦ 6 ὦν.
But our author shows no knowledge of this construction. But
there are other irregularities—as, for instance, 6 ἦν. The ἦν is
said to have been used because there was no past participle of
εἰμί. But this does not really explain ἣν nor yet ὃ. Besides he
could have used ὁ γεγονώς (cf. xvi. 17, xxi. 6) or ὁ 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 6 dv καὶ ἦν would be an exact
reproduction of the Hebrew ΠΥ ΠῚ ind. See noteon 5°. Herein
we have a probable explanation of ἦν. Itis harder to explain
the 6 which precedes it. The article here may be inserted before
the ἦν since it accompanies the other two elements in the divine
name: ὃ ὦν... Kal 6 ἐρχόμενος.
As for 6 ἐρχόμενος, where our author returns to the participial
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 (AN TWN AAR,
where the LXX has ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ dv, and Aquila and Theod.
ἔσομαι «ὃς ἔσομαι) has "9? TAY NINTT NT NIN = “ Ego sum,
quisum et futurus sum, » and Deut. xxxii. 39, nm HTT NIT NON
nnd ΠΝ NIT NIN = “Ego sum qui sum, et fui, et ego sum qui
futurus sum.” Also Shem. rab. iii. f. ros, “Dixit Deus . . . ad
Mosen: Ego fui, et adhuc sum et ero in posterum” (this last from
Wetstein). In the Greek we find analogous titles of God. Cf.
Pausanias, x. 12. 5: for the songs of the doves at Dodona, Ζεὺς
ἦν, Ζεὺς ἔστιν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται : in the inscription at Sais (Plutarch,
De Tside, 9), ἐγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ὃν καὶ ἐσόμενον καὶ 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 Ahuramazda it
is stated in the Bundahis, i. 4 (S.B.Z. v. 4), ‘*Atharmazd and
1.4 JOHN’S GREETING TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES 11
the region, religion and time of Atiharmazd were and are and
ever will be.”
[καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων κτλ. |
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. xil. το, διακρίσεις
πνευμάτων: XIV. 32, πνεύματα προφητῶν : Apoc. xxil. 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 ΙΧ]. 11; Targ.
Jon. on this passage; also the LXX; Justin, Dial. 87, ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν
πνεῦμα θεοῦ, πνεῦμα σοφίας kai συνέσεως, πνεῦμα βουλῆς Kai 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 11]. 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 K.A. 7.3 ii. 620-626; Bousset, Offenbarung, 184-187,
201 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.4.Z. ν. 10 7.;
Xxill, 291; xxxi. Introd. pp. xviii, xxiv, 77, 179 sq.), which in
their turn were derived from the Babylonish cult of the seven
12 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1. 4.
star deities.1 The existence of these astral divinities Judaism
did not question any more than in earlier times it questioned
the existence of the tribal deities of the nations that surrounded
Israel, but in the interests of Monotheism, Judaism degraded
these foreign deities into angels—subject beings in the service
of Yahweh. In due time the source of these conceptions was
wholly forgotten as well as the historical development involved.
Like his contemporaries, the Seer accepted the traditional Jewish
formula,—God and the seven spirits,—and to this formula
appended the specifically Christian element. ‘Thus according
to Bousset originated one of the most extraordinary Trinities in
Christianity: cf. Justin, AZol. 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 111. 1, ὃ 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
iil. 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᾽ of μὲν ἑπτὰ λύχνοι τοὺς πλανήτας :
Philo, Quzs 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: Bel/. 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 lxxxvi. 1, 3 stars are
used to symbolize angels.
So much for the ἀστέρες. Now as to πνεύματα. Over these
also Christ has supreme authority, ili. 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 ᾿Ιησοῦ 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 ‘Iycods stands alone save in xxii. 20,
21, where we have κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς. |
6 μάρτυς ὃ πιστός. Cf. ili, 14; also il. 13. This anomaly,
which recurs not infrequently—cf. li. 13, 20, ili. 12, ix. 14, xiv.
12, 14, Xx. 2, is best explained as a Hebraism. Since the
Hebrew noun in the indirect cases is not inflected, the Seer acts
at times as if the Greek were similarly uninflected, and simply
places, as in the present instance, the nominative in apposition
to the genitive; 26. 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. ii. 13, 20, iii. 12,
14 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN ae 5, 6.
Vil. 4, Vill. g, 1X. I4, XiV. 12, 14, xx. 2. The participle is also put
in the nominative when the normal construction would be the
gen. or acc. ὍΣ #20) ii.-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 Dusterdieck,
Bousset, and others). Cf. John xvili. 37, εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν
κόσμον iva μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. The phrase ὃ 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. lxxxix. in his mind; for the former phrase is
found in 38, where the moon is said to be PON? PNwWa ap (LXX,
ὁ paptus! ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός), and the latter in 28,
κἀγὼ προτότοκον (7123) 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 1 make King Messiah a firstborn (Ps. Ixxxix. 28). Thus
‘the firstborn” became a Messianic title (see Lightfoot, Col.
i,. £5).
ὁ πρωτότοκος τών vexpov. 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 obhy Sw y22 (= πρωτότοκος τοῦ κόσμου).
(See Lightfoot on (Οἱ. 1. 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” (1.6. the kings of the earth
and their subjects). See note on ill. 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°-7. The second line is to be taken as forming a perfect
parallelism with the first ; for in the τῷ dyarrav7. . . Kat ἐποίησεν
1 In Ps, ly. 4, David is given as a witness (7y) to the nations,
\
I. 5, 6 | JOHN’S GREETING TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES 15
we have a pure Hebraism, in which the participle of the first line
is resolved into a finite verb in the second. This second line is
therefore no parenthesis, nor from the standpoint of the Seer is
there the slightest irregularity in the construction. He is simply
reproducing a common Hebrew idiom literally in Greek. The
A.V., the Syriac and Latin versions are here, therefore, right, and
the R.V. is wrong—wrong as a translation and bad as a piece of
English. Hence we are to translate, ‘To Him that loveth us
. . . and hath made us.” This Hebrew idiom recurs frequently
in our author (i. 18, ii. 2, 9, 20, ili. 9, vii. 14 (see note), xiv. 2-3,
xv. 3), and in none of the instances has it been recognized as
such by any commentator. This Hebrew idiom has become
so naturalized in our author’s style that I cannot but regard the
οἵτινες ἴῃ XX. 4, TOV πεπελεκισμένων. .. καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύ-
νῆσαν, as an addition by John’s literary executor in order to make
the text better Greek. John’s words were most probably τ. πεπε-
λεκισμένων. . . Kal 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... ὃ 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 =
HAMM Fw IN
nid ΠΝ 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. 9; the Pauline ἐξαγοράζειν, Gal. ill. 13, iv. 5 ; ἀπολύ-
τρωσις, Rom. ili, 24, Vill. 23; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i, 7, iv. 30 3 Col.
i. 14. The weakly attested reading λούσαντι. . . ἀπό is not
really supported by vii. 14, ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν... ἐν
τῷ αἵματι Tod apviov, 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 Aov’oavts . . . ἀπό denotes God’s part in man’s
salvation, z.e. his deliverance from sin by Christ. At the same
time it is to be observed that this metaphor is a familiar one in
the N.T. in this connection: cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; Eph. νι 26; Tit,
itt. S35 Ποῖ Baa.
Swete aptly compares Plato, Craz. 405 B, where the two verbs
are brought together in a similar connection, οὐκοῦν 6 καθαίρων
θεὸς καὶ ὁ ἀπολύων τε Kal ἀπολούων τῶν τοιούτων κακῶν αἴτιος ἂν εἴη ;
[6 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 ev to denote a price
. and a natural misapplication of vii. 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, ΠΟ
pnd. This the LXX renders βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (see τ Pet. ii.
9); Aquila, βασιλεία ἱερέων : Symmachus and Theodotion, βασιλεία
ἱερεῖς. The last rendering is that of our text and presupposes
oyna nabep. 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 Theodotion.
Our text then means that Christ has made us a kingdom,
each member of which is a priest unto God. The kingship here
involved was to be an everlasting possession (xxii. 5). Of the
like duration of the priesthood nothing is said in the closing
chapters. As respects the priesthood, the privileges of ancient
Israel have passed over to the Christian Church. Even to pre-
Christian Judaism it was foretold that all true Israelites would
become in a certain sense priests—priests as compared with the
nations that served them. “And strangers shall feed your flocks,
and aliens shall be your plowmen . . . but ye shall be named
the priests of the Lord: men shall call you the ministers of our
God” (Isa. lxi. 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 lIxvi. 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 τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν μετ᾽ 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
I. 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
6 θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς (see note 7% /oc.).
τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. The αὐτοῦ is to be taken with τῷ
θεῷ as well as with πατρί.
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος, 7.56. τῷ ἀγαπῶντι κτλ. Similar
doxologies addressed to Christ are to be found in v. 13, vii. 10,
2 Pet. iii. 18, and most probably in 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. xiii. 21,
and possibly in 1 Pet. iv. Il. In 4 Mace. XV111. 24 we have a
good parallel in diction, as ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς 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, Lora’s Prayer in the Early Church, 168 sqq.
7-8. The prophet’s thought is carried forward to the Second
Advent of Christ in glory (7). It must be confessed that 8 has
no obvious links with what precedes or follows.
7. Here again we have a stanza of three lines—which area
reminiscence and an adaptation of Dan. vii. 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 xiii. = Luke
xxi.), and which in Matt. xxiv. 30 represents this combination
as already achieved (see below). But not only does our text
agree in combining Zech. xii. 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 have
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, *2297DY TN)
NVI NNN WIN TD Nv, Here Theodotion renders καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ
(LXX, 2 ἐπί =5Y: cf. xiv. 14 sqq.; Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64; Didache
xvi. 8 (ἐπάνω), Justin, Afol. 1. 51 sq. (ἐπάνω) ; ἐν -- Ὅν, 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) TOV νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐ ἐρχό-
μενος (LXX, ἤρχετο). Cf. Mark xiv. 62, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου...
ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ: 4 Ezra xiii. 5. 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 ti, TT, KV, 9, αν τὸ, ΧΑ 7, 12, 20.
ὄψεται αὐτὸν. .. καὶ ἐξεκέντησαν. . . Kal κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν
πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. These words, with the exception of the
last four, are based on Zech. xii. 10 and agree for the most part
with the versions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus against
the ΕΧΧ. The LXX reads καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μέ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν
κατωρχήσαντο (ΞΡ) καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ 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 efexévryoav! marks his independence of
the LXX; and the fact that ἐκκεντεῖν is the stock rendering in
the versions of 1p, 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 Τὴ Justin, “4202. i. 52, we find, κόψονται φυλὴ πρὸς φυλήν, καὶ τότε ὄψονται
εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν : Dial. 14, 32; 64, ἐπιγνώσεσθε εἰς ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε : 126,
The reference in all these passages is eschatological,
ey 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 εἰς 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 καὶ τότε
κόψονται πᾶσαι ai 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 Lschatology?,
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 ai φυλαὶ τῆς yHys—unique as regards the N.T. and the
LXX), presupposes some real connection ; and since the Jewish
Apocalypse just referred to was written before 70 A.D., it is
reasonable to conclude that the indebtedness lies on the side of
our author, and that Matt. xxiv. 30 first suggested to him the
combination of Zech. and Daniel, though the diction is mainly
his own, and due to his independent translation of the O.T.
passages ; for he keeps more closely to Daniel and Zechariah
and reproduces their text more fully.
vai, 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 ὃ 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, vii. 12 (ad init.), xix. 4, xxii. 20. (c) It is used
at the close of a solemn affirmation: i. 7 (vat, ἀμήν). (d) It is
used as a designation of Christ: iii. 14, 6 ᾿Αμήν. Here Christ
is represented as the personalized divine Amen, the guarantor in
person of the truth declared by Him, Cf. Isa, lxv. τό, joN ‘TDN,
20 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 8-9.
“God of the Amen,” which, however, is by the best critics
emended into fos τὸν = “God of truth.”
The meaning of vat 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. i. 20). In xiv. 13, xvi. 7, it is used to
confirm what has just been said of the heavenly voice. But in
xiv. 13 it could be taken as the affirmation of a promise by the
Spirit: ‘“‘ Yea—in that they shall rest,” 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
vat ‘‘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, nx. Thus (Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in loc.) Adam trans-
gressed the whole law from aleph to tau (/alkut 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. 128%).
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 (ἡ πὶ 281 WNT WN ΤΊΝΩΝ MM: cf. xl. 4,
xlili. ro).
κύριος ὃ θεός. . . 6 παντοκράτωρ (=MINI¥ mds mim, 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 ὃ θεὸς ὃ ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν Kal ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὃ
παντοκράτωρ, save that the 6 παντοκράτωρ precedes the 6 ὦν.
ὃ παντοκράτωρ is not found in the N.T. outside our author save
in 2 Cor. vi. 18 in a quotation.
ὃ ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν κτλ. See note on i. 4. ‘a
"oy"
9-20. JOHN’S CALL AND COMMISSION. HIS VISION OF
THE SON OF MAN—RISEN AND GLORIFIED.
9. ᾿γὼ Ἰωάννης. Cf. xxii. 8; Dan. vii. 15, 28, viii. 1, 1x. 2
(ἐγὼ Δανιήλ) ; 4 Ezra iii. 1; 1 Enoch xii, 3, etc. The insertion
of the name is required after 8.
: ἐς 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 αὑτῶν καὶ οἱ
ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν of μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς Kai adroit: ΧΙ]. το.
Here, as in its pagan use, ἀδελῴός means a fellow-member in the
same religious society. With ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν cf. 2 Pet. 11]. 15,
ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος. With συνκοινωνός cf. συνκοινω-
νεῖν in ΧΥ]]. 4; and for ἐν after κοινωνός cf. Matt. xxili. 30.
Fellowship in suffering naturally was an essential mark of early
Christianity. Cf. 2 Cor. 1. 7, κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων : Phil.
ili. 10, κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων : IV. 14, συνκοινωνήσαντές μου TH
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 ἢ
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, ill. IO, xill. I0, 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 Ἰησοῦ)--- Pauline conception which
recurs in xiv. 13, but is set forth under another figure in 11]. 20, ¢
ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς pov καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, εἰσελεύσομαι
πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς per ἐμοῦ. It is
a question whether ἐν Ἰησοῦ should be connected with all three
nouns or with ὑπομονή only. Probably the latter is best: cf.
2 Thess. iii. 5, τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, though the idea here is
somewhat different.
ἐγενόμην éev= “I found myself in.
from this clause that when he wrote he was no longer in Patmos.
Patmos was one of the Sporades, a barren rocky island about
”
@
We might conclude}'
ten miles long and five wide. It is first mentioned by |
Thucydides, iii. 33, and later by Strabo, x. 5. 13, and Pliny, Hl.
iv. 12. 23, the last of whom states that it was used as a penal |
settlement by the Romans, as were other islands, z.e. Pontia,
off the coast of Latium, to which Domitian banished Flavia
Domitilla (Euseb. H.Z. iii, 18. 5), and Gyara and Seriphus in
the Aegean (see Zucyc. Bid. ili. 3603).
διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ. These words
define the ground for his presence in Patmos, 2.6. 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
55 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (I. 9-10.
John had gone to Patmos for the purpose of receiving this
revelation, 2.56. 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. ii. 3,
iV.: II, Vl. Q, Vil. 15, Xli. 11, 12, xlll, 14, etc. 2. In two passages
our author speaks of death by persecution in connection with
these very phrases, 2.é. Vi. 95, ἐσφαγμένων διὰ τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ Kai
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 TH θλίψει. . . καὶ ὑπομονῇ suggests that he
‘has in a special—and not in any ordinary—manner suffered for
the faith. If he suffered no more than the average Christian, it
is not in keeping with his reticence as to himself that he should
lay emphasis on what after all was the common lot of the
faithful. 4. An early tradition, in itself not uniform nor quite
credible in its details, testifies to the banishment of John to
Patmos. Cf. Tert. De Praescript. 36, “ Apostolus Toannes | ὌΝΟΣ
in insulam relegatur ” ; Clem. Alex. Quis dives, 42, ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τοῦ
τυράννου ὍΣ ΘθΝ ΜΕ μρμ τόρ ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ στὴν
Ἔφεσον: Origen, Jz Matt. t. xvi. 6, 6 δὲ Ρωμαίων βασιλεύς, ὡς ἡ
᾿ 4 , / Ν 3 4 “a Ν Ν “a
παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε τον Ἰοδννον μάρτυρουντα διὰ TOV 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, 7.2. 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 “TI fell
' into.” These words denote the ecstatic condition into which
“
the Seer has fallen, just as ἐν ἑαυτῷ γένόμενος (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 pe 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
1.10.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 23
have proposed to take this phrase as meaning ‘‘in the day of the
Lord,” 26. “the day of Yahweh,” the day of judgment—in the
LXX, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου, and elsewhere in our text, ἡ 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, dd Maga. ix. τ, μηκέτι
σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ἣ καὶ ἣ ζωὴ ἡμῶν
ἀνέτειλεν : Melito of Sardis—the title of one of his writings, περὶ
κυριακῆς, preserved in Euseb. AZ. 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. HZ. iv. 23. 11, τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν ἁγίαν
ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν : Clem. Alex. Strom. vil. 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 (Lzd/e
Studies, 218 sq.; Encyc. Bib. iii. 2815 sq.). It appears that the
first day of each month was called “ Emperor’s Day ” (ξεβαστή)
in Asia Minor and Egypt before the Christian era, Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers, τ. 11. 7143 nay more, according to two inscrip-
tions from Ephesus and Kabala—to which might be added an
Oxyrhynchus papyrus (c7c. 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. ili. 12 in his mind, καὶ ἀνέλαβέν pe πνεῦμα, Kal ἤκουσα -
κατόπισθέν μου φωνὴν σεισμοῦ μεγάλους Wetstein quotes a good
24 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1.10-11.
parallel from Plutarch, Zycurg. 54 (, ἀκοῦσαι δὲ φωνὴν ὥσπερ
ἀνθρώπου τινὸς ἐξόπισθεν ἐπιτιμῶντος αὐτῷ. .. ὡς δὲ μεταστρα-
φέντος οὐδαμοῦ φανερὸς ὃ φθεγξάμενος Hv, θεῖον ἡγησάμενον.
φωνὴν μεγάλην . .. ὡς σάλπιγγος. Cf. iv. τ note. The
voice is loud and clear as ἃ 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. Duisterdieck 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
δρᾶν in the present tense, except in the case of ὅρα in the im-
perative = “‘beware.” For the future of βλέπειν he _ uses
ὄψεσθαι, and for the passive aorist ὀφθῆναι.
γράψον εἰς. For other constructions with ἐν and ἐπί see i. 3,
ii, 17, iii. 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 (of. ct?
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
1. 11-187] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 26
that circuit to serve as centres of communication with seven
districts: Pergamum for the north (Troas, doubtless Adramyt-
tium, and probably Cyzicus and other cities on the coast con-
tained Churches) ; Thyatira for an inland district on the north-
east and east ; Sardis for the wide middle valley of the Hermus ;
Philadelphia for Upper Lydia, to which it was the door (iii. 8) ;
Laodicea for the Lycus Valley and for central Phrygia, of which
it was the Christian metropolis in later time; Ephesus for the
Cayster and Lower Maeander Valleys and coasts ; Smyrna for
the Lower Hermus Valley and the North Ionian coasts”
(p. 191 sq.). This is an attractive hypothesis. The fact, ;«
however, that seven, and just seven, were chosen, is determined
apparently by the ‘sacredness of this number in the eyes of our
author. This fact, however, does not exclude the possibility |
that the Seven Churches in our author were selected on the
ground of their fitness as desirable centres of publication. To
each of these centres the roll would be carried in turn and then
copied. Smyrna lay 40 miles north of Ephesus, Pergamum
40 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. Zed. 106, κτύπον δέδορκα.
The voice is here used for the person from whom it comes.
ἥτις ἐλάλει per ἐμοῦ. The ἥτις here represents an indirect
question, and accordingly the construction is classical. On
ἐλάλει per 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 (λυχνία τε ΠΛ ))2), which was said to stand
outside the second veil of the Tabernacle. The candlestick or
lampstand carried seven lamps (Avyvor.=nj7)). 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.
18-18. If the student studies the titles of the Son of Man τὸ
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.
ἢ" THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1.18-18.
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. 1. 16%), and 111. 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 (11. 1), is at
all events related verbally to the words of warning in ii. 5, εἰ δὲ ©
μή . -- κινήσω THY λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς. In the letter
to the Church in Smyrna the title, ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς καὶ ἔζησεν
(11. 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 ὁ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον (ii. 12) is antici-
patory of the words in ii. 16°, πολεμήσω per αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ
τοῦ στόματός pov. In the letter to the Church in Thyatira the
title, ὃ ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὡς φλόγα πυρός (ii. 18), may be
chosen with reference to the claim in ii. 23, ἐγώ εἶμι ὃ 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 (ill. 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, 6 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 toit. Finally, in the letter to the Church in Laodicea
the title, 6 μάρτυς ὃ πιστὸς Kal ἀληθινός (111. 14), may have reference
to the testimony given against the Laodicean Church in iii. 16-19.
The above facts show that, whereas only in the case of the
Churches of Philadelphia and Thyatira is there any sort of
organic connection between the divine title and the contents of
the letter, in the case of the rest the connection is at the best
either artificial or doubtful. Thus these titles give the impression
of being an afterthought on the part of our author—inserted by
him in order to link up chap. i. (whence the titles are drawn) and
chaps. ii.-iii, This supposition gains confirmation from the fact
I. 13.] 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 avOpdmov. Cf. xiv. 14. The fact that the articles
are absent (2.6. 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 xxxvil.—lxxi
(also Ixxxiii_xc.), used the term “man” in their vzszons to:
symbolize an angel, vids 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” {-Ξ ΠΣ 23
wax). Such is the literal rendering of this latter passage.
Further, there can be no doubt that long before the time of our
a
(
Seer the phrase “like a Son of Man” (W38 723) in Dan. vii. 13.
was taken as a Messianic designation. Thus ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου
in Apocalyptic is the exact equivalent of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in
the Gospels and Acts vii. 56.
ἐνδεδυμένον ποδήρη. Cf. Dan. x. 5, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ εἷς ἐνδεδυμένος
βύσσινα (LXX: βαδδείν, Theod.), ze. O73 wind ; 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
TAMov ἵ. . . Kat 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 (yn). Cf. Josephus,
Ant. ili, 7. 4, ὃ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς... ἐπενδυσάμενος δ᾽ ἐξ ὑακίνθου
πεποιημένον χιτῶνα, ποδήρης δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ οὗτος, μεεὶρ καλεῖται τὴν
ἡμετέραν γλῶσσαν, ζώνῃ περισφίγγεται : ili. 7. 2, where the linen
vestment of the priests is called ποδήρης χιτών. See also Wisd.
XVill. 24, ἐπὶ yap ποδήρους ἐνδύματος ἦν ὅλος 6 κόσμος. But even
if ποδήρης was in the mind of the Seer a rendering of Sy, the
priestly reference is still doubtful; for the Sy was commonly
used by men of high rank (cf. 1 Sam. xviii. 4, xxiv. 5, 12; Ezek.
xxvi. τό, etc.). 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, Zschatologie,
346 sq.
περιεξζωσμένον 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 Odal, 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
(n2ax), but it was a loosely-woven scarf: cf. Ex. xxviii. 4,
ΧΧΧΙΧ. 29; Ley. xiii. 7. This priestly girdle was worn on the
breast a little above the armpits: cf. Josephus, Azz. iii. 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 at 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. 1
=% κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἔριον λευκή (or λευκόν). Thus in the first
place we explain the combination of 4 κεφαλή and ai τρίχες in
our text. But our text diverges clearly from Theodotion’s
version and the Massoretic of Dan. vii. 9; for the latter read
“the hair of his head like pure (2.5. 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. 9. 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. 9 it is the raiment that is “white as snow,” not the hair of
his head.
ot ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρός. Cf. 11. 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
Ι. 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 (bp ΠΩΣ py): Ezek. 1. 4, 27, viii. 2, ©
“From the appearance of his loins and downward, fire: and
from his loins and upward, as the appearance of brightness, as
the colour of amber”; also i. 7, ‘‘they sparkled like the colour
of burnished brass” (LXX, ὡς ἐξαστράπτων xadKds—PYD OVNI
~
Sb> mwms). 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 καὶ λιθείᾳ
. . « ἤλεκτρον, ἀλλοίωσις χρυσίου, μεμιγμένον ὑέλῳ καὶ λιθίοις.
The word, which is of uncertain derivation, is rendered in Latin
by aurichalcum. Pliny, HV. xxxiii. 4, writes: “Omnino auro
inest argentum vario pondere. Ubicunque quinta argenti portio
est, electrum vocatur.” ix. 41, ““Argentum auro confundere, ut
electra fiant.” Servius on Virgil, Aen. 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 be a 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.
ΧΙ]. 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 οἵ“
God in Ezek. xliii. 2, p37 Ὁ Sips rip (so the Heb. but not the
LXX). Here our author rejects the corresponding simile in
Dan. x. 6--- ὉΠ Sp “like the voice of a multitude.”
16. ἔχων =eixe, a Semitic idiom, though the participle is used
in the Kow7 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 ev TH δεξίᾳ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτά. Cf. ii. 1 (where the
clause is probably an interpolation), ii. 1. This clause is to be
Ὁ 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 Mithrashturgie, p. 14, line τό 5α.,
pp. 72, 76 sq.), where the God Mithras is represented ¢ as appearing
to the mystic ies κατέχοντα ἐν δεξιᾷ χειρὶ μόσχου ὧμον χρύσεον,
ὅς ἐστιν ἄρκτος ἣ 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 xili. 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 τε- ΣἼΠ
nyvpp) ; Sir. xxi. 3.
ἐκ τ. στόματος . . . ἐκπορευομένη. Cf. ix. 17, xix. 15.
ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὃ ἥλιος φαίνει ἐν TH δυνάμει αὐτοῦ. ὄψις -Ξ
“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 ὃ 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 adrot=wnown NNYD
7333).
ὡς ὃ ἥλιος. Cf. Matt. xvii. 2, ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ds
ὃ ἥλιος. 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. 1.
I.16-18.] HIS VISION OF THE SON OF MAN 31
ὡς ὃ ἥλιος φαίνε. We have here a Hebrew construction,
the same as in Deut. xxxii. 11; Job vii. 2, ix. 26, xi. 163 Isa.
Ixi. 10; Jer. xxiii. 29. Hence our text=1n11222 TN wow. The
clause should be rendered, ‘And his face was as the sun <
shining in his strength.” See Additional Note on ὡς, p. 36.
17. καὶ ὅτε εἶδον αὐτόν κτλ. The Seer had in his mind Dan.
x. 7, 9, (LXX), καὶ εἶδον ἐγὼ Δανιὴλ τὴν ὅρασιν . . .: 9, καὶ. ..
ἐγὼ ἤμην πεπτωκὼς ἐπὶ πρόσωπόν μου ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. Cf. also Josh.
v. 143 Ezek. i..28, 11. 23, xliii. 3.
καὶ ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξίαν αὐτοῦ... Μὴ φοβοῦ. Cf. Dan. x. το,
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 ὁ ἔσχατος. Cf. 11. 8, xxii. 13. In all
three cases these words are used as a designation of Christ.
They are derived from Isa. xliv.6, ‘N NiNI¥ ANN... WRT
ms IN) fv, and xlvill. 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’ ᾿γὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ peta ταῦτα: xlvill. 12, ἐγώ εἰμι
πρῶτος καὶ ἐγώ εἶμι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Cf. also Isa. xli. 4 and xlili. 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 ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρός. These words form the second
line of the stanza and are to be taken closely together. Here, as
in 1. 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 ὃ ζῶν with the pre-
ceding words. But in every instance, whether in Isaiah or in
the Apocalypse, the phrase “I am the first and the last” is
complete in itself, and the phrase καὶ 6 ζῶν would simply impair
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 [I. 18.
ὁ ζῶν. This designation is based on the O.T. phrase ‘n bs
θεὸς Cav, in Josh, iii. to; Ps. xlii. 3, Ixxxiv. 3, etc.
ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. These words are used
of the Father in iv. 9, 10, χ. 6. They are found in this con-
nection in Dan. iv. 31, xii. 7 (odiyn ‘n), and Sir. xviii. 1; 1 Enoch
ae
ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ adov. θανάτου and ἅδου can
be taken as objective genitives, 2.5. the keys that lock or unlock
Hades ; or as possessive genitives, seeing that they are personified
in vi. 8, z.e. 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. 11. In our
author Paradise (cf. ii. 7) has no connection with Hades: nor
yet in Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 4. Hades is not spoken of in
the NT as containing Paradise except in Acts il. 27 (31), which
is a quotation from Ps. xvi. το. Hades or Sheol, however, bears
many different meaningsin 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 Paradiseand 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. 18 544.2 Neither
death nor Hades can resist the power of the risen Christ. It is
not only that they cannot withhold from Him the faithful that
have already died, but that Christ has entered their realm as a
conqueror and preached there the Gospel of Redemption to
those that had not as yet heard it. No soul can henceforth be
a prisoner in Hades, which is there owing to spiritual and other
disabilities, in the creation of which it had no part. This inter-
pretation of the text is in keeping with the universal proclamation
of the Gospel to the heathen world, which according to xiv. 6—7,
xv. 4, was to precede the end. All—wherever they were—were
to hear the Gospel before the Final Judgment.
Again we have here one of the earliest traces in Christian
literature of the Descent of Christ into Hades, and the conquest
of its powers. This idea is in certain forms pre-Christian.
Thus in the Babylonian Religion we have the descent of Ishtar,
of Hibil Ziwa in the Mandaean Religion, of the primitive man
1Sheol and death are personified in Hos. xiii. 14.. They are classed
together in Ps. xviii. 6; Prov. v. 5 ;
2 Loofs, in £.2.Z. 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... Verstindniss d. NTs, p. 72; Clemen, Religions-
gesch. Erklirung 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 tod adov. The power over these keys,
according to the Targ. Jer. on Gen. xxx. 22 (cf. also on Deut.
Xxviii. 12), belongs to God alone: Sanh. 113?, “ Elijah asked for
the key of the raising of the dead. ‘Therefore he was told:
Three keys are not committed to a messenger: those of birth,
rain, and of the raising of the dead”: Taan. 2%. 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, iii. 3, 19, in our author, but
195 times in the Fourth Gospel.
ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτας 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. ii.-iii., and indirectly to that of the world in
general; ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα to the visions from chap.
iv. onwards, which, with the exception of a few sections refer-
ring to the past and the present, deal with the future. At the
beginning of iv. the Seer is summoned to heaven, where a voice
declares : δείξω σοι ἃ det γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα (iv. 1).
ἃ etSes. Cf. 1. 2, iv. 1.
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 ras 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 i in the Wari: ch: Acts xxvi. 3, γνώστην
ὄντα σε: τ Tim. li. 6, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις : Rom. viii. 3, τὸ
ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. ‘To these we may add the instance in our
text. This construction is very rare in the papyri as compared
with earlier Greek. See Robertson, Gram. 490, 1130.
The verse is to be rendered ; “ As for the mystery of the seven
VOL. L—3
34 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I. 20.
stars, which thou sawest in (lit. ‘‘upon”) 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 xill. 18, xvil. 7, 9.
ol 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 ἄγγελος. 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. I, xil. 1. It appears also in Sir. xvii. 17; Deut. (LXX)
xxxil. 8. In the N.T. individuals are supposed to have special
guardian angels: cf. Matt. xviii. 10; Acts xi. 15; Targ. Jer. on
Gen. xxxill. ro, “I have seen thy face, as though I had seen
the face of thy angel”: also on xlvili. 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. ai 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 érra. 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, 11. 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 -- “a voice like the voice of a
trumpet.” The Seer has never in his earthly experience heard
such a voice. It was a heavenly voice. The nearest earthly
equivalent he could suggest was the sound of a trumpet. But it
was not the sound of a trumpet: z¢ was only like it (as). The
construction here is a pregnant one=7wW3= pw dips as in Isa.
xxix. 4, lxiill. 2; Jer. 1.9. This pregnant construction recurs in
iv. I, 7, ὡς avOpdé7ov=DINI=OIW 53, and in ΧΙ. 2, of πόδες
αὐτοῦ ὡς ἄρκου : XVI. 3, αἷμα ὡς νεκροῦ. The same idea is con-
veyed by ὡσεί in τ Enoch xvii. 1, xxiv. 4, xxxll. 4, and by ὡς
in xiv. 10, II, 13, xvll. 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 tt 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 τὰς
κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν ὡς στέφανοι. Here as στέφανοι -- ΤΥ ΠΣ5 τε “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
DIS AXW2 (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 [I. 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 ws θάλασσαν ---““1ῃὴ6 likeness of a sea”; xviii. 21, λίθον ὡς
μύλινον péyav— the likeness of a great millstone.”
3. ὡς is used simply as a particle of comparison in xii. 15,
Kili. 2; ἀν ΧΧΙ Τὶ
4. In vi. x our author has rendered ‘yp, which was in his
mind, literally and inadvertently by ὡς φωνή (ACQ); but since
bip> in this context =ypaa, it should here have been rendered by
ὡς φωνῇ. Possibly, however, our author wrote dwv7, which was
subsequently corrupted into φωνή.
5. ws is used with the participle as in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. xl.
ro, “It was as though it budded” (nm7b3 x). Cf. in our
text, ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, ν. 6, Xiil. 3.
6. Finally, ὡς is followed by a finite verb where the Greek
idiom requires the participle: cf. 1. 16°, ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὃ 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 (- ὡς). Cf. Isa. lxii. 1, ppb
ayn’ (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 wp? (LXX, ὡς πέλεκυς κόπτων πέτραν) ; Ps. 1xxxili. 15 ;
Job vii. 2, ix. 26, xi. 16.
9
OJLOLOS.
That our author uses ὅμοιος as synonymous in meaning with
ὡς we learn from iv. 6, ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ, as compared with xxii. 1,
ὡς κρύσταλλον, and iv. 3, ὅμοιος... λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι, as compared
with xxi. 11, ὡς λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι. In τ Enoch also ὡς and ὅμοιος are
equivalent in meaning: cf. xvili. 13, ἴδον ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ὡς 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
1 under ὡς) : cf. ix. 10, οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις : also xiii. 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 as=as in respect of meaning, but these
two passages exhibit an identification of ὅμοιος with ὡς 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
II.-III. § 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 i. forms an
introduction, contain the Seven Letters addressed to seven actual
Churches in Asia Minor, in which their spiritual character and
environment are distinctly and concretely described. As they
stand at present, the circumstances of the Seven Churches are
to be regarded as typical of the Church as a whole. Thus in
addressing certain specific Churches, our author is addressing all
Christian Churches. In this representative sense the Seven
Churches are identified with the seven candlesticks (i. 20).
That these Letters are from the hand of our author is amply
proved by their diction and idiom (§ 2).
But a close examination of the Letters shows that they
contain two expectations which are mutually exclusive (§ 4),
one of which is in harmony with the Book as a whole, while the
other clearly conflicts with it. The recognition of this fact leads/
to the hypothesis that our author wrote these Letters at a date’
anterior to that of the Book as a whole, before the all-important
conflict between the mutually exclusive claims of Christianity
and Caesarism came to be recognized, and that in the “ nineties,”
when he put together all his visions, he re-edited these Letters.
In re-editing these Letters he made certain changes in the
beginnings of them which brought them more into harmony with
i. 13-18, and inserted certain additions which adapted the Letters
more or less to the expectations underlying the rest of the Book
(§ 5). It is not improbable that these Letters were actually sent
in their original form to the Seven Churches (§ 6).
§ 2. Dictton 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 ii. 5 below), but arise naturally from the nature of the
subject.
38 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [I¥.-IIt. § ὁ.
II. 1. τάδε λέγει seven times in ii.—iii. and only once else-
where in N.T., z.e. Acts xxi. 11.
ὁ περιπατῶν. Cf. ili. 4, ix. 20, XVI. 15, ΧΧΙ. 24.
_ 2 οἶδα. Cf 9, 17, 19, 111. 1, 8, 15, 17, Vii. 14, xii. 12,
xix. τὰ;
τὸν κόπον. Cf. xiv. 13. τὴν ὑπομονήν (not in Fourth
Gospel). Cf. i. 9, ii. 3, 19, iii. τὸ, χε, 10, Xiv. 12. ψευδεῖς.
Cf. xxi. 8. Only once elsewhere in N.T.
a. ἀλλὰ Ch i. ὁ, ὁ (225), 14, 20,590. 4, 0, 1%. 5, & 7, 9,
ΧΙ, 12, xx. 6.
_{- 8. ov. Used of logical appeal. Cf. 11. 16, iii. 3 (d25), 9
‘ Also in i. 19, probably owing to its occurrence in ii.—iii.
“ πόθεν. Cf. vii. 13. 13 times in Gospel. δέ (also in τό, 24);
cf. x. 2: xix, 12, xxi. 8,
κινήσω. Cf. vi. 14. Here only in our author.
7. ὃ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω. Cf. 11, 17, 29, ill. 6, 13, 22, xill. 9
(Matt. xi. 15, xili. 9, etc.).
wo: weebpe Adve. Cf. ΤΣ, 19; 29, i. 6, 13, 22, «xiv. τῇ,
ees 29; :
τῷ νικῶντι δώσω. Cf. 17, lil. 21, xxl. 7, ὃ νικῶν κληρονομήσει
ταῦτα.
τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ἱωῆς, ΧΧΙΙ. 2, 14 [19].
8. ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὃ ἔσχατος. Cf. i. 17, Xxil. 13.
ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς Kal ἔζησεν. Cf. 1. 17 and ΧΗ, 14, xvii. 8
Π (bis), where the demonic Nero is somewhat similarly described.
9. OAtpuv. Cf. i. 9, ll. 10, 22, Vil. 14.
βλασφημίαν. Gs ID Oe 6, XVll. 3.
συναγωγὴ τοῦ 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 [xvili. 5].
Not in Gospel, which uses ἕως ὅτου (or οὗ) and ἕως. ἕως only
found in Apoc. vi. 10, 11.
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.
/_. 18. ὅπου without complementary ἐκεῖ. Cf. xi. 8, xx. Io.
A 15. odtws. Cf. iii. 5, 16, 1x. 17, XI. 5, xvi. 18, xviil. 21.
; 16. ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ Cf. 11]. 11, xxii. 7, 12, 20; also il. 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
fie
1 στ § 2.1 DICTION AND IDIOM 39
TH ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός pou. Cf. 1. τό, xix. 15.
17. ὄνομα. . . γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων.
Cf. xix. 12, ὄνομα γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός.
18. τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὡς φλόγα πυρός. Cf. i. 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 1]. 22, 1x. 20, 21, XVl. II.
23. ἐν θανάτῳ = ‘ by pestilence,” as in vi. 8.
κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. Cf. xx. 13.
24. tots Nourois. Cf. ili. 2, 1x. 20, ΧΙ, 13, ΧΠ. 17, XIX. 21,
xx. 5. Not in Gospel.
26. ὃ νικῶν. . . δώσω αὐτῷ : see note on il. 26.
δώσω . . . ἐξουσίαν. On the meaning of this phrase see note
on ii. 26 as distinguished from δώσω... τὴν ἐξουσίαν.
27. ποιμανεῖ = “will destroy ” (see note zz /oc.). Cf. xix. 15
(xii. 5).
ὡς κἀγώ. Cf. ili. 21 and vi. 11, ὡς καὶ αὐτοί, [xvili. 6]; Gospel
uses καθὼς ἐγώ frequently.
εἴληφα. This perfect récurs in’ tii. 3;'v. 7, viii. 5, xi. 17.
Thus five times in all. In the rest of the N.T. only three times,
Matt. xxv. 24 [John viii. 4 in the περικοπή]; 1 Cor. x. 13.
28. τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωινόν. Cf. xxii. 16.
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 πεπληρ. alone, ον]. 11.
τοῦ θεοῦ pou. Cf. ili. 12, where this phrase occurs four times.
lil. 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, xxl. 4 (in a different connection). τῆς βίβλου τῆς
ζωῆς. Cf. xxi. 15, xiii. 8, and βιβλίον τ. ζ. in xvii. 8 [xx. 12].
7. ὃ ἅγιος ὁ 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 [II-III καὶ 2.
8. θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην. Cf. iv. 1.
puxpay . . . δύναμιν. Cf. xx. 3, μικρὸν χρόνον, for this order,
and contrast vi. 11. :
ἐτήρησας . . . Tov λόγον. Cf. xxii. 7, g—a frequent phrase
in the Gospel.
pou τὸν λόγον καὶ. .. τὸ ὄνομά pou. Cf. x. 9 for the same
remarkable yet intelligible order of the pronouns.
9. ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ποδῶν σου. Cf.
XV. 4, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπίον σου:
xxil. 8.
10. ἐτήρησας τὸν ν λόγον, Cf iit: 8, χα ὅν} also i. « 1, 26,
Xil. 17, XIV. 12.
τῆς ὑπομονῆς pou, 2.6. “the endurance practised by Me.” Cf.
Xlll. IO, Xiv. 12, % 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 yas. Cf. vi. 10, Vili. 13, xi. το (note).
This phrase has throughout our author a technical sense.
11, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Cf. ii. τό, xxl. 7, 12, 20.
12. ὃ 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 ᾿ερουσαλήμ, ἡ καταβαίνουσα κτλ. Cf. xxi. 2.
τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ καινόν. Cf. xix. 12, 16.
15. οὔτε . . . οὔτε, Cf. ix. 20, 21, XxI. 4. Our author uses
οὐδὲ . εἰς ovd€, V. 3, vii. 16, ix. 4; also ob. . . οὐδέ, vii. 16,
xii: 5, Xx. 4, XXl. 233 py. . . pyre, Vil. 1, 33 even οὐδὲ py...
οὐδέ, vil. 16°, ix. 4; but never μηδέ Σὰν aghe.
17. οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω. Cf. xxii. 5.
18. ἀγοράσαι (metaphorical sense). Cf. v. 9, xiv. 3, 4
ἱμάτια λευκά. See on iii. 5 above.
20. εἰσελεύσομαι. Cf. [xi. 11], xv. 8, xxi. 27, xxii. 14.
21. καθίσαι. Cf. xx. 4 and note on iii. 21.
ὡς κἀγώ. See note on ii. 27 above.
μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. Cf. xxii. 3.
(2) Idiom.—Here we have idioms and solecisms which,
though they may appear abnormally in other writings, are in our
author a zorma/ means of expressing his thoughts.
II. 2. tots λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν.υ. 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 κεκοπίακες. For similar
ee of tenses cf. iii, 3, εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας : ν. 7 56..
i. .%3.54., Vill. 5;
5. ἔρχομαι -- ἐλεύσομαι. Our author frequently uses the
1. τὴν, § 2.] DICTION AND IDIOM 4i
present of this verb as a future: cf. i. 4, 7, 8, ii. 16, iii. 11, iv. 8,
Ix. 12, xi. 14, XVi. 15, xxii. 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 Ἰουδαίους εἶναι καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. See above on
ii. 2 and note on i. 5°—6.
10. βάλλειν ἐξ ὑμῶν -- “some of you.” Cf. iil. 9, δίδωμι ἐκ τ.
συναγωγῆς : V.9, ἠγόρασας . . . ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς : ΧΙ]. 9, βλέπουσιν
ἐκ τῶν λαῶν: xxi. 6, δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς.
18. ὅπου ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶ. For this omission of the
copula in relative or dependent clause, cf. v. 13, xx. Io.
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντίπας, ὁ μάρτυς pov. On this frequent
solecism in our author, see p. 3 ad jin.
20. τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰ. 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 11. 22.
23. ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ : cf. Vi. 11, αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ. Elsewhere only
once in N.T., Acts 11. 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.—xvil., xix.-xxll. We have already
seen in the Introd. to chap. i. that i. and ii.—iil. 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 ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσε. A Hebrew idiom. See note
in loc.
8. δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν cou θύραν ἠνεῳγμένην, ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται
κλεῖσαι αὐτήν. We have here two Hebrew idioms in these
words :
TaD? WA SIND Wie MB Tye Pw ἫΠ)
For other instances of oblique forms of the personal pronoun
added pleonastically to relatives (in reproduction of a Hebrew
idiom), cf. vii. 2, οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς : 9, ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτόν : xil. 6, 14,
ΧΕΙ, 8, 12, xx. 8.
9. ἰδοὺ διδῶ ἐκ τ. συναγωγῆς. Most probably a Hebraism.
Ow mpd nd "27, “Behold I will make certain of the
synagogue,” etc. Here διδῶ anticipates ποιήσω.
τῶν λεγόντων ἑαυτοὺς . . . καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. The same Hebrew
idiom as in il. 9.
ποιήσω. .. ἵνα ἥξουσιν. .. Kal γνῶσιν. ἵνα cum. tnd. occurs
42 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11.-1τ|. ὃ 2-3.
g times in the Apoc., here (iii. 9) and 8 times in the rest of the
Book (see note on iii. 9, p. 88): only once in the rest of the
Johannine writings, and only 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.
ἵνα ἥξουσιν. .. καὶ γνῶσιν. Cf. xxii. 14 for the same com-
bination of moods.
12. ὃ νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτόν. See notes on il. 7, 26.
τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, ἧ καταβαίνουσα. See Introd. to I.
§ 2 (4), 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. xxil. 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. ro; 2 Cor. il. 2; Jas. iv. 15.
21. ὃ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷς On this Hebraism see note on il. 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 1. 19), πλήν, ἐμός. A com-
parison of the points of agreement in diction and in idiom shows
that ii.—lii. are connected very closely, and in most cases essen-
tially, with iv.—x., parts of xi., xll.—xvil., Xix.—xxil.
§ 3. Order of Words and omission of Copula in
relative sentences.
Though the diction and idioms of 11.--111. 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, ill. 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
f1.-11f. 8 8- 4. LETTERS WRITTEN AT EARLIER DATE 43
number of passages in ii.—iii. 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:
iii. 10, 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 ii. 24 as always in our author and
generally in the N.T. though it is post positive in Hebrew. In
lili. 4, ὀλίγα ὀνόματα : cf. xii. 12, ὀλίγον καιρόν : in 111. 8, μικρὰν
.. . δύναμιν : cf. xx. 3, μικρὸν χρόνον, and contrast χρόνον μικρόν,
Vi. XI.
In ii. 13 we have the omission of the copula in a relative
sentence: cf. v. 13, Xv. 4, xx. 10; but this omission is frequent
in the N.T.
§ 4. The Letters were written by our Author at an earlier date and
re-edited by him for the present work with certain additions.
Since an examination of the diction and idiom leads to the
conclusion that the Letters are from the hand of our author, it
is not necessary to consider the theories of some critics who
ascribe them to a final reviser, or of others who assign them to
an original apocalypse which was subsequently edited and
enlarged by later writers. |
But the question does arise: were these Letters written in the |'°
time of Domitian by our author when he edited the entire work, —
or were they written at an earlier date? And this question must
be answered, since conflicting expectations of the end of the
world find expression in them. First, there is the older expecta-
tion that the Churches will survive till Christ’s last Advent: cf.
ii, 25, 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 [11.- 1]. § 4-5.
unto death! as they have been in the past ;? 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. 10, though this is one of the chief themes of the Apocalypse.
Again, though this world-wide persecution was to arise in
connection with the imperial cult of the Caesars as the rest of
the Book clearly states, there is not a single reference to this
cult in the Letters: at most there may be an allusion to it in
ill. 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 111. 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 iii. ro and the addition of new material at the
close of each Letter, which in some degree brought them into
- |harmony with the rest of the Book.
*
§ 5. Amongst the additions to the original Letters are the endings
and in part the beginnings of the Letters in their present form.
We have already recognized that iii. 10 is a later addition
made by our author. But we cannot stop here. The endings
1 Special visitations are threatened (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. 11}; in iii. 19 chastisement but not
martyrdom is foretold.
2'The Churches have already suffered persecution in a limited degree.
Thus the Church of Ephesus is praised for its faithfulness therein: cf. ii. 3,
καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ ob 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, 111, 9.
II.-III. ὃ ὅ.] ENDINGS AND BEGINNINGS OF LETTERS 45
of the Letters are indeed from our author’s hand,! but they 10
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—xxil. 2, 14 (τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς) ;
ii, 11—xxi. 8 (where ὃ θάνατος 6 δεύτερος is first explained) ; ii. 17—
xix. 12 (ὄνομα καινὸν. . . ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν κτλ.) ; 11. 26-29, xii. 5,
XIX. 15 (ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ κτλ.) ; xxii. 16 (ὃ ἀστὴρ. .. ὃ
πρωινός) ; lil. 5—-Vi. 11 (ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή) : xiii. 8,
xxi. 27 (τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς) ; 11]. 12—-xxl. 22, which shows that
the term ναός in iil. 12 is to be taken metaphorically) ; xxi. 2 (τὴν
πόλιν. .. Ἱερουσαλὴμ καινὴν. .. καταβαίνουσαν κτλ.) : xix. 12
(ὄνομα ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν : cf. ὄνομα. . . καινόν in 111. 12) ; 111. 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 |
τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι θανάτου: xv. 2, εἶδον... τοὺς 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 11]. 21, 6 νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι
μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, 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 iii. 10, though such
an expectation is quite foreign to the body of the Letters, which
belong to an earlier date.
Another later addition of our author common to all the |
Letters is, 6 ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει Tals ἐκκλησίαις : |
il. 7%, 11%, 17%, 29, ili. 6, 13, 22. By this addition our author |
would teach that the Letters are not merely for their respective
Churches, but for all the Churches. Thus they are adapted so
far as the endings are concerned to their new context.
The later additions at the close of the Letters are accord-
ingly: il. 7, 11, 17, 26-29, 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
tC»
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 theclose. Thus in the Letter to Smyrna, οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου
τ. δευτέρου, 11. 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, iii. 5, may refer in the way of contrast to
ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς καὶ νεκρὸς εἶ, iii, 1,
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
p. 25 sq.), they have no organic connection, except in the case of the
Letters to the Churches of Philadelphia and Thyatira, with the
Letters which they respectively introduce, though in several
instances an artificial connection can be discovered (see note
just referred to). What the titles of Christ were in the original
form of the Letters cannot now be determined. Some of the
existing titles may be original, but it is hard to evade the con-
clusion that the original titles were recast by our author, when
he incorporated the Letters into the complete edition of his
visions, and were brought into close conformity with the divine
titles of Christ in i. 13-18. Since they have but slight affinity
with the contents of the Letters at the head of which they stand,
their most natural explanation is to be found in i. 13~18.
§ 6. Were the Letters originally seven distinct Letters addressed
and sent to the Seven Churches ?
On various grounds we have concluded that the Seven
Letters were composed by our author before the time of
Domitian: also that on their incorporation into the Apocalypse
they were re-edited by him in order to adapt them to the impend-
ing crisis, by changes made in the beginnings to bring them into
closer conformity with i. 14-18, and by additions such as ili. τὸ
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
ITI. 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, 7 πρώτη καὶ μεγίστη μητρόπολις τῆς ᾿Ασίας. It was,
according to Strabo, the greatest emporium in Asia (xiv. 24,-
ἐμπόριον οὖσα μέγιστον τῶν κατὰ τὴν ᾿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 (στρατηγοῦ), 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
tinies 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-
revs τῆς πόλεως OF 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 via Sardis, while a third came up from the
south from the Maeander valley. From its devotion to Artemis,
Ὡς
παν"
1 Swete (p. lix) states that there were three assemblies: a council (βουλή)
elected from the six tribes into which the population was divided ; asenate
(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 (11. 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
(Εφέσια 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
V\East. Hence it is rightly named first ini. 11, 11. 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. i. 7 (θέλον-
τες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι), iv. I-3, etc., and Ignatius, dd Ephes.
Vii. 1, εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα
τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια θεοῦ" οὺς δεῖ ὑμᾶς ὡς θηρία ἐκκλίνειν" εἰσὶν
γὰρ κύνες λυσσῶντες, λαθροδῆκται, ods 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 Encyc. Bib. with the literature there quoted.
τάδε λέγει. This clause occurs eight times in the N.T., seven
of these being in ii. and iii. of our Book. ὅδε occurs only twice
elsewhere in the N.T. This sparing use has been observed
also in the Κοινή.
ὃ 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, iii. 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. If
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 ’Aoias),
II.1-2.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS 49
ii. ¥3, vii. 1, “to lay hold of,” xx. 2, and li. 14, 15, 25, iil. 11
where both words occur) would be intelligible.
ὁ 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 ii. 5, which may have occa-
sioned the choice of the above title. ‘That the former of these
two divine titles was added by our author when editing his visions
as a whole, see p. 25 sq., 45 sq.
2-8. These two verses appear to consist of three couplets.
> AQ 3, Py, QA , »." 4 ε ,
2. οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου, καὶ τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου
καὶ ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς,
es , A , " ε A , ‘ 3 φ /
καὶ ἐπείρασας τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν,
καὶ εὗρες αὐτοὺς ψευδεῖς.
φρο Ἀ ” ἈΝ 3 , ὃ 4 a oo
3. καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά pou
καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.
Here the theme is τὰ ἔργα σου. These consist of τὸν κόπον
καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν cov. These two subordinate themes are then
rehandled, the κόπον in 2° and the ὑπομονήν in 3%. There
are two paronomasias which cannot be accidental: τὸν κόπον and
ov κεκοπίακες, and od δύνῃ βαστάσαι and ἐβάστασας.
2. The phrase οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου recurs, but with the pronoun
preceding the noun, in ii. 19, ill. 1, 8,15. Abbott (Johannine
Gram., pp. 414, 422, 601-607) calls the latter the vernacular or
unemphatic possessive. In ii. 19 we have a combination of
both. See note. οἶδα. Christ knows everything (John xxi. 17)
-—alike the good (2—3, 6) and the bad (4-5) qualities. »
τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν gov. The single pronoun links
together the two preceding nouns. These two are the works of
the Church in Ephesus—its severe efforts in resisting and over-
coming false teachers (2°), and its steadfast endurance on behalf
of the name of Christ (37°). We might compare 1 Thess. i. 3,
μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν TOD ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ TOU 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 (cf. 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 [1I. 2-4.
and outward world” (Ellicott on 1 Thess. i. 3, quoted by Trench,
op. cit., Pp. 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 Kal 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. 111. 1).
That the Church in Ephesus shunned such false teachers we
learn from Ignatius, 2221. 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, το, the ultimate test of such teachers was
conformity of their lives with that of Christ. In Hermas, Mand.
xi. 11-15, the two types of teachers are contrasted, and in xi. 16
the excellent advice is given: δοκίμαζε οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τῶν
ἔργων τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν πνευματοφόρον 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 καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν. The οὐκ εἰσίν
is here a Hebraism for οὐκ ὄντας. (See note oni. 5°-6, p. 14 54.)
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 kat ἐβάστασας just as in the preceding verse, δύνῃ . . . καὶ
exetpagas. In both cases an ethical characteristic is brought
forward which had manifested itself in some act of the immediate
ast.
4. But, though the Church in Ephesus has preserved its
moral and doctrinal purity and maintained an unwavering loyalty
II.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 ἣ 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.
2}.
? tee κατὰ σοῦ. Cf. 14, 20. Is this an echo of Matt. v. 23,
Mark xi. 25?
ἀφῆκας. A common usage of this verb in 7:0: ef, iv. 2,
23,52, X.' Wa, ete,
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. ili. 3.
εἰ δὲ μή, Epxopai σοι, καὶ κινήσω Thy 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
. καὶ petavonoov ... καὶ... 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. r6 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,
ἔρχομαΐ σοι ταχύ, καὶ 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 eis κλίνην... ἐὰν μὴ
μετανοήσουσιν.
When the interpolated gloss is removed we find that 5 con-
sists of two couplets, the second of which is
εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαί σοι,
καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς.
ἔρχομαί σοι. Cf. ii. 16. The dative here may be the dativus
incommodt, or an incorrect rendering of 2, as in Matt. xxi. 5 (so
Blass, Gram. 113). ἔρχομαί σοι refers here as in ii. 16 to a special
52 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1I. 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, 2.6. 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, TO 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 (Leffers, 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 (ze. 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, iii. 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. 1. 29, De Pudicitia, 19), but Epiphanius (/aer. xxv.)
deals with the Nicolaitans mentioned in our text. In Clem.
Alex. (ii. 20. 118, 111. 4. 25), the Constit. Apost. (vi. 8, ot 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. vill. 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. Hrudit., 1712, p. 179) urged this as a
ground for regarding the names as allegorical and not historical.
That is, Balaam=oy yoa=“he hath consumed the people” (a
derivation found in Sanh. 105%, where Dy ΤΟΣ is an alternative
reading), while Νικόλαος -ε 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
ii. 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, xiii. 9, 43;
Mark iv. 9, 23, etc. This formula introduces the promise to
him that overcomes in the first three messages and closes it on
the last four. Here the speaker turns from the individual
Church to the whole Christian community. Since the Book as
a whole was written to be read in public worship, such a larger
reference was conceivable in and for itself.
This clause, which occurs seven times,—once in each Letter,
—seems to have been added by the Seer when he incorporated
the Seven Letters in an edition of his visions. The seven
eschatological promises, ii. 7°, 115, 175, 26-27, 111. 5, 12, 21,
appear to have been added at the same time. Such a phrase as
πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι in 11. 23 is no evidence to the contrary.
τς τὸ πνεῦμα. Cf. the closing words of all the Letters; also
XIV. 13, xix. 10, xxll. 17. The Spirit here is the Holy Spirit
which inspires the prophets, but also the Spirit of Christ, since
in ii. 1 Christ is the Speaker. The Spirit here has nothing to
do with the seven spirits in iii. 1 [i. 4], iv. 5.
τῷ vikOvte ... . τοῦ θεοῦ. Added probably by our author
when he edited the visions as a whole (see p. 45).
τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷς We have here a well-known Hebraism.
Cf. LXX of Josh. ix. 12, οὗτοι οἱ ἄρτοι... ἐφωδιάσθημεν αὐτούς. It
is found sporadically in the Κοινή, but the Kowy usage is wholly
inadequate to explain the frequency and variety of the Hebraisms
in our author. For the occurrence of this idiom elsewhere in
the N.T., see John vi. 39, vii. 38, x. 35 sq., xV. 2-5, XVil. 2;
1 John ii. 24, 27: cf. Abbott, Gram. 32 sq., 309. In ii. 26,
ὁ νικῶν... δώσω αὐτῷ is more Hebraistic than the expression
in ll. 7. νικᾶν is a word characteristic of our author, and is used
of the faithful Christian warrior in ii. II, τῇ, 26, Hi SF, $7",
xi. ΤῈ 2 2, xxi. ὃ ; of Christ Himself in iii. ar, Vv. 5, XVil. 14.
In the remaining passages it is without this moral significance,
Vi. 2, ΧΙ. 7, Xili. 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 (II. 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, ‘‘as 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. δώσω... 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 xxil. 14. Test. Levi xvili. 11, καὶ
δώσει τοῖς ἁγίοις φαγεῖν ἐκ Tov ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς : 1 Enoch xxiv. 4,
καὶ ἣν ἐν αὐτοῖς δένδρον ὃ οὐδέποτε ὥσφρανμαι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος
αὐτῶν εὐφράνθη, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ὅμοιον αὐτῷς 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. B.c. it was held that the tree of life would be transferred
to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem—not apparently the
Heavenly Jerusalem, but the earthly Jerusalem cleansed from all
iniquity. That the earthly Jerusalem should give place to the
Heavenly in this connection was inevitable. But the combina-
tion of the two ideas is of supreme importance as it prepares the
way for the conception of our Seer, who places the tree of life
in the street of the Heavenly Jerusalem (xxii. 2). That this
Heavenly Jerusalem, to which belongs the tree of life (ii. 7,
xxii. 2), is to be the seat of the Millennial Kingdom on the
present earth before the Final Judgment, and is not to be con-
founded with the /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—xxii.
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 55
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 (xxil. 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 54., 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. Amm. 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. Og. 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, Zgzatius, 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 Polycarpi, 2, St. Paul visited
Smyrna on his way to Ephesus. According to Acts xix. 10,
‘‘ All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of God.” See
the Bible Dictionaries on “ Smyrna,” and Ramsay, Le¢ters, in loc.
ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὃ ἔσχατος. Repeated from i. 17.
ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς καὶ ἔζησεν. These words also go back to
1. 17 54.,) καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρός, καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμὶ εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας τῶν
αἰώνων. Compare the demonic caricature in the case of the
Antichrist: ΧΙ, 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 104, γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς
ζωῆς. The divine title, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ 6 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 ef The un-
emphatic or vernacular use of the pronoun here throws the
emphasis on the context, “I know the affiction and poverty thou
endurest, but thou art not poor but rich.” With this we may
contrast the words addressed to Laodicea, 111. 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. ii. 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 ‘loudatous εἶναι ἑαυτούς. Here
ἐκ means “‘ proceeding from.” Hence John ili. 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. &.#. 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 kal 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’” (6 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, εἰς ταῦτα ὕπουρ-
γούντων) (of. cit. xiii. 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 xiii. 45, οἱ 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. ii. 28, οὐ yap ὃ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖός
ἐστιν. . . ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν
πνεύματι οὐ 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. i. 47), whereas he
represents the Ἰουδαῖοι as specifically and essentially the
opponents of Christianity. See Westcott, John, p. ix sq.
kat οὐκ εἰσίν. On this Hebraism for καὶ οὐκ ὄντων see note
on i. 5-6.
συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Cf. iii. 9. The Jews were, as their
actions showed, a Synagogue of Satan though they claimed to be
a Synagogue of the Lord: Svvaywyi) τοῦ Κυρίου (Num. xvi. 3
(dnp), XX. 4, XXvi. ὁ (M7Y), 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. ii. 2). συναγωγή was
58 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (II. 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.
ΧΙ]. 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. xl. 9; John xvi. 17, we
have it used as the subject.
eis φυλακὴν ἵνα 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 iii. ro 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 (10%).
θλίψιν ἡμερῶν δέκα. The round number here points to a
short period: cf. Dan. i, 12, 14. The number is used in this
sense also in Gen. xxiv. 55; Num. xi. 19. See in Pirke Aboth,
v. I-g, on the various things connected with the number ro.
πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου. 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. iii. 14; 2 Tim. li. 5; 1 Pet. v. 4 (τὸν ἀμαράντινον
τῆς δόξης στέφανον). Smyrna was, according to Pausanias (vi.
14. 3, cited by Lucyc. Bib. 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, ix.
10-13, etc.; Herm. Szm. vii. 2, 3; Polycarp, 4d Phil. 1. 1;
Martyr. Polyc. xvii. τ. But it is possible, as has been suggested
by Dieterich, Vekya, 41-45; Volz, 344; Gressmann, Ursprung d.
israel. jud. 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 (0. cé¢., p. 41) states that in works of
art the Greek deities were very frequently represented with
11. 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, xxii. 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», 174, 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.
ὁ 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, Grzam. 209). ov μή is always (15 times)
followed by the aorist subjunctive in our author except in
xviii. 14, which is not from his hand: in the rest of the N.T. it
is followed by the indicative once out of every seven or eight
times; in classical Greek the present subjunctive is also found.
‘ This construction is frequent in the N.T.—in all about 96 times,
but rare in non-literary papyri. Moulton (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, Xvill. 1.
In this promise there may be a reference to το, 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 (δ 2) δ) }2)
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. lxv. 6, 15; Sota,
357 (on Num. xiv. 37), “they died the second (?) death” (AND
nw). See Wetstein for further examples. The idea is found
also in Philo, De Praem. et Poen. ii. 419, θανάτου yap διττὸν εἶδος,
TO μὲν κατὰ τὸ τεθνάναι... τὸ δὲ κατὰ TO 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, ΟΥ̓]. 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 ἡ 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 ona 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 sth 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 "Aprepiy,<pa τὸν
ἐν Δελφοῖς ᾿Απόλλωνα, and Philostratus (Vita Afollonit, iv. 34),
ὥσπερ ἡ Acia eis τὸ Πέργαμον, οὕτως εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦτο ξυνεφοίτα
ἡ Κρήτη (both passages quoted by Wetstein): Mart. ix. 17,
“Pergamed ες; Geo.”
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 (2.4, Satan: cf. xii. 9) was
universally associated with him,
II. 12-13. | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PERGAMUM ΟἹ
Synod (Κοινὸν ᾿Ασίας) ;1 cf. Tac. Aun. 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, ὃ θρόνος rod
Σατανᾶ, in 13. Behind the city in the rst 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. xxviii. 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, Lefsers
to the Seven Churches, 281 sqq.
ὁ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν κτλ. Cf. i. 16. This title is connected
with 16 that follows. See p. 26.
13. ὅπου ὁ 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. xiii, 2, xvi. το. 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 pou. 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, xiii. 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 ναῴ 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 fAvtimast. 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 6
μάρτυς (Zahn). The former explanation is to be preferred. For
early attempts to emend the text see critical notes 77 Joc. ᾿Αντίπας
is an abbreviated form of ’Avrizarpos, as KXedzas 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. 4.Z. iv. 15).
ὁ 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. Though 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. AZ. iv. 26;
Dionys. Corinth. 2d. 11. 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.
FE, UW. 20, 32.”
ἀπεκτάνθη. The passive form of ἀποκτείνω, which occurs very
rarely in the LXX and only once outside the Apocalypse in the
ΝΎ. (2. 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,
Xlil. 10, I 5} xix. 21; whereas ἀποθνήσκω 15 only used strictly as a
passive in vill. 11, xiv. 13. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other
hand, whereas the passive of ἀποκτείνειν does not occur, we find
dare birdernens used as its passive, ΧΙ. 16, 50, 51, XVill. 14, 32, XIX. 7.
14. ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγαι. 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, ὃς 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, Jz 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 1195 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. viii. 7-13, x. 20-30.
From this letter we learn that, though St. Paul did not censure
the conduct of the Corinthians who regarded the eating of εἰδωλό-
ura 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 ἀἁλισγημάτων 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.
vili. 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 [11.15-168.
we should render: “Thus in like manner thou too (26. 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 ov 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 σύ 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 (Ὁ)
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
Verfiihrer.” 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 ov. 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 of 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. τ 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.
ei 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 thana
Hebraism, if we take into account the Hebraistic character of
the text in general. The fact that it occurs sporadically (see
Moulton, /voleg.2 106)—twice or more—in the Papyri is no
evidence to the contrary. See Abbott, Gram., p. 267.
ἐν TH ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός pov. Cf. 1. τό, il. 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 μάννα. On τῷ νικῶντι. . .
αὐτῷ see 7. τοῦ μάννα is the only instance in the N.T. of
δοῦναι with the partitive genitive (see ili. g). 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 ” (2.6. angels, cf. Ps. Ixxvili. 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. Szbyl. vii. 148 f. :
>
κλήματα δ᾽ οὐκ ἔσται οὐδὲ στάχυς, GAN ἅμα πάντες
4 \ an a
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 2 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. I.—5
66 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [xr. 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, Med. 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, Zf7¢. 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, 222. 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, Jw Namen 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.
If.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 11} 12, 6 νικῶν... γράψω
ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ pov... Kal τὸ ὄνομά pov TO καινόν.
This inscription designates him as God’s own possession, as the
σφραγίς in vii. 2 sqq. (see note zz 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 (ze. the hidden
manna) and powers (the stone inscribed with the divine name)
of a transcendent character. .
ὄνομα καινόν. See preceding notes.
ὃ οὐδεὶς οἷδεν εἰ μὴ ὃ 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 [11.18-190.
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 Σαμβαθεϊονὶ,
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, Letters,
and the Bible Dictionaries 2% /oc.
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, ii. 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. t4.sq. The presence of
the first clause, 6 ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὡς φλόγα πυρός, appears to
be explained by 23, ὃ 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. οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα. Here as in x. 9 the vernacular
possessive genitive introducing a group of nouns is followed by
II. 19-23.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 69
the ordinary possessive, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην . . . καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου
καὶ τὰ ἔργα gov. Here Abbott, Gram., p. 606, remarks: “(r)
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.”
καὶ thy ἀγάπην κτλ. The καί here introduces an explanatory
description of the ἔργα. On ἀγάπην cf. 11. 4, and on ὑπομονήν cf.
ii. 2. Further, the Seer states that in the fulfilment of such
works the Church in Thyatira has steadily advanced, whereas
Ephesus has gone backward (11. 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 Kal 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 nov’
doubt as to the wrongness of participation in such cults, but in
the case of the latter the evidence seemed to the more intel-
lectual class less conclusive. ‘To the morally sound amongst this
class there could be no divergence of opinion as to the wrong-
ness of fornication, but different views were honestly maintained
as to the legitimacy of eating food sacrificed to idols, seeing that
in the eyes of the enlightened an idol was nothing. Now, since | |
membership in trade guilds (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
a
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 (11. 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.
Weizsicker gewidmet, p. 39 54., 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 σου 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 (ONT). 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 καὶ πλανᾷᾳ,: 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: ΘΠ) AND) NAD NWA,
πορνεῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν. Our author appears here to emphasize
II. 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.
ἵνα μετανοήσῃ. 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. 11; probably a reflection of } aw ;
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. xxxill. 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.e. asvind 58) = “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 τ Macc. 1. 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” ;
int. aavind AN® Spo on
nay m2 ARN DYANIDT nN
Furthermore, it is to be observed that in ἰδοὺ βάλλω (late
MSS PQ βαλῶ) the βάλλω represents ἃ 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
(23%), it refers, of course, to the future. This idiomatic refer-
72 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _ [II. 22-28.
ence to the future in a present verb is to be found also in i.
(ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται), 11. 10, 111. g (where our author has both ἰδοὺ διδῶ
and ἰδοὺ ποιήσω referring to one and the same thing), ix. 12,
ΧΟ 15, etc.
22-23. τοὺς μοιχεύοντας μετ᾽ αὐτῆς... 23. 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 (23%). In this
interpretation the difference in the dooms threatened is wholly
natural.
ἀποκτενῶ ἐν Bavaro. Cf. Ezek. xxxili. 27, θανάτῳ ἀποκτενῶ,
where θάνατος -- 2, “pestilence,” as here and in vi. 8 (note).
γνώσονται πᾶσαι αἱ 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.
Vil. 5, XVI. 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, ab nivoa na
where the LXX has δοκιμάζων νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας. The LXX
does not use épavvay at all as a rendering of jn3, 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. 10. Cf. other variations in
Jer. xvii. 10, xx. 12. St. Paul uses the phrase θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι
τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν (1 Thess. ii. 4) and 6 ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας in
Rom. viii. 27. vedpds 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 (Gv. 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 i. 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 as practically the equivalent of 6s: cf. i. 12, xi. 8, xii. 13,
ΧΥΪ 12, xix. 2. See note on xi. 8.
οἵτινες. . . 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” (cf.
Iren. Haer. ii. 22. 3) even as St. Paul (cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10, τὸ yap
πνεῦμα πάντα épavva, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ: Rom. xi. 33; Eph.
iii. 18), it is not the deep things of God but of Satan that they
have sought after. The later Gnostics, we know, professed alone
to know τὰ βάθη: cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. ii. 22. 1, “qui profunda
Bythi adinvenisse se dicunt”; 22. 3, ““profunda Det adinvenisse
se dicentes” ; Hippol. Piz/os. v. 6, ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς γνωστικούς,
φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν: Tertull. Adv. Valent. τ,
“ Eleusinia Valentiniani fecerunt lenocinia, sancta silentio magno,
sola taciturnitate caelestia. Si bona fide quaeras, concreto
vultu, suspenso supercilio, A/tum est, aiunt.” This phrase (τὰ
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, Vdlter (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 [11.94-96.
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 zmfedlectual 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—dzréyeoOar . . . αἵματος καὶ
mvikT@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 (κρατήσατε) 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. ili. 11, κράτει ὃ ἔχεις. ἥξω is to be
taken as a subjunctive of the aorist ἥξω since ἄχρι in our author
elsewhere is followed by the subjunctive: cf. vil. 3, xv. 8, xx.
3, 5. In xvii. 17 it is followed by the indicative; but our
author is here using a source.
26. ὃ νικῶν καὶ ὃ 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 1 exact
parallel in iii, 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,
II. 26-27.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 75
i. 8, wens oa MAX; 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, ΧΙ].
4, 12, xvi. 9, xvii. 13. When a limited authority is implied,
ἐξουσία stands without the article: cf. ii. 26, vi. 8, ix. 3, xill. 2,
5, 7, xiv. 18, xvii. 12, xvill. 1, xx. 6. There are three cases
which do not come under this rule, Z.é. in 1X. το; xl. 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. 278} 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. il. 9. Our author here agrees partly with the ΓΤ ΧΧ :
ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ
ὡς σκεύος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς.
Instead οἵ ποιμανεῖς Symmachus renders συντρίψεις (5. συν-
θλάσεις), and instead of 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 [II. 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
simply borrowing from the LXX. The LXX was no doubt
familiar to him and provided him with a vocabulary. But he
was in no sense dependent upon it. But it has been urged, and
no doubt rightly, that the LXX here derived nynn from myn and
so vocalized it OYA and rendered it ποιμανεῖς, whereas they
ought to have derived it from yyn and vocalized it oyhm, “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 11. 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 myx. But
whereas 7 generally means “‘to shepherd,” it means sometimes
“to devastate,” “destroy,” as in Mic. v. 5 ; Jer. vi. 3, il. 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 AYN 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 yn 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 jasco 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 them,
ΤΊ. 27- ΤΊ. 1.Ἶ MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 77
ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται. Here we have a free
rendering of Ps. ii. 9”: cf. also Isa. xxx. 14; Jer. xix. 11. It is
best to regard συντρίβεται as=3¥B)° 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: ‘fas 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
ouvtpiBerac! to be taken as a principal verb, as it is in Ps. ii. 9.
Even Isa. xxx. 14, Jer. xix. 11 support this view.
ὡς κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου. These words recall, of
course, Ps. is F, Κύριος εἶπεν πρὸς μέ Yids μου εἶσύ. Cf. Acts i il. 33>
τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος... λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, for
the phraseology.
28. In this letter to Thyatira 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 ὁ mpwivds. 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, Leffers, 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 τὰ
ἔθνη supplied from 26%. For other instances of the sing. verb and plural
noun cf. 1. 19, ἃ méAdet, vill. 3, xiii. 14, Xiv. 13, xIx. 14, XX. 3, 5, Xxi. 12.
78 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (TIT. 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. Amn. 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.p. 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. Aum. 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 ili. 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 “4 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 τὰ ἑπτὰ
πνεύματα has already occurred in 1. 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 σου Ta epya. On this vernacular genitive (contrast
li. 2) see notes on 11. 9, 19; Abbott, Gvam., 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 ζῆς καὶ νεκρὸς et. For the construction cf.
Herod. vii. 138, οὔνομα εἶχε, ὡς ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αθήνας ἐλαύνει, κατίετο δὲ ἐς
I1f.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. iii. 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. ro, 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. 23), γρηγο-
ρεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὃ κύριος ὑμῶν ἔρχεται. There
are very close affinities in ‘diction between 2-4 here and xvi. 15;
which show indubitably our author’ 5 hand. With γίνου γρηγορῶν
‘as Kal τήρει καὶ “μετανόησον᾽ ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, 7 ἥξω ἃ ah
Xeon! we ga €or 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
Xvi. 15.
Ramsay (Ze¢ters, 376 546.) 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, xii. 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, 111. 10, Vl. II, 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. ot—oov
épya=‘‘no 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 Tod θεοῦ pov. 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.
lili, 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. τ Thess. i. 5, 6, 11. 13. εἴληφας concedes that they
still possess this gift of God.
τήρει καὶ petavdnoov. The Church is to keep fast hold of
what it has received and heard, and, repenting forthwith, recover
115 former spiritual attitude (aor.).
ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς. As a host of critics have pointed out,
Xvi. I5 (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 ws κλέπτης of
ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης would be jejune. But the latter seems more
definite. And yet in ii. 5, τό, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαι, the present
ἔρχομαι appears to be used under exactly the same conditions as
néw ὡς κλέπτης here. But it is probable that in the clause ἰδοὺ
ἔρχομαι ὡς 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 ili. 3°
XVI. 15. ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης.
μακάριος ὃ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ,
ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ,
καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτοῦ.
III. 3-5.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 81
III. 3°. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς;
ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης,
καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς
ποίαν ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ.
ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης κτλ. An obvious echo
of Matt. xxiv. 43 sq. (= Luke xii. 39 sq., cf. Mark xiii. 35). εἰ dee
ὃ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὃ κλέπτης ἔρχεται ἐγρηγόρησεν av...
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.
V. 2, ἡ,
οὐ μὴ γνῷς. The subjunctive follows οὐ μή without excep-
tion in our author, and all but universally in the rest of the N.T.
In WH text οὐ 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 -- 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 (idle 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, 111. 40, 43, as a
rendering of ΓΟ 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 zz Zoc.).
περιπατήσουσιν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς. We have here the first
eschatological promise, which is not preceded by the words
6 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 év 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 of δίκαιοι
ἐκλάμψουσιν ws ὁ ἥλιος, that is, they shall have a body of light
(cf. Ps. civ. 2, “ who coverest thyself with light as with a garment ἢ),
1 Cor. xv. 43, 49, 54, Phil. 111. 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. 1 Cor. vi. 18). In the Asc. Isa. iv. τό (εἴγε 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, 1x. 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 (civc. 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, Szm. 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.
III.5.] | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 83
in the Odes of Solomon we have three references to these
heavenly bodies: xi. 10, “And the Lord renewed me in His
raiment (cf. Ps. civ. 2) and possessed (Ὁ ‘formed,’ 22. 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, Hav/y Eastern Christianity, p. 215 ;
Moulton, Journal of Theol. Stud. ili. 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 ii. 45, “Hi sunt qui mortalem tunicam
deposuerunt et immortalem sumpserunt.”
We have now shown that the resurrection body was clearly
conceived in the first and second centuries a.p. in Christian
circles as a “body of light.” But this conception was also
pre-Christian. Thus in 1 Enoch Ixii. 16, where the risen righteous
are described :
“ And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,
And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of
Spirits ” ;
ΟΥ̓. 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, A/ichae/, 122 sq.; Boklen, Verwandschaft
da. judisch-christlichen mit d. Parsischen Eschatologie, 61-65.
To return now to our author, it is clear that the white garments
represent the resurrection or heavenly bodies of the faithful in
111, 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.
XxVili. 3; Acts 1. 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 [11]. 5-%.
ἐξαλείψω. .. ἐκ. 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, xii. 8, xvi. 8; 4e4e, 15, xxi. 27.
“The idea underlying this phrase can be traced to the O.T.
There the book of life (or its equivalents, Ex. xxxii. 32 sq., ‘God’s
book’; Ps. lxix. 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 zemforal 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, temporal blessings
only, save in Dan. xil. 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 1 Enoch xlvii. 3. A further reference to it is to be found
in t Enoch civ. 1, cvili. 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 m
heaven,’ is its practical equivalent.” The above is quoted with
a few changes from my note on 1 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. lxv. 6; 1 Enoch Ixxxi. 4, Ixxxix. 61-64, 68, 70, 71, etc. ;
2 Bar. xxiv. 1; both the good and the evil in Dan. vil. 10;
2 Enoch lii. 15, lil. 2 ; Rev. xx. 12; Asc. Isa. ix. 22. See Weber,
Jiid. Theol? 242, 282 sqq.; Dalman, Worte Jesu, i.171; K.A.T3
il. 405; Bousset, Rel. d. Judenthums, 247.
kal ὁμολογήσω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ κτλ. 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.
7. τῆς ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳψ. This city (see Bible Dictionaries 7x 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 (4d 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 11. 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 (4d
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, LeZ¢ers, 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.
6 ἅγιος ὃ ἀληθινός. “The Holy, the True.” This asyndetic
use of two divine designations is to be found in 1 Enoch
i. 3, xiv. τ (cf. also x. 1, xxv. 3, Ixxxiv. 1), 6 ἅγιος 6 μέγας.
ὁ ἅγιος was familiar to the Jews as a title of God; cf. Hab.
1h Skee eh S55 epoch i, 2, xxxvii. 2,. xciii.. 23, etc;
Acts iii. 14. The two words ἅγιος and ἀληθινός, which are com-
bined as epithets of God in vi. ro, are in our text applied
to Christ: cf. ili, 14, ὃ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός : xix. 11, 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 genuine. . . . ‘‘ Not only vi. 10, but
ill. 14,6 μάρτυς 6 πιστὸς Kal 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, 6.9. 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 REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [11 7-8.
cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6; Isa. Ixv. 16; Ps. Ixxxvi. 15, where the Hebrew
is either NOX or P28, 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. Z. 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
of his name. Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest,
deepest, widest sense, whatever according to that he ought to be,
that he is to the full.” This distinction is true of the Fourth
Gospel, where both words occur.
ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν Δαυείδ, ὃ 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 ὥμου αὐτοῦ, Kal ἀνοίξει καὶ οὐκ
ἔσται ὃ ἀποκλείων καὶ κλείσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὃ ἀνοίγων. Since both
Β and A read differently, our author is apparently not using the
LXX here. In any case, while the LXX reproduces the Mass.,
which here consists of parallel clauses, it is clear that our author
deals independently with the text. The Hebrew is familiar to
him, and what appears in Isa. xxii. 22 in the form of direct
statements and finite verbs is cast by our author into a series of
dependent clauses, which are introduced by participles that are
subsequently resolved into finite verbs, 2.4. ὃ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς
κλείσει καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγε. This is not Greek, but
a Hebrew idiom often used by our author, 1307) 13D Ps) NN|N
MND pri.
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.
lil. 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
III, 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, “1 have set.” In θύρ. ἀνεῳγμένην we
have a Pauline metaphor: cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9, θύρα γάρ μοι ἀνέῳγεν
μεγάλη καὶ ἐνεργής : 2 Cor. 11. 12, θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης ἐν κυρίῳ:
Col. iv. 3, ἵνα ὃ θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου (2.6. an Ορροτ-
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. 1, 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,
7.6. 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.
4, Ui, £3; xx, 8: Ch. χη 6,-1.4, xvii. 9; also il, 7, 17.
ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν. This clause, as pointed out above,
depends directly on οἶδά 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 μου τὸν λόγον. The καί has here an adversative
force (= “‘and yet”), as frequently in the Fourth Gospel (Abbott,
Gram. 135 sqq.), i. 5, ill. 13, 19, iv. 20, Vi. 70, ix. 34, etc. The
usage is Hebraic in character. Cf. also Matt. vi. 263; Jer. xxiii.
21 (Robertson, Gram. 1183). On éryjpnoas . . . λόγον see note
On XIV. 12. καὶ οὐκ npvyow. Cf. ii. 13. These clauses point to
some period of faithfulness under trial in the past.
pou τὸν λόγον. . . Td ὄνομά pov. 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 [III. 9.
9. The conversion of the Jewish element in Thyatira
promised.
i800 διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ Xatava. In διδῶ (for
the earlier d/dwui—see Robertson, Gram. 311 sq.) we have
a transition from -wt to τω forms. Cf. xvii. 13 (διδόασιν). As
regards διδῶ two interpretations are possible. First, it may be
rendered literally: “I 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 (il. 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, jn3 ‘337, with a future
sense. With the construction διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς Compare
li. 17, δώσω... τοῦ μάννα.
τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ Σατανᾶ. In the LXX Ayn Snp is rendered
ἡ path τι τοῦ κυρίου (Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4: cf. also xxvi. 9,
XXxVil. 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 tg encounter from
the Judaizers than from the Jews, both of whom were active:
cf. Ignat. Ad Philad. vi. 1, ἐὰν δέ τις ἰουδαϊσμὸν 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 is in
apposition to τῆς συναγωγῆς. On the whole clause cf. ii. 9. In
classical Greek the usual construction would be τῶν λεγόντων
(αὐτῶν) ᾿Ιουδαίων εἶναι. 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 zz Joc.) : cf. Rom.
ix. 6-9, 11. 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 fut. or subj. Cf. ΧΙ]. 12 (fut. »: 16 (subj. ἢ);
John xi. 37 (subj.); Col. iv. 16 (subj.). The ἵνα clause is
one of consequence; cf, ix, 20, xiii. 13. The fut, ind, after
ΠῚ. 10] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA 89
iva is frequent in our author: see Introd. to ii—ii. § 2 (4),
p. 41 sq.
iva ἥξουσιν Kal προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ποδῶν σου. Cf.
XV. 4, xxii. 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: Xv. 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 Q™s
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 réle of the heathen and acknowledge the
Christians to be the true Israel.
ἐγὼ ἠγάπησά oe. From Isa. ΧΙ]. 4.
προσκυνήσουσιν. . . καὶ γνῶσιν. Cf. xxii. 14, ἵνα ἔσται...
Kat... 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. ii. 10): it is to embrace the entire world.
Elsewhere throughout the original Letters to the Seven Churches
there is not even an apprehension of a world-wide persecution (see
§ 5, Ρ. 44 sq.). The continued existence of two of the Churches
is presupposed till the Second Advent: cf. 11. 25, iii. 3 (?), τι. It
will be observed that the demonic trial spoken of, while world-
wide, was to affect only “those that dwell upon the earth,” ze.
the non-Christians.
ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν λόγον. . . κἀγώ σε τηρήσω. Cf. John xvii.
6, 11, 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 (xiil. το, xiv. 12), ze. “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. 11]. 5,
τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ : Ignat. Ad Rom. x. 3, ἔρρωσθε εἰς τέλος
ἐν ὑπομονῇ ᾿Ιησοῦ 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
90 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [III. 10-12.
keeping with that of our Seer: οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 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., § 5, p. 194.sqq. 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 11. 10 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,
ef... Cor. x; 445° Heb, 11,.18, tv. 15.
τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. These are the heathens or
non-Christians. See note on xi. 10 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 ταχύ. This refers to the Second Advent and
presupposes the continuance of the community till that event,
as in ll. 25, ili. 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,
xvili. 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. 11. 25. See note on 1]. I 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
mote). Ch Col: δὲ ες,
12. See note on ii. 11.
ὃ νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτόν A Hebraism. Cf. 11. 7, 17, 26, 11]. 21.
στύλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ θεοῦ pov. With θεοῦ μου cf. iil. 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. 11]. 15, ἐκκλησία. . . στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀλη:
111. 12. | MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA QI
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 ‘97 oy, “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, Hor. i. 728 sq.). The metaphor is
current in most languages: cf. Pind. Οἱ 11. 146; Eur. 221. I.
57, στύλοι yap οἴκων εἰσὶ παῖδες ἄρσενες : Aesch. Agam. 897; Hor.
Od. i. 35. 132. 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—xxli. 2, which
descended from God to be the seat of the Millennial Kingdom.
In the more spiritual and New Jerusalem, xxi. 2-4, xxli. 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. 21%, ἵνα πάντες ἕν Gow: 22, ἵνα dow ἕν
καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν: 21%, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν dow. 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 111. 7 he has quoted Isa. xxil. 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 KTA. SO far as the Greek goes
the words ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν could refer to (1) στύλον, or (2) to 6 νικῶν.
τ. 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 a Kenyon, Greek Papyri, i. 116), we find :
Οἶδά σε, “Ἑρμῆ. : οἶδά σου καὶ τὰ βαρβαρικὰ ὀνόματα καὶ τὸ
ἀληθινὸν ὄ ὄνομά σου τὸ ἐγγραμμένον τῇ ἱερᾷ στήλῃ ἐν τῷ ἀδύτῳ ἐν
“EppourdAe. 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
Ο2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN | XII. 19.
priests of God in the next world. Ignatius, 4d Philad. 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 1ῃ 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 ili. 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 pov. These words denote that
to the victor God will give the right of citizenship in the New
Jerusalem: cf. Gal. iv. 26; Phil. 111. 20 ; Heb. xi. το, 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. 11.
p. 150. Our author uses the form Ἱερουσαλήμ, but the Fourth
Gospel Ἱεροσόλυμα.
ἣ καταβαίνουσα κτλ. Cf. xxi. 2, το. On this Hebraism see
note onl. 5.
τὸ ὄνομά μου 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 (Ursfr. d. Israel. jiid.
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).
[11.14-52.} 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. iii. 5, Ad Att. v. 15), and very opulent; for when it
was overthrown by the great earthquakes of 60-61 A.D. (Tac.
Ann. xiv. 27) it was not obliged to apply for an imperial subsidy,
as was usual in the case of other cities of Asia Minor: cf. iii. 17,
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,—arw yds καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ yuuvos,—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 Zcy.
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, Ze/éer's,
94 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (III. 14.
413 sqq., and the articles on Laodicea in Hastings’ D.B. and
the ξεν. Bid.—especially in the latter.
of jON ‘Tidy, “the God of Amen.” The idea is thus “the True
One,” “τὰς 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 ji in Isa. lxv. τό.
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
ill. 7.
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, 2.6. “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, 41 566.
1. First of all, with ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ we should
compare Col. i. 18, ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή (where dépyy—the active
principle in creation =airéa, 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” (ze. 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, Ζ.6. priority in time. :
2. With iii. 21, δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ pov, ὡς
III. 14-15.] MESSAGE TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA 95
κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα pera τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ,
compare Col. iii. 1, εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ X., τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ 6
X. ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενος. (Cf. Eph. it. 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. 11. 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 (iii. 20), at all events they felt no
need of repentance. Hence the startling declaration that the
absolute rejection of religion (iii. 15) were preferable to the
Laodicean profession of it. As a Church and as individuals
they dwelt with complacency on what they had achieved (17°),
whilst they were serenely unconscious of what they had left
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. xl. 1 we have ὄφελον with the past ind. to express a
possibility though in the present still unrealized. Moulton
οὔ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [111]. 15-17.
defines these as instances of the “‘ unreal” indicative. See Blass,
Gram. 206 sq., 220; Moulton, Gvam. i. 200.
feords. 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, “1 am rich, and have gotten
riches.” Our text here is a free and direct rendering of Hos.
Xil. Ὁ, % ik NNO Τῶν. The LXX renders jis 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 γέμω has a gen. in
iv. 6, 8, v. 8, xv. 7, XVll. 4, xxl. 9, but an acc. in xvil. 3, 4.
καὶ οὐκ οἶδας. Contrast this with οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα in iil. 15.
σὺ εἶ ὃ ταλαίπωρος κτλ. The σύ is emphatic: it is thou who
art self-satisfied and boastful that art the wretched one far
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,
i.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.
ee 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—arwxds 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-
ment for the spirit—the spiritual body—the white raiment of the
blessed in the heavenly world. The Christian character (or its
derivative the spiritual body) may be regarded from two stand-
points. From the human standpoint such character is a
personal acquisition of the faithful, and, therefore, so far always
imperfect: hence it can be soiled by unfaithfulness (iii. 4°), 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 σοι. 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, Xlv. 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.
a Esdr. xx: 41 in ¥. 9 of our author this verb is followed by ék,
and in xiv. 3, 4 by ἀπό: but the sense is different. On the
VOL. I.—7
98 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [IIT. 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” (MANY, 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 this gold has
been tested and is to be trusted. Further, since in the present
passage this gold is not a material but a spiritual thing, the idea
of the text is that Christ gives to the true seeker a spiritual gift,
which constitutes the only true riches (Col. i. 27). This spiritual
gift, consisting as it does in a new heart or spirit, becomes in
fellowship with Christ the fons e¢ ovigo ofthe 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 πυρός---ἶ.6. the new heart.
ἱμάτια λευκά. See the preceding note; also the note at
beginning of verse, and on 11]. 5.
μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός cou. See xvi. 15, note.
For the diction, cf. Ezek. xvi. 26, ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ἡ αἰσχύνη
cov (ny min): also xxiii. 29; Ex. xx. 26. The soul of the
faithless will appear naked in the next world. Cf. 2 Cor.
V. 2, 3, TO οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπενδύσασθαι ἐπιποθοῦντες,
εἴ γε καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. According to xx.
11-13, the dead (the righteous, excluding the martyrs, and the
wicked) are raised disembodied: see note on xx. 13. The
righteous then receive their spiritual bodies, but the wicked
remain disembodied souls and are cast into the lake of fire.
This is also the teaching of St. Paul, as 2 Cor. v. 2, 3 proves.
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 Meuhebraishes
Worterbuch, iv. 293) as ΠΡ and padip 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,
111. 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. i. 27), “ἴῃ 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. ὃ 544.) of the Holy
Spirit (so Diisterdieck and Swete).
19-20. The severity of the rebuke just administered is a sign
of Christ’s love which summons to repentance and abiding ear-
nestness first the Church as a whole (19) and next the individual
members of it, and promises that if they will open their hearts
He will enter into the closest communion with them for ever.
19. ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω. Cf. Pss. Sol. x. 2,
xiv. 1; Heb. χὶ!. 6. The text is remarkable here. It is drawn
from Prov. iii. 12, Γ᾽" “Ὁ TANTS MX 3, which the LXX
renders, ὃν yap ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος ἐλέγχει, (B; παιδεύει, NA). Here
first of all we observe that our author uses φιλεῖν and not ἀγαπᾶν
as inthe LXX. This is further remarkable, since in i. 5, iii. 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 37x
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. ἃ M.’s
Voc. of Gk. T:, p. 2. In John xi. 3, 36, xx. 2, φιλεῖν 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 ili. 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
ΙΟΟ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (III. 19-20.
observes that these two words may be duplicate renderings of
mai‘, 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 ΠΡ" 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 tis ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς pov) have a
personal and individual character not applicable to the Church
of Laodicea as a whole. If 20 were addressed to the Church we
should expect 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 ΧΙ. 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. 29 54:
Kayo διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν, καθὼς διέθετό μοι ὃ πατήρ μου βασιλείαν, ἵ wa
ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, καὶ
καθῆσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ, 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
III. 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 xiii. 29 (= Matt. xxiv. 33)
and Jas. v. 9 we have the final advent of Christ as /udge, 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 54.» 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, li. (1st ed.) 47 sq. etc.
ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς pou... καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι. 1 have
with some hesitation followed δ, a considerable body of
cursives, s' and Prim. in retaining the καί before the apodosis.
ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς pou. Cr John X. 3, τὰ πρόβατα φωνῆς αὐτοῦ
ἀκούει : XVili. 37, πᾶς ὃ ὧν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς.
Obedience to Christ leads to fellowship with Him.
καὶ 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 17%, “In
the world to come there is neither eating nor drinking . . . but
the righteous . .. find their delight (n°2n3) 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 seen
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 μου. The Seer
witnesses in a vision the fulfilment of this promise in xx. 4, εἶδον
θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὑτοῖς. . . 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 ὃ πατήρ μου βασιλείαν ἵ iva 5 i's καθῆσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων
τ. δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (cf. Matt. xix. 28), and like-
wise 2 Tim. il. hi’ 2. εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συνζήσομεν. εἰ ὑπο-
μένομεν, καὶ pi Caapicioher, 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.
, ὡς 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. iii. 1, οὗ 6 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, XViil. 7).
CHAPTER ἐν.
§ 1. The Contents and Authorship of this Chapter.
With chap. iv. there is an entire change of scene and subject.
The dramatic contrast could not be greater. Hitherto the scene
of the Seer’s visions had been earth: now it is heaven. On the
one hand, in iii. we have had a vivid description of the
Christian Churches of Asia Minor,—which is to be taken as
typical of the Church at large,—the ideals they cherished,
their faulty achievements and not infrequent disloyalties, and
their outlook darkened in every instance with the apprehen-
sion of universal persecution and martyrdom. But the moment
we leave the restlessness, the troubles, the imperfectness, and
apprehensions pervading ii.—ill., 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 Authors
hand, as the diction and tdioms 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.
1, I, XVii, I, xxi. 9, τὸ, xxii. 1, 6, 8. ἃ Set γενέσθαι. Cf. i. 1,
Xxli. 6.
2. ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. Ct. i τοι
4. περιβεβλημένους ἱματίοις λευκοῖς. Cf. iil. 5. In vii. 9, 13,
Σ I, ΧΙΧ. 8, 13, the noun follows in the acc. instead of in the
at.
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 (dis). ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ : cf.
XXIl. I, ποταμὸν 9 .. Cwys... ds κρύσταλλον.
8. ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν κτλ. recurs in Xlv. II. κύριος ὁ θεός.
ι.
͵.
a
104 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [IV. § 2-3.
This divine title occurs 10 times elsewhere in our author (cf. i.
8, iv. I1, Xi. 17, XV. 3, xvi. 7, etc.), and only twice in the rest
of the N.T. (z.e.in St. Luke) except in passages quoted from the
O.T. κύριος ὃ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Cf. 1. 8, xi. 17, XV. 3, ΧΥ]. 7,
xix. 6, ΧΧΙ. 22. 6 παντοκράτωρ 6 ἦν καὶ ὃ dv καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Cf.
ιν 5. ἢ χὺ αν eS.
9. Sdcouow . . . δόξαν... Cf. xiv. 7, xvi. 9, xix. 7 (xi. 13).
Cf. 4th Gospel ix. 24, xvil. 22. τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων :
cf. τοὶ 1. 18, x. 6, xv. 7 (cf. vii. 2).
11, λαβεῖν . . . τὴν δύναμιν, Cf. v. 12, xl. 17.
(ὁ) Ldiom. ;
1. ἡ φωνὴ. . . σάλπιγγος Aadodons . .. λέγων. See note Ζ7
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. χων το εἶχε cf. 8, xii. 2, xix. 12, χχὶ, 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 suwé7._ 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, 6-8*4¢ appear to have been written by our author
as an independent vision. The grounds for this conclusion are
given in the notes zm loc, 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. 8,] RECAST OF AN EARLIER VISION 105
reverse order—angels, Elders, Living Creatures, as in vii. 11,
xix. I—4.
How then are we to explain iv. 4? Two explanations are
possible. τ. 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, 2%, 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 τὰ
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:
ΙΓ. 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 a κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει opapay-
ΐνῳ.
11,
5. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ
καὶ βρονταί,
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
III.
7. καὶ τὸ ζῷον τὸ πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι,
καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῷον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ,
1 If 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 Lape
καὶ τὸ τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου
Ν x , “ cr 3 nq
kat τὸ τέταρτον ζῷον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετομένῳ.
IV.
8. καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἕν καθ᾽ Ev αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ wrépu-
γας ἕξ,
καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες,
ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὃ παντοκράτωρ,
ὁ ἦν καὶ ὃ 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, XVill. I, xix. I
(μετὰ ταῦτα ἤκουσα). Sometimes the same note of emphasis and
unexpectedness is conveyed by the clause καὶ εἶδον καὶ idov: cf.
vi. 2, 5, 8, xiv. 1, 14, Or by καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα, vill. 13. Gener-
ally similar and closely related sections, paragraphs, and clauses
are introduced by καὶ εἶδον, as in v. 1, 2, 6, 11, Vi. I, 2, 12, etc,
and in fact in all the subsequent chapters except Xi ‘and XXxil.
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 μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, or its linguistic equivalent, is found in
1 Enoch Ixxxv. 1, Ixxxix. 19, 30, 54, 72, xc. 2; T. Joseph xix. 5 ;
2 Bar. xxxvil. 1, lili. Κι ττο
καὶ εἶδον, or its equivalent in Hebrew, Aramaic, or
Ethiopic is: found in Dan. vil. 4, 9, 1%, οἱ, 1... 2, 4,° 7%
Enoch Evil. ἃ GO, 7,:S, νηΐ 3, 2,2, 4, 5, Ὁ, ΣΟ, 12, τῷ, χίχ τ
χα 2, αν IREKIR 47, JO, XC: 2,4; 8, ἃ, etc..; F. Levi vil. 25
TT. (ODO. τἰχ 1,3; 9, δ «We find frequently with the same
connotation the clause, ‘‘ And again I saw,” in 1 Enoch lxxxvi.
£, ἢ Ixxxvil./1, ixxxix. 3, 9, δι,
But the fuller form in our text frequently appears in this
literature, μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον καὶ ἰδού. See vii. 9, or its linguistic
equivalent, Dan. vii. 6, 7 (M8) Nn AN AIT ΠΝ); 1 Enoch
Ixxxvi. 2; T. Joseph xix. 5; 4 Ezra xi. 22, 33, xiii. 5 (‘‘ vidi post
haec et ecce ”), 8, and the somewhat shorter form mam TN) (or
the like) i in’ Fzek. 1.4, ἢ, Ὁ, Vill. 2, 7, TO, x. 1, 9, xliv. 4; Zech. i.
&, vi τ; Dan. ty. τὸ, vil. 2, 13, vill. 3, x. 53; 1 Enoch xiv. 14-15;
a Bar, xxxvi. 1-2, 7, lim. 1; 4 Ezra xi. 1, 3, ὶ, 1; τὸνΊ, ἈἈὴ
xx. Q, etc.
In all the above passages in Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel,
1 The occurrence of this clause in xv. 5 shows that a new vision is being
introduced : hence xv. 1, which deals with the same vision, is an interpola-
tion.
3 fe 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 ἠνεῳγμένη 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. 10-i1i., 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 hére 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.t This is the view underlying
T. Levi v. 1, ἤνοιξέ μοι 6 ἄγγελος Tas 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 θεὸς. . . 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 ii. 6 the heavens
open to admit Levi.
1 Compare in this sense Gen. xxviii. 17; Ps. Ixxviii. 23; 3 Bar. ii. 2,
iii, 2; Dieterich, AZtthrasliturgde, 11 sqq.
On the ideas of doors in heaven through which the sun, moon, planets,
and winds pass, see 1 Enoch xxxiii.—xxxvi., Ixxii. sqq. See also Schrader’,
K.A.T. 619, for the occurrence of such ideas in Babylonian writings.
i108 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 (β), xviii.
3, 4; T. Jud. xxi. 4 (8), etc. ; sometimes οὐρανοί, T. Levi ii. 6,
lil. I (a), 9 (8), v. 4 (8), xiil. 5; T. Jud. xxi. 3, etc.
Notwithstanding, the entire outlook of our book favours the
conception of a single heaven.
On the impossibility of getting a consistent view of the
scenes portrayed in heaven by our book see note on 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 ἡ φωνὴ ἡ πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης μετ᾽ 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 7 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 i.-1ii1, In
this first edition of his visions the above inconsistency escaped
him. If, however, we could, with some scholars, take the voice
in i. ro to be that of an unknown angel, there would be no such
inconsistency.
ἡ φωνή. . . ὧς σάλπιγγος λαλούσης per ἐμοῦ λέγων. Here ἡ
φωνή is dependent on ἰδού no less than 7 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 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγων is to be taken as a
Hebraism (διὸ AN VDD), as in xvil. 1, xxi. 9. Cf. x. 8.
ἀνάβα (= ἀνάβηθι: cf. wera Ba, 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, 1. 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, Vil. 13, 14, Vill. 1.
From heaven he can behold what takes place on earth: cf. vi.
12, 15 sqq., vii. 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. 1 (see note zz Joc.) is an interpolation. In xvii.—xviii. the
scene is again changed, and the Seer is on earth again: cf.
XVii. 3, XViil. 1, 4, 21. In xix. 1-10 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 xvil. I, ΧΧΙ. 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 1.--111. the present
(ἃ εἰσίν, 1. 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 1.1, 19. The phrase
ἃ det 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 Set γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, occurs in Theodotion’s rendering of
ays vans wind np.
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. ro 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 n.) 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 the fact that he
hears the heavenly voice which addresses him anew. Ini. 10
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.-ill., by four
clauses, iv. 1>°4, 2% three of which, 1°, iv. 24, have already
occurred in i—lii 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. oe ava 3a. 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 III
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, 2.6. that the Seer was in the ecstatic state:
cf. i. ro. 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 με... ἐν πνεύματι
and xxi. 10, and Ezek. ili. 12 (AN NWN), 14 (INPN) ΓΙ) Nn),
viii. 3, xi. 1, 24, ΧΗ, 5. In 1 Kings xviii. 12, 2 Kings ii. τό,
the same Hebrew verb is used of an actual bodily translation, and
ἁρπάζειν in Acts vili. 39. For other instances! of bodily translation
see Hebrew Gospel (Orig. Zz_/oan, tom. il. 6; Hermas, Vzs. 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 ktA: 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; Με! Ezek.: 1. 26,5: Ps. xlvit..3 3. Dan. vii..9; 1 Enoch
xiv. 18, 19, (xl.); T. Levi v. 1; Ass. Moses iv. 2; 2 Enoch
xxii. 2 (A). See also Weber’, Jiid. Theol. 164sq. A throne of
God on earth ‘is described or mentioned in 1 Enoch xviii. 8,
XXIV. 3, XXV. 3, XC. 20.
In every chapter in our Apocalypse the throne of God is
referred to except in ii., ix.—x., where there is no occasion for
its mention, and in xv. 5-8, where the vision is that of the
Temple in heaven. The phrase 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? 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,
‘*Vahweh is in His holy palace (or temple, 52°"); 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. 1 sqq., but elsewhere the
earthly temple is the scene and subject of prophetic visions: cf. Amos ix. 1;
Ezek. viii. 3, x. 4564. ; 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 272 215 original form a description of the worship of the
blessed faithful after the final judgment, See pp. 200-1, as ia,
II2 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, τοῦ 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 viii. 3. But in the note on
that verse I have sought to prove that both according to Jewish
and early Christian ideas there was only one altar in heaven
combining the characteristics of the earthly altar of incense and
partly those of the altar of burnt-offering. Furthermore, this altar
is within the heavenly Temple, vii. 15 ; and as the altar is before
the throne, vill. 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. τό, vil. το, from the Lamb. In xix. 12 we
have τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τ. θρόνου. In vii. 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. 2-3.] SEER’S VISION OF GOD {13
the sitting, the acc. seems to be used, iv. 2, 4, vi. 2, 4, 5, XIV. 14;
XVil. 3, XIX. II, XXiV. 4 (xx. rz seems hardly a case in point), thus
bearing a trace of its proper import, that of the motion towards,
of which the first mention partakes.” But xi. 16 does not come
under this rule, and no rule he admits ‘‘seems to prevail as
regards the gen. and dat.” Bousset?, 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. &),
XIM., 19, 2%
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπί with daz. iv. 9 (NA), v. 13 (AQ), vii. 10
(NACP), xix. 4 (NACQ). 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.
ὁ καθήμενος ἐπί and τὸν καθήμενον ἐπί, with acc. ὃ καθήμενος,
c. age. in. tv. ὁ 6 An with gen.), vi. 2, is, χὶ, τό (AP), xix. .11.
Exceptions—with gen. vil. 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 acc. 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 (QIN ANW3). In apoca-
lyptic visions, when a being is described as being “like a man,”
we are to infer that it is a supernatural being that the Seer is
describing. In Dan. vii. 9 we have παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν (= “an
ancient of days”) ἐκάθητο, where I cannot help believing that
pov PNY (ze. παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν) is a primitive error for | ΡΨ,
1.é. ὁμοίωμα παλαιοῦ ἡμερῶν. 2)" PNY means simply “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
{14 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Iv. 8.
ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ κτλ. Cf. Ezek. i. 4, 27, vill. 2, where it is
amber to which the glory of God is compared in colour—dés
ὅρασις ἠλέκτρου, ὡς 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 =v"). There were several varieties of the ἴασπις : (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 (=75w”) partially translucent—possibly that referred
to here and in xxi. 11, λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι κρυσταλλίζοντι: (3) a red
stone (=7273, Isa. liv. 12, a yellow stone, and an opalescent
stone). See Lucyc. 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 xxl τ᾿. But owing to this epithet Ebrard thinks
that the diamond is meant here. The sardius (- ἽΝ, Ex.
XXVill. 17, Xxxix. 10; Ezek. xxviii. 13) is a red stone as the name
signifies, the opaque blood-red jasper well known in Egypt,
Babylonia, and Assyria. Cf. Epiphan. De Gemmis, 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”
(Zncyc. Bib. iv. 4803). See also Hastings’ D.Z. iv. 620 sq.
καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ. This
idea of a rainbow round about the throne is derived from Ezek.
i. 28, ὡς ὅρασις τόξου, ὅταν ἢ ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ ἐν ἡμέραις ὑετοῦ---οὕτως
ἡ στάσις (corrupt? for φάσις) τοῦ φέγγους κυκλόθεν. The rainbow is
said to be like ἃ smaragdus. σμαράγδινος is apparently a az. Aey.
The smaragdus (=np 2) 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 Zucyc. 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 cpapaydivw. Perhaps it might be rendered: ‘‘ And there was
a rainbow round about the throne like the appearance of rock
crystal.”
IV. 8-4.} THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS τ
But another view is generally taken of the text. The ἶρις 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. 1. 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, JVimdbus 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.4. 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. i. 17; Apoc. John iv. 3; 1 Tim. vi- 16,
etc.
In favour of the above we might cite Zucyc. 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, Kal 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.
[16 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. 9-11 we find such a
description. First we have a great multitude of the saved which
no man could number; then the various conceniric 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 zz Joc.). Elsewhere, where
these two orders are simply mentioned together, the Living
Creatures are always mentioned first: cf. iv. 9-1ο, v. 6, 8, 14,
xiv. 3. The expression καὶ τῶν ζῴων Kai τῶν πρεσβυτέρων seems
to be a gloss in v. 11 (see note zz /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 ro.
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 vill. 5 in a different order, βρονταὶ x. φωναὶ x.
ἀστραπαί. wvai=n)?\p in Hebrew, and denote the “ voices” of
the thunder; Bpovrai= dnp, 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—dyyedo. 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 (FOI ip); Job
IV. δ-6.] AS IT WERE A SEA OF GLASS 117
xxxvii. 4, ‘‘ He thundereth with the voice of His majesty ” (oy.
INI byp3). Cf. also xxxvil. 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. vill. 10 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 be a later
addition of our author or of a later hand. Its structure appears
to be against the former hypothesis. In the description of the
throne the phrase relating to the throne always begins the verse.
Thus iv. 5°, ἐκ tod 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 τοῦ 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 ὡς 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 (ws) a sea of glass” (cf.
xv. 2). There is nothing like it on earth or in human experi-
ence, so that all he can do is to use a figure of speech in order
to suggest in some faint measure what he saw in the vision.
This is clearly the present meaning of this phrase in our text.
But having thus suggested the character of the conception, he
can then drop the apocalyptic character of the phrase and use
simply the definite -expression 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
= ypu, which appears to be corrupt for y*pia—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 crepewpuaros—the Greek version preserved
in Epiphan. “7.67. 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 xxviil. 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 originally conceived as established, Ps. civ. 3, ‘‘ Who
layeth in the waters the beams of His chambers.” Of this
heavenly ocean a portion only is visible in the foreground, ‘‘as it
were a sea of glass like unto crystal,” in our text. When the
Apocalypse was written it is more than probable that the
original meaning of the sea was wholly forgotten. See Bousset
tn loc., and Gunkel, Zum Verstandnis. d. NT, 44, n. 5.
καὶ [ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ] κύκλῳ τοῦ 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 religions-
gesch. Verst, 44), who conceive the four Living Creatures as lying
with the lower part of their body supporting the throne and with
the upper part of their body projecting beyond it. Eichhorn
was misled by following Ezekiel and by failing to follow the text
before him, and also by the passage which he quotes from the
Midrash Tehillim ciii. 19, to the effect that the Living Creatures
were placed under the throne that they might “know that the
kingdom of God ruled over all.” In fact, the text is unin-
telligible as it stands. Hence 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 τῷ 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. 1. 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, il. 1, v. 6, vil. 17. Konnecke has
also proposed the excision of this clause. 2. Bruston (quoted
by Moffatt) thinks that the clause is a mistranslation of 7)n2
NDDn, 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 ta. 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,
7.e. the Seraphim and Ophannim, in 1 Enoch Ixxi. 7 (cf. 1xi. 10).
And with others still in 2 Enoch xx. 1, xxi. 1, xxil 2. In
2 Enoch xxi. 1 (cf. xxi. 3) ten orders are mentioned. (See my
note 77 loc.)
These Living Creatures in our text are akin, as we have said,
to the living creatures in Ezekiel, but they are in certain essential
aspects different. The Seer does not simply reproduce the
traditions of the past, but speaks in the terms of his own time.
In the present instance I hope to show that the conception in
our text has probably passed through three stages of develop-
ment of which the third is that found in apocalyptic literature,
200 B.C. to 100 A.D. In this brief study we shall advance
backwards from Jewish to Babylonian conceptions, from the
statement of ascertained beliefs to the expression of reasonable
hypotheses.
I. In apocalyptic literature 200 B.c.-100 A.D.—41) 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. 1. 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. {53 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. a
They move freely about, Rev. xv. 7, and act as intermediaries be-
tween God and othr orders of angels. In most of these respects
[20 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (ZV: 9.
4 \the conceptions of the N.T. Apocalypse and of Jewish Apocalyptic
\ between 200 B.C. and Ioo 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. τ Enoch Ixi. ro, Ixxi. 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, “1 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, xviii. 6, where the throne rests on the
floor of the Temple in the third heaven, and Rev. iv. 2 sqq., or they
transformed ‘the wheels ” (0°5)s) into one of the highest orders
of angels, z.e. Ophannim, as in 1 Enoch Ixi. ro, 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, 1 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: “ Holy,
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, Geneszs*, p. 25, the simpler conception
of Rev. iv. 6 is older than the very complicated one of Ezek. i.
10; indeed Winckler (A/tor. Forsch. ii. 347 sqq.), as Zimmern
notes, K.A. 7, 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, το 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,
Ex. xxvi. 37.
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
2 Kings xix. 15; Ps.-xviii. 10, lxxx, 2, Χο τὶ Isa: xxxvii. 16,
where the Cherubim are conceived as bearing God.
In Gen. iil. 24 they guard Paradise. In 1 Enoch Ixxi. 7 they
they are said to guard the throne of God.
Thus the conception in Rev. iv. 6, etc., stands apart in this
respect also from any in the O.T.
4. The Cherubim are silent in Ezek. i. 5 sqq., x. 2, and in all
passages relating to them in the O.T. as opposed to the function
assigned them in late apocalyptic literature.
III. Some of the above conceptions in the O.T. can with
great probability be traced to an earlier stage, a stage with which
our author was wholly unacquainted, and of which even the O.T.
writers had barely the faintest idea. For research in this
direction we are indebted to Zimmern and Gunkel. The
former (K.A.Z. 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 zm space to the dividing limits of the
four quarters of the heavens, and zm ¢ime to the dividing limits of
the four seasons. These four constellations are the Ox, the Lion,
the Scorpion, and Aquarius. Further, the four winds were prob-
ably brought into relation with the four chief signs of the zodiac ;
for in Babylonian-Assyrian sculpture we find on either side of the
holy tree two winged forms, generally with a human body and
an eagle head, and occasionally with a human head and a lion’s
body. Of close affinity with these are the colossal winged ox
and lion figures at the entrance of Assyrian temples and palaces,
which have human heads and the bodies of the ox or lion.
Hence Zimmern infers that the ox, lion, man, and eagle were
known in Babylon as symbols of the winds, and that in the
Biblical Cherubim the forms of these four creatures were derived
from the four constellations in the four quarters, corresponding
to the four directions of the wind. The relation of the lion and
the ox to the constellations of the lion and ox is obvious.
The man corresponds to the scorpion-man, while the eagle is
taken not from Aquarius, but from the constellation of the
1 Gunkel assumes this hypothesis as an assured result in Zum relégtions-
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. Ixvi. 1,
“The heaven is My throne, the earth is My footstool.” In
Ezek. i. 22 the throne rests on a firmament (3p, 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 zm loc.
It is obvious that the idea of the Living Creatures and the
wheels supporting the throne are syncretistic. It rested
originally either on the living creatures or on the wheels. Both
ideas were prevalent in the ancient world (Gunkel, of. ciz., 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, το 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,” z.e. are bodies of stars or constellations. In the Veda
(S.B.£Z. 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.E£.
ΧΧΥΪ. 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 i. 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, Δ 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),
124 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 2% Zoc.,
who proposes ὉΠ ΠΤ onan Dw, ‘“‘and all their naves,
and their felloes, and their axle trees . . . were round about full
of eyes.”
7. Kat 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. τὸ is man, lion, ox, eagle. The text
in x. 14 is corrupt, as we have already pointed out. Irenaeus
(iii, εἰ. 8) seems to have been the earliest writer who identified
the Four Evangelists with the four Living Creatures—Matthew
with the man, Mark with the eagle, Luke with the ox, and John
with the lion. Victorinus, on the other hand, understood the
man as symbolizing Matthew, the lion Mark, the ox Luke,
the eagle John. St. Augustine (De Cons. Evang. i. 6) attributes
the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark, the ox to Luke, and the
eagle to John. Such identifications though popular in the early
Church, and indeed in later times, are wholly fanciful. See
Alford and Diisterdieck zx loc. ; Swete*, St. Mark, p. xxxvi 566. ;
Zahn, /orschungen, il. 257 544. μόσχος is here, as it is over 40
times in the LXX, the equivalent of jw—cf. Ezek. i. 10,
and therefore means an ox. In the LXX it is more frequently
a rendering of 78, a bull, and occasionally of 1? and Day.
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
ΧΙ]. 2, where it recurs.
8. καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα, ev καθ᾽ Ev αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ.
On the form of the Cherubim in this passage see above, p. 119 sq.
For ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν and ava used distributively see N.T. Grammars,
Iv. 8.] THE CHERUBIM 125
[κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν. | Wellhausen (Axalysed.
Offenbarung Joh., Pp. 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 kat 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
iv. 2, 3, 5,6, 7. Weshould expect καὶ κυκλόθεν. 2. κυκλόθεν καὶ
ἔσωθεν is in reality a meaningless phrase. It has proved a
hopeless cvwx to interpreters. If in any form it is original, it
must be corrupt, and we should have to fall back on the text
presupposed by Primasius: ‘“‘habebant singula alas senas per
circuitum. Et erant plena oculis ante se et retro,” or still earlier
Victorinus: ‘“habentes alas senas in circuitu et oculos intus et
foris” (Hausleiter, Lateinische Apocalypse, p. 94). These render-
ings presuppose, as Bousset points out, the text 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 καὶ 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. χίν τὰ
The widespread conception of praise in heaven is attested
by such passages as 1 Enoch xxxix. 12\sq., xl. 3 56.) 1xi. 9 Sqq.;
lxix. 26, Ixxi. 11, etc. ; T. Levi ili. 8; 2 Enoch xvii. 1, xviii. 9,
126 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [IVv. 8.
xix. 6, xx. 4; Ascension of Isaiah vii. 15, 19, 20, 27, 29, 30,
26, Vib 2,16; 17-18, ix. 28-29, 33, 40-42, X. I-3, 19, xi. 26,
re ee = No ) Chag. 12°; Apoc. Zephaniah (Clem. Alex. Strom.
ee ae ho
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, px120 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 reprdsentiren 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 (οὐ 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., Cili. 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
II, p. 133 Sq.).
The trisagion in our text differs from Isa. vi. 3 in that it does
not voice the praise of creation, but omits the words, “ the whole
earth is full of His glory,” and confines itself to the holiness,
omnipotence, and everlastingness of God.
On the essential nature of God, our author bases his assur-
ance of the ultimate triumph of righteousness.
ῳ a ΠῚ ,
Αγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὃ παντοκράτωρ,
ὁ 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 “σ“αβαώθ. Our author
has not followed the LXX ; for in every instance nw23¥ is rendered
by the translator of the LXX in Isaiah by σαβαώθ. On the
other hand, 6 παντοκράτωρ is the rendering of this Hebrew word
in the rest of the prophets. Furthermore, our author has inserted
κύριος 6 θεός -- ΓΛ *IN—a phrase very frequent in Ezekiel (vi. 3,
II, Vii. 2, 5, Vili. 1, etc.). For the second line, cf. i. 4, 8, xi. 17.
For other doxologies, see note on 11.
On 6 ἦν καὶ ὃ ὧν κτλ. see note on i. 4.
9. καὶ ὅταν δώσουσιν τὰ Lda δόξαν. καὶ τιμὴν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ, τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
Commentators are practically agreed that ὅταν δώσουσιν 1 15
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 το, which implies that the.
praise is not continuous, but bursts forth at intervals, whereupon
the four and twenty Elders fall down and worship. The latter
view, moreover, is that which underlies the rest of the Apocalypse.
The Elders are not always prostrating themselves, but on the
occasion of great crises in the Apocalypse, which call forth their
worship and thanksgiving: cf. v. 8, 14, ΧΙ. 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, Ἢ 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 Kal εὐχαριστίαν. The collocation δόξα καὶ
τιμή is found in Ps. viii. 6 (777) 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 Kal τιμήν (where, how-
ever, τιμή is a rendering of ty. But the best parallels to our text
are found in 1 Enoch lxi. 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, xlvil. 2, lxi. 12, etc. (=dogacovew καὶ εὐχαριστήσουσιν). We
might also compare Dan. iv. 34.
τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. This phrase recurs in 10, x. 6, xv. 7;
see also vii. 2. Cf. Dan. iv. 31 (Theod.), τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
(μον on) ἤνεσα καὶ ἐδόξασα; also Deut. xxxii. 40; Dan. xii. 7
(adiyn sn); Sir. xviii. 17; 1 Enoch v.1. This phrase repeats the
idea in the second line of the trisagion. See Bousset, Rel. d.
Judentums, 293. ‘This divine attribute is applied to our Lord
in 1. 18.
10. ot 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, vil.
9, 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 eis ᾿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-
τεροι (O°Ipt) 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 1st 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 (DP).
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?). 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. 4 College of angels —earlier angelic assessors—
originally Babylonian star-guds.
III*. Angelic representatives of the twenty-four priestly
orders.
Ill”. And in their present context Angelic representatives
of the whole body of the faithfut.
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, Dusterdieck, 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, 111. 21, 1. 6,
Xx. ἃ. ὃ, xxii. τ {(2:Tim: ii. 12), and wear crowns, ἯΙ 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,
xxl. 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.—9Q
[30 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., vil., viil., ix. above. These
we must now treat more in detail. The Seer addresses one of
the Elders as κύριε, vil. 13, a fact which, though not conclusive,
isin 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,
ΧΧΙ. 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, στοῦ, 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 prior to the
consummation of the kingdom or the final judgment is against
their being conceived as men. Not till this period arrives will
the faithful wear crowns and sit on thrones. This holds also in
Judaism, as appears from a passage of Tanchuma, fol. 52, quoted
by Spitta and others: “Tempore futuro Deus 5. B. sedebit et
angeli dabunt sellas magnatibus Israelis, et illisedent. Et Deus
S. B. sedet cum senioribus tanquam }"7 ΓΔ 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 ax order of angels.
II. A College of angels—earlier angelic assessors—originally
Babylonian star-gods.—Gunkel (Schépfung 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: peta δὲ τὸν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον εἴκοσιν καὶ τέτταρας ἀφορίζουσιν
ἀστέρας, ὧν τοὺς μὲν ἡμίσεις ἐν τοῖς βορείοις μέρεσι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἡμίσεις
ἐν τοῖς νοτίοις τετάχθαι φασί, καὶ τούτων τοὺς μὲν ὁρωμένους τῶν
ζώντων εἶναι καταριθμοῦσι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀφανεῖς τοῖς τετελευτηκόσι προσω-
ρίσθαι νομίζουσιν, ods δικαστὰς THs ὅλων προσαγορεύουσι. With
the Babylonian star-gods Gunkel (Zum Verstindniss des WN.
Testaments, 43) thinks the twenty-four Yazata of the Persians
are related (Plutarch, De Jszde et Osiride, 47).} 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. |
III*. 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.”
21 find, however, that στέφανος is used of the crown of the sun in
3 Bar. vi., viii.
3 In 1 Enoch xiv. 22, Sir. xlii. 22, it is expressly stated that God stands
oH no need of counsel though thousands of thousands of angels stand around
im.
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 sqq.) who first recognized in the Elders the heavenly
representatives of the twenty-four orders (1 Chron. xxiv. 7-18).
The chief priests were designated not only Dn, “ princes” (so
angels are designated in Dan. x. 13, 20, 21), and DUN, “heads,”
but also “elders of the priesthood,” mand ‘2pt (Joma i. 5), and
IN ΓΔ ΡΥ, “ Elders of a father’s house” (Tamid i. 1); Middoth
i. 8. See Schiirer’, ii. 236. They are also called onbdxn “wy,
“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. ὃ. In
favour of this interpretation it may be observed that, since the
archetypes of the temple and its accessories, as the altar and the
ark, are represented by the Seer as already existing in heaven, it
is natural to find the archetypes of the twenty-four priestly orders
there also.
These angels Spitta identifies with the θρόνοι mentioned in
T. Lev. iii. 8, where their duty, as in several passages in our text,
is to offer praise to God (dei ὕμνον τῷ θεῷ προσφέροντες).
That they sat on thrones is clear from the Ascension of
[ediah ΝῊ, 14; 25; 21,:27; Ὁ. Αἴ, $3),35) 3) 25:
Finally, this view of the Elders is preserved in the writing, ai
διαταγαὶ ai dua Κλήμεντος (Lagarde, Juris ecclestastici antiquissima,
1856, 74 544.) : 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 ἐ
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.
Ill. 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 v. 9-10, where the Elders dwell on the se//-sacrifice of the Lamb as
manifesting His worthiness to take the Book of Destiny and open its seals.
However, it is just possible that the Living Creatures also join in that hymn,
Iv. 10-11.] THEIR DOXOLOGY 133
heavenly representatives of the faithful in their twofold aspect as
priests and kings.
It is, of course, possible that the Jewish character of the
Elders may persist in our text: but it is not improbable that for
our author the Elders have become the heavenly representatives
of the faithful, all of whom are priests, i. 6. The risen martyrs
are both priests and kings, xx. 6. This conception presents no
difficulty, seeing that every man had his guardian angel,
Acts xii. 15 ; Tob. v.; Targ. Jer. on Gen. xxxill. 10; Chag. 16°;
Ber. 60°, and particularly ‘“‘the little ones,” Matt. xviil. 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 Ceesaris
insigne regium.. . ad quam(sc. effigiem Neronis) progressus Tirid-
ates... sublatum capiti diadema imagini subjecit,” and Eichhorn,
Plutarch, Lucull. 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.
Pompeius, quum in suis castris supplicem abjectumque vidisset
erexit, atque insigne regium, quod ille de suo capiti abjecerat
reposuit.
11, ἄξιος εἶ, ὃ κύριος καὶ ὃ θεὸς ἡμῶν,
A ,
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 1 Enoch
such doxologies are frequent, and have, as a rule, a close con-
nection with their respective contexts: cf. ix. 4, 5, xxii. 14,
XXV. 7, XXXVI. 4, XXXIX. 9-13, xlvili. 10, Ixxxi. 3, Ixxxiii. 11,
Ixxxiv., xc. 40. The same rule can be traced in the doxologies
of our text: cf. v. 12, 13, vii. 12.
As the doxology of the Cherubim in 8 has for its theme
the holiness, omnipotence, and everlastingness of God,—i.e. the
essential nature of God,—so the doxology of the four and twenty
134 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [rv. 11-ν. 51.
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,
“le commanded, and they were created.” 1 Enoch lxxxi. 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 ἧσαν. 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 ἧσαν, 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: “The Divine Will had made the
universe a fact in the scheme of things before the Divine Power
gave material expression to the fact.”
But I confess that the text of A seems best, and from it all
the other variations can be explained.
With the idea in our text we might contrast contemporary
Jewish speculation. According to 2 Bar. xiv. 18, Ezra viii. 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, xxl. 24.
Such was the belief of the Rabbis: see Weber, /ud. Theol.?
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 Χ. I, xvili, 21. ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ :
again in xiv. 7, 9, 15. Without ἐν in v. 12, vi. 10, Vil. 2, 10,
vill. 13, x. 3, etc. Contrast the non-Johannine ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ
in Xvill. 2.
_ 8. ὑποκάτω. Cf. 13, vi. 9, xii. 1. Elsewhere in NT 7
times.
4. ἄξιος εὑρέθηῆ. For εὑρεῖν with part. or adj. cf. 11. 2, 11],
2, XX. ἘΝ;
_ 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, xill. 8. ἠγόρασας : cf. xiv. 3, 4. ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου : cf. 1. 5.
φυλῆς κι γλώσσης κ. λαοῦ κ. ἔθνους : cf. vii. 9, Xi. 9, ΧΙ. 7,
xiv. 6.
10. βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς : εἴ. i. 6. βασιλεύουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς:
136 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN Pe,
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 of πλοῦτον, cf. vil. 12.
18. τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τ. θρόνῳ κ. τῷ dpviw. Cf. vi. 16, vii. το,
Xv. ἡ Xx. τ 4
(ὁ) Idiom.
1. τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τ. θρόνου. 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,
Hi: 14; ¥. 4) 14, Vi. 8;'9, X. TO, XIX. 24, ἘΣ δ,
5. εἷς ἐκ. Seven times elsewhere in our author: twelve times
in Fourth Gospel: ten times in rest of NT.
ὃ 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.
17, κυ Νὴ Ma, xx. 8, 13.
6. ἐν μέσῳ . . . ἐν μέσῳ -Ξ "2) . .. Pa=“in the midst of
... and”—a Hebraism.
ὡς ἐσφαγμένον: A frequent idiomatic use of ὡς in our
author. ἀρνίον... ἔχων. This breach of concord in gender
frequent in our author. Cf. πνεύματα. .. ἀπεσταλμένοι, which
follows.
7. ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν: cf. viii. 3, xvii. I, xxi. 9. for this
Semiticism, which does not occur in the Fourth Gospel. Introd.
to II.-III. § 2 (a), p. 39. It has been pointed out that the use
of the perfect εἴληφα is characteristic of our Seer.
11. 6 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 Viil. 3, xiii. 12.
V. 1. καὶ εἴδον ἐπὶ τὴν 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
χεῖρα. 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 βιβλίον.
i. The form.—(a) Grotius (ii. 1160), Zahn (Zinlett. ii. 596),
Nestle (Zext. Crit. of NT, 333), take it to be not a roll but a
codex ; for (1) it is said to be ἐπὶ τὴν δεξίχν. 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
ν.1.1 THE SEVEN-SEALED BOOK 137
or ἀναπτύσσειν." But this is not so. ἀνοῖξαι is used in Isa.
XXxvil. 14 (ἤνοιξεν αὐτό-- τὸ βιβλίον) as a rendering of 75, the
word which Ezekiel uses in 11. 10, and which the LXX renders
there by ἀνείλησεν.
ἀνοῖξαι is used of unrolling a book also in Luke iv. 17, where
xD 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. To this it has been
reasonably rejoined that such a description is superfluous,
as a roll is never written on the outside and sealed on the
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
(nda), in Ezek. ii. g and Ps. xxxix. 8 κεφαλὶς βιβλίου (Ndi
76D). 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) OH 723), but in our text.as “written within and with-
out” —yeypappevov 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, Vz.
Auct. 9, ἡ πήρα δέ σοι θέρμων ἔσται μεστὴ καὶ ὀπισθογράφων
βιβλίων ; Juvenal, i. 6, “Summi plena jam margine libri scrip-
tus et iz ztergo necdum finitus Orestes”; Martial, Vili. 62,
“Scribit in aversa Picens Epigrammata charta,”
ii. The contents.—(a) According to Huschke (Das Buch mit
den steben Stegeln, 1860), Zahn (op. 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. cit. p. 57, n. 3) has shown that it is possible
to construct a roll in which the seals fastened to the cords can be so fastened
that with the removal of one a part of the roll can be unrolled, while the rest
remains secure.
138 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [v. ἢ
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.
(ὁ) 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., Bengel, Dusterdieck, 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, xxil. 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, xxvl. 30,
where we find the idea that heaven contains divine archetypes of
certain things that exist on earth; partly to Dan. x. 21, where a
book of God’s plans is referred to; but most of all to the growing
determinism of thought, for which this phrase stands as a
concrete expression. ‘The conception is not a hard and fixed
one: in 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 1xxxi. 1 sq., xciii.
1--3, Cvi. 19, Cvii. 1; and the blessings in store for the righteous
ciili. 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
ν. 1-ὅ7 TO BE OPENED ONLY BY THE LAMB 139
ideas are closely related. See my notes on 1 Enoch xlvii. 3 and
Jub. ili. ro.
2. καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. A
“strong angel” is referred to again in x. 1, xviil, 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 -- ἱκανός. Matt. viii. 8: cf. 2 Cor. ii. 16, πρὸς ταῦτα τίς
ἱκανός; In John i. 27 it is combined with ἵνα. 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 βιβλίον οὐδὲ βλέπειν αὐτός 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 (afsu= water
under and around the earth: see Zimmern, K.A. 7.3 11. 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 αὐτό. 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. καὶ εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγει μοι Μὴ KAate* ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν
ὃ λέων 6 ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα, 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 vii. 13, intervenes, as elsewhere do other
angels, x. 4, 8sqq., xvii. 1, xix. 9, xxi. 9, xxil. 8, in order to inform
or guide the Seer. μὴ κλαῖε: cf. John xx. 13. The actual phrase
is used by Christ in Luke vii. 13, viii. 52.
140 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ν. 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. iii. 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 6 λέων ὃ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς
"Iovda in dependence on Gen. xlix. 9, σκύμνος λέοντος Ἰούδα...
ἀναπεσὼν ἐκοιμήθης ὡς λέων, and as ἡ pila Δαυείδ in dependence
on Isa. xi. 1, ἐξελεύσεται ῥάβδος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης (YI) Ἰεσσαί, καὶ
ἄνθος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης (Ὁ 122) ἀναβήσεται, and xi. 10, καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ
ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἡ ῥίζα (WIY) 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 of 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.
ο 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=pai pa. The LXX constantly translate in
this way the Hebrew preposition literally, and not idiomatically,
as in Gen. 1. 4, 7, 18, lil. 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
Vv. 6.] VISION OF THE LAMB [41
i. 29, 36; τ Pet. i. 19; Acts Vili. 32. This last passage is a
quotation from 154. li. 7, ὡς 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
Vili. 34.566. 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, 7.6. 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:
cf. 1.15. ἢ, 5.
ἔχων κέρατα ἑπτά. The horn first of all symbolizes power in
the O.T. Cf. Num. xxii. 22 ; Deut. xxxlil. 17; 1 Sam. ii. 1;
1 Kings xxii. 11; Ps. Ixxv. 4, Ixxxix, 17, etc. Nextit marks kingly ἡ
dignity, Ps. cxii. 9, cxlviii. 14; Zech. i. 18; Dan. vii. 7, 26, ὙΠ].
Shes Apoc. xi. 3, Sit, %, τὰ, Xvi.’ 3. In 1 Enoch xc. g the
Maccabees are symbolized by “horned lambs”: ‘ And I saw till
horns grew upon those lambs”: and in Test. Joseph xix. 8 sq.,
one of this family is designed under the term: duvds, which
destroys the enemies of Israel. While the idea underlying ἀρνίον
ὡς ἐσφαγμένον is clearly derived from Isa. lili. 7, it is very
probable that the conception underlying ἔχων κέρατα éxra 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. xxvii. 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, οἵ 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 (DDDIVD)
ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. The clause οἵ εἰσιν... γῆν has been
rejected by Weyla..d, Spitta (p. 67), Volter, iv. p. 12, Wellhausen
nd
[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. 18 and the order of the words were against the originality
of iv. 5° (Ὁ), but not against its insertion, when he edited his
visions as a whole. Furthermore, since ἀνκοταλμένοι ΟΥ ἀπεσταλ-
μένα seems to be a very loose but independent translation of
Ὁ ΦῸ (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 par excellence of this tribe; the Root of
ν. 6-7.} THE LAMB TAKES THE BOOK 143
Jesse,! is, of course, the plant springing from the root of Jesse (cf.
Isa. liii. 2 ; 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 Verstindniss
ΔΖ, 60 sqq.) and Bousset (259) point out, go back to an
ancient heathen myth. One such element is the opening of the
sealed Book. Magical books, magical rings, magical oaths and
formulas were everywhere current inthe 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
θρόνου. In ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν we have a Semiticism (cf. viii. 3)
not found in the Fourth Gospel; cf. vill. 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 Jn 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, thé 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,
[44 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, vill. 5, xix. 3, and probably in iii. 3,
xl. 17, li. 27. Other examples are found in 2 Cor. ii. 13, i. 9,
vil. 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, ro ; 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 dpviov. Spitta (p. 67)
removes ἔπεσαν. . . ἀρνίου as ἃ 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 (Apocalypse und
thre neueste Kritik, p. 47) adduces the Egyptian picture, in
which Rameses 11. 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. Wandgemiilde 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 καὶ φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας θυμιαμάτων
[αἵ εἰσιν at προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων]. The words ἔχοντες ἕκαστος
Vv. 8.] WORSHIP OF THE LAMB i468
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. The alrefers to θυμιαμάτων and not to φιάλας.
Its gender is to be explained by attraction from προσευχαί The
prayers of the saints, are symbolized by the incense: Ps. cxl. 2,
κατευθυνθήτω ἡ προσευχή μου ὡς θυμίαμα ἐνώπιόν gov. The ἅγιοι
are those dedicated to God, z.e. the Christians; for so the
latter are frequently designated in the Apocalypse: cf. viii. 3, 4,
xi. 18, xiii. 7, 10, Xiv. 12, xvi. 6, Xvili. 20, xx. 9. Spitta (p. 67)
and VoOlter (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. xi., Michael descends to the
fifth heaven to receive the prayers of mankind. According to
the Apoc. Pauli, 7-10, the doors of heaven were opened
at a definite hour to receive these prayers. Judaism is the
source of these views, as we see by going back to an earlier
work, the Test. Levi iii. 5-6, where it is said that in the highest
heaven the archangels, of whom Michael is the chief, “ minister
and make propitiation to the Lord for all the sins of the
righteous, Offering to the Lord . . . a reasonable and a bloodless
offering.” Next, in iii. 7, in the fifth heaven, is the order of
angels who present the prayers of the faithful to the archangels,
who in turn lay them before God. (See my edition with notes
in loc.) Cf. Tob. xii. 12, 15. Thus in our text (except in
vill. 3-5) the four and twenty Elders have definitely taken the
part assigned tn 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.—10
146 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 8-9.
shown in my notes on Test. Levi ili. 5, the angels acted as
intercessors for mankind. But in the face of viii. 3-5 the rdéle
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. καὶ 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 631) καινή (wan Vv)
was originally a song of praise inspired, by gratitude for new
mercies. As such it occurs six times in the Psalter: xxxii.
| (xxxili.) 3, xxxix. (xl.) 4, xcv. (xcvi.) 1, xcvil. (xcviil.) 1, cxliii.
(cxliv.) 9, cxlix. 1. But in Isa. xlii. τὸ the phrase has a fuller
content, corresponding to the deeper sense of ‘new things ” in
xlii. 9. The one cycle of events is fulfilled, the other is about
to begin. However great the glories of things of old time, they
shall be dimmed by the splendour of things to come. To this
new cycle the new song belongs. Suddenly in our text the old
God-appointed Jewish dispensation, with its animal sacrifices and
racial exclusiveness, is brought to a close, and the new Christian
dispensation is initiated, as the ‘“‘ new song” declares, by the self-
sacrifice made once and for all (ἐσφάγης) by the Lamb, and the
universal Church thereby established and drawn from every
people and nation and language. The continuous song (ᾷδουσιν)
is the note of continuous thankfulness and joy.
The καινότης---ἰῇῆᾳ. 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
Ἱερουσαλὴμ. Kawyv—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, 111. 12, and in praise of this kingdom the
Elders sing the new song dv καινήν, and likewise the angels, xiv.
3, and the blessed company of the martyrs before the throne, xv. 2.
ἔλξιος et 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 i in this Book (6, 9, 12, xiii. 8) j in dependence on Isa. lili. 7,
ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἥχϑι: and the death of the martyrs in
vi. 9, XVili. 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. 1 Pet. i. 19). The power or sphere
from which the purchase sets free is not mentioned here. In
(xiv. 3 it is from the earth and its evils, and in—a gloss) xiv. 4
from wicked men that they are withdrawn through the purchase.
ἀγοράζειν is a Pauline word, 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; 2 Pet. 1]. 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 cov. Here as ini. 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 I John i il. #4 αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐ εστιν. ..- περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.
φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους. These four words
occur, but in different order, in v. 9, Vii. 9, ΧΙ. 9, Xiii. 7,
xiv. 6. In no two instances is the order the same. | They recur
twice more, but not only in a different order but with 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 iii. 7, ‘Gentes et tribus, populi et cognationes ” (= ἔθνη
καὶ φυλαί, λαοὶ καὶ συγγένειαι (?)). Nowthe source of all these is
ultimately the Book of Daniel, iii. 4, 7, 29, v. 19, Vi. 25, vii. 14,
whether it be the Massoretic, Theodotion, or the LXX. In the
printed texts of the LXX it is found also in 111. 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 servi) NON NHDNOY 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 ili, 4 there are four members in the enumeration
148 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 9-11.
---ἔθνη καὶ χῶραι (= 8NITD ἢ), λαοὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι. In the remaining
four passages ili. 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 Aads 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 1.6. 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 11. 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 ἐἰμαμθημδη καὶ ἣν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν
μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων. The καὶ εἶδον intro-
duces a new feature in the vision: see note oniv. 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 x. 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 wice 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, Ix. 1, Ixxi, 8 -- χιλιάδες χιλιάδων καὶ μυριάδες μυριάδων, and
V. 11-13.] 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, οἵ.
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 vil. 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.
XxixX. I1, 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 (MVD... MD... N39... wy). These are not the
renderings of the LXX. If our author made any use of 1 Chron.
Xxix. 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, vii, 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.
13. kal 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.
150 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ν. 13.
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, Ixxxviil.
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.
(4) 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. (4) 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 (kat τὰ 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 καὶ γραμματέων καὶ ὅλον τὸ
συνέδριον. The phrase τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα is already found in
Ex. xx. 11; Ps. exlv. (cxlvi.) 6.
ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ. So Nand various Versions. ἐπί, cum gen. impos-
sible here.
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ
ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα
καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,
V. 15-᾿:4}] |. THE AMEN OF THE CHERUBIM 151
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπί (see note on iv. 2) τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ.
This conjunction of God and the Lamb, which recurs in vil. 10,
attests the advanced Christology of our author. The throne of
Both is one and the same, xxii. 1, 3, ili. 21, and the worship
offered to Each is also one and the same: cf. vii. 12.
In this verse we have the climax of chaps. iv. and v. Chap.
iv. relates to God, and v. 1-12 to the Lamb; v. 13-14 to the
conjoined glory of God and the Lamb. The two doxologies
offered respectively by the Cherubim (iv. 9) and the Elders (iv. 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 redemption of the world by the
Lamb, and pronounce Him as worthy to rule it and to receive
the sevenfold attributes of God (cf. vii. 12). And now the climax
of the world’s adoration has come, and the worship offered to God
in iv., and that to the Lamb in v. 1-12, are united in one great
closing doxology, in which all created things throughout the
entire universe acclaim together God and the Lamb, with praise
and honour and glory and power for ever and ever. The
doxology has four members, consisting of the last three attri-
butes in the doxology in 12 together with one which is elsewhere
found only in the doxology in i. 6.
14. καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα 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.
XXVil. 15 566.
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: ν. 14, Vil. 12, xix. 4, XXil. 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. 11.
il. 453-454, 458), whence the custom passed over to the Christian
Church (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 16). This usage is vouched for by Justin
Martyr, Aol. 1. 65, ὃ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων ᾿Αμήν, and later
by Jerome. i. 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 difisions of the.
152 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [V. 14.
Psalter, xli. 14, Ixxil. 18, lxxxix. 52, cvi. 48. iv. See note on iii.
14. For other uses of this word see the article in ἔμενε. Bid.
i. 136 sq., by Professor Hogg, which I have drawn upon for the
above notes ; and that in Hastings’ D.Z. fox is rendered in the
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 1. 7.)
With the doxology in 13°° and the succeeding amen we should
compare 1 Chron. xvi. 36, εὐλογημένος κύριος ὃ θεὸς Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ
αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἐρεῖ πᾶς ὃ 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 z# /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 V6lter, Das
Problem ad. Apok. p. 512, “Wenn Plinius an Trajan schreibt,
dass die Christen am Tag ihrer Zusammenktnfte 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.
to 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 VoOlter’, i. 156, ii, 27 54., 11].
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, ὃ, the final clause of v. 10, and ἰδοὺ
. . . αὐτοῦ in Vv. 5, and ἔπεσον . . . dpviov 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, 2.6. 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.!. 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 z#medzate heralds of the end,
and are to be realized -nly 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—passim. 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 ii. 23. ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία : cf. ix. 3,
Mii. Ry Hen:
9. τῶν ἐσφαγμένων : cf. v. 6, 9, 12, ΧΙ]. 8, xviii. 24. Only
once in restof N.T. διὰ τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ : cf. 1. 2, note, 9, xii. 11,
Xx. 4. διὰ τ. μαρτυρίαν : cf. i. 2, note.
10. ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ: cf. vil. 2, 10, X. 3, ΧΙΧ. 17, etc.
ὃ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός : cf. 111. 7, note. κρίνεις K. ἐκδικεῖς. . ἐκ:
ch xix: 2.
11, ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα, cum fut: cf. ix. 4. χρόνον μικρόν : cf.
χχ. 34. οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν : cf. (xix. 10) xxii. 9. ὧς καὶ αὐτοί:
cf. il, 27, iii. 21. Not in other Johannine books οὗ N.T.
18, ἔπεσαν εἰς τ. γῆν : cf. ΙΧ. 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, 10, xxl. 24. βασιλεῖς...
χιλίαρχοι. . . ἰσχυροὶ. . . δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος. These recur
in xix. 18.
16. ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη (7:6. of judgment). Recurs in xvi. 14,
and not elsewhere in N.T. save in Acts il. 20, where it is a
quotation from Joel.
(ὁ) Ldtom. |
1. μίαν ἐκ: cf. ἑνὸς ἐκ in next clause: frequent in our author.
ὡς φωνή---ἃ Hebraism for ὡς φωνῇ. See note zx loc.
2. ὃ καθήμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν : cf. 5: also τό, τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ
θρόνου. In 4 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, the αὐτόν is corrupt for
αὐτῷ; See p. 112 Sq.
8. ἄλλος ἵππος πυρρός = “ another, a red horse.” This classical
idiom recurs in xiv. 8, 9, and John xiv. 16 (yet see Abbott,
Gram. p. 612 sq.) may be interpreted in the same way. Other-
wise it is not found in the N.T. ἕτερος is used in this sense in
Luke x. 1, xXxill. 32.
4. a... σφάξουσιν : οἷ. 11. ἵνα, cum inf, nine times in
our author, fourteen in rest of N.T.
6. ὡς φωνήν. See note on p 35 sq.
ἡ. φωνὴν τ. τετάρτου ζῴου = “‘ the voice,” etc.
11. αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ : cf. 11. 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 3.] 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
Vologases, who in 62 a.D. forced a Roman army to capitulate.
Erbes explains the second Rider by the great insurrection in
Britain, 61 A.D., which led to the loss of 150,000 lives and by
contemporary wars in Germany and troubles in Palestine; the
a
the same lines as his predecessors. V6lter, 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. Azm. xvi. 13 ;
Suet. Vero, 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.
11. 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. ὃ 3.
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.
"1. Zhe Tvraditional-Historical.—This method has been
applied to the interpretation of the first four Seals by Gunkel
(Zum religtonsgesch. Verst. d. N.T. 538q.), 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, AZystéres de Mithra, p. 3). He carries a bow (so vi. 2,
ἔχων τόξον) as the sun-god (Zimmern, A.A. 7.8 368, note 5): he
wears a crown (380 Vi. 2, ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος) as Mithras (Cumont,
op. cit. 84; Dieterich, A/ithrasliturgie, 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 Tradttional-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 (γα 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 sevew woes which he found in the
document behind Mark xiii., Matt. xxiv., Luke xxi.
158 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. § 8.
v. Traditional-Historical Method with incidental references to
contemporary Events.—TYhe 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, Ὁ", 29. MARK xiii. 7-9, 24-25.
I. Wars. 1. 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. 1.
1. Wars. Seal 1. War.
2. International strife. », 2. International strife.
3. Earthquakes. ἡ 3- Famine.
4. Famines. » 4. Pestilence. (Death and
Hades. )
5. Pestilence. », 5. Persecutions.
6. Persecutions. », © (vi. I2-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 8 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 oddov. The winds in our
text, vii. I, are not to blow upon the sea till the final judgment. The storm
winds of Yahweh are a well-known eschatological element in O.T.
2 Other signs preluding the end are given in connection with the predicted
fall of Jerusalem (cf. Mark xiii. 14 sqq. and parallels, Luke. xxi. 20 sq.) ; but
since Jerusalem had fallen over twenty years before, our author is not con-
cerned with these. :
3 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 ¢he 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 7z 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. czt. ii. 30); earthquakes,
famines, and pestilences (of. ct. iii. 4); falling of the star Gurzihar on the
earth (of. εζί. ; Bundahish xxx. 18); the sun losing its light (ii. 31). See
Boklen, Verwandtschaft der Jiidischchristlichen mit der Parsischen Eschato-
logie, Ὁ. 88 544.
160 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. § 3.
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 ts 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 with the bow refers to the Parthian empire
that was to overthrow the hated Rome; the second may have a
secondary reference to Rome, as the source of social disorder
and destruction, though earlier regarded as the upholder of order
and peace; the third possibly (?) to the edict of Domitian, and
the fifth certainly to the martyrdoms under Nero.
But these references are due to our author, and do not
belong to the original eschatological scheme. Such contemporary
1This 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 Ξε Ὁ ns; but there is the possibility, of course,
as Moulton, Gram. 1. 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 évds = INN 12D, where four are mentioned :
Job xlii. 14. But the phrase may simply mean “‘one of.” The
occurrence of the ordinals, however, in v. 3, 5, 7, appears to be
against this.
kal ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς
Ἔρχου. On ἑνὸς ἐκ- “the first of,” see preceding note. The
four Cherubim in succession summon the four Riders. This is
the most natural interpretation, as J. Weiss, 59, Bousset?, 264,
Wellhausen, 10, and Holtzmann’, 444, have recognized. Others
have taken the words as addressed to the Seer; but elsewhere
xvii. 1, 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
φωνγ), which in order to arrive at an intelligible text we must
read.
But ὡς φωνή is susceptible of explanation. The writer may
have had 5yp> in his mind and rendered this as és φωνή, whereas
idiomatically it=as φωνῇ, the 2 being suppressed after 5. “Cf.
Isa.iv.: 3, Bed:
2. καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκός. On the apocalyptic phrase
καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδού, which recurs in vi. 5, 8, xiv. I, 14, xix. 11, 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 xili. 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
162 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VI. 2.
the four sets of horses and chariots in Zech. i. 8, vi. 1-8—so far
as regards the four horses and their colours. But the functions
and character of the O.T. figures are transformed, and the
messengers of God to the four quarters of the heaven are
changed into agents of destruction.
Next as regards the different colours, these are chosen from
Zechariah to suit the woes they symbolize. Thus red naturally
corresponds to the sword, black to famine, and pale yellow to
death, being a corpse-like colour. The white remains, and this
naturally belongs to the horse on which triumphant war is seated.
Thus Xerxes rode on white Nisaean horses (Herod. vii. 40;
Philostr. Viz. Apoll. 1. 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. xliii. 14 (quoted by
Swete), the four horses which drew the car in Julius Caesar’s tri-
umph were white: τὰ ἐπινίκια τὰ προεψηφισμένᾳ 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: 1. 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 ow; LXX, πυρροὶ καὶ [ψαροὶ καὶ] ποικίλοι
καὶ λευκοί. Here it is admitted that the text is defective and omits Ὁ ἼΠΦ,
which is found in vi. 2,6. The LXX gives, it is true, four colours, but ψαροί
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.,
Wapds ἵππος ὁ κατὰ τὸν ψᾶρα ποικίλος. Next, in vi. 2, 3 we have ΟΝ
ospr oma... θα». τς onnw..., LXX πυρροὶ «εἰς μέλανες. . . λευκοὶ
. ποικίλοι [Wapol]. Here also it is admitted that the text is corrupt.
pry = “S 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 o'yOND.. . TIAN... oa, . . ONT; LXX, of μέλανες
. . of λευκοὶ. . . of ποικίλοι. . . of Wapot (but Aquila has οἱ muppoi).
Here o’spx is rightly taken to be a corruption of o'=7x=‘‘ 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 wzze 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, K.A.7.* 339, 616, 633; Marti on Zech. i. 8).
We can now reconstruct Zech. vi. 6, 7, 025m pos pax Ox ORs’ DNA DDR
JON γον ON ONSY DOWN < Twa PIX Sx > ONS OMIM ὈἽΡΠ pre Sx DNS?
Here I have with previous scholars emended the unintelligible o7"nx into
VI. 2.] THE FIRST SEAL 163
καὶ ὁ 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 gz/t 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. 3
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 Vologadses. This is a less defensible view than 1.
3. Spitta, 290, interprets the text of Rome; but this view is
generally rejected.
ὈἽΡΠ px, and changed 1xx° into Κ᾽ three times (with Wellhausen). Next I
have restored the lost anyn px 5x, ‘to the west country,” and finally I have
transposed o’xs’ D°DINA before oN pax bx 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°973, vi. 2, 8=‘‘spotted.” In i. 8
op = *‘ 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 yAwpés, ‘‘ pale” or ‘‘ pale yellow,” in our text, vi. 8. As
regards 0972 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 A.7. im Licht des alten Orients)
on this question are often merely fantastic. See Miiller, ‘‘ Die Apokal.
Reiter,” Z2.N.7. W., 1907, 290-316.
1 See Herod. v. 49, vil. 61 ; Ovid, Z7zs¢. ii. 227 ; Ammianus Marcellinus,
xxii. 8; and Wetstein zz Joc.
164 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VI. 3.
4. A great number of interpreters—Victorinus, Primasius,
Bede, Bullinger, Paraeus, Grotius, Vitringa, Dusterdieck, 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, li. 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 ἱ 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.A.7-° 393. Since we
have here to deal with a stereotyped prediction, which exhibits no
VI. 3.] THE SECOND SEAL "δ
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. xxvil. 1, xxxlv. 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,
“Α 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 lxxxviii. 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
pai text of the LXX (B) is to be followed here (see Marti z
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 rdle 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 éx. Cf. the kindred phrase “children of earth,”
τ Enoch c. 6, cil. 3, over against “children of heaven,” ci. 1.
For iva with the fut. Ind. see Robertson, Gram. 998 sq.
5. καὶ ὅτε 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 588β.ι 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
—oirov . . . 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 double 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: 4 yap χοῖνιξ ἡμερήσιος τροφή. For
other references see Wetstein.
The denarius, which was worth about 94d. (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, 10% 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 a
special time when the necessaries of life were scarce and its
superfluities abundant.
According to Erbes, 40, the more moderate the scarcity is
represented, the more manifestly it belongs not to the region of
fancy but to history, and in his opinion to the year 62 (Tac. Aum.
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 S. Reinach’s “‘ La mévente des vins sous le
haut-empire romain,” Rev. Achéol., sér. 111. t. ΧΧΧΙ͂Χ., 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).t 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 [ὕὉἹ. 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 (7py'3 “ΠῚ AMD NN 82 NIT AP) ; 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 (248 Amn. ΠῸΞ ΠΝ ADP Π ΔΝ bas 1
wma ‘was wx).” 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.
7. καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὴν 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 ΡΨ 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 o’\p1w. But as we
have seen in the note referred to, we require in Zechariah a word
signifying “yeilow” or “pale yellow.” Bochart (Hieronzoicon,
i. 50) gives good grounds for assuming this to be the meaning of
pow, and holds that ph and py were related colours, since
in Lev. xi. 18, Deut. xiv. 17, the same bird is called Sp7p in
1In 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 é ἵππος ὅ ἐστι
- ξανθός" ἡ γὰρ Νίσα πάσας τὰς ἵππους ξανθὰς ἔχει (see Bochart, /oc.
cit.). Now Aristotle (Meteor, 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 7) or apap?
instead of pry in Zech. i. 8; for xAwpds is the most frequent
rendering of this word in the LXX. ip. means “ paleness,”
* lividness.”
8°. ὁ καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος 1
[καὶ ὃ 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 i. 18, xx. 13, 14. But how are we
to conceive them in the present passage? There is only one
horse and there are two figures. From the analogy of the pre-
ceding Seals we expect here only one figure. Hence J. Weiss,
59, thinks that Hades is here “suspiciously” thrust into the
corner and granted only a shadowy existence, since he scarcely
appears to be aught else than a double of Death. This writer
then goes on to conjecture that θάνατος here was in the original
conception a personification of pestilence (=727), 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=iDv ΠῚ “yoy 2357.
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 6
καθήμενος. Hence the clause καὶ ὃ adys . . . αὐτοῦ introduces
confusion of thought and diction, and looks like an intrusion.
2. We should expect λοιμός here, as in Luke xxi. τι. But
θάνατος can be used in the same sense, as it frequently appears in
the LXX as a translation of 129. In Sir. xxxix. 29 we have the
combination 72N<13>}y7; 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 ;!
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. 10, ¥Xix. 17, 18, xbv. 13; Ezek. v.12, 17, Χῖν. 21, xxxtil: 27,
etc. Now smi 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, z.e. θάνατος, “ pestilence.”
Accordingly we reject καὶ 6 adys 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 καὶ θάνατον.
This borrowing explains the presence of 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 drectly,
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 indirectly.
The fifth Seal.—Verses 9-11 deal with Christian martyrdom.
In the corresponding sections in Mark xiii. 9-13, Matt. xxiv.
9-1ο, 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 Ste ἤνοιξεν τὴν 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. Zhe 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 viii. 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, 1x. 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. 11. 17; and in later
times cf. Ignatius, dd Rom. ii. 2, πλέον δέ por μὴ παράσχησθε
τοῦ σπονδισθῆναι θεῷ, ds ἔτι θυσιαστήριον ἕτοιμόν ἐστιν : iv. 2, ἵνα
. . . 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, ὃ δὲ Βαρθωλωμαῖος ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν
Ἰησοῦν" Κύριε, τίς ἔστιν 7 ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ἀναφερομένη θυσία; ὃ δὲ
ἸἸησοὺς λέγει: ψυχαὶ δικαίων. Vita Pachomii abbatis taberinensis
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 under the altar in heaven. ‘This in the Adoth
R.N. 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 if 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. ‘Fhus in the Tosaphoth on Menachoth, r1o%, 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 op. cit. xvii. 21,
22. Moed Qatan, 285, where the death of the righteous is said to atone as ἃ
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 uader 11.
174 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN _ [VI. 9-10.
fy yi TID (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 (ΠΥ Ὁ) 55
nina naron by op tyn).” In the Jalkut Rub. f. 112” (Schottgen,
FHorae, i. 1220), “ἘΠ ille (4. Michael) stet et offert animas
justorum ” ; and similarly in Jalkut Chad. f. 118, col. 4.
Again in Jalkut Rub. fol. 14, col. 3 (Horae, 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, J/ichael/, 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 tn 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. 13; Phil. ii. 17; Col. 1. 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 preserved. John 11]. 32, ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ
ἤκουσεν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει" ὃ
λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι ὃ 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.1
10. καὶ ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγοντες Ἕως πότε, ὃ 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. 2, vi. 3, xii. (xiii) 1, 2, Ixi. ΠΧ} 3, etc. ὁ Seomdtys =
δέσποτα. On the vocative with the article see Moulton, Gram.
70 Sq., 235; Blass, Gram. p. 87. δεσπότης (=f or “3178, 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 i. 29;
Acts iv. 24. It is applied to Christ twice, in 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4.
ὃ ἅγιος kal ἀληθινός. These epithets are used in reference to
Christ in ili. 7 (see note). κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖς. For this com-
bination cf. xix. 2, ὅτι ἔκρινεν. .. καὶ ἐξεδίκησεν, and 1 Sam.
xxiv. 13 in the Hebrew, ΡΟ - .- OSw*. 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 (Ξ Ὁ WOT NN Opn). Cf. xix. 2,
where this phrase recurs. ἐκδικεῖν is followed by ἐκ (Deut. xviii.
19; 1 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 THs γῆς see note on lil. Io.
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. xil. 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 1s 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. xxxli. 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 ἐπὶ
αὐτοῖς), ‘till He have smitten in sunder the loins of the un-
merciful.” Both Luke xvili. 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
xlvil. 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, 2.5. 4 Ezra iv. 35, the
souls of the righteous in the chambers of Sheol ask, “ον 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. Wart. 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 iil. 5, and Additional Note at
close of this chapter: cf. vil. 9).
The martyrs have thus in a 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 ot 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 ἀδελφοί 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 cii. 5 they are bidden “to wait for the day of the judg-
ment of sinners,” and in civ. 3 (cf. xxii. 5-7, xlvii. 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. I.—I2
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 r Enoch xlvii. the end will come when the number of the
martyrs ts complete.
Thus in xlvii. 1 it is said that
“ΤῊ those days (z.e. 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 xlvil. 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 τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν ἕκτην,
καὶ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο,
καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος τρίχινος,
καὶ i) 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 .. 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 vill. 8, ix. 5; Ezek. xxxviii. 19;
Joel ii. 10; Ass. Mos. x. 4; 4 Ezra v. 8, ix. 3; 2 Bar. lxx. 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, l. 3, ἐνδύσω τὸν οὐρανὸν σκότος καὶ Os σάκκον θήσω τὸ
περιβόλαιον αὐτοῦ : Ezek. ΧΧΧΙ]. 7; Joel li. 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 il. 20 (quotation from Joel ii. 31) ;
Rey. ix. 2.
To Joel ii. 31 (see quotation above) and Ass. Mos. x. 5,
“(luna) ¢ota 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 (075 Jan’), 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: “Εἰ
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, K.A.7.° 393.
18. kai ot ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔπεσαν εἰς τὴν γῆν, ὡς συκῇ
βάλλει τοὺς ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς ὑπὸ ἀνέμου μεγάλου σειομένη, 14.
καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον ἑλισσόμενον. This pas-
sage appears to be based on Isa. xxxiv. 4, καὶ τακήσονται
πᾶσαι ai 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 5ja', “will fade,” and not Sy
-- πεσεῖται, but that Symmachus also has πεσεῖται. This clause
is found also in Matt. xxiv. 29, καὶ of ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ ; also in Sibyll. iii. 83, καὶ πέσεται πολύμορφος ὅλος πόλος
ἐν χθονὶ διῇ, 11. 202, vill. 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. τ Enoch 11. 1, xli. 5, xliii. 2,
lxix. 16sqq.; T. Naph. iii, 2; Pss. Sol. xvili. 11-14; 4 Ezra
vi. 45. When, then, the sun and moon and stars forsook be
order, the end of the world was at hand. Cf. 1 Enoch lxxx. 5, 6
4 Ezra v. 4, 53 Sibyll. iii. 802 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. ili. 10,
ot οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, though the thought is here
different. An excellent parallel appears in Sibyll. 11. 82, οὐρανὸν
ἑλίξῃ, καθ᾽ ἅπερ βιβλίον εἰλεῖται. Cf. vill. 233, 413. In the O.T.
the heavens are said to be “shaken” and “rent” (yp): cf. Isa.
ΧΗΣ, Fe, xi, το; Hage. ἢ, 6, 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 zw#mediate 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 καὶ ol μεγιστᾶνες καὶ ot 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 xill. 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 ἀ ἀπὸ φόβου καὶ προσδοκίας τῶν ἐπερχομένων τῇ οἰκουμένῃ,
al γὰρ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σἀλευθήσονται. The βασιλεῖς τῆς
γῆς (cf. xvii. 2, 18, xvili. 3, 9; Isa. xxiv. 21) are the heads of
the heathen nations. The μεγιστᾶνες are probably here to be
1 Gressmann (Ursprung α΄. 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 j2935,
who were an order of great nobles and court officials under
Belshazzar and Darius. Swete takes them to be civil officials,
7.6. the persecuting proconsuls. As distinguished from the
Parthian nobles we have the Roman military tribunes referred to
in of χιλίαρχοι.
With ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτούς κτλ. cf. Isa. 11. το, 18 54., εἰσέλθετε εἰς
τὰς πέτρας καὶ κρύπτεσθε εἰς THY γῆν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου
κυρίου. . .. καὶ τὰ χειροποίητα πάντα κατακρύψουσιν, εἰσενέγκαντες
εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν. See also Isa. 1]. 21;
Jer. iv. 29.
With 15-16 cf. τ Enoch Ixii. 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 . . .”; [ΧΙ]. 5,
‘and they shall be terrified.” Cf. also Ixii. 9, Ixili. 1.
16. καὶ λέγουσιν τοῖς ὄρεσιν καὶ Tats πέτραις 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 rots 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 κρύψατε 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
role, 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, Ζ.6. 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 airovin 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 a 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 15 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 sqq. on the wicked,
and the irregular αὐτοῦ, where we should expect αὐτῶν, has its
parallel in 1 Thess. iil. 11, where sing. verb follows 6 θεός...
καὶ ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν: moreover, God and Christ are set on
an equality by our author, i. 17, 18, xxii. 12. See Hirscht,
8 sq.
; δ 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. ὅτε ἤλθεν᾽ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται
σταθῆναι. The verse seems to be based on Joel it, TH; μεγάλη
ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου mae rear ἐπιφανὴς σφόδρα, καὶ τίς ἔσται ἱκανὸς
αὐτῇ (9055): ii. 31, 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. 11. 2 we have another close parallel, πρὸ τοῦ ἐπελθεῖν
ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὀργὴν κυρίου, πρὸ τοῦ ἐπελθεῖν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡμέραν θυμοῦ
κυρίου. To the last clause in our verse, the original of which is
esha a in Joel i ll. 11 (see above), we have further parallels in
Nah. 1. 6, ἀπὸ προσώπου ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται καὶ τίς
dvrig eesti 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; τ Enoch xlv. 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 ris δύναται σταθῆναι; we might contrast the picture in
vil. 9 sqq. of the innumerable host standing (ἑστῶτας) before
God.
184 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN | [ VI. 11.
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON VI. II.
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-
wandischaft d. judisch-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.p.
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 Afiharmazd, and + the heavenly
angels provide him the use of clothing 1. Cf. also Dadistan-i
Dinik, xliii. 19 (S.B.Z. xviii. 149 sq.), and Sad Dar, lxxxviii. 2-6
(S.B.Z. 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 lxii. 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 (Arhlarung d. NT, 135)
and many other Germans accept this view without any attempt to consult the
S BL,
VI. 11.] ADDITIONAL NOTE ON VI. 11 185
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), XVI. 5
(στολὴν λευκήν) : Acts i. 10 (ἐσθήσεσιν λευκαῖς), or ‘ dazzling,”
Luke ix. 29 (ὃ ἱματισμὸς αὐτοῦ λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων), xxiv. 4 (ἐν
ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ).
So far we see that the bodies of 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 (εἴγε. 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 (1.6. 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, 1x. 9, 17, 24-26, xl. 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. Vill. 2. 3, ἱματισμὸν δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν πάντες εἶχον λευκὸν ὡσεὶ
χιόνα, and 4 Ezra 11. 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. v. 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 od 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 (1.6. 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 Ixi. 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, a 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 (¢.e. sharing in His authority), ili. 21 (cf. Luke xxii. 29, 30 ;
Matt. xix. 28), and to be crowned as victors in the strife on earth,
li, 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” (71x m3n3), but that
after the Fall he was clothed with ‘‘ coats of skin” (1y mans).
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” (Ξε τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐνδυμήματα, cf. Greek Legend, ii. 33)
and clothed in “their garments of the upper world,” and appear-
ing “like angels.” 10. “ 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 vil. 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 Bicowos—a second synonym for στολή. Faithful
discipleship in Christ provides the spirit with a spiritual body:
otherwise it is ~aked, 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 iii. 18, where
Christ declares in συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ... ἱμάτια
λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός σου
(cf. 2 Cor. ν. 1-5), and most probably in iil. 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 In 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 . ἢ p. 82.
188 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII.§ 1.
ness: cf. iii. 4, ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν : XVi. 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, ili. 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 111. 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 vil. 14, xxil. 14 (of πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς
αὐτῶν). Ifit is possible to defile the heavenly body (iii. 4), or
even to destroy it (ili. 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 (vii. 14, xxii. 14) and
make white (vii. 14), or destroy wholly (111. 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. 1-ὃ 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 vii. 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 vil. 9-17 there is more: there is an
actual breach in that unity of time which has been so carefully
observed in iv.—vii. 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 vil. 9-17 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 vil. 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
(1st ed.), Schmidt, regard vil. g-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 vil. 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
Weizsicker, 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 \‘i. 9-17 to Gentile-Christians; while Reuss,
190 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII. § 2-8.
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 vil. 9-17 to the rest of the Apocalypse, since this is
the easiest.
§ 3. vit. 9-17 ts 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
. attév—Hebraism. Cf. ili. 8, xii. 6, ΧΙ]. 8, 12, xx. 8. ὄχλος
πολύς. So xix. 1, 6, in same connection. ἔθνους κ. φυλῶν κ.
λαῶν k. γλωσσῶν. Cf. ν. 9. ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου (also vii. 15). So
iv. 5, 6, 10, Vii. 15, Vill. 3, etc. ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐν. τοῦ
dpviou (cf. vii. το). So xxil. 1, 3. περιβεβλημένους στολὰς λευκάς
(also vii. 13). So vi. 11 (note).
10. κράζουσι φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. So vi. Io, X. 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 7x loc.). The peculiar use of ἐπί after the participle is
that of our author—éz/ 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. 10.
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.
13. περιβεβλημένοι τὰς στολάς. See under g.
14. τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης. Cf. ii. 22.
ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν. Here and in xxii. 14 only.
τῷ αἵματι τοῦ dpviou. Cf. ΧΙ]. 11 (i. 5, V. 9).
15. ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου. See under ro.
λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ: Cf. xxil. 3.
ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ ἵ τοῦ θρόνου ἡ. This construction is excep-
tional—a primitive scribal error (?); see note on iv. 2.
σκηνώσει ἐπὶ αὐτούς. Cf. xxi. 3, σκηνώσει per 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. ὃ 8-4.} VII. I-8 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. 1-- ts derived from independent Jewish sources, which have
however, been recast in the dtction of our author.
I. Zhe diction is 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. 1 note. θεοῦ ζῶντος. See note on
Ρ. 128. ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου : cf. xvi.12. ἔκραξεν φωνῇ peyddyn—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 dv... αὐτόν, above. ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι. For this
construction cf. ii. 7, ili, 21, xiii, 7, 15, xvi. 8.
ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν -- ““ἴο hurt 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. il. rz, vi. 6,
IK Ae Os TO, Xl. 5 (ds).
8. τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Cf. Wik, 26, 32, Kil. 16, Sik, 5 (θεός pov,
iii, 2, 12 (ii. 7 [?])). ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων. This phrase i 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, xxl. 4, but with the
acc. if the noun is in the singular: cf. xiii. 16, XVil. 5, XX. 4, except
in xiv. 9.
II. The 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 3 was, as the text implies,
1 κρατεῖν is used in the sense of ‘holding in check” in r—a meaning not
elsewhere found in the Apocalypse. In ii. 13, 14, 15, 25, iil. 11, it means
**hold fast,” 2.6. ‘keep carefully.” πνέῃ here only in our author.
Ἶ Compare the onset of these winds on the sea in the little Apocalypse—
Luke xxi. 25, ἐπὶ τῆς ~ 4s συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἠχοῦς θαλάσσης καὶ φάλημ,
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
1T 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.
? First of all we find analogous situations in Jewish Apocalyptic. In vii. 1-3
we are told that a pause 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 lxvii. 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 to destroy the earth, and the life thereon, defore the
judgment, whereas in the later Apocalypses the purpose of the four winds is Zo
cleanse the earth after thejudgment. Cf. the pseudo-Johannine Apoc. 15, τότε
ἀποβουλλώσω (= ‘<I 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᾽ ἐπανάστασις ἔσται. (These quotations are from Bousset,
. 280.)
5 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 Ixxvi. First of all, the sirocco or south-east wind (myo
mm, Jer. xxiii. 19, and mm mop, 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. Ilxxvi. 15, it is His breath, Job xxxvii. 10. It rends the
VII. ὃ 4.} VII. 1-8 FROM JEWISH SOURCES 193
satisfactorily explained from the tradition as we see from foot-
note ? 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.
(4) vit. 4-8 is from a Jewish or Jewish-Christian source.
(a) Zhe 144,000 were Jews or Jewish- Christians tn 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.?
(8B) This tradition was thus originally a purely Jewish one,
and recalls Ex. xtt. 7, 13, 23 5φ.; Ezek. tx. 3 sq.; but tf 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.?
“ΝΟΥ͂ in the twenty different arrangements of the tribes in the
O.T. (cf. Lucyc. Bib. iv. 5207 sqq.; Hastings’ D.B. iv. 810 sqq.)
Judah is found first in two, ze. those in Num. ii., vii., x., and in
τ Chron. ii. 3-viii., xii. But Judah is first in the latter on purely
geographical grounds (see Buchanan Gray, Zncye. 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, cvi. 9.
Next the sirocco becomes an element in the eschatological expectations of
Israel: Ps, Ixxxili. 14; Amos i. 14; Isa. xxxiv. 4: it is to destroy the
enemies of God, Jer. xxiii. 19, xxx. 23; Hos. xili. 14 sq. (See Gressmann,
Tsr.-Jiid. 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 to a Ist cent. B.c. fragment, z.e. 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 (Zmcyc. Bib. 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-Chuistian).
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.
ὃ 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 54.282 This Judaistic conception of
preservation from physical evilis 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 1st 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 ΝΟ ona wher xdw 7 Sw yn opts Sw 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.] 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
follow ; in our text the sign is not placed 211} 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. Io, that “the sign of destruction will be set on the foreheads
οὗ 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” (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 (6) being right, or indeed of both being
alike right.?
(ὁ) Now the consciousness of the wrongness of this interpreta-
tion led Diisterdieck to propound the view that 22 zs mot from
physical evil but from spiritual apostasy under the last and greatest
trials that should befall the world, ¢hat 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 szx¢h Seal, if the sealing were
intended to preserve from physical evil.
* 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 placé 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 [VITI. 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, —
XVilil. 24, but only against diabolic or demonic powers, as we see
from ix. 4.5 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, 6 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 ili. 10 of our text: ὅτι ἐτήρησας
τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς pov, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας Tod
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 12 ἐς 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: airnoopeba, 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. 8 6.] | SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SEALING 197
The above interpretation has apparently been lost to
Christendom for 1600 years or more.t The reason seems in
part to have been that at a very early date the term σφραγίς was
associated with baptism (cf. Hermas, Szm. 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, Ads ἡμῖν τὴν σφραγῖδα" ἠκούσαμεν γάρ
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 o¢payis—see 2 Clem. vii. 6, viii. 5-6; Acts
of Thomas (p. 68, ed. Bonnet), τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ... . πάρασχέ μοι
σφραγῖδα kai . . . 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. Zclog. Prophet. 12, πληρωθέντων γὰρ τῶν κενῶν
τότε ἣ σφραγὶς ἐπακολουθεῖ iva φυλάσσηται τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἅγιον.
Excerpt ex Theod. 80, διὰ γὰρ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος
σφραγισθεὶς ἀνεπίληπτός ἐστι τῇ ἄλλῃ δυνάμει: 1214. 86; Cyrill.
Cat. 1. 3, éxet τὴν σωτηριώδη δίδωσι σφραγῖδα, τὴν θαυμασίαν, ἣν
τρέμουσι δαίμονες καὶ γινώσκουσιν ἄγγελοι, ἵνα οἱ μὲν φύγωσιν
ἐλασθέντες, οἱ δὲ περιέπωσιν ὡς οἰκεῖον: ibid. iii. 12. See
Heitmiiller, Zz Mamen Jesu, p. 334. In Lactantius the entire
meaning attaching to the sealing in our text is attributed to
Christian baptism. Thus in his 7,571. 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, 2.6. 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 grvozects, 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 gétt-
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,
[οὗ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VII 8 ὅ.
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
TOV πνευμάτων αὐτοῦ... αὐτὸς yap ὃ ἄγγελος τῆς 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 Sq., ΙΧ. 4, XIV. I, xxii. 4 (here all the righteous are sealed) it
is the servants of God who are sealed; but in xiii. 16sq., xiv. 9,
XV1. 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 Heitmiuller, Zm
Namen Jesu, 132 8qq., 143 546.) 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 Iv.
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. § 59, στίζονται δὲ πάντες, οἱ μὲν
εἰς καρπούς, οἱ δὲ ἐς αὐχένας, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦδε πάντες οἱ ᾿Ασσύριοι στίγματη-
φορέουσι: Plutarch, Lucul/. 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, 334 ;
Spencer, Leg. Ret. Heb. ii. 14. Heitmiiller (0%. εΖί. 184 sq.) points out how
closely related were such beliefs in Babylon, Egypt, and Judea ; and Giesebrecht
(Schdtzung, 86) regards the former as distinctly operative on Jewish beliefs
(see Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklirung des NT, 184). Heitmiiller
VII. 8 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. 8, “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. I-8, and next as triumph-
ant in heaven, Vit. 0-17.
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. g-17 does not
embrace the whole Church, but only 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.1 ‘The great tribulation” is about to fall
upon the present generation, and in vil. 9-17 are represented the
great multitude which had come through it faithfully.
§ 7. The 144,000 in the present context are (a) Christians
belonging not to Israel after the flesh, but to the spiritual Israed,
(ὁ) and are in this respect the same as the I44,000 in xiv. I-5.
(a) We have seen above, § 4, II. (4), that these 144,000 were
' (op. ett. 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
rte of” is to show that the person so affected was the property of God or
hrist.
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, V7s. 11. ii. 7, μακάριοι ὅσοι ὑπομένετε τὴν θλίψιν τὴν
ἐρχομένην τὴν weyaddnv—which is based partly on vii. 14 and iii. 10 of our
book, and which testifics to the form of our text between 110-140 A.D,
200 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (VII. § 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, vil. 4—8, and the countless host, vil. 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 the 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 (111. 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 ¢he sealing must be cuvextensive
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.t 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, asin 1 Pet. i. 1. Cf. i. 14, 18, ii.
9, 10, iv. 3, 4, and Jas. i. I. This was the view of Hippolytus, περὶ τοῦ
"Αντιχρίστου : vi. ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος σφραγῖδα τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύουσιν, καὶ αὐτὸς
(=6 ᾿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/ecnere Schriften, p. 231, ed. Achelis) he takes the
144,000 to be Jewish Christians.
Vit. § 7-10.1] THE 144,000—CHURCH TRIUMPHANT 20]
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. I-3, where the main idea is the pause 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 ὃ. wit. 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
I44,000 in vit. g4-8.—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.
δ το. 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 (b)
represents the martyrs of the last tribulation serving God tn heaven
before the final judgment, or rather before the establishment of the
Millennial Kingdom in chap. xx.
(a) The original 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
XXi. 3, Xxii. 3; Vii. 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 8 10.
hosts of all the blessed. (6) Apart from the phrases οἱ ἐρχόμενοι,
ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης, and ἐν τῷ νάῳ (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 oly the faithful that are
to issue victoriously from the great tribulation. (8) Next, if we
take οἱ ἐρχόμενοι 1 strictly as an imperfect participle, the great
tribulation ts 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
vil. 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 In the sentence, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ 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: Ζ.6. ‘* these are those who come
through the great tribulation and washed,” etc. So the ancient Versions—
the Vulgate, Syriac (1:*), 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" . . . ἽΡΦ modnoxas Sy ona=
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 οἱ ἐρχόμενοι καὶ €rdvvay)=3022) . . » ONIN ADT πον, Ὗς 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 οἱ 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. g-8 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 1000 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. 111. 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 ΝΟ) 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. i. 2. An angel of
this class might be described as orotyetov—a “spirit,” “demon,”
or ‘‘genius.” See Deissmann, Zucyc. Bib. 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 (Υ ΝΠ M1599), which the
LXX render οἱ πτέρυγες τῆς γῆς. The idea recurs in xx. 8 and
in xxl, 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 Eartiest Cosmologies, 38 sq.,
46 sq.
204 THE REVELATION OF ST.JOHN [{Ὑ11.1-Ὁ.
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 τοῦ 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, ill. 11, and yet another
in li. 1.
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 ¢qwo
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 Ixxvi. 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, ὶ 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. ἃ Lap., Hengstenberg, Ebrard,
De Wette, Volkmar, Diisterdieck think that it is because the
life-bringing sun comes from the east; Volter, 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 times 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. Cf. Josh. iii. το ; Ps. xlii. 3; Hos. i. 10
(ii. 2); 2 Kings xix. 4,16; Dan. iv. 19 (LXX), v. 23 (7s), vi. 26;
Jub. i. 25, xxi. 43; 3 Macc. vi. 28. In 2 Macc. vil. 33, xv. 4 we
have the form ὃ 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 p. 204.
3. λέγων Μὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν 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 xxli. 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. 8-4.
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,
jl. 20, xix. 2, 5, xxil. 3,6; and on τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν cf. vii. 10, 12,
xii, 10, xix. I, 5 (θεός μου, 111. 2, 12, 11. 7). By the addition
ἡμῶν the angel acknowledges that angels and men are fellow-
servants in the service of God ; cf. xix. Io, xxil. 9.
ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν. Our author always uses ἐπὶ τῶν
μετώπων when he uses the plural: cf. ΙΧ. 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 σφραγί-
σωμεν . .. ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν goes back ultimately to
Ezek. ix. 4. See note on xill. 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
im es fiestas generation only (see P- 199, 209 sq.).
ons φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. It is not believers descended from
the Ween 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 xviil. 4. Cf. Rom. ii. 29) ὃ ἐν TO
κρυπτῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖος : Gal. ili. 29, εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα 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 XVil. 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. Ὁ, 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.
XXxix. 7.
VII. 4-8.] SEALING OF THE 144,000 207
σπέρμα ἐστέ: Vi. τό, τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ ; Phil. ili. 3, ἡμεῖς γάρ
ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; 1 Pet. 1; Jas. i. 1; Hermas, Sz. ix. 17.
5. ἐκ φυλῆς “lovda δώδεκα χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι,
ἐκ φυλῆς Ῥουβὴν δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς Γὰδ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
6. ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ασὴρ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς Νεφθαλὶμ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς Μανασσῆ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
7. ἐκ φυλῆς Συμεὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς Λευὶ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ισσαχὰρ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
8. ἐκ φυλῆς Ζαβουλὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰωσὴφ δώδεκα χιλιάδες,
ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμεὶν δώδεκα χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι.
5-8. In the above list there are several irregularities. (a)
Judah is placed first. (6) Dan is omitted. (c) Manasseh is
given, though Manasseh is included in Joseph. (4) The rest
of the tribes are enumerated in a wholly unintelligible
order.
(2) Judah is mentioned first, because from him is sprung the
Messiah (see p. 193 Sq.).
(4) Before we discuss the difficulties in (δ) and (c) 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
(Encye. Bib. iv. 5208 sq.; Expositor, 1902, p. 225 sqq.) and set
right by transposing vil. 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, Zullig, and Spitta propose
that Ady stood originally in the text, but was early corruptly
written Mdy, and that hence Manasseh arose. But such abbrevia-
tions are highly improbable, and very seldom occur in Uncial
MSS. and the corruption of Δάν into Μάν is unlikely in the case
of such a well-known list as that of the twelve tribes. Others, as
Grotius, Ewald, De Wette, and Dusterdieck 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 8, 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 200
manifestavit dicens . . . et propter hoc non annumeratur tribus
haec in Apocalypsi cum his quae salvantur.” Hippolytus, De
Antichristo, 14, ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Ἰούδα φυλῆς ὃ Χριστὸς γεγέννηται,
οὕτως καὶ ἐκ τὴς τοῦ Δὰν φυλῆς ὃ 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 in heaven.
In the preceding chapters, iv.—vii. 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 ;itsetf ito 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 (vii. 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 inankind (see pp. 44, 212). Since there is
VOL. I.—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
ithe 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 KTA.,
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
αὐτῶν.
ὃν. .. 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 144,000 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 AeuKds. 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
jslip on the part of our author for περιβεβλημένο. 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 εἰς αὐτὴν (2.6. Ἱερουσαλήμ) . . . 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 ἀρνίῳ.
κράζουσιν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγοντες : cf. vi. Io, xvill. 2, xix. 17
(vii. 2, x. 3, xiv. 15). ἡ σωτηρία τῷ θεῷ: cf. myiwn mim, Ps.
lil. g, where the LXX has τοῦ κυρίου 4 σωτηρία. The phrase
recurs in xii. το 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 Vv. 6.
11. καὶ πάντες ot ἄγγελοι ἱστήκεισαν κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου Kal τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου
ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ Oe. 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, xl. 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. τό,
XIX. 4, 10, Xxll. 9; by τῷ δρακόντι, xiii. 4. In xix. 10 (an inter-
polation) when the Seer. falls down to worship the angel
(προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ) th. 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. xiil. 4, τὸ θηρίον (A 79), xiii. 12 (ACQ min plq 3°) In
XIV. 9, IT, Xx. 4, itis followed iby τὸ θηρίον καὶ τ. εἰκόνα. We
should, therefore, read τὴν εἰκόνα in xiii. 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. Inthe 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 ἡ δόξα Kal ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ
εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἰσχὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν εἰς
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων᾽ ἀμήν. By the first ἀμήν the angels adopt
" 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.
18. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη εἷς ex τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγων μοι Οὗτοι οἱ
περιβεβλημένοι τὰς στολὰς τὰς λευκὰς τίνες εἰσὶν καὶ πόθεν ἦλθον ;
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη. . . λέγων = sind - «+» %.- This form of
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. το. On the dialogue form which the text assumes
cf. Jer. i. 11; Zech. iv. 2, 5, καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς μέ" τί σὺ βλέπεις;
. « « kal εἶπεν πρὸς μὲ λέγων Οὐ γινώσκεις τί ἐστιν ταῦτα; Kal εἶπα
Οὐχί κύριε: 4 Ezra ii. 44, “Tunc interrogavi angelum et dixi;
Qui sunt hi, domine?” This form of dialogue is very frequent
in the Shepherd of Hermas.
᾿ς τίνες. . . ἦλθον : cf. Josh. ix. 8, Who are ye, and whence do
‘ye come?” (LXX, πόθεν ἐστέ, καὶ πόθεν παραγεγόνατε) ; Jonah i. 8.
In classical literature see Virg. “4671. vill. 114, “qui genus? unde
domo?” See other parallels in Wetstein. The ἦλθον does not
n¢cessarily imply that the number is yet complete. Hence the
ot ἐρχόμενοι in the next verse may be taken in its natural sense,
| “ whov-aré Coming.”
y 114. καὶ εἴρηκα αὐτῷ Κύριέ pou, σὺ οἶδας. εἴρηκα seems to be
‘used as an aorist here. Cf. v. 7, viii. 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. 1. 9, iv. 4, 13; and in addressing
a man, Gen. xxiii. 6, xxxi. 35; John xii. 21. σὺ oldas (cf.
VII. 14. ] VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 213
Ezek. xxxvii. 3, καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς μέ. . . Hi 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
A , lel
οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης
καὶ ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν
> aaa | , ea. 1 > lal 9 A ,
καὶ ἐλεύκαναν αὐτὰς ἐν TH αἵματι τοῦ dpviou.
We have already seen that ἐρχόμενοι is to be taken here as an |
imperfect participle. The martyrs are s#i// 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 οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη
am 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
1. 5, 6, ἢ. 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 ὦ
owing that they have spiritual bodies at all. They “wash their
garments and make tl.2m 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. 11. 12 sq., τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν
κατεργάζεσθε, θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὃ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν Kat τὸ
ἐνεργεῖν. ἐλεύκαναν is taken by some interpreters as an explana-
tion of ézAvvav: by others érAvvay 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.”
τς ἐν τῷ αἵματι tod dpviou. 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.
2 ἸΟ ἡ ¥; Kom. iil. 25, v9; Meb- im τὰ 1 Pet. ἡ, The
expression ἐλεύκαναν ... ἐν τῷ αἵματι is then strongly para-
doxical. ‘The O.T. is familiar with the idea of soiled garments
(Isa. lxiv. 6; Zech. iii. 3) as well as of the symbolism of the
washing of the garments (Ex. xix. 10, 14), and the Aevxatvew
‘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. I1, 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
lal s an
καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας Kal νυκτὸς ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ
καὶ ὃ 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 (= ἽΝ
almost universally in the LXX) denotes the service rendered to
Yahweh by Israel as His peculiar people: cf. Phil. iii. 3, ot
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, iii. 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 (=n). This priestly
service was rendered not only in the earthly temple, Ex.
XXViil. 31, xxix. 30 and assim, but also in the temple in heaven,
according to Jewish conceptions : cf. Test. Levi iii. 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 Aeroupyetv.}
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός. Cf. iv. 8 on the never-ceasing praise
of the angels. This time division exists only for earth dwellers:
cf. xxii. 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 airy. In the original
form of the vision, vii. 9-17, which dealt with the whole body of
the blessed after the final judgment, the phrase ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ
was probably absent. Cf. Χχὶ. 22,111. 12. God was their real temple.
ὁ καθήμενος emi. See note on iv. 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, AYDY IPDWN Dp ΝΠ
ΤΌΝΔ; 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. vii. 15, ΧΗ, 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. iil. 24,
iv. 39. Indeed the Shekinah only exceptionally came down to
the earth. (See Jewish Encyc. xi. 258 sq.)
1J. 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,
2g ‘ ’ ” > 4) c ¢ 29 8 a A
οὐδὲ μὴ παίσῃ ἔτι αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος οὐδὲ πᾶν καῦμα,
a, ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς,
καὶ ὁδηγήσει ᾿αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων᾽
καὶ ἐξαλείψει 6 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:
> ’ὔ ϑῸΧΝ ’
οὐ πεινάσουσιν οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν,
SQA ΄, > Ν ΄΄ 52. 4 «ε 9
οὐδὲ πατάξει αὐτοὺς καύσων οὐδὲ ὃ ἥλιος,
3 wes > nm > Ν !
ἀλλ᾽ ὃ ἐλεῶν αὐτοὺς παρακαλέσει,
Ν Ν a eo. 7 »” 3 ,
καὶ διὰ πηγῶν ὑδάτων ἄξει αὐτούς.
16 is a translation of Isa. xlix. 10, and a translation independent
of the LXX. παίσῃ 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
is earlier suggestion of Gwynn (Apoc. of St. John in Syriac,
17) that we should read παίσῃ. πέσῃ ἐπί is here quite
Ἔν τ ie 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 avOp. With παίσῃ . . . ὃ ἥλιος
ct. Fs. exxi, 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.) τὸ ;
1 Enoch xlviii. 1. 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,
XXxil. 14.
But 17 has very little connection with Isa. xlix. 10. First of
all the line ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον... αὐτούς is altogether different from
Isa. xlix. 10% 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, il. 27) xii. 53 Six. 15,
Its use here, however, recalls John x. 11, ἐγώ εἰμι 6 ποιμὴν ὃ καλός,
VII. 17. VISION OF THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN 217
x. 14; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 25; and in the O.T. Isa. xl. 11, ὡς
ποιμὴν ποιμανεῖ TO ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ, Ezek xxxiv. 23, where it 15 said
of the Messiah, ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς. . . καὶ ἔσται αὐτῶν ποιμήν (cf.
xxxvil. 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 (= 23). For its use = “ between,”
ef. fosh. ἀχὸ 25 3's oor wie
Next as regards 17° we see that it differs in several respects
from Isa. xlix. 104, ὁδηγήσει is not a rendering of ὉΠ)" but of
mny or 379°, 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 ὮΝ ‘sna, but still more from Jer. ii. 13, DYN DD “ΠΡΌ,
LXX, πηγὴν ὕδατος ζῶντος. Cf. Ps. xxxv. (xxxvi.) 10, παρὰ σοί
πηγὴ ζωῆς. We have a remarkable parallel to our text in
t Enoch xlviii. 1, where in the new heaven and earth (xlv. 4, 5)
Enoch sees “ἃ fountain of righteousness which was inexhaustible :
around it were many fountains of zwzsdom, 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 dAXo-
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. 11]. 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 xxii. 17, ὕδωρ ζωῆς.
17” then is not 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. 8, where the LXX reads καὶ πάλιν
ἀφεῖλεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς πᾶν Sacer ἀπὸ παντὸς προσώπου. Since the
Peshitto and Vulgate agree with the LXX in this rendering of
ΠΓ 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. ‘lue πᾶν before δάκρυον may point to some
21ὃ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [VIII.-IX. § 1.
dependence on the LXX, or there may be here simply a trans-
position of the 5» in the Hebrew. Here and in xxi. 4, where
the line recurs, our author writes ὀφθαλμῶν and not προσώπων
OF προσώπου.
CHAPTER VIII.-IX.
δι. Zhe first six Trumpets—but originally the first two Woes or
Demonic Plagues— Original order and thought of vitt.—tx.
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.
(4) 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 77 Joc.).
(6) 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. 1, 3-5, 2 (restored), 6 restored, 13, ix. By the excision
of viii. 7-12 and the restoration of viii. 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
VIII.-IX. § 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.
vill. 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,
vill. 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 friori 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 vill. 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
vill, 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 viil. 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. ὃ 2.
clearly the original phrase,—even in vill. 9 τὸ τρίτον τῶν πλοίων
is destroyed—we have the strange phrase, πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
(see note ἐφ Joc.). 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
χλωρός 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! In viii. 8 we have πυρὶ καιόμενον, but else-
1 In viii. 9, however, we have one syntactical irregularity found elsewhere
in the Apocalypse ; Ζ.6. τῶν κτισμάτων... τὰ ἔχοντα. See note on ii. 13.
Also in viii. ὃ 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, vill. 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.-IX. § 2.] GROUNDS FOR CONCLUSIONS 221
where καίω is followed by πυρί, or a like substantive : cf. xix. 20,
xxl. 8. In vill. 7 μεμιγμένα ἐν, but the ἐν is omitted in xv. 2. In
Vli. 12 σκοτίζειν, but σκοτοῦν in ΙΧ. 2, ΧΥ]. Io.
vi. While in viii. 1, 3-5, 13 the order is purely Semitic, the
verb in all cases beginning the sentence except in vill. 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 viii. 9, twice in vili, 11, and once in viii. 12. This
fact points at all events to a different style.
vit. 2, 6, 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.
vit. 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. viii. 2 in its present position is against the structure of the
book in analogous situations elsewhere. ‘Thus it is to be noted
that the ixtroduction 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 ¢x¢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 (7.6. 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, 1>, 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 tmmedtately 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 viii. 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 vili. 5, and together with
viii. 6 read as follows: καὶ εἶδον ἀγγέλους τρεῖς καὶ ἐδόθησαν αὐτοῖς
σάλπιγγες τρεῖς. καὶ Ob 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 Bacavopos. . . 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... ὁράσει in ix.
16-17, and καὶ ἐν ταῖς otpais . . . 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 ἀποκγείνειν; but év. Cf. ii, 23, vi. 8, ix. 20, xi. 13, xiii. 10,
xix. 21. But this fact in itself would not militate against the vision in its
original form being from the hand of the Seer.
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, ὃ ἔχων in ΙΧ. 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 (rots τέσσαρας ἀγγέ-
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 αἱ κεφαλαὶ τῶν ἵππων... λεόντων
καὶ ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν... θεῖον
18. ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν. . . ἀνθρώπων
ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ... ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν
ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν
ἀδικῆσαι.
VIII. 1, 3-5. Zhe seventh Seal.—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 zz 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 moose men ΝΟ Sy mms iw nyo
Ssaw Sw pap ‘ap. 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 mav be heard in heaven. But the idea in our
224 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 1-2.
text is infinitely nobler. The praises of the highest orders of
angels in heaven are hushed that the prayers of @// 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 da. Ney. 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, 16, v. 1 (dis), 6 (d25), xii. 3 (O25), xiii. 1 (25), xv. 1a,
xviii. 3 (02s). 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 -- ΣΠῚ NID yaw, xv. 7. Only in four cases does
ἑπτά stand without the article before a noun that is otherwise
undefined, 2.6. in 1. 20, Vill. 2, xli. 3, xvii. 9. Now the two last
passages are suspicious on other grounds—possibly also i. zo—
and we have found that viii. 2 is likewise.!_ 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. 1*, 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 (guater), 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 10 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 tinfes 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 εἷς, 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. 2-8.] PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS PRESENTED, 225
were transformed into the well-known seven archangels, of ἑπτὰ
ἄγγελοι. : : eats
This conception is already found in Tob. ΧΙ. 15, ἐγώ “εἰμι
Ῥαφαὴλ εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων οἱ παρεστήκασιν καὶ εἰσ-
πορεύονται ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ ᾿Αγίου (δ).
They are designated “archangels” in 1 Enoch xx. 7 (Greek),
and their names are, xx. 2~8, Οὐριήλ, Ῥαφαήλ, Ραγουήλ, Μιχαήλ,
Σαριήλ, Ταβριήλ, Ῥεμειήλ. 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 vil. 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, 128 FNPD. ἑστάναι ἐνώπιον Means
“το attend upon,” ““1ἴο be the servant of.” Cf. Luke i. 19, ἐγώ
εἶμι Ταβριὴλ ὃ παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. It is the transla-
tion of the Hebrew ΒΟ ἼΩΝ, 1 Kings xvii. I, Xvill. 15; 2 Kings
iii. 14, Vv. 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. . . odAmyyes. The trumpet is used already
in an eschatological sense in the ΟἿ. Cf. Isa. xxvii. 13;
Joel ii. 1, σαλπίσατε σάλπιγγι ἐν Sedv . . . διότι πάρεστιν ἡμέρα
Κυρίου: Zeph. i. 16; in Zech. ix. 14, Pss. Sol. xi. τ it heralds
the glorious return from the Dispersion; in 1 Cor. xv. 52,
1 Thess. iv. 16, Mt. xxiv. 31, 4 Ezra vi. 23 (“et 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... Kal... ἀναστήσετα,
πᾶσα φύσις ἀνθρωπίνη), it announces the final judgment. See
Bousset, Zhe Antichrist Legend, 247 sq.
3. 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 ne offered sacrifices in heaven, even the
VOL. IL—15 |
226 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 8.
souls of the righteous : see my note on Test. Levi 11]. 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 jor 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 t 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. I,
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,” ΠΩ, generally means the
altar of burnt-offering, but not in Apocalyptic.
VIII. 3.] ONE ALTAR IN HEAVEN 227
vi. 9, viii. 3 (O25), 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. 9 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, vill. 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 ts
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 ¢he altar
(nar). 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 iil. 6, where the archangels are described as προσφέροντες
τῷ Κυρίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν Kai 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 ἐ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον
τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. also 3. Szm. vili. 2. 5, ἐὰν δέ ris σε παρέλθῃ, € ἐγὼ
αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον δοκιμάσω. We might perhaps cite here
Irenaeus, iv. 18. 6, “Εδδὲ 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. 3%, 5, xvi. 7, and the altar of incense in viii. 3° , 1X:
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 i: original context the altar in the earthly Temple.
2 Some scholars regard the Temple here as the earthly one.
228 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ὙἹΠ|. 8.
nostrae et oblationes nostrae diriguntur” ; Apoc. Pauli, 44 (ed.
Tischendorf), καὶ ἴδον τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ τὸν θρδνὰν καὶ τὸ
καταπέτασμα. In the Gnostic work preserved in the Excerpts
from Theodotus in Clement of Alexandria (Dindorf, 1 lil. 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” (7123 δ Ὁ), 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
(32 Ma), 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 iii. 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, z.e. * 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, Viil. 3°, OF aS ἤκουσα. φωνὴν μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεράτων
τοῦ θυσιαστ. τοῦ χρυσοῦ οὐδ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγοντα, ΙΧ. 12.:1 That
these two references are to the altar conceived as an altar of
incense (already presupposed in v. 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 Κυρίου : xvi. 12, τοῦ
θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ ἀπέναντι Κυρίου (mr ΠΝ nzien): Ex, xl. 5, τὸ θυσιαστήριον
τὸ χρυσοῦν. . . ἐναντίον τῆς KiBwrov.
VIII. 8.] ONE ALTAR IN HEAVEN 229
Next as regards viii. 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 (1.6. in closest proximity to the throne of God), we
infer that vill. 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
vili. 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;! and according to Adoth R.LX.
(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 276 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,
1In the same context Rabbi Abbahu (3rd cent.) is represented ag
defending this view,
230 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [| Viit. 8.
as later the souls of the righteous generally, were conceived as
being offered thereon—but as a living sacrifice. See note on
WET.
This idea of the offering of the souls of the martyrs on the
heavenly altar is implied in our text (vi. 9 544.) 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 Lschatology*, 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 6
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=nmmen: 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. xxxviil. 3 it 15 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, Michael, 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 ad// 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. 8-δ.] ONE ALTAR IN HEAVEN 231
sion belongs to the O.T. See Lev. iv. 18, 717° pd WN mann
(cf. Lev. iv. 7, xvl. 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 56.
4. καὶ ἀνέβη ὃ 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 ἡ 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 7 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 ᾧ 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 καὶ διασκόρ-
πισον ἐπὶ τῆν 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 ou the earth is followed by βρονταὶ καὶ φωναὶ
232 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 5-6.
«tk. 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 (1.6. Third)
Trumpet or Third Woe, xi. 19, and to the Seventh Bowl, xvi. 18.
Corn. a Lapide and Disterdieck 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. Kat ot ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι ot ἔχοντες τὰς 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 ot τρεῖς ἄγγελοι of ἔχοντες
Tas τρεῖς σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν. On this
verse vill. 13 should foliow without break, viii. 7-12 being an
intrusion in the text. It is noteworthy that ἄγγελοι ἡτοίμασαν
αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν and ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν in
vill. 13 could represent exactly the same Hebrew, the former=
yond yinynn ovsxdp, and the latter yond omnyn “Ὁ.
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. ἀνθ.
seeing that the latter is the result of the sixth Trumpet (2.6. the
second Woe) in ix. 18. The second in Vili. 10, ἐπὶ τὰς πηγάς, is
probably a corruption of τῶν πηγῶν, or possibly a mistranslation
of a Hebrew original (see note zm /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.
VIII. 7.7] THE FOUR INTERPOLATED TRUMPETS 233
7. καὶ 6 πρῶτος ἐσάλπισεν,
καὶ ἐγένετο χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα ἵν αἵματι,
καὶ ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν"
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη,
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη,
καὶ πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη.
cr
χάλαζα kal wup... ἐν αἵματι. These words recall Ex.
1X. 24, ἣν δὲ ἡ into. κι 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 15
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 r90i—“‘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, πῦρ yap ἀπ᾽
οὐρανίων δαπέδων βρέξει μεροπέσσιν.
πῦρ... ἐν αἵματι. The combination of fire and blood as an
eschatological feature i is found already in Joel i ll. 30, δώσω τέρατα
. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς αἷμα καὶ πῦρ καὶ ἀτμίδα καπνοῦ : and that this _pass-
age was familiar to the early Christians appears from Acts 1]. 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 nnp2ny ; and the Targums
and Peshitto support this rendering. The Vulgate, on the other
hand, reads mista, and so supports the independent rendering of
the Hebrew word given by our text.
τὸ τρίτον THs γῆς κατεκάη. Since in xviii. 8 we have xara-
καυθήσεται, we might expect κατακαήσεται (as in 1 Cor. 11]. 15;
2 Pet. iil. 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 viii. 7-12: elsewhere in this book three
times, ix. 15, 18, xii. 4. Cf. Babba Mezia, f. 59”: “Then 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, Ta δύο μέρη αὐτῆς ἐξολεθρευθήσεται Kai
ἐκλείψει τὸ δὲ τρίτον ὑπολειφθήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ. Cf. Ezek. v. 2.
τῶν δένδρων. Cf. vii. 1, 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 vill. 7-12.
234 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ὙΠ]. 8-10.
8. Kat δεύτερος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν"
καὶ ὡς ὄρος μέγα “πυρὶ καιόμενον ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν,
καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῆς θαλάσσης αἷμα.
ε
ο
ε
ως
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
τῶν GoTépwv . . . ἐρριμμένους ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμοίους ὄρεσιν μεγάλοις καὶ
ἐν πυρὶ καιομένοις. Cf. also cvill. 4.
ἐγένετο αἷμα. There is obviously here an allusion to the first
Egyptian plague. Ex. vil. 20, μετέβαλεν πᾶν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐν τῷ
ποταμῷ εἰς αἷμα: Ps, lxxvili. 44. As there the Nile was turned
into blood, so here is the sea—at least a third part of it.
Cf. Mi: 2.
9. καὶ ἀπέθανε τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν TH 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. 1. 3. With κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν
τῇ θαλάσσῃ cf. v. 13, πᾶν κτίσμα 0. . ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν
αὐτοῖς πάντα. The phrase τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς stands as a nominative
in apposition to τῶν κτισμάτων, as in 1. 5, ill. 12, 1x. 14, but
against Greek syntax. For similar syntactical incongruities
cf. 11, τὰ; Baek: xxii, 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. xxviii. (li.) 25, τὸ ὄρος... τὸ
διαφθεῖρον (Mnwin) . . . δώσω σε ὡς ὄρος ἐμπεπυρισμένον
(Re),
3 .
10, καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν
καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀστὴρ μέγας καιόμενος ὡς
λαμπάς,
a ” } ee Q , lal aA A 3S , oe, Α
καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς
πηγὰς Τ τῶν ὑδάτων.
A omits the entire clause καὶ émi . . . ὑδάτων, but I think
wrongly. Instead of ἐπὶ ras πηγάς we should expect τῶν
πηγῶν. The accusative may be due to a mistranslation of Sy
pon yoy nim Ποῦ. 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.2.£. xxx. 18, 31) except in
so far as it is a sign of the end. The fall of individual stars
in viii. 8, 10 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=
Dn yD,
11. [καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος λέγεται ‘o Αψινθος]
καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῶν ὑδάτων fF εἰς T 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.
ΙΧ. I5, Xxill. 15, that Jahweh would chastise his people for their
idolatry by feeding them with wormwood and giving them water of
gall (wh, a poisonous herb) to drink. Though not itself poison-
ous, yet wormwood (7299) is found as a parallel of wx, which is
poisonous, in Deut. xxix. 17; Lam. ili. 19; Amos v. 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. ili. 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 mpy5, “wormwood,” is rendered by Aquila by
ἀψίνθιον in Prov. v. 4; Jer. ix. 15, xxill. 15, but in the LXX
by a variety of words—dvdyxn, ὀδύνη, πικρία, χολή. ἄψινθος is
regularly feminine, but it is made masculine here probably
because ἀστήρ is 50.
The reading ἐγένετο... eis ἅψινθον (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, ~ematning waters, are made bitter (ἐπικράνθησαν).
Hence we should read ὡς with ἢ 51 Prim., and render “and the
220 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ VIII. 11-12.
third of the waters became like wormwood,” z.e. “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. .. eis is found. If εἰς is original and
ὡς a correction, then we have an additional ground for assuming
a Hebrew original. εἰς ἄψινθον =noy5, corrupt in that case for
myoa. 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 ΧΙ]. 11, xix. 20, Acts xviil. 8, or a definite collective
expression, Acts viii. 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 τρίτον. 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 76
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
a Ν a
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς σελήνης καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων,
ἵνα σκοτισθῇ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν
Ν Ἀ , 2A , πὰ έ ΟΝ ‘ ε ,
καὶ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν μὴ φάνῃ ἧ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ νὺξ { 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. 12-18. ] 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 =
}2 mov) oy Ten xd omunden. Here oy is a corruption of on =
“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 6 ἥλιος, Xvi. 10), and not cxorilew. The latter, however,
is used in the Little Apocalypse: cf. Mark xiii. 24; Matt. xxiv.
29; Luke xxiil. 45.
18. 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. γ. 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 sqq.) 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 (2.6. 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=Kat To TP. αυτων μὴ φανη NMEpas και OMOLWS VUKTOS.
238 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (Ee 1.
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 xi. 12.
οὐαὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The dative generally
follows ovat: the acc. occurs in ΧΙ. 12. On the exceptional
construction with the nom. see note on xviii. το. 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 vill. 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, aS i. ἢ δὰ, Ul. 2,.1x: 20, xi 13; xi. τῇ, xix. Σὲ, xx, ὃ,
Moreover, its position before the noun is against the usage of the
writer with regard to epithets in vili. 1, 3-5, 13, ix. With the
exception of ἄλλος, vill. 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 vill. 3 (¢ev), 13, 1x. 2, 5, 9,
10, 13 (ds), 20 (quingutes).
IX. 1-12. THe Firry TRumpPEt, or rather the first Trumpet,
introducing the first demonic plague designed to torment those who
were not sealed with the seal of God.
1. καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν"
καὶ εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν,
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου.
For πέμπτος we should read πρῶτος. See Introduction, p. 218.
The star is conceived as a personal being here, ze. as an
angel. See note oni. 20. The participle πεπτωκότα does not
convey when connected with ἀστέρα the idea of a fallen or Post
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 (2.6. a star fall).
Cf. 1 Enoch Ixxxvi. 1, Ixxxvili. 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. vill. 13, x. 1, xili. 1, xiv. 6, etc.
As we see from 1 Enoch Ixxxvi. 3, stars can also be said to
£2. 1.} THE FIRST WOE 239
“descend.” Thus “to fall” (1 Enoch Ixxxvi. 1 and lxxxviii. 1)
and “to descend” (1 Enoch lxxxvi. 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 1 Enoch, Tartarus is the nether world generally,
cf. xxi.—xxii.; 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 αὐτῷς 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:
Cf: ΧΕ,
ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσους In the Apocalypse the
abyss is conceived of as the 2γεζηιγηα7}) 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 to in ix. 1,
2, ΤΙ, 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. il. 4 (taprapdcas).}
The final 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 /Zad
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 tue damned.
240 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΣΧ
τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ 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. 10. 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 καὶ
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 ON 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, ὃ κλείσας
τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ σφραγισάμενος αὐτὴν τῷ φοβερῷ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ
ὀνόματί σου. 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. lxxiv. 13. (See, further, Gunkel,
_ Schipfung und Chaos, 91-98.) Henceforth he can do nothing
without God’s permission (see Cheyne on “ Dragon,” in Zuacy.
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 zxtermediate 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.é. the departed in Hades are punished in the presence of the righteous,
ΙΧ. 1.1 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, XViil. 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. 1-2.1 This place is somewhat differently described in the
Noah sections of 1 Enoch. ‘Thus the fallen angels are cast into
valleys of utter darkness 7” the earth, x. 12, lxvii. 7, and covered
by rocks, x. 5. These valleys, however, are traversed by streams
of fire, according to Ixvii. 7.?
‘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, xxi. 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—daxorny εἶχεν
6 τόπος ἕως τῆς ἀβύσσου, xxi. 7 (cf. φρέαρ in our text, ix. 2); the
χάσμα μέγα, XVill. 11, which was πλήρης στύλων πυρὸς μεγάλων
καταφερομένων, ΧΧΙ. 7, XC. 24; “the 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, cviii. 3. To this conception is very nearly related the
λίμνη Tod 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.—xxil. 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. Ἵ 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. 10.
ὃ This looks like a coulation of two distinct conceptions.
VOL. I1.—16
242 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1Χ.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
vil. 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 ἐσκοτώθηη ὃ ἥλιος καὶ 6 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.”
3. 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.
ol σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς. Bochart (//zeroz. 111. 540) points out that
according to ancient writers (Lucian, De Dipsadibus, iii. p. 236,
ed. Reiz) there were two kinds of scorpions, τὸ μὲν ἕτερον ἐπίγειόν
τε καὶ πεζόν... 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 Τῇ xiv. fo one characteristic of Gehenna seems to be given—the punish-
ment of sinners in the presence of the angels and of the Lamb. Gehenna is
referred to 1 Enoch xxvii. 1, xlviii. 9, liii. 3-5, liv. 1, Ixii. 12, lxxxi. 6,
“cy ὅδ, 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 vili. 7, as we
have already pointed out.
οἵτινες οὐκ ἔχουσιν τὴν σφραγῖδα κτλ, The relative οἵτινες
defines the special class of men. Sce 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 vil. 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, iva μὴ ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτούς,
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα βασανισθήσονται μῆνας πέντε᾽ [καὶ ὁ βασανισμὸς
αὐτῶν ὡς βασανισμὸς σκορπίου, ὅταν παίσῃ ἄνθρωπον.
For ἵνα followed by fut. ind., cf. ili. 9, vi. 4, viii. 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, Ὁ. 82 sqq.
παίσῃ. This word and πλήσσω are used occasionally as
translations of n3n 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 ὁ 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 11]. 21, ὁμείρονται τοῦ θανάτου καὶ οὐ τυγχάνουσιν, and
Jer. vill. 3, εἵλοντο τὸν θάνατον ἢ τὴν ζωήν. Wetstein compares
Ovid, δὶς 123, “ Desit tibi copia lethi: Optatam fugiat vita
coacta necem”; Seneca, Zvoad. 954, ‘“‘mors miseros fugit” ;
.244 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [1Χ. 6-7.
Cornelius Gallus, ZZeg. i. “mors optata recedit. Est omni pejus
vulnere velle mori, Et non posse tamen”; Soph. Z/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. Dtisterdieck aptly contrasts the
Pauline words, PAz/. i. 23, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι Kai
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. καὶ 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), 19ND D’DID ANID, where
the LXX has ὧς ὅρασις ἵππων ἡ ὄψις αὐτῶν. Though ὁμοίωμα
is a bad rendering of AND, 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 nD)
O'DID ANID AIA. ὁμοίωμα is the general rendering of N05 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 115 ut viperarum
terrae: et decorans eas equorum species in capite et ore” (quoted
by Bochart, Hieroz. 111. 308, ed. Rosenmiiller). Bochart also
quotes Theodoret’s commentary on Joel: εἰ ydp tis 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. ἷ
ἡτοιμασμένοις is also an independent rendering of Joel ii. 5,
mond ἼΨ ; LXX, παρατασσόμενος eis πόλεμον.
ds στέφανοι... ὧς πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων. Our author does not
say that these demonic locusts had crowns on their heads, as
in iv. 4, Vi. 2, xii. 1, 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, 2.6. demons.
8. καὶ εἶχαν τρίχας ὡς τρίχας γυναικῶν,
καὶ οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῶν. ὧς λεόντων ἦσαν,
9. καὶ εἶχαν θώρακας ὡς 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 ἃ 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
(psi jo oD. Here καταδιώκω is a bad rendering of yv, but
τρέχω is a good one). The writer here is quite independent of
the LXX. The second, Joel ii. 5, is ὧς φωνὴ ἁρμάτων.
, ,
10. καὶ ἔχουσιν οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις καὶ κέντρα
καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν
ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μῆνας πέντε.
ὁμοίας (PQ and nearly all cursives) σκορπίοις = ὃμ. 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 vy. 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.’ The Hebrew word }it2 is found
almost exclusively in the Wisdom literature, Job xxvi. 6, xxviii. 22,
Xxxl. 12; Prov. xv. 11, xxvii. 20; Ps. Ixxxviil. τι. Etymologi-
1 It is true that in Shabbath, 89%, we find the words nym jx. 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 .he Law.
246 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Ix. 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, xxvii. 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 (= inw nv). That in xiii. 17, ἔχειν... τὸ ae τοῦ
θηρίου, is different, and likewise that in xiv. 1, ἔχουσαι τὸ ὄνομα
γεγραμμένον, xvil. 5, xix. 12, 16. On the other hand, the
construction ὄνομα αὐτῷ... ᾿Αβαδδών is already found in vi 8
(John i. 6, xviii. 10). Here we might call attention to another
construction only found once in the Apoc. villi. 11, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
ἀστέρος λέγεται ὃ “AywOos. But more important still is the
exceptional order ὄνομα ἔχει. We should expect ἔχει ὄνομα as in
ΧΙ, £7, xiv. 1, Xix. £2; 16, Xz. 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.1_ Next, the form
Ἐβρεστί here and in xvi. 16 would lead us to expect mikweert
as in John xix. 20, instead of ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ. Finally, the excision
of this clause leaves a vigorous distich. Thus we should have
ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν βασιλέα [τὸν] ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου ὄνομα αὐτῷ
᾿Εβραϊστί ᾿Αβαδξών. It is possible that the original was Hebrew :
observe ® . . . αὐτῷ in & 51: 5 vg., and the omission of τὸν before
ἄγγελον in Q min 80, In that case "EBpaiori would be due to
an addition: and βασιλέα 3 possibly due to a dittograph in the
Hebrew, oyann yxdn qh navy.
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
ἀπόλλυμι. 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, Grteschische
Mythologie, i. 183, 195, 225. This is possible but not probable.
ἀπολλύων is a natural rendering of ji7ax. Vo6lter, 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. I, ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων
ἐρχομένη. .. καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς, 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 ᾧ is an addition. ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Αβαδδών would then=iny γᾷ.
ον Ὁ,
IX. 11-14. | THE SECOND WOE 247
other hand, identifies Apollyon here with the Persian Ahriman,
who, when, according to Bundehesh iii. 26, he sought to storm
the heavens, was cast down to the earth, and had then (op. εἴ.
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. Lehrd. der Religionsgeschichte?, ii. 183-192).
See xiii. τι, where ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων appears to represent an
original corruption in the Hebrew, which probably = ἦν ἀπολλύων
ὡς 6 δράκων.
12. ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ μία ἀπῆλθεν" ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα.͵
See note on viii. 12. On ἀπῆλθεν see note on xi. 14.-. The
feminine ἡ οὐαί is generally explained by its similarity to ἡ θλίψις
or 7 ταλαιπωρία (Thayer zm loc.).
ἡ pia is a Hebraism. 7% οὐαὶ ἡ μία (see note on vi. 1) -- ΠῚΠΠ
nosa. Cf. Ezek. vii. 26, where οὐαί is a rendering of mn. Only
twice is οὐαί used in the LXX as a noun: in Ezek. vii. 26 and
in Prov. xxiii, 29, where it renders ix (only here used as a
noun). Perhaps the gender of οὐαί may be influenced by mn,
13-21. 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. viii. 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.
θυσιαστηρίου. See note on vill. 3. See crit. note. λέγοντα.
1 The text of & s!' me may be original. Archetype of AP etc. trans. wera
ravra to 12 and added καὶ at the beginning of 13. But the feeling that wera
tauvra belonged to 13 led 110, 385, 2016, etc., to begin 13 with μετὰ ταυτὰ
και. This reading Q 69 emended into καὶ wera ravra and Eth Prim. into και.
The fact that err... wera ravra (AP etc.) is tautological is in favour of
the reading of δὲ s' me. Though ert 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 sentenée in the Apoc. except
in i. 19, iv. 1, and there in a 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 [1Χ. 14.
See note on λέγων iniv. 1. 6 ἔχων. We have here the same
‘anomalous construction as in ii. 20 (see note), 11]. 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, 2.6. the fifth and sixth Trumpets. The
interlude, therefore, of the four Trumpets, viii. 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. το. 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 vill. 3 sqq., z.e. 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 sqqg. 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
τ Enoch Ixxvi., the destructive winds from ¢#vee 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 zz 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
the demonic plagues are introduced in ix., the first plague should
be that of locusts? It is true, indeed, that the locusts are no
longer natural locusts—for they are monsters, having as it were
the 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.2 For there the locusts are said to come from
the north, ii. 20. Now, though such might possibly be the case
(see Driver on 706 ii. 20), the recorded locust plagues appear
always to have invaded Palestine from ¢he S. and S.E. Here
the Gog-Magog expectation seems to have influenced the prophet.
In 1 Enoch Ixxvi. 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.-Jtid. Eschat. 187 sq.
250 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Ix. 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. i. 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, and
have therefore naturally treated vii. 1-3 as a sort of prelude to
the demonic locusts in 1x. 1-12. We shall see that it is possible
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
lvi. 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, ἢ 3, Ivi. 1, Ixil. 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 “216
angels of punishment who are prepared to come and let loose all
the powers of the waters which are beneath in the earth.” Cf.
ΙΧ. 15, ἄγγελοι of ἡτοιμασμένοι.
1 According to Mazdeism, Bahman— Yasht ii. 24, Persia was to be
assailed by hordes of demons and idolators from the East. See Boklen,
Verwandschaft a. Jid-Christl. mit der Persischen Eschatologie, p. 88,
IX. 14.1δ.] 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 uumoer is “four.” Yet the presence of the
article points either to the previous mention of ‘ne 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,
ἵνα ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
1 Iselin (Zheol. Zettschr. aus der Schwetz, 1887, 1. 64) quotes a passage from
a late Christian Apocalypse of Ezra, chap. vi., published by Baethgen in the
Ζ. 4. 7. Η7., 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 ἃ 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 0°39 in the Hebrew original of the N.T. Apoc.,
but that the Christian redactor of the latter found osx. 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
Ivi. 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. xxxvili. 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. 1. 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
eis = “ 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,
Vili. 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, z.e. 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 δὶς μυριάδες
” μυριάδων, A > Ν 4 > ᾿ς
κουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν. 17. καὶ οὕτως εἶδον τοὺς
Ὁ 3 A f
ἵππους ἐν τῇ ὁράσει
be “ ε 2 , »" 3 Δ a 3,
καὶ τοὺς (ot) καθημένους (-o1) ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντας (-ες)
θώρακας πυρίνους καὶ ὑακινθίνους καὶ θειώδεις,
A ε Ν A Ὁ ε , ,
καὶ at 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 TH ὁράσει. It is wanting
in 5. 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
τό", 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.
TX. 17-19. ] 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 (-o1) κτλ.
is original. With the δὶς μυριάδες μυριάδων we might compare
Ps. Ixviii. 18, wow ‘BON O'NII; but this expression is admittedly
corrupt. Dan. vil. ro, 27 135, is nearer to our text, which =
HID WI?
The third line refers to the riders who are armed with breast-
plates which are fiery red (zvpivovus), smoky blue (ὑακινθίνους), and
sulphurous yellow (θειώδεις), 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 LXX 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, Jez. vii. 104 f. ; Virg. Georg. 11. 140,
“taurl spirantes naribus ignem”; Lucret. v. 29; Job xli. 10-11,
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 ... Verstindnis 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.
18. ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν τούτων ἀπεκτάνθησαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν
ἀνθρώπων
ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ τοῦ καπνοῦ καὶ τοῦ θείου τοῦ ἐκπορευο-
μένου ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν
19. ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν [καὶ
ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν.
αἱ γὰρ οὐραὶ αὐτῶν ὅμοιαι ὄφεσιν, ἔχουσαι κεφαλάς], καὶ
ἐν αὐταῖς (-οις) ἀδικοῦσιν. :
254 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [IX. 19-20.
ἀπό (-- ὑπό) used with a passive verb: cf. xii. 6.
I have with some hesitation bracketed καὶ ἐν ταῖς. .. κε-
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 γὰρ 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. .
a A
20. καὶ ot λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ot οὐκ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν Tats
πληγαῖς ταύταις,
οὐδὲ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν,
ἵνα μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα
4 A A Q A . A A 4 , Ἁ
τὰ χρυσᾶ καὶ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ 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 il. 21. In τῶν ἔργων τῶν χειρῶν
αὐτῶν we have the familiar O.T. phrase pny ‘wy, 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. ον]. (cv.) 37, ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις : τ Cor. x. 20, ἃ θύουσιν,
δαιμονίοις kai οὐ θεῷ θύουσιν : τ Tim. iv. 1. The words τὰ χρυσᾶ
καὶ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ... καὶ τὰ ξύλινα ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν δύνανται οὔτε
ἀκούειν are drawn from Dan. v. 23 (save that our author has
IX. 20-91.] THE SECOND WOE 255
omitted one phrase and added οὔτε περιπατεῖν), τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς
χρυσοῦς καὶ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χαλκοῦς καὶ 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= οὗ προσκυνήσουσιν λίθους
καὶ οἱ γλύψουσιν εἴδωλα χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ ξύλινα [| + καὶ λίθινα,
Tert. De Jdol, iv.) ... καὶ οἱ 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 idol... and malignant spirits assisted
them”; Sibyll. v. 80 sqq. See Bousset, Rel. d. Jud. 172 566.
On οὔτε περιπατεῖν cf. Ps. cxili. 15 (cxv. 7), πόδας ἔχουσιν καὶ
περιπατήσουσιν.
21. καὶ οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν φόνων αὐτῶν οὔτε ἐκ τῶν
φαρμακιῶν αὐτῶν
3 > A , -. on | 3, A δι Δὲ
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, οὐ μοιχεύσεις" οὐ κλέψεις" οὐ 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. 11, 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... φαρμακιῶν. . . πορνείας
cf. xxi. 8, xxii. 15, where εἰδωλολάτραις is added. φαρμακιῶν
here means “sorceries,” as parallel lists in xxi. 8, xxii. 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 A.
This chapter comes from the hand of our author. 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. ili, 12, xiii. 13, XVI. 21, XVIll. I, XX. I, etc. περιβε-
βλημένον, a favourite word in the Apoc. ftps: cf. iv. 3. τὸ πρόσωπον
αὐτοῦ ὡς 6 ἥλιος : Cf. 1. 16. ἔχων. . . βιβλαρίδιον ἠνεῳγμένον : for
same construction cf. xix. 12, ἐχ. ὄνομα γεγραμμένον, and xix. 16.
On the use of ἔχων as a finite verb cf. ΧΙ]. 2, xix. 12, xxl. 12, 14.
2. ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, Vv. 13, Vil. I (cf. x. 5, 8)... ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ν. 3,
10, 13, Vi. 10, Vil. 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: cf. 1. 19, 11.
το (d7s), iii. 2, το, etc. See noteon7. 5. ἑστῶτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης.
See note on 2. 6. ἐν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων : cf. 1. 18,
iv. 9, 10, xv. 7. ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν. . . καὶ τ. γῆν... καὶ
τ. θάλασσαν: cf. xiv. 7, where the same triple enumeration is
found, iv. 11. 7. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς. For same phrase cf.
ii. 13. μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, see note zm loc. ἐτελέσθη---ἃ favourite
word of our author. εὐηγγέλισεν, c. acc., cf. xiv. 6 (cum ἐπί). τοὺς
ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τ. προφήτας : cf. xi. 18, 1. I, 11. 20, XV. 3, XIX. 2, 5,
XXil. 4, 6. 8. φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ Tod οὐρανοῦ : cf. (x. 4), ΧΙ. 12, XIV. 2,
13, XViii. 4. λαλοῦσαν pet ἐμοῦ καὶ λέγουσαν : cf. iv. τ note,
XVil. I, xxl. 9. ὕπαγε λάβε: cf. xvi. 1, ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐκχέετε : ἑστῶτος
ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. 866 on 2. 1ο. ἔλαβον. . . ἐκ τῆς χειρός : οἱ.
v. 7, εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς. 11. λαοῖς κ. ἔθνεσιν κ. 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 Vv. 9. 7
§ 2. Hebraisms.—It is to be observed also that there are
frequent Hebraisms, as is the manner of our author. Cf. 1.
οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ = “his legs ” (see note 27 loc.) ; 2. καὶ ἔχων. This use
X¥.§2-5.] X—AN INTRODUCTION TO Xi. 1-13 269
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 doc. 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. 1%, 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. I-13, 15 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.-xvill. and thus binds together the composite elements.
With this statement of Bousset I am 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
to me. xl. I-13 15, 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.---ἰ
258 ' THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (x. 2.
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. 11 he is told with
regard to the visions that follow xi. 1-13, δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι
ἐπὶ λαοῖς... καὶ βασιλεῦσιν πολλοῖς---ἰὴ 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 ἣἧ ἶρις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ,
καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὃ 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, ro.
ἄλλον ἀγγ. ἰσχυρόν. To be rendered: “another angel, a
mighty one”: cf. vi. 4, xiv. 9, xv. 1. The diction recalls v. 2,
xvili. 21. If Michael is referred to in viii. 3-5, it is possible that
Gabriel is referred to here. In that case ἰσχυρός (=7123) would
1 of δύο μάρτυρες, xi. 3, are, in spite of the art., not mentioned before ; nor
yet is τὸ θήριον, xi. 7. Wecan 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.
Χ. 1] THE ANGEL WITH THE LITTLE BOOK 209
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 Tod οὐρανοῦ. This phrase is found in xviii. 1,
xx. 1, and frequently in various forms in the Apoc. Cf. iii. 12,
ΧΙ. 13, XVl. 21, Xx. 9, etc. περιβεβλημένον νεφέλην. Cf. Ps.
ciii. (civ.) 3; Dan. vii. 13. With the phrase ἡ ἴρις ἐπὶ τ. κεφ. cf.
iv. 3, and with +. πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς 6 ἥλιος cf. 1. 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 ynb310, this is rendered in Theod. by τὰ σκέλη (though
the LXX has of πόδες, as our text here andin i. 15). 539 has also
the meaning of “leg” in 1 Sam. xvii. 6! and Ezek, i. 7.2 (See
Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, 919 sq., and on 595 under Any. CE.
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 53 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 Ὁ"): cf. Ex.
xxix. 17; Lev. i. 13, viil. 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 $m, he attached to it not its
1So rightly LXX, Peshitto, and Vulg. crura.
2 Here the LXX and Vulg. render 535 rightly. But the Massoretic needs
to be corrected. See Cornill and Marti. .
260 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [x. 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, z.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'yns, “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 pvoleptic 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 yelp ἐκτεταμένη πρός pe, kal ἐν αὐτῇ κεφαλὶς
βιβλίου͵ 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 xvili. 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 11]. 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. το, AX’) MND, where the LXX has ὡς λέων
ἐρεύξεται. Practically the same words recur in Amos 1. 2, iii. 8;
Joel iii. (iv.) 16. The LXX gives different renderings of IND, as
ὠρύεσθαι, Hos. xi.10; φθέγγεσθαι, Amos 1. 2; ἐρεύγεσθαι, Hos. xi. ro,
Am. iii. 8; ἀνακράζεσθαι, Joel 111. (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, ΧΙ]. 31 has “leo . . . mugiens” (= μυκᾶσθαι), 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
xi. 37 (xii. 31) the phrase “leo . . . mugiens” is used of the
Messiah. But the context here limits the reference to an angel,
2.6. Gabriel.
3. 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 Weizsacker, 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 dona fide one, and view it in the same light as that. of
St. Paul in 2 Cor. xli. 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 w.tnessed it, although he was forbidden to
262 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Σ. 3-6,
disclose it. ἐλάλησαν. . . φωνάς. With this construction we
might compare ΧΙ. 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 ὅτε ἐλάλησαν αἱ ἑπτὰ βρονταί, ἤμελλον γράφειν" καὶ
ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν Σφράγισον ἃ ἐλάλησαν αἱ
ἑπτὰ βρονταί, καὶ μὴ αὐτὰ γράψῃς.
The Seer is forbidden by a voice, 2.6. probably that of Christ,
to write down the disclosures of the Seven Thunders. The non-
writing is equivalent to sealing. o¢payilew 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 . . « ὃ οὖν ὄχλος ὃ
ἑστὼς καὶ ἀκούσας ἔλεγεν βροντὴν γεγονέναι" ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ΓΑγγελος
αὑτῷ 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.
Kat 6 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,”
111. 20, ἐπὶ τ. θύραν: Vii. I, ἐπὶ τ. γωνίας : also with the sense of
“to stand on,” vill. 3, ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (AP) ie Pee & Fae |
τ. πόδας: ΧΙ]. 18, ἐπὶ τ. ἄμμον: χὶν. I, ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος : χν. 2, Νὰ
τ. θάλασσαν ; but takes the gen. with the same sense in x. 5, 8
ἐπὶ τ. θαλάσσης (+ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Χ. 8) ; for it is characteristic of
our author to write ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, or εἰς τὴν γῆν and ἐπὶ τ. θαλάσσης.
See note on vii. I, Ρ. 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 (aq), τὴν δεξιὰν (+ αὐτοῦ, T) καὶ τὴν ἀριστερὰν (+ - αὐτοῦ, T)
eis TOV οὐρανόν, καὶ ὦμοσε τὸν ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεόν (ἐν τῷ ζῶντι τὸν
αἰῶνα, 1). For αἴρω never occurs as ἃ rendering of on 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
+’ when it is used technically of raising the hand to swear. In
fact 1° NW) (= αἴρειν or ἐξαίρειν or ἐκτείνειν τὴν χεῖρα) is a Synonym
for ὀμνύναι, and so it is actually rendered (Op) 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 ter XX,
5, 6, 15, 23, 28, 42, Xxxvi. 7, etc,
X.6.] ΑΝΝΟΟΝΟΕΜΕΝΤ 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 yna yaw» oMwn-by . .. wy 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 καὶ 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, 7e/. d.
Judenthums, 296) but very rare outside the Apocalypse in the
N.T.: cf Acts xiv. 15, ‘xvil. 243: Heb. xi\¢.- In the O.T.: cf.
Gen. i. 1 sqq.; Ex. xx. 11; Isa. xxxvil. 16, xlil. 5 ; Jer. xxxil. 17,
li, 153 Ps: χχχηϊ 6, cii’2s, ον, τὸν cxxiv, δ, cxxxiv. 1, and
especially cxlv. 6, τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, τὴν
θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς. Also Wisd. ix. 1, ΧΙ. 17; 2 Enoch
XXiv. 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, ὃ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει
(= ny’ NS, 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,” z.e. 3$ years, the period
during which the Antichrist was to have power. But this period
was a period already in progress tn the visions of Daniel.
But this is not the case in our text. The reign of the Anti-
christ λας 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. ii. 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 t' ς 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 [x. 7.
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 1x. 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, 111. 16 (possibly also
11. 10 das). 2. Cum inf.=to be about to do or suffer something,
ill, 2, 10, vill. 13, X. 4, Xll. 4, 5, xvii. 8 (possibly ii. τὸ δ᾿»
But μέλλειν is practically an auxiliary here also. 3. Cum inf. =
to be destined, i. 19, vi. 11. ΝΟΥ͂ Χ. 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 xxxili. 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,
5 ἥδ, ἐς 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,” z.e. 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 Joc.). 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 Aroleptic character of xi. 1-13. Not
observing the proleptic character of xi. 1-13, the interpolator
assumed that the Antichrist came before the seventh (2.6. 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, Ze.
ndvin — τελεσθήσεται, or with W.M., 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. 10.
τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεου. 1. This phrase has been taken by
Bousset as referring to the casting down of Satan from heaven,
xii. 8-9. 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), VoOlter (ii. 18,
iv. 73), Holtzmann (? zz /oc.) 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 tn 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, ili. 3-6, 9, vi. 19, the μυστήριον means the inclusion of the Gentiles in
the Christian Church. (See Robinson, Zk. 234 sqq.) 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, ad one tn particular
calls for attention, 2.6. th. in 2 Thess. ii. 6-8, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτόν
(-- τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς ἀνομίας) ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ καιρῷ" τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται
266 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [5
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, x1. 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 οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ κύριος ὃ θεὸς πρᾶγμα ἐὰν μὴ
ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν (=D corrupt for ID) αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς
δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς προφήτας (ONDIN Wy ὃς YD DION ΝΣ
If our text is based on Amosiii. 7, then our author clearly did not
use the LXX, since it presupposes a different text. εὐηγγέλισεν
Cc. acc. as an active is found only here in the N.T., as is also εὐαγ.
c. éwi in xiv. 6. Cf. LXX of 1 Sam. xxxi. 9; 2 Sam. xviii. το.
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι c. acc. is frequent in Luke. ‘His servants the
prophets” is a well-known O.T. expression: cf. 2 Kings xvii. 13,
2%, XXi 10, xxiv. 2; Ezek. xxxvill. 17; Zech. i. δ᾽; Jer. vii 25.
xxv. 4; Dan. ix. 10. 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 ail, 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. 3. 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, Sur,
Χ. 8-9.] THE SEER ASKS FOR THE BOOK 267
8. καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πάλιν λαλοῦσαν μετ᾽
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 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, λέγουσα.
(Cf. iv. 1, xvii. 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] ρον 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, mp 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. ; John
iv. 16, ix. 7. In our text in xvi. 1 we have ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐκχέετε.
See note on x. 5. From x. g—10 we know that our author had
Ezek. ili. 1 544. before him: now this idiom occurs in Ezek.
ill. I, VA 2, and in ill. 4. ἑστῶτος ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. See 6 n.
9. kat 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. xiii. 14;
Acts xxi. 21, λέγων 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... Kal 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 oo’, “I did eat,”
the LXX reads Dp: = 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 111. 14 in this sense: “So the spirit lifted
meup . . . and I went in bitterness” (71D NY 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
XXli. 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 ἣν, ἐν τῷ στόματί μου γλυκὺ ὡς: μέλι" καὶ ὅτε
ἔφαγον αὐτό ἐπικράνθη 2 ἡ κοιλία μου.
In g 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.
1 The LXX reads καὶ ἐπορεύθην μετέωρος here, where the last word =0},
corrupt for 7D.
2 εγεμισθη 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,”
*. 11} 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, BA€rwow—an idiom some-
times found in Hebrew, and frequent in Biblical Aramaic. Cf.
Dan. iv, 24, 22, 23)! 20; V. ‘20)' 2%; vil. ra,. 26; Ezr. vi. 5... See
Wellhausen, 2in/le:tung in d. Evang. 25 sq.
The construction προφητεύειν ἐπί (c. dat. or acc.) is found not
infrequently in the LXX as a rendering of ὃν NB). ἐπί-Ξ “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 languages and many kings.” It
is interesting that this enumeration, which occurs seven times in
the Apocalypse (see note on ν. 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.
Crary fio.
§ 1. Zhe contents of the Little Book, being a proleptic Digression
on the Antichrist in Jerusalem.
The measuring (1.6. the securing against demonic powers) of
the faithful, 1-2, and the preaching of the two Witnesses, 3-6,
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,
II -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 [XI. 81-2.
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. ΧΙ. 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. xi. 1-13 consists of two independent fragments both written
before 70 A.D.
The first fragment is x1. 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 (7.6. 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! 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.
XI. § 2. XI. I-13 FROM TWO SOURCES 271
3 7
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
xl. 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 (xi. 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, 84, 9 (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 holds,
have been effected by an author who wrote after 70 A.D. ; for
that only under the presupposition that they were combined 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 its 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 ΧΙ. 7 as wholly recast by our author and xi. 4 (?), 8°, 9?
as added by him, and that xi. 54 is possibly a gloss.
2. The diction ae idiom differ very perceptibly from those of
our aubhor. ;
First we observe’ iat} in I ἐγείρειν, in 2 ἐκβάλλειν and αὐλή,
in 5 (and 12) ἐχθρός, in 6 ὕετός 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 [XI. § 2.
ing prove much. Thus πτῶμα -Ξ “corpse,” is used in 8, 9, where-
as our author uses νεκρός in this sense, xvi. 3, Xx. 13; θεωρεῖν in
II, 12, whereas our author uses βλέπειν or ὁρᾶν in this connection ;
προφητεία = ‘period of prophetic activity” in 6, but “prophecy ἢ
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 is used, except in the case of βλέπειν, i. 12,
V. 3, 4, ix. 20, and καταβαίνειν in xiii. 13, and of infinitives after
μέλλειν ; see note on i. 19. Again in xi. 11 ἔστησαν stands (cf.
XVili. 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 ΧΙ. 3; in 5° we
have εἰ with subj., which is against our author’s usage ; in 6 écdxis
ἐάν to denote indefinite frequency, whereas our author uses ὅταν :
cf. iv. 9 (ix. 5); and in 11 εἰσῆλθεν ἐν, whereas εἰσέρχεσθαι is
followed either by εἰς or πρός c. acc. elsewhere in the Apoc.
3. The order of the words, which ts largely non-Semttic, differs
decidedly from that of our author.—The subject precedes the
verb in ΧΙ. 5, πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται «νον καὶ κατεσθίει: xi. 6, ὑετὸς
βρέχῃ: Xl. το, καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες. . . χαίρουσιν : ΧΙ. 11, πνεῦμα
Ces 6. 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. . . ἔκβαλε, τὴν πόλιν. . . πατήσουσιν : Xi. 5,
αὐτοὺς. .. ἀδικῆσαι: xi. 6, ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν (here only in this
order in the text of the Apocalypse): xi. 9, τὰ πτώματα... οὐκ
adiovew τεθῆναι: Xi. 10, δῶρα πέμψουσιν.
I leave out of consideration x1. 7, which has been recast by our
author; xi. 4 (0), 8°°, οἷ, 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. . . 10times. as I (for emphasis: vi. 6).
hs aren one +
9 Vill. 1, 3-5, 13. τ time. eee ὌΝ
Chap. viii. 7-12. 7 times. oe 7 times.
(addition to text).
Ghag.: vill 0, O00 3 54 ar nay
(recast).
Chap. ix.. . . I time. 3 times. I (in a gloss: ix. 11).
τ ΣΡ ss ΜΟΙ I time. I (object a pronoun: x. 4.
CE xi; 2)
ΧΙ. § 2.] ITS DICTION AND IDIOM 273
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 xt. 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. τ 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, ἡ
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 yns=the 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 277
loc.).
a Though the ministry of the Witnesses ts of the same
duration as the occupation of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, the
incidents in xt. 3-13, culminating in the destruction of one-tenth of
Jerusalem, suggest quite a different sttuation from that implied in
xt, I-2.
6. Certain ideas common to both xt. 1- and xt. 3-13 are
expressed in different phraseology and may point to different
authorship (whether Greck 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 sfz7ztwal 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 tk. 2.
XI. 1-13. A PROLEPTIC DIGRESSION ON THE
ANTICHRIST IN JERUSALEM.
1. καὶ ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ, λέγων Ἔγειρε καὶ
peepyoov 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, τὴν 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 (- .. ἭΝ
9): xxxviii, 24, xlviii. 2; Jos. ii, 2, x. 17, xvi. 2, εἴς. ; 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. Thuc. iii. 36. 1.
κάλαμος. Ezek. xl. 3-xlii, 20 was in the mind of the
author of this verse. In xli. 13 the angel measures the Temple.
The Hebrew is 7199 ΠῚΡ 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, xl. 13; Zech.
li. 2-8 ; Jer. xxxi. 39. So Vitringa, Bengel. But this meaning 15
excluded by the context.
XI. 1.] 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 zm” 7zts original context, t.e. the measuring
means physical preservation, as in 2 Sam. vill. 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, and city. 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 sfzrztwal danger. Thus the
measuring comes to be practically synonymous with the sealing
in vii. 4 sqq. A related meaning is attached to measuring
like τ Enoch lxi. 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. Headmits (because he rejects an allegorical interpretation) that the
meaning attached to xi. 1-13 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
“ἐ 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 frum the standpoint of the Contemporary Historical
hypothesis.
276 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [xI. 1.
That they may stay themselves on the name of the
Lord of Spirits for ever...
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, ΙΧ]. 3-4, or restoration of those who had been /hysically de-
stroyed, to the spiritual community of the Messianic Kingdom,
lxi. 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, vil. 15, xl. 19 (625), xiv. 15, 17, XV. 5;
6, ὃ (dis), xvi. 1, 17. Next, it is noteworthy that at the close of
Christ’s ministry (Matt. xxii. 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 4 συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, il. 9,
ili. 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. To him, therefore, it meant the spiritual
temple (iii. 12; Eph. ii. 19 sqq.) 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. iii. 16, ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστέ: 2 Cor. vi. 16, ἡμεῖς
yap ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμὲν ζῶντος : τ Pet. ii. 5, καὶ αὐτοὶ ds χίθοι 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
tov 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 pvima 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, 2.56. 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, z.e. 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, 2.6. 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 [πτ 2.
separated from the outer by a breastwork of stone—dpidaxros
(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. κε}.
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. Lncyc. 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. lvi. 7 (LXX), 6 γὰρ 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.p. The
writer of ΧΙ. 1-2, who was a prophet of this fanatical party,
assured his fellow Zealots that the Temple itself would not be
destroyed. But zx its 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 /oc.), 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 καὶ 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 Kai... πατήσουσιν. This construction
is regarded by many scholars as the same as that in 2. 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 “have 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 Eucyc. Bib. iv. 4945; Hastings’ D.B. iv. 713; /Jewssh
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. 10,
xxii. 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. xlvili. 2, 111. 1; Dan. ix. 24,
Wwap Wy; the prayer of Azariah in Dan. (LXX and Theod.)
111. 28; Neh. xi. 1, 18; Pss. Sol. vill. 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, Ἰερουσαλὴμ 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 6 ποῦς αὐτῶν κληρονομίαν ἁγιάσματος
Gov, 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:
Isa. Ixiti. 18; Dan. viii. 10, 13; Ps. Ixxix. 1; 1 Macc. iii. 45,
τὸ ἁγίασμα καταπατούμενον, 51, iv. 60; 2 Macc. viii. 2.
μῆνας τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δύο. This period is derived from
Dan. vii. 25, xll. 7, where, however, it is described as “a time
and times and half a time,” 2.6. 33 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 ΧΙ]. 5. 2. Xl. 3, xii. 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 Karpov. This is a literal rendering of Dan. vii. 25,
xii. ἡ. It is somewhat peculiar that two different forms occur in
xi. 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
ΧΙ. 3-13. Similarly on independent grounds we assume that
ΧΙ. 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, 7 ze. 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 [ΣΧ]. 9-8.
time, z.e. the winter months (cf. X.A.7.3 389); 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. 8-13. (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.
3. καὶ δώσω Tots δυσὶν pdptuciv μου, καὶ προφητεύσουσιν
ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα περιβεβλημένους σάκκους.
The construction καὶ δώσω . .. καὶ προφητεύσουσιν is Hebraic.
IWAN... ἸΠΝ τὸ “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... Kat πατή-
covow. 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, iil 21 (ὃ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι),
Vi. 4, Vii. 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
δοῦνα. This idiom is Hebraic: cf. Esth. ix. 13, ... ins"
γῆν. 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.e. b maw ἜΣ nam), The speaker is
either God or Christ. |
τοῖς 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. 3.| 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 i. 10 5646. ; Sir. xlviii. 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, rt 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. 10; Mark ix. 11; Matt. xi. 14; Eduj. viii. 7: see Jew.
Encye. vy. 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 = [XI 8-4.
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. στό. 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,
xl. 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,
Hiishédar and Hiishédarmé4h, 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 S.B.Z,
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. xviii. 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 éra
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 (Versténdnzs, 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 Tidmat. But this suggestion is purely hypothetical.
The attempt to establish a connection between Parsism and our text is far-
fetched and nugatory. 5.5. Boklen, Verwandschaft, 100 544. ; Clemen,
LErklarung des N.T. 109.
284 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XI. 4-6.
ing Law and Prophecy. While xi. 5-6 point to their literal
return, xl. 4 attaches a new symbolical meaning to these two
great figures in giving a new interpretation to O.T. symbols.
at 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, ai ἐνώπιον... éorwres. 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,
ΧΙ]. 6, 12, XiV. 13, XViil, 17, XIX. I. κυρίου τῆς γῆς 15 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.
5. καὶ et 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, “1 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
pov εἰς TO στόμα σου πῦρ καὶ τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον ξύλα, καὶ καταφάγεται
αὐτούς. In this passage the language is figurative, but not so in
our text. In Sir. xlvili. 3 we have a combination of Elijah’s
twofold powers of destruction—év λόγῳ κυρίου ἀνέσχεν οὐρανόν,
κατήγαγεν οὕτως τρὶς 7op—wWhich 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 θελήσῃς. 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 xili. ro.
It adds nothing to the sense.
Set αὐτὸν. . . ἀποκτανθῆναι. Cf. xiii. το.
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-.}1 THE ANTICHRIST IN JERUSALEM 285
xlviil. 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 (2.7. 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. vil. 17, xi. το, but it recalls directly
the LXX of 1 Sam. iv. 8, οὗτοι of θεοὶ οἱ πατάξαντες τὴν Αἴγυπτον
ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ ὌΣΣΕ .. . ΠΣ
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 redety (x. 7, xv. 1, 8, xvii. 17, xx. 3, 5, 7),
μαρτυρία (1. 2, 9, Vi. 9, ΧΙ]. 11, etc.), TO θήριον τὸ ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς
ἀβύσσου (xiii. 1, xvll. 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 Jesh Antichrist described somewhat as in 2 Thess.
ii, and had therefore mainly a veligious 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 [ΣῚ. 7-8.
its present context, it cannot, of course, be other than that in
Xill. I, xvii. 8, in so far as our author assigned it a definite
meaning at all. The Beast from the abyss, therefore, 2.6. Nero
redivivus or the demonic Antichrist, appears here proleptically.
See App. to xvil., 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. ii., or else the Roman Empire, in its present context it
can only represent Nero vedivivus as in chaps. ΧΙ]. and xvii.
Since the Antichrist is first introduced as θηρίον (without the art.)
in xlil. 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 pet αὐτῶν πόλεμον καὶ νικήσει αὐτούς. These clauses
represent an independent rendering of Dan. vii. 21, DY 2 Nay
inp mo" pyvap. Here Theod. has ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων
καὶ ἴσχυσεν πρὸς αὐτούς. The LXX is very divergent in vii. 21,
but in vil. 8 its rendering of the last clause (lost in Mass. and
Theod.) is ἐποίει πόλεμον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους. Hence, since Apoc.
xlil. vi (= ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ νικῆσαι αὐτούς) 1 15,
and xi. 7° is not, an exact equivalent of the Aramaic of Dan. vii.
21, xiii. 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... Kal νικήσει αὐτούς
is from his hand.
8. καὶ 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 9® as a collective is
difficult, especially as in g” the plural is used. In xi. 5 we have
στόμα used collectively, and the collective use of πρόσωπον,
κεφαλή, καρδία is well known inthe 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 ΠΟ) is used collectively = “ corpses.”
τῆς πόλεως THs μεγάλης. This phrase is used of Rome
throughout the rest of the book: cf. xvi. 19, xvil. 18, xvili. Io,
16, 18, 19, 21, and under the figure of Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, xiv. 8,
XVl. 19, ΧΡ]. 5, xviil. 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. ὦ
Apion. i. 197, 209, ᾿Ιουδαῖοι πόχιν οἰκοῦντες ὀχυρωτάτην πασῶν:
Appian, .577. 50, μεγίστη πόλις ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα: Pliny, Ast. (Vat.
Vv. 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 zm Joc.). 4. The phrase οἱ
κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (xi. 10) appears to denote the inhabitants
of a single country, z.¢. 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 Kal... 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 kai, and ii. 13,
ὅπου 6 Σατανᾶς κατοικεῖ (observe the’ order in contrast with
that in xil. 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 i. 12, xli. 13, xvil. 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 1. 9, ΧΙ]. 9, xvi. 16.
Σόδομα Kat Αἴγυπτος. Cf. Isa. 1. 9, το, whexe Judah is com-
288 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XI. 8-9.
pared to Sodom, ὡς Σόδομα ἂν ἐγενήθημεν (quoted in Rom. ix. 29),
1:1. 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 καὶ 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, lil. 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 \aév=‘‘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-g 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 ¢erminus 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 ἥμισυ. 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 ll. 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. καὶ 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 OF τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς) is the equivalent of the Hebrew yoNn ‘2v*. See xiii.
Introd. § 4. In the O.T. this phrase can denote either (1) ‘‘ the
inhabitants of the land,” 24. Palestine, Hos. iv. 1; Joel i. 2, 14,
ii. 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, xlviii. 5,
etc.
Both these O.T. meanings appear in our text. The latter is
found in 111. 10, vi. 10, Vill. 13, ΧΙ]. 8, 14, xvii. 8, and the former
at all events originally in the verse we are now dealing with.
For, as Bousset zz /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, xlviii. 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. g, lv. 1, Ix.» 5, Ixv.. 6, 12, Ixvi. 1, lxvii. 8, and in our
text in iii. 10, Vis Το, viii. 13, xi. 10 (ds), 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 (Zam Verstdndnis, 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 -ve have to explain, and apart from this difficulty
the speculation is wholly wanting in probability.
VOL. 1.-- I 9
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.
Viiil. 10, 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 O8N ΠῚ,
Gen. vi. 17, vil. 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. 10. . . M7 ὩΠ NiaM
om byn-by yoy. Here the LXX has εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτοὺς τὸ
πνεῦμα (A, πνεῦμα ζωῆς)... καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῶν.
Since in xxxvii. 5 the LXX has πνεῦμα ζωῆς, which is accepted
by Cornill and others as representing the original over against
the Mass. on'm) mn, the writer may have had this reading
before him. Cf. also 2 Kings xiil. 21, ἔζησεν καὶ ἀνέστη ἐπὶ τοὺς
πόδας αὐτοῦ.
φόβος... ἐπέπεσεν ἐπί, ς. 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; Ps. liv. (Iv.) 5.
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 ὁρᾶν (2),
ὄψεσθαι (3), εἶδον (56), and βλέπειν (12).
12. καὶ ἤκουσαν φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν
αὐτοῖς ᾿Ανάβατε ade" καὶ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ,
καὶ ἐθεώρησαν αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτῶν.
In defence οἵ ἤκουσα, ΧΙ. 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.
ΧΙ. 12-13.] ASCENSION OF THE WITNESSES 201
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, Jz /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. Azz. iv. 8. 48, προσομιλοῦντος ἔτι, νέφους
αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν στάντος, ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγγος. See
also James, Apocrypha anecdota, 11. 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,
Ρ- 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, Kal 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. xxxviii. 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 11]. 4.
χιλιάδες ἑπτά. This number suits the population of Jeru-
salem, which according to the statement of the Ps.—Hecataeus
in Josephus (c. Apion. 1. 22), was about 120,000; but in no case
could it suit Rome.
ἔδωκαν δόξαν τῷ O66. 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, XVi. 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. vil. 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;
202 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. ΧΙ. 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 xii. = 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, 2.6. to be converted to
the God of heaven. Neh. i. 4, 5 prays and fasts before the God
of heaven. This expression, as Bousset (fed. 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 i. 2, v. 11,
τά, VL 0, Τὸ, Vil, 12, 21, 23; Dan. ἢ, 28,’ τὸ, 37; 46. See
Bousset, of. cet.
XI. 14°-XIII. THE SEVENTH TRUMPET, 1.6. 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 rooo years’ reign of the
martyrs, ΧΧΙ. Q—XXll. 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 τὸ 65 1-4°; 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 293
Thus the heavenly voices declare that God has become King
of the world, xi. 17—hence no longer Satan (xii.) or Antichrist
(xili.) ; that the time has come to destroy “‘ those that destroy the
earth, ᾿ xl. 18, ze. Rome, xiv. 6--ΧΙΧ., Satan, Antichrist, and the
False Prophet, xx. 10; to judge the ‘dead, xl. 18, 2.6. XX. I-15;
to recompense the saints, Xt. 119. 4.6; xiv. I-5, XX. 4-6, xxi. 9--
xxil. 2, xxli. 14, 15, 17; and to bring to its blessed consumma-
tion the everlasting Kingdom of God, xi. 15, 2.6. 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 zx Joc.
15. φωναὶ. λέγοντες : ἃ characteristic abnormality. βασι-
λεύσει (and in xi. . 17) used of God: cf. xix. 6; and of the saints,
Vv. 10, xx. 4, 6, xxii. 5. With τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ :
cf. xii. το. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων : cf. i. 6, 18, iv. 9, 10, etc.
16. ἔπεσαν... καὶ προσεκύνησαν : cf. iv. Io, v. 14,:xix. 4 (also
of the Elders). émeoav ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν : cf. vil. 11. 17. Κύριε
ὃ θεὸς ὃ παντοκράτωρ ὃ ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν : see note zz loc. εἴληφας : cf.
V. 7, Vill. 5. εἴληφας τὴν δύναμιν : cf. iv. 11, v. 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 : Cf. x. 7 (i. I, xxii. 6). τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά σου :
cf. XIX. 5. τοῖς μικροῖς καὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις : cf. ΧΙ]. 16, xix. 5, 18,
XX. 12. τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν : cf. xix. 2. 19. ἀστραπαὶ καὶ
φωναὶ κτλ. : οἷ, villi. 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.
217 Sqq., 231.
ἀπῆλθεν = “is past,” is found only elsewhere in N.T. in ix. 12,
xxl. 1, 4. This usage, which is classical, is distinctive of our
author. More ordinary uses of it occur in x. 9, xii. 17, xvi. 2,
Xvill. 14. In ἔρχεται ταχύ we have another phrase characteristic
of our author: cf. ii. 16, 11]. 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 ‘he Millennial Kingdom (17°¢) and the
outbreak of Gog and Magog at its close, and then proclaims
204 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. 1*-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,
dAAyAovia, 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 6 ἕβδομος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν καὶ ἐγένοντο φωναὶ
μεγάλαι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, λέγοντες
3 ςε , A A , ε A
Eyévero ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ,
A , 3 ΝΥ 2A A 39»,
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. . . Tod 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 καὶ 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. 10 of
our text. But the first book in which 6 Χριστός means technically
the Messianic King is 1 Enoch: cf. xlviii. 10, ‘They have
denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed”; 11. 4. Subse-
quently it appears in Pss. Sol. xvii. 36, xviii. 6, 8 (also in the
inscription of this Ps.). Cf. Luke ii, 11.
βασιλεύσε. The Kingdom begins with the Millennial
Kingdom (xxi. 9-xxli. 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
ΧΙ. 15-18. | THE THIRD WOE 205
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. 11]. 44,
Vil. 14. 27: Luke 1. 33.
16. καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ol ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ
καθήμενοι ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους αὐτῶν ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ
προσεκύνησαν τῶ θεῷ, λέγοντες.
For the unusual order of ἐνώπιον. . . καθήμενοι, see note
Or ὙΠ 4;
17. Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ,
ἃ on % στ @
ὃ av 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 ὃ παντοκράτωρ see 1. 8, iv. 8; and
on 6 ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν see i. 4, 8, iv. 8. Here and also in xvi. 5
ὃ ἐρχόμενος is omitted, because at this stage it is already fulfilled.
On the combination of tenses in «iAndas ... καὶ ἐβασίλευσας
cf. iii, 3, V. 7, Vill. 5. τὴν δύναμιν κτλ. The supreme and final
authority over all things. éBaci\evoas=‘“‘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. Q—Xxil. I-2, xx. 4-6) follows in due course. See note on 15.
18. kat τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν,
καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου,
καὶ ὃ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι,
καὶ δοῦναι τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς δούλοις σου
τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους
Ν ‘ é ΝΡ ά
καὶ τοὺς φοβουμ vous τὸ ὄνομά σου,
τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους,
καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν.
καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν, ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή cov... 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
(6 καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι : cf. xx. 11-15), the final recompense
of all the righteous in the New Jerusalem, which together with
296 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 καὶ
τοῖς μεγάλοις : cf. xxi. 1--4, xxii. 3-5). It is remarkable that the
chronological order is abandoned in the last line—xai διαφθεῖραι
κτὰ. 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 11), 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 σου : cf. vi. 17,
ἘΠ 10, XVi. 19, XIX. I5.
ὃ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι: 2.6. xx. 11-15. The aim of the
impending event is here expressed by the inf.=tva 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, iii. 5, iv. 11. τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ 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 καί; 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 Vélter (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. Johannis, 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-:19.] THE THIRD WOE 297
So the phrase means in Ps. cxv. 11, 13, CXxVill. 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, ΧΗ, 11, XV. 15.
τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους. A slip for the dative. This
phrase is characteristic of our author: cf. χ τό, xix. 5, 18
[χχ. 12]. The two phrases τοὺς φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου and
τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους are derived from Ps. cxv. 13,
oSuan-py osppn “Ὁ 5}, 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.
(Xxviii.) 25, τὸ ὄρος τὸ διεφθαρμένον, τὸ διαφθεῖρον (NWN) πᾶσαν
τὴν γῆν. On the probability that this line originally stood after
Kal ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου see first note on this verse.
19. καὶ ἠνοίγη ὃ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῴ, καὶ 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 (N35 fins) 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 (iii. 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 whick Moses climbed, ‘the tabernacle and the
ark and the altar of incense.” The same account is found in
298. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN‘ [XII § 1.
2 Bar. vi. 5-10, lxxx. 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. Avzé. xviii. 4. 1; Rest of
the Words of Jeremtah, iii. 7-8, 14: see note on 1]. 17. ἠνοίγη 6
ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ---2.6. 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 Xi.
A RETROSPECT;
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.
xli.; Eph. i. 3, 10, 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. xil.). 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 hag.
1In 2 Bar. vi. 7 the text is corrupt. Instead of reading ‘‘ark” it
reads ‘‘ephod.” But 5x is here corrupt for [N= ‘‘ark.” The converse
corruption in the Mass. text is found in 1 Sam. xiv. 18, as the LXX and
several Talmudic authorities prove.
XII. 81-9. 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. xiii. 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, z.e. the Church, is preserved
from the attacks of the Dragon (5°-6). hither 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 2722 /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: its
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,
173 544.) 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 [ΧὩ]. 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 réle 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
—Jacts which are against his use of Greek sources here.
1. The clause σημεῖον (xii. 3, xv. I: in xiii. 13, 14, xvi. 14,
xix. 20 in another meaning) μέγα ὥφθη (i. 7, xi. 19, xii. 3) ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ which recurs in xii. 3 is found also in xv. 1, εἶδον ἄλλο
σημεῖον ἐν τῷ ovp. μέγα. μέγα follows after the noun. Cf. x. 1,
XIV: ‘9, Ky. I, etc,
περιβεβλημένη---12 times in Apoc. and 12 times in rest of
N.T. 8 times in rest of Apoc. c. acc. as here. ὑποκάτω, Vv. 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., Χ. 44.sqq. 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 bride 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. 27: plural (five times).
In the rest of the N.T. ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς occurs four times and
ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν twice. 8déSexa—post-positive: see notes on
Vili. 2; X11; 3.
2. ἐν γαστρὶ €xouca—participle used as finite verb as in x. 2,
xxi. 14. On κράζει κτλ. see note on text.
βασανίζω (ix. 5, Xl. 10, xiv. I0, xx. 10) is never used in LXX
of the pangs of childbirth, and only here in the N.T.
8. ὥφθη κτλ. : see on 1. πυρρός : see vi. 4. For the position
of the last émrd see footnote on Vili. 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., 10 times with pres. inf. and 3 times with
aor. inf., ili, 2, 16, xii 4. On the order ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ...
καταφάγῃ : Cf. xiii. 15, ἵνα ὅσοι... προσκυνήσωσιν . . . ἀποκταν-
θῶσιν. καταφάγῃ : cf. x. 9, 10, Xi. 5, ΧΙ]. 4, XX. 9. τέκνον : cf.
ἧς 2%,
5. The clause ὃς μέλλει. . . σιδηρᾷ is from the hand of our
author: cf. ii. 27, xix. 15.
6 is a doublet of xii. 13 14 from the hand of our author.
ὅπου. . . ἐκεῖ: cf. xi. 14. For analogous Semiticisms, cf.
ii. 7, 17, ll. 8, vil. 2, 9, xiii. 8, 12, xvii. 9, xx. 8. ὅπου occurs
5 times elsewhere without complementary adverbial phrase.
ἡτοιμασμένον : οὗ, vill. 6, ix. 7, 15, XVi. 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. ii, 16, 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 loc. 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 zz loc. ὃ ὄφις
ὁ ἀρχαῖος... Σατανᾶς : cf. xx. 2. 6 καλούμενός : cf. xi. 8 ἢ.
διάβολος... ὁ πλανῶν: cf. xx. 8. τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην: cf.
lil. 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. το, xix. τ. ἡ δύναμις :
cf, iv. 11, Vil. 12; ix. τ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν : cf. xi. 15, ἡ
?
302 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XII § 8.
βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. ἡ ἐξουσία, passim. τῶν
ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, i. 9,. Vi. II, XIX. IO, XXIl. 9. ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός :
cf. iv. 8.
11. This verse is word for word the diction of our author.
ἐνίκησαν characteristic of our author. διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου :
cf. ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, 1. 5». 9, Vil. 14. διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρ-
τυρίας αὐτῶν : cf. vi. ο, διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ ἘΠΕ καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν:
also 1. 9, Xx. 4. ἠγάπησαν: cf. 1. 5, iil. 9, Xx. 9. ἄχρι θανάτου
occurs already in 11. το. ἄχρι occurs 11 times in Apoc. but not
in Johannine Gospel or Epistles.
12. διὰ τοῦτο : cf. vii. 15, xviil. 8(15 times in Fourth Gospel).
εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί. This phrase is difficult and would point
to the existence of xil. 7-10, 12 in a Greek form. We should
expect εὐφραίνου οὐρανέ as in xvill. 20; for the plural is not found
elsewhere in the Apoc. See note on xii. 12. ot . . . σκηνοῦντες,
used of heavenly dwellers: cf. vii. 15, ΧΙ]. 6, xxl. 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. (="N) as in viii. 13. 6. nom. in xviii. 10, 16, 19 as
in LXX of Isa. v. 8, 11, 18, 20-22 -- ηΠ. ὀλίγον καιρόν. ὀλίγος
prepositive here as in iil. 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 ΧΙ]. 7-12. ἥτις τε ἥ---ἂ
usage of our author: see xi. ὃ n.
14. πέτηταί. 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 ΧΙ. 2n. ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως, a Hebraism.
See ΧΙ]. 14 n.
15. ὡς ποταμόν. See Additional Note on ὡς, p. 35 sq. ἵνα
αὐτὴν ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃς. On ποταμοφόρητον see note 77 doc.
Next, iva is followed by object and verb also in vi. 4, xiii. 13; and
adverbial phrase or clause and verb in xii. 4 (ἵνα ὅταν... .), xix. 15;
by substantive clause and verb, xiii. 15 (ἵνα ὅσοι. . .); though
immediately 2 verb as a rule: cf. il. 10, 111. 9, Vi. I1, Vill. 3, 12,
ix. 5,15, xii. 6 (iva ἐκεῖ), 14, ΧΙ]. 12, 15°, τό, XIV. 13, XVL. 12,
xix. 8, 18, xxl. 15, xxll. 14. ἵνα μή is followed ‘by verb 6 times ;
by subject and verb, 111. 11, vill. 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: Ch. ee 1"; ἀπῆλθεν: Ὁ ko: “ποιῆσαι
πόλεμον μετά: οἷ, xi. 7, ZB. 7; XIX. 19. τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος :
cf. ix. 20, xx. 5; Luke xviii. rr alone in N.T. for this use of
Aourds. τῶν τηρούντων Tas ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ. ‘These words recur
in xiv. 12. τηρεῖν occurs 11 times in the Apoc. It belongs
XII. § 3-4.] 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 da. dey. 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. 1, ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, instead of which he uses ἐπὶ τὴν
κεφαλήν (or τὰς κεφαλάς). The second irregular usage is the use
of οὐρανοί in ΧΙ]. 12, but this may be due to the source which
our author is translating ; see ὃ 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, constder-
ing the paucity of the text.
From what precedes it follows that our author found the
originals of ΧΙ]. I-5, 13-17, ΧΙ]. 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, dpoev= 5} 13 in
ΧΙ, 5, ὅπου... ἐκεῖ τ- ὩΦ . . - WN in Xil. 6, 14, οὐκ ἴσχυσεν =
>) xb ἴῃ xii. 8, and κατέβη xii. 12, ἐβλήθη xii. 9, 13, aS render-
ings of the same verb 77° (Aram. nn), have been adduced by
various scholars in the past. Gunkel (Schdpfung, 200 sq.) has
enumerated the above and sought to strengthen the evidence
for a Semitic original by the following arguments. Thus ὠδίνουσα
kat Pacavilopevn τεκεῖν, xii. 2, is, he claims, a Hebrew construc-
tion such as ΠΟ mon, 1 Sam. iv. 1g (itself an isolated idiom),
but as I have sought to show in the note zx /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 [XIU 84.
zoo years old. He thinks that the construction in xii. 7, if we
omit ὃ Μ. καὶ οἱ ἀγγ. 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. ro. 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 xii. 13°, 14.
(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
XVili. 20 εὐφραίνου... οὐρανέ) ; for he always uses the sing.
when writing independently, and even when translating a Semitic
original, as in xli. 7, 8, 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 Pattiarchs, 2 Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, etc. (see note on
iv. 1, p. 108). Since there is here no risk of misconception he
renders mn 135 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 ἃ 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 ΝΥ͂Ν nypo-b3_ or
the Aramaic pnd nanun xb cnx ὅ5. But αὐτῶν is a possible,
though here an incorrect, rendering of ond (or ἡπ). 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 (625), xi. 32, xii. 47, ΧΙ], 6, 14,
xix. 35, xx. 23. See note on ili. 2 above.
XII. 84-6.}]1 TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES 305
αὐτῶν we should read airots—an emendation made in some of
the later MSS.
(5) In xii. 14, ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως = WNIN “DD, “ because of
the serpent.” This is a pure Semiticism not elsewhere found in
the N.T.
(6) ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα, xii. t=mi7. Here the participle is used
as a finite verb. On this Semiticism see note zz Joc. It is not
improbable that σύρει in xii. 4 is a rendering of a participle also
such as 3nD, This would explain the tense of σύρει in the
midst of past verbs.
(7) Other Semiticisms are ὀλίγον καιρόν, ΧΙ]. 12 =ny yyy. In
the Apocalypse adjectives are postpositive, but the unusual order
here can be explained as reflecting the Semitic: ἔβαλεν...
ὀπίσω, xii. 15 =n... MW; ὡς ποταμόν, xii. 15 = 79D; πολε-
μῆσαι μετά, ΧΙ]. 7 = OY ondn.
(8) In xi. 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 xlll. Io. See note zm loc.
§ 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.
§ 6. This Chapter was not originally a unity, but was dertved
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 ‘1 xii. 6 before the casting down of Satan,
VOL. I.—20
306 THE REVELATION OF ST. ΙῸῊΝ [XII 86.
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 ΧΙ]. 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 6 πλανῶν... τὴν γῆν: ἴῃ Xll. II, 13, ὅτε εἶδεν and ὅτι
ἐβλήθη... γῆν : and in xii. 17, καὶ ἐχόντων... Ἰησοῦ. Pfleiderer
(332 sq. i Volter, ii. 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. Volter says that the
addition of xii. 6 is incomprehensible on the presupposition of the
original unity of ΧΙ]. 1-10, 12-17. Why should this notice of
the flight of the woman be inserted, if this were recounted fully in
xii. 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, 4dvaxas, 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
(2) two parallel visions, or of (4) two distinct sources.
(a) Under this head come Gunkel’s and Wellhausen’s.
Gunkel (Schépfung, 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 (Azadi. d.
Offend. Joh. 18 sqq.) finds that xii. 1-6 and xii. 7-14 are parallel
accounts, which terminate in a common conclusion xil. 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, Ζ.6., 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.
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 ΧΙ]. 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.
δ. 7. These two sources were borrowed by our Author from Jewish
Tradition, xit. 7-10, 12 being probably an original product
of Judaism, but not so xit. I-5, 13-17.
xil. 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.Z. v. 17) iii.
IO-II 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 [ΣῈ]. § 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
(Fligel, AZanz, 87); see Gunkel, Verstandnis, 57. The myth had
an international currency in the ancient world.
ΧΙ. I-5, 13-17. We have already seen (δ 2) that this section
could not have been written originally either by a Jew or bya
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 (δ 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
U'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 réle 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, 6 δὲ Χριστὸς ὅταν
ἔρχηται οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν, and 2 Bar. xxix. 3; 4 Ezra vii, 28,
xili. 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, 7z 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 ὦ premier pas gui cote. He sees
in it a prophecy of the last times, a prophecy likewise that was
coming to fulfilment in the events of the present.
ΧΙ]. I-5, 13-17 is a 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 xit. 7-10, 12, were (Ὁ
adapted to their new Christian context by the addition of
xit. 6, ΣΙ, and by changes and additions in xii. 3, 5, 9, IO, 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 is
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 § 4,
p. 304). But the other hypothesis, that our author first brought
the two sections together, is perhaps preferable. On this hypo-
᾿ 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. ὃ 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 rpéfwow (which our author uses elsewhere,
x. 11) as Opposed to τρέφεται in Xil. 14, the use of ἡτοιμασμένον
(cf. ix. 7, 15, xvi. 12), the different phrasing of the period of the
Antichrist, ἡμέρας χιλίας κτλ. (, 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
xit 6.
8 το. xi. 1-5, 13-17°—essentially a heathen myth—may have
been adopted and adapted originally by a Pharisaic Jew
about 67-69 A.D., but xit. 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. :
ΧΙ]. I-5, 13-1 7*> 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. vil. 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 1s
reinterpreted, but xii. 14-16 are meaningless.
§ 11. Original source of xtt. 1-5, 13-17” to be found in a
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.
X11. 8 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).
Tidmat 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. Tidmat, 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 Tiamat 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 Verstaindnis, 59 sq.
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. ii. 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.
212 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙ]. 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, z.e. 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 (Adrax. 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
xil. I-5, 132-17 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, Ordgcne de tous 765 cults, "
iii. 49, and in 1819 by Richter, Das Christenthum u. d. dltesten Keligionen
α΄. Orients, 212, and adopted by O. Pfleiderer (Das Chréstendbild des urchrist-
lichen Glaubens, 1903, 38 sqq.).
XII. 8 11.] SOURCE OF XII. I-5, 12-17 333
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 (2.6. Isis), who is re-
presented with a sun upon her head (Brugsch, fed. uv. Mythol. 4.
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 Jstde, 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. ci. 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 ! (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--1ἰ 78} 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 (Zrklérung. d. NT 237). _
This primitive myth is in reality “the old story of the conflict be- ‘y
tween light and darkness, order and disorder, transferred to the
1 As Cheyne (} 216 Proviems, 199) points out, the vulture was the second
bird of Hathor-Nechbit. This recalls ‘‘the wings of the great eagle,”
xii. 14.
414 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (XII. 1.
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. εἴΐ. 58).
On the general meaning of this chapter see Introduction, § 1.
1. καὶ σημεῖον μέγα ὥφθη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη
τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ ἧ 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 a phrase standing in apposition to σημεῖον
μέγα. We have exactly the same construction in xv. 1, εἶδον
ἄλλο σημεῖον... ἀγγέλους ἑπτά, save that the verb in xv. 1 is
active, whereas in xil. 1 it is passive. Most editors connect the
καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα of 2 with περιβεβλημένη κτλ. and treat it as
merely a participial phrase, but wrongly. In καὶ ev 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. 1,
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 11. 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 otpav@. This is taken as: 1= “in the heaven” (so De
Wette, Diisterdieck, S pitta, 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 viewis 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,
in4a 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 xil. 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 κτλ. 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. 1-5, 13-17 (67-69 A.D.),
that the Jewish Christians would escape (see xii. 14-16 notes,
Introd. § 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 (Schopfung, 386), Zimmern (K.A.Z7:3 360),
Bousset, and Jeremias (Badylonisches, 35 sq.) have done. Jeremias
(Babylonisches, 35 sq.) draws attention to the fact that, according
to Martianus Capella (De Διί. 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 (Zrklarung d. V.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, xxi. 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 [ΧΙ]. 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 (Anz. 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. ciii.
(civ.) 2, ἀναβαλλόμενος φῶς ὡς ἱμάτιον. To ἡ σελήνη ὑποκάτω...
δώδεκα we have a remarkable parallel in T. Naph. v. 3-4, ὃ Λευὶ
ἐκράτησε τὸν ἥλιον καὶ 6 ᾿Ιούδας φθάσας ἐπίασε τὴν σελήνην, Kal
ὑψώθησαν ἀμφότερα σὺν αὐτοῖς. 4, καὶ ὄντος τοῦ Λευὶ ὡς ὃ ἥλιος,
ἰδοὺ νέος τις ἐπιδίδωσιν αὐτῷ Bata φοινίκων δώδεκα, καὶ “Iovdas
ἐγένετο λαμπρὸς ὡς ἡ 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 ἢ) 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. xXxxvii. 9, 6 ἥλιος Kal ἣ σελήνη Kal ἕνδεκα ἀστέρες.
2. καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα καὶ κράζει ὠδίνουσα kal βασανιζομένη
᾿ τεκεῖν.
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. 11. 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, ill, 9, 16, vi. το, 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, ΧΧΙ. 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. vil. 14, δώσει κύριος
αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον" ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει (λήμψεται, B)
καὶ τέξεται VLOV.
1 Amongst the Egyptians the goddess Hathor is represented with the
sun upon her head (Brugsch, Rel. umd Myth. d alten Aegypten, 211);
amongst the Greeks, Leto wears a veil of stars (Dieterich, 4draxas, 120, ἢ. 4),
whilst among the Babylonians Damkina, the mother of Marduk, is called ‘¢ the
lady of the heavenly tiara” (Δ΄... 7.8 360, n. 3).
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, ὦδινε. .. θυγάτηρ Σειὼν ὡς τίκτουσα : Isa. lxvi. 7, πρὶν
τὴν ὠδίνουσαν τεκεῖν, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὸν πόνον τῶν ὠδίνων, ἐξέφυγεν καὶ
ἔτεκεν ἄρσεν.
The above passages, which compare the theocratic community
to a woman in travail (cf. also Jer. iv. 31, xiii. 21, xxii, 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 = ΠΡ; mpanns nbin pyimi, βασανίζω is used of the pangs
of childbirth in profane Greek (see Thayer zz /oc.) but not in
the LXX or N.T. Or else τεκεῖν is to be translated according
to the familiar Hebrew idiom (=n5) “‘ready to be delivered.”
3. καὶ ὥφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, Kat ἰδοὺ δράκων
μέγας πυρρός, ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ 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, xxxii. 2-8; Jer. li. 34, 36, 42 (cf. Pss. Sol. ii. 28-34):
the Serpent, Amos ix. 2 sqq. (see Gunkel, Schépfung und Chaos,
29-82; Genesis’, 121 sqq.; Zimmern, Δ΄. 4.7.8 507 sqq.; Jere-
mias, Das AT7.? 177 544. ; 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 sqq. ; Job xxvi.
12, etc.: in others as a dweller in the Nile, and so Egypt is
named Rahab, Isa. xxx 7; Ps. ]xxxvii. 4: in others as the
monster which prevents the rising of the sun, Job iii. 8, or from
which the darkness ~omes, Job xxvi. 13. Hence Gunkel con-
cludes (Genesis® 122) that other mythologies in addition to that
318 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙ]. 3.
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, Ixv. 25, Hos. ii. 18-22,
which assign to the blessed coming time the peace that reigned
in Eden; in Isa. lxv. 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, ΧΙ]. 15. The same idea seems
to underlie xvii. 1.
δράκων... πυρρός κτλ. The fiery red or scarlet colour,
xvii. 3, of the dragon may (K.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.”1_ Zimmern (X.4.Z7:8 507, 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, lxxxviii. 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
XII. 8-4.} 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, z.e. Dan. vii. 7, 24.
καὶ ἐπὶ Tas 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, vill. 2, xvii. 9. The position of
the ἑπτά (in xiii. 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 ὁ δράκων ἔστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς
γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς
καταφάγῃ.
In the first clause we have not only ἃ reference to but a loose
rendering of Dan. viii. 10, where it is said of the little horn
sayn-y> xvas dam open Nay dam, 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 (ze. 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. Then in
dragon Typhon which sought to slay Horus the child of Hathor was according
to Plutarch (De Jside et Ostride, 22, 30) of a red colour. See Gunkel,
Zum Verstindnis, 57, note.
320 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧῚ]. 4 ὅ.
ΧΙ. 7 sqq. 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 Tod οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. But originally xii. 4*° and
ΧΙ. 7 sqq. were doublets, and referred to one and the same war
in heaven. xil. 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.
ὁ 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
xiii. 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, 13? 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. xxxvii. (xxx.) 6.
ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν... σιδηρᾷ. This clause which comes from
the hand of our author (cf. 1]. 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 κτὰ. 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
XiI. 5-8.] 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. xii. 2, 4;
1 Thess. iv. 17; Acts viii. 39.
καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ = “even unto His throne.” It is
probably an addition of our author: cf. 11]. 21, v. 1, vii. 10, and
possibly the idea in xxii. 1, 3, Tod θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ apviov.
6. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἔφυγεν εἰς Thy 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 TO οὐρανῷ.
ε Α A «ες 3’ 5 are A A A
ὃ Μιχαὴλ καὶ ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ
δράκοντος,
καὶ ὁ δράκων ἐπολέμησεν καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, 8. καὶ οὐκ
ἴσχυσεν
οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.
καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος. .. ὁ 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.
Diusterdieck makes many suggestions. He proposes ἐπολέ-
μῆσαν as the original text, and explains the rod as a dittograph of
αὐτοῦ preceding it: or he suggests the loss of ἀνέστησαν or ἦλθον
(so Swete) before rot πολεμῆσαι : or again, the excision of πόλεμος
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ as a marginal gloss. Viteau (tudes, 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. 1.—21
322 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (XII. 7.
πολεμῆσαι as depending on ἐγένετο πόλεμος and 6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ
οἱ 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., 2.6. τοῦ
πολεμῆσαι tov Μιχαὴλ καὶ τοὺς dyyeAous 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
Zillig, who recognized τοῦ πολεμῆσαι as a Hebraism = onend
= ‘they had to fight.” But none of these scholars attempted to
deal with the chief difficulty, ze. 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 umigue construction in Greek, it is a construction found
several times in the LXX, and found as a éiteval reproduction of a
pure Hebraism. Thus in Hos. ix. 13 we have ᾿Εφράιμ τοῦ
ἐξαγαγεῖν (Ξ πο ops), “Ephraim must bring forth,” Ps.
XXV. 14, ἡ διαθήκη αὐτοῦ τοῦ δηλῶσαι 1 (cf. Vulg. = py nnd wn"93) :
1 Chron. ix. 25, ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν... τοῦ εἰσπορεύεσθαι κατὰ ἑπτὰ
ἡμέρας (-- 5 Π nyaw> sad... ons), “their brethren had to
come in. . . every seven days”: Eccles. ili. 15, ὅσα τοῦ γίνεσθαι
ἤδη γέγονεν (= 133 mynd we), “what is to be hath already
been.” Thus in the Hebrew the subject before δ 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. 10 (see note). Hence this passage admits of
easy retroversion into Hebrew.
powa nondy van 7
yon ondad yoxdny Sx
Say dy andor ond pon 8
mows ny ΝΣ xd oppo 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 1n 2 in the nom., whereas modern
scholars render it as the acc. after oyna,
XII. 7.] WAR IN HEAVEN 323
πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Battles in the sky are referred to
in 2 Macc. v. 2 54. ; Joseph. B./. vi. 5. 3; Sibyll. ii. 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. ii. 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. | iii.
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, xl. 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. xxxil. 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, ze. 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
1JIn later Judaism Michael’s opponent is frequently called *no1pn ΦΠΟΠ,
which is practically=6 ὄφι. ὁ ἀρχαῖος. See Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Juden-
thum, i. 822, 826, 837, 842.
324 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙ]. 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.}
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 i. 6, 7; Zech. ili. 1 sqq.; 1 Enoch xl. 7
(Eph. i. 3, 10, 11. 6, iii, το, vi. 12; Asc. Isa. vii. 9 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 Saravav ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
πεσόντα, and John xii. 31, νῦν ὁ 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.
iil. 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 ad. Parsischen
Eschatologie, 125, sqq.). |
8. ἴσχυσεν = 23), 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, xxxiil.
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, A7/ichael, 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, xxxil. 28; Hos. xii. 4, etc. ἐπολέμησεν. . . καὶ οὐκ
ἴσχυσεν recalls Dan. vil. 21, }\79 ey os ap way, Theod.
ἐποίει πόλεμον .. . καὶ ἴσχυσεν. οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη κτλ. This phrase,
which is found in Dan. ii. 35 (cf. Zech. x. 10), recurs in xx. II.
9. καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὃ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὃ ἀρχαῖος, ὃ
καλούμενος Διάβολος
καὶ ὃ Σατανᾶς, ὃ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην---ἐβλήθη
eis τὴν γῆν
καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.
On the casting down of Satan see note on ver. ὃ. The earth
is now to be the scene of his activities. The ὃ μέγας points back
to ver. 3, ἰδοὺ δράκων μέγας. It is not improbable that the words
6 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 eis Thy γῆν
καὶ οἵ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.
ὃ gis . . . Διάβολος καὶ ὃ Σατανᾶς. Cf. xx. 2. First of all,
διάβολος is the LXX rendering of Ὁ. Hence διάβολος and
Σατανᾶς are synonymous in our text. We have now to consider
the connections here established between Σατανᾶς and 6 ὄφις 6
ἀρχαῖος. The conceptions were originally quite distinct. The
old .serpent—cf. the Rabbinical expressions ‘3in7p0 wnin and
hwein wna: see Wetstein and Schéttgen iz /oc.—is manifestly
the serpent in Gen. 111. 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 /wé, 111. 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. 11]. 1-5.)
The word Satan, ἰδ, is of purely Semitic origin. Satan
appears as a distinct superhuman personality only in three
passages in the O.T., Zech. iii.; Job i. 6; 1 Chron. xxi. x. 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, Jot ᾿. 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.
ii. 24 the entrance of death into the world is attributed to Satan:
φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν eis 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. Azz. 1. 1. 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
ἼΑρτι 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,
6 κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ
νυκτός.
The diction of 10 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, Χ. 4, XIX. I. ἡ σωτηρία
means here “victory” as in vil. 10, xix. 1, and thus=njw
(so Eichhorn and Ewald). Cf. Ex. xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xx. 17.
With ἡ δύναμις cf. vil. 12, xix. 1. The δύναμις is the power of
God which has been manifested in the victory over the Dragon.
ἡ éfovcta=the delegated power of the Messiah. ‘This word
occurs twenty times in ourtext. 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. 1. 9, vi. 11,
XiX. 10, XXii. 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
XII. 10.] MARTYRS’ TRIUMPH SONG 427
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. 10 is from the hand of our author.
See below.
κατήγωρ. If this is the right reading, then it is a translitera-
tion of 713°YP, which in turn is the Hebraised form of κατήγορος.
71.D = 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 (73°2D) of the
faithful, while the latter is their accuser (20) before God.
See T. Levi v. 6, note: T. Dan vi. 2, 3. According
to Shem. R. sect. 18 (f. 117°) on Ex. xii. 29 (Schottgen, i.
1120, ii. 660), ‘“‘ Michael and Sammael are like the advocate and
the accuser (ὩΣ ΘΡῚ 73209 ΡΥ) who stand before the Court...
Satan accuses (130p) 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 zz Joc.) is an addition of our author, and that in the original
document, #.e. xii. 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 /udaism 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. g-11). Since, therefore, the song of
triumph is, 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 [ΧὩ]. 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. DYPIYN) as in 1 Enoch i. 8, v. 6, xxv. 4,
xxxix. 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
opty 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”
(οἱ 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, 2.5. 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 dpviou,
lol , la!
καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν,
Ν 3 3 Ἀ οἷ ἌΣ 3 0
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 Volter, ii. 146, Vischer, 28, Spitta, 130,
J. Weiss, 89, Gunkel, 192, etc., the close connection between
vy. 1o 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 rz 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, xiii. 14 are quoted as other instances of this use. Certainly
in ΧΙ]. 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 τὴν ψυχὴν κτλ. Cf. John ΧΙ]. 25, 6 φιλῶν τὴν
ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπολλύει αὐτήν, καὶ ὃ μισῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ τούτῳ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον φυλάξει αὐτήν : and Mk. vill. 35 sq. ;
Matt. x, 39, xvi. 25; Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33.
12. διὰ τοῦτο εὐφραίνεσθε, οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ot 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 πΠοΐθ 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 οἱ οὐρανοί,
cf. Isa, xliv. 23, xlix. 13, Ὁ 337, where the LXX has εὐφρ. οὐρανοί
ashere. Cf. also Ps. xcv. 11. Weshould therefore expect εὐφραίνου
οὐρανέ (or 6 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, t.e. the period
specified in 14 (see 16).
13. καὶ ὅτε εἶδεν 6 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. i. 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 dre
εἶδεν is rather weak, but the second clause, ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν
(repeated from ver. 9), is inserted because of the incorporation of
330 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XII. 18-15.
xii. 7-12 in the text. This verse therefore in all probability
simply read in the original document as follows: καὶ ὃ 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 =H. 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 xvili. 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.
αἱ 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. xxxil. 11 (Spitta); Isa. xl. 31 (Holtzm.) or Mic. iv. g—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... ἐκεῖ---α Hebraism, ovwx.
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, fy 2D) pI py, and xii. 7,
ym) DMD IW. This translation which renders a dual as a
plural is first found in the LXX and Theod. of Dan. vii. 25,
ΧΙ. 7. The text does not necessarily show dependence on the
Greek versions. ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ Shews = WIN HD. 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 13D); or (2) “because of.” This
latter meaning is to be preferred, for it is a very frequent meaning
of 35 ; 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
ΧΙ. 15-17. | DRAGON PERSECUTES THE WOMAN 331
ὑδατοφόρητος, ἀνεμοφόρητος. It is found in Hesychius in his
note on JZ. vi. 348, ἀπόερσεν" ποταμοφόρητον ἐποίησεν, but as
early as 78 A.D. in Ap. Ixxxv. 16 and later in StrP. v. 10 (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, xxxii. 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 τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα
αὐτῆς καὶ κατέπιεν τὸν ποταμὸν ὃν ἔβαλεν ὁ 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 Α.Ὁ.
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.
vil. 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 Thy μαρτυρίαν Ἰ᾿Ιησοῦ.
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 Ιησοῦ only as an addition here, Spitta
(131) καὶ ἐχόντων «ον Ἰησοῦ, while Bousset, though maintaining
that ch. xii. is of Christian origin, assigns xi. 17] to. the
Apocalyptist of the last hand, and Volter (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 [XII. 18-XIII. § 1.
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. 2.7.2.
lil. 5) that commanded all Christians to leave Jerusalem before
it was beleaguered by the Romans 67-68 a.D., 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 XII. xs8-XIIIT, XIV. 12-12.
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?
1If 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. 5
2 The first Beast, which here represents the antichristian world power of
Rome, goes back ultimately to the Dragon himself, 2.6. the primeval monster
of chaos, It comes up from the sea. In the preceding chapter the Dragon
XII. 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 her seed. 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 vedivivus.
The last and dreadest hour has now arrived—the persona] 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). By 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. f
But in the second Beast, z.e. the false prophet, we have a third conception,
developed from the orig...al 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 [XII. 18-XIII. 81-8.
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
τοῦ», 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, Vill. 3,
xi. 11, xiv. 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. 11, Xvill. 17,
which are probably from another hand.
XIII. 1. ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης. . . ἀναβαῖνον. On this order see
note im loc. Observe order of numerals κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς
ἑπτά (see note on Vili. 2). καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα
isa gloss. Seenote im loc. The phrase ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλάς is Char-
acteristic of our author. 2. we - ὡς ἄρκου. Pregnant construc-
tion: cf. i. 10, iv. I, 7, τὸ erin αὐτοῦ ws TO στόμα. CL & 15.
8. ds ἐσφαγμένην. (ΕΝ 6. πληγή here and in ΧΙ. 12, 14 in
the sense of “blow”=n2, Elsewhere as meaning “ plague ”
τ ix, 18, 20, Χο, SV. 2, 6, 8, xvi. 9, etc., a meaning also of 73».
4. ὅλη ἡ γῆ. Elsewhere this adjective follows the noun as in
111. 10, vi. 12, xii. 9, xvi. 14. Also instead of this pe ἢ ἡ
οἰκουμένη ὅλη is used, iii. 10, ΧΙ. 9, ΧΡ]. 14. ἐθαυμάσθη.
1 xiv, 12-13 have been restored to their original position at the close
of xiii.
XIII. §3-4.] ITS DICTION AND STYLE 335
ὀπίσω. This is not Greek: noris 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 xiii. 8, προσκυνήσουσιν
αὐτόν, which also conforms to his usage, and ΧΙ]. 12.
6. τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ. God's abode, ze. heaven: cf. xxi. 3.
7. On ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετά and νικῆσαι αὐτούς, see note 77
loc. φυλὴν καὶ λαὸν κτλ. See note on v. 9. 8. προσκυνήσουσιν
aétov. See note on ver. 4 above. ot κατοικοῦντες ἐπί, c. gen. See
note on ili. 10: ὃ 4 below. On the remaining phrases see notes
in loc. 9. Cf. i. 7, iii. 6, 13, 22. 10. miotes=“ loyalty,” “ faith-
fulness.” Cf. ii, 19. 11. ὅμοια dpviy= pregnant construction
frequent in Apocalypse. 12. τὴν ἐξουσίαν... πᾶσαν. This
position of πᾶς occurs only twice elsewhere in Apoc. v. 1300),
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... tva. Cf. iii. 9,
ΧΙ. 15, 16. προσκυνήσουσιν τὸ θηρίον. See note on 4 above.
13. ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν. Order elsewhere καταβαίνειν
ἐκ τ. οὐρ. 14. πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Cf. for verb
li, 20, Xil. 9, XViil. 23, xix. 20, xx. 4, 8, 10, and for similar
thought xii. 9. λέγων... ποιῆσαι. See note zz loc. 15. ἐδόθη
i's SO © Hee: VOL" Ὁ p. 54. On the form ἵνα ὅσοι. ᾿:
προσκυνήσωσιν. . . ἀποκτανθῶσιν, cf. xiii. 4. 16. τοὺς μικροὺς
kK. τ᾿ μεγάλους : cf. xi. 18, xix. 5, 18. (Contrast xx. 12.) τοὺς
ἐλευθέρους κ. 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 i. 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 ὁ) Ὁ) and 2"), ἐπὶ τὸ
μέτωπον αὐτῶν. See vil. 3, note. 18. On ὧδε see note 7” 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. Zhis 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 [Χ1ΠΠ|.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 μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ — onbad boy) 2)
FAN,
10. εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι, αὐτὸν (rd. αὐτὸς) ἐν μαχαίρῃ
ἀποκτανθῆναι. See note zz Joc. 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 (?), viii. 3, does πᾶς follow its noun it is not
improbable that the Greek here is a rendering of the Hebrew
> MwA AAA mow Ὁ cf. Ezek. xxxii. 12, λοιμοὶ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν πάντες
=nb> Oo "yy, see also xxxii. 30; Jer. xlviii. 31.
Again thy ἐξουσίαν... ποιεῖ is peculiar Greek but good
Hebrew =“ exercises the authority”: cf. 1 Kings xxi. 7, wy
naib = “ 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,
ie. psn dy ovaw'n->a: whereas 2. of κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ yn=
a prawn-5> (or 783 saun-55), and 3. πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν
γὴν Ξε δ Π 2 υτῦ5. 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 conies 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 and ΚΠ 2)», which are respectively
rendered by τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας ἐν τῇ γῇ and of κατοικοῦντες τὴν
nV.
: Hence I conclude that the forms of this phrase in ΧΙ]. 12, .
Xvii. 2, which are abnormal, so far as our author’s 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 27 Joc.)
(2) The Hebraisms in xiii. 3, 7°-8, 124, 14°.
XIII. 3. ds ἐσφαγμένην εἰς θάνατον — myrad mans, Cf. 2 Kings
ΧΊΤΊ, § 4-δ.
ITS HEBRAISM
337
xx. 1, 105... nbn. Next ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, --- ANID Nd.
Cf. xiii. 12, 14 for similar Hebraisms.
. ὀπίσω.
ἐθαυμάσθη.
This un-Greek and un-Hebraic expres-
sion can be explained by retroversion into Hebrew (see note
tn loc.).
doublet.
XIII. 83°. καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη
ἡ γῆ T ὀπίσω fT τοῦ θηρίου, ἘΠῚ 8,
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν. αὐτὸν πάντες
οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὗ
οὐ γέγραπται. τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν
τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ἱωῆς 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 xiil. 3 I have shown that καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη
. ὀπίσω τοῦ Oypiov=TNT MNND.. . ANN, where “MND is
corrupt for nix) (or ms), 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 ἐν τῷ
BiBrAt (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 γῆ (elsewhere ὅλος follows its noun in the Apocalypse)
is probably due to the order of the Hebrew yaxn-dp. 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
Σινά... ὅλον = 1D... °9D ἼΠ. See Ezck. xxix. 2, etc
The use of ὄνομα for ὀνόματα in xvii. 8, xiii. ὃ, is a Hebraism
(see note zz 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:
ΕἸ Xvi 8,
XII. 14. With τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρας cf. Esth. ix. 5,
aN.
§ 5. Order of Words.
The verb precedc both subject and object (object and
subject, ΧΙ]. 8), or object or subject 27 (28) times: subject
VOL, I.—22
338 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIII. § 5-7.
precedes verb 4 times, xiil. 2, 3, 15, 18 (the interrogative τίς
naturally precedes in xiii. 4 and the indefinite τις 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, xiii, 12 (see § 3), the form of the phrase τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ
κατοικοῦντας, Xlii. 12, are against our author’s usage. And yet
these are not to be explained as due to our author’s use ofa
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,
ΤΙ 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 ὃ 4) in xili. 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 xili. 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 Johannts, 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 Xlil. 39, kal προσεκύνησαν τῷ θηρίῳ... μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ in
Xili. 4, καὶ ἐδόθη αὑτῷ ἐξουσία ἌΡ . δύο! In xii, 5) τοὺς ἐν TO οὐρανῷ
+s 4 νικῆσαι. αὐτούς in ΧΙ]. 6, » TOU dpviov TOU ἐσφαγμένου in
xiii. 8 and xiii. gq—10 wholly, ds ἔχει... ἔζησεν in xiii. 14, ἢ τὸν
ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος... ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν in xill. 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 zz /oc.), xiii. 6 to his attempt to set up
his statue in the Temple, and xii. 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 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 34
years’ war, and consisted of xili. 1 (om. ἔχον... ἑπτά), 2, 4—7",
τοῦ, 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. 114,
12%, 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 ΧΙ. 10°, xiv. 12, xvii. 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, I1, 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, 10%, 11°°, 124, 13—
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 7 γῆ, xiii. 3, whereas his universal
practice is to write ἡ γῆ ὅλη, or rather ἡ οἰκουμένη ὅλη. Again, in
ΧΙ, 13 the pres. inf. in ποιῇ . . . καταβαίνειν is unusual in our
author, and the ΟΥ̓ Ὺ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν unexampled.
The occurrence of so many anomalies and breaches of our
340 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIII § 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 (Offenbarung des Johannes, pp. 93 54.) 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 ΧΗ]. 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 ΧΙ]. 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, ze, 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. 11
(Offenbarung, p. 94) as if it were ὃ δράκων he tries to make the
passage parallel to 2 Thess. ii. 9, but this is, of course, inadmiss-
ible. He holds that xii. 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.
ὃ 8. Zhe sources behind this Chapter according to the
present Editor.
(a) The two sources behind xiit.r-ro. 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
XIII. § 8.] ITS SOURCES 341
ΧΙ]. I-IO. xill. 3 interrupts the connection between xiii. 2 and
xiii. 4-.,χ. Of these additions xiii. 37°, 7°, 9 are obviously his
own, whereas xili. 3°, 8 are from a source. Furthermore, we shall
see in the notes 2 /oc. that xili. 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 ἃ Jewish Apocalypse written in Hebrew by a
Pharisaic Quietist before or after 70 a.p., 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, Ζ.6. xili. 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 Kal κεφαλὰς End,
aS tan, \ SY 39 ὑπ, Ὁ ,
καὶ ἐπὶ Tas κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ὀνόματα βλασφημίας.
2. καὶ τὸ θηρίον ὃ εἶδον ἦν ὅμοιον παρδάλει,
καὶ οἵ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς ἄρκου,
‘ A
καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς στόμα λέοντος.
καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ 6 δράκων ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην,}
! 4, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ δράκοντι
ΠῚ 3 Q 3 , lol ,
ὅτι ἔδωκεν Thy ἐξουσίαν TO θηρίῳ.
,
καὶ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον, λέγοντες"
τίς ὅμοιος τῷ θηρίῳ ;
καὶ τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ;
ὅ. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα καὶ βλασφημίας,
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ποιῆσαι 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"
5
ri
11 have omitted τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ as an addition
of our Apocalyptist. .he 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. το.
(ὁ) xa. rz—-z3.—We have now to deal with the source of
xill, 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 § 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 (ψευδοπροφήτης) i 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 zp. θηρίου and θηρίον τὸ πρ.), as in
2 Thess. il. 9-10: 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
ee deceives those who dwelt upon the earth (cf. 2 Thess.
li. Io just quoted; Mk. xiii. 22, ἐγερθήσονται γὰρ ψευδόχριστοι
καὶ i 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, xii. 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 zx Joc.).
4. Theabove 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 Wevdo-
προφήτης. See also Bousset, p. 378. But in its present context
this Antichrist has been transformed into a mere agent of the
Antichrist (ἄλλο Onpiov).
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 (ze.
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, xili. 11, and τὸ πρῶτον
θηρίον in xill. 12 are from the hand of our author as well
as the additions οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη... αὐτοῦ, ΧΙ]. 12°, ἐνώπιον τοῦ
Onpiov . . . ἀποκτανθῶσιν, xiii. 14°-15, τοὺς μικροὺς. . . δούλους,
ΧΙ. 16, 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 ‘he 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 [ XIII. ὃ 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 ts xiit. 11, 12”, 13-14, 16-17". It dealt
with a conception of the Jewish Antichrist such as we find in
2 Thess. tt., who like that Antichrist was to claim the preroga-
tives of Detty, 1.6. 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,
καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας
ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν τὸν δράκοντα.
18. καὶ ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ Ι
καταβαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ανθρώπων.
14. καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
Ἁ Ἃ my 2 » ER | A
διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι,
A A “a 3, “
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. τ8--Χ11].
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
(1.6. 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, καὶ. .. ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον
ἀναβαῖνον, 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.
XIII. 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 θηρία. . . ἀνέβαινον
ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης : 4 Ezra xi. 1, Ecce ascendebat de mari aquila,
and xi. 7, xili. 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-
κοντος . . . πνεύματα tpia... ἃ ἐκπορεύετα. 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 xiii. 1-2*°° 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 dpdxwv—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. xiii. ; Midr. Teh. Ps. Ixxx. 14 (see Jewish LEncyc. 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.® iii. 236 sq.; Weber, Jtidisch. Theol.? 365 sqq.,
383 54.) 395). Thcnugh 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.p. 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 (Av. x. 11. 7) the same interpretation occurs, but the
passage is rejected by Niesé. 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—érayv δὲ ἴδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ.
Thus the rdle 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 ΧΙ]. 3, where see note.
κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς émrd. 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 xvii. 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
xvil. 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, vill. 5, 8°, 9, 21) or a dynasty
of kings (Wilh. 2, Ὁ, 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, 2... 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,
θηρίον. . . 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 ccelum 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. kat τὸ θηρίον ὃ εἶδον ἦν ὅμοιον παρδάλει,
καὶ ot πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς ἄρκου,
καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς στόμα λέοντος.
A ” as Ἶ ε Ν , > A
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. vil. 4, and of the fourth and unnatural ten-
horned beast, which had iron teeth wherewith it devoured and
brake in pieces, vil. 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. I0, iv. I, 7.
Yet in ix. 8, 9 we have the same combination of full and pregnant
constructions.
8. kal μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην eis
θάνατον. We must here supply εἶδον from ver. I as in iv. 4
1 Temples were erected to Augustus in his lifetime bearing the dedication:
θεᾶς Ῥώμης καὶ Σεβαστοῦ xaloapos (Dittenberger, Or. Gr. zuser. ii. 1I—
quoted from Swete, p. Ixxxvii.). Hicks (Zphesus, p. 150) records the
following inscription at Ephesus [αὐτοκράτωρ] καῖσαρ θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ ἸΠαρθικοῦ
vids θεοῦ Νερούα υἱωνός, Τραϊανὸς ᾿Αδριανὸς Σεβαστός,
XIII. 8] WOUNDED HEAD=NERO REDIVIVUS 349
(both additions from the hand of our author). The phrase ὡς
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 (ws 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,
ζ.6. 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 ΧΙ]. 12, 14.
καὶ ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ «tA. 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 healed.1 WHence 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 (72.K.W. 568 sqq.).
The words ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου would then refer to a very
dangerous illness of Caligula from which he recovered (Suet.
Caligula, 14; Dio Cassius, lix. ὃ ; Philo, Zegatio 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 54., 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, xiii. 3, 12, 14, of the wonder of the whole world at
his recovery, xili. 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 (2.6. Nero’s) nascentur contentiones
non modicae, et periclitabitur ut cadat, et non cadet tunc, sed iterum
constituetur in suum initi..a,” and compares Suet. Vesf.i.; Jos. Bell. iv. 11.
5» vil. 4. 2.
350 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN (XIII. 8.
xiii. 6. Again it offers a satisfactory explanation of xiii. 8, καὶ
προσκυνήσουσιν αὑτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, for we
find in Joseph. “42:21. 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%, 4.46. 5», 6% 7,
g—10, 14°, 18°, and a phrase in xiii. ὃ (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. Κ΄. W.L. 1885-86; Bousset, Offend.
Johannis*, 410-18 ; and Charles, Ascension of Lsatah, li.—]xxiii. ;
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 i
Appendix. Only when so conceived “does the one head,”
Bousset remarks, “become the complete antitype of the ivi
ὡς ἐσφαγμένον." The wounded head is identified with the Beast
if} Xili. 12, 14, Xvil. 8, 11.
καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη. . ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου. We have here a
construction which i is neither Greek nor Hebrew, as Gunkel
XIII. 3-4.] WORSHIP OF THE BEAST 361
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 (=‘7ns), and compares in this connection
the construction in Acts v. 37, xx. 30.1 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 nm ΠΝ Ὁ ΠΟΤ), where
ΠΝ is corrupt for nny. Thus we should have “and
wondered at the end of the beast,” ze. that it remained
alive. But the meaning Gunkel assigns to the Hebrew here
is quite unnatural. ‘The end” of the beast was μοΐ this
temporary restoration. And yet it is possible to explain the
difficulty through retroversion into Hebrew: 2.6. yann-$3 manny
mn nd, where “NN is corrupt for ANIW2 (1.6. ANN or
nw, 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
ol κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς .. . βλεπόντων τὸ θηρίον «tA. 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, tis ὅμοιός σοι ἐν
θεοῖς, κύριε; Ps. xxxv. 10, Ixxxix. 6, CXill. 5 ; Isa. ΧΙ 5, ἘΠ δ
Mic. vii. 18.. The motive for the worship is given in the words
that follow, τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι per 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.
252 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΣΙ7ΠῚ. 5-6.
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. ΧΙ. 3; 2 Bar. Ixvii. 7. With καὶ βλασφημίας cf. Dan.
xi. 36, where it is said of Antiochus, ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα
(ὑπέρογκα, Th.) λαλήσει, and vil. 25, ῥήματα eis (λόγους πρὸς, Th.)
τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει : also τ Macc. i. 24. ποιῆσαι (=nvy) may
mean either “to do,” “to act with effect”: cf. Dan. vili. 12,
xi. 28. It could mean “to spend the time,” a sense that ny
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 εἰς 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. 10-2. 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 καὶ 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 Cesars
are here in the mind of the writer. Of Caligula Philo writes
(Leg. ad Caium, 23), ὃ δὲ Tdios ἑαυτὸν ἐξετύφωσεν od λέγων μόνον,
ἀλλὰ Kal 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, ὉΠ ΠΣ aps.
‘The attempt to explain τὴν 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 Vil. 15, ΧΙ]. 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 aired 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. Anz. xviil. 8. 2; ell. ii. το. 1; Philo, Leg.
ad Catum, 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 then
too is the καί, and the beings referred to are the angels: cf.
xii. 12. In that case we should compare xxl. 3, ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ
θεοῦ . .. καὶ σκηνώσε. 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
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. eet ;
the Aramaic rather than to the Versions. Theod. has ἐθεώρουν καὶ
TO κέρας ἐκεῖνο ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ TOV ἁγίων Kal ἴσχυσεν πρὸς αὐτούς.
LXX has πόλεμον συνιστάμενον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ τροπούμενον
αὐτούς. Νικῆσαι is our author’s own rendering here: cf. ΧΙ. 11,
XVii. 14, etc., and ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετά is found in Xi. 7, xii. 17, ΧΙΧ.
1g, and is a literal rendering of the Aramaic oy 2p NT2y. The
role of the little horn (2.6. Antiochus Epiphanes) in Daniel is here
taken by Nero vedivivus. ‘The persecution referred to is not the
first, 2.4. the Neronic, but in the future ; for it is to be world wide.
1 Enoch xlvi. 7 speaks of the rulers and kings “ casting
down the stars of heaven ” (z.e. the righteous) in dependence on
Dan. vill. 10.
ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλήν κτλ. See v. 9, note, on this favourite
enumeration of our author.
79, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία... ἀκουσάτω, like ver. 3,
looks like an insertion. By their removal we seem to recover
the original form of the verses xiii. 1-10. See Introd. to Chap.
xiii. § 8, p. 342 sqq. But the present form 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 rdle of Seer and passed over
into prophecy, or that he has translated nnnw™ in his original
source as if it were MAY 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 rod dpviov
τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου is generally regarded by critics as a scribal gloss,
but it appears to be from the hand of our author ; for, in the first
place, in xxi. 27 we find ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου, and, in the
next, the phrase in our vext forms a contrast to that in xili.3. The
VOL. lL—23 :
4 ae 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 ὧν... 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),
xxxil. 38; Deut. xii. 3; 1 Sam. xiv. 49 DW is used with reference
to a number. This Hebraism would explain the correction of
dv. . . 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 πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, and Matt. xxv. 34, ἡτοιμασ-
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. 1. 19, 20, ἐλυτρώθητε
: αἵματι ὡς Gpvov ... προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καΐαβολῆς
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 xxxvill. 4, pus “ID'2; LXX, ἐν
τῷ θεμελιοῦν με τὴν 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,
ΡΡ. 6, ἡ, 30, 59); ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ ᾿Αναλήψεως Μωυσέως aie
καὶ προεδεάσατό 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 il. 7.
10. εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν,
εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει"
εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι
ἡ αὐτὸν { ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι"
ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων.
10. The textual evidence is very divided, and allows of
three different forms of text.
1. The first, z.e. 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. xliii. rr and xv. 2, on one or other of
which it is based. The former is Ὁ lw» ἌΡΗ nye WN
an sind awe 12, while the LXX of Jer. XV. 2 gives ὅσοι
εἰς θάνατον, εἰς δ κι γον" καὶ ὅσοι εἰς μάχαιραν εἰς μάχαιραν"... καὶ
ὅσοι εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν. Ihave printed the text of A:
it is not Greek, but it is a literal rendering of a distinctively
Hebrew idiom: ie. of mis? 2ἼΠΞ NA Md INI wR. It might
be explained as a mistranslation of nyo? ana nya? NA We,
where the translator read mig? twice instead of nish, The αὐτόν
is corrupt for αὐτός. See xii. 7, note, where this idiom has already
occurred.
356 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN = [XIII. 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 6 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 5 before the inf. in this idiomatic sense was evidently a
matter of no little difficulty to the Greek translators, who repro-
duced it in many ways: 1. by a fut. ind. as in Ps. xlix. 15; Jer. li.
(xxviii.) 49 ; 2. once (?) by det, cum. inf. See 2 Sam. iv. 10, ᾧ ἔδει
με δοῦναι -- 5 ‘nnd wwe ; 3. by εἰ with the aor. ind., 2 Kings
xii. 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. 1x. 25, and in our text in xii. 7; 6. once
simply by the inf. Ps. xxxil. 9, ἐν χαλινῷ καὶ κημῷ . .-. ἄγξαι
(B sx) = ondad ... anon. 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 rod 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. τοῦρ: he is to abstain from
using the sword, xiii: 10%, 7f he would not perish by the sword.
But here the idea of the law of requital is introduced. Hence,
since according to this text τοῦ 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 (ze. 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
taltonis, 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 7 ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων Ἷ.
In our text this second Beast is identified with the False
Prophet: cf. xvi. 13, xix. 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, ze. 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 [XII 11.
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 Tidmat, 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:> 507), but in later
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. 11. 28 sqq.; Rev. xii, xvi.
13, xXx. 2 (δράκων); 1 Enoch lx. 7 sqq.; 4 Ezra vi. 49-52;
2 Bar. xxix. 4 (Behemoth and Leviathan); Dan. vii. (ΠΠ) ;
Rev. xiii., Xvi. 13, xVil., xIx. 19 sqq. (θηρίον). See Α΄. 4.7. 508.
κέρατα δύο ὅμοια dpviw. This phrase maybe illustrated by
Matt. vii. 15, προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασι προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἶσιν 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 δράκων 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 ΕΝ, which he takes to be a corrup-
tion of axMi—‘“‘and a form.” But the Hebrew equivalent of
λαλεῖν is not ox but 727. 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 137M) (2.6. καὶ ἐλάλει) might be corrupt (as
in 2 Chron. xxii. 10, where 127M is corrupt for 3aNn: cf.
2 Kings xi. 1) for 738m). The original would then have been ἼΣΑ 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” (1.6, 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 Χνὶ. 13, XIX. 20, XX. IO, 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 ὁ δράκων (cf. ix. 11).
12. καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώπιον
αὐτοῦ"
καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας
, , A
ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν τὸ θηρίον τὸ πρῶτον,
ba 2d > , ς Ν A > A
οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη ἢ 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. 10 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 (xill. 3) that is spoken of, but of the Beast |
itself.
Α A A φῳ ἈΝ A ~ > nA
13. kai ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ
rg 3 S a Fe a > ,
καταβαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
ἵνα has here the force of the classical ὥστε as in ix. 20: οἵ,
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 xiii. 22, ἐγερθήσονται. . . ψευδοπροφῆται
καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πρὸς TO ἀποπλανᾷν εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς
ἐκλεκτούς; 2 Thess. ii. 9, οὗ ἐστὶν ἡ παρουσίὰ κατ᾽ 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
xvili. 38. For diction cf. Luke ix. 54.
14. καὶ πλανᾷ ids κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ
ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ
NRE Nene reenact
360 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΙΠ]Ψ. 14-15.
τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς paxalpys
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. 33, Xe 5, 8,
IO.
The faithful received the mark of God on their foreheads,
vii. 4 544. (see note zz Joc.), 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. Io, and xiii., Introd. ὃ 4.
There is no real occasion here and in iv. 11, xii. rr 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
(1.6. 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 ἡ 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, 111. 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 Avfol. 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 xill. 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 Getstes und der Gerster, 9 56.
iva ὅσοι. - - ἀποκτανθῶσιν. As in 8 the writer passes over
into the future, so here in 15. There αὐ 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
‘‘duci jussi.” As regards the rest he writes: “ Qui negarent se
esse Christianos, aut fuisse, cum praeeunte me deos appellaxent,
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 χάταγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ
τὸ μέτωπον αὐτών.
362 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [Χ1Π1. 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.
ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα. On the impersonal plural cf. x. ΤΙ,
xii. 6, xvi. 15. For the phrase διδόναι χάραγμα cf. Ezek. (LXX)
ix. 4, δὸς σημεῖον (where, however, the Hebrew is ἸΏ 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 INYO oy 73nd. Ν
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-
Typia—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.’ ii. 485 ; Friedlander, Der Anti-
christ, 158 sq., 161).2 Hence the worshippers of the Beast
travesty (xiil. 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 xlil. 17, xiv. 11 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 oy on the hand, whereas in xx. 4 it is stated to be
on the brow avd 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 (7 DB 5y ww anyn Sy)
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 | bind the tephillin on my left
hand and about my head,” wa ὅν 12 p*S:pn ΝἼΘΡ NaN Ἢ, 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.”
ΧΤΙΙ. 17.] MARK OF THE BEAST 363
be worn over the brow and on the hands or rather forearms (y17}).
Thus the worshippers of the Beast, as Friedlander (of. cz¢. 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 fatthful, vit. 3 sqq., etc., and 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 ἵνα μή tes 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 ( &zb/¢cal Studies, 241 sq.) thinks that he
finds the clue in the seals (χαράγματα) 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 person. 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, Letters 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 ph . . ἀγοράσαι ἢ πωλῆσαι. For the
diction cf. τ Mace. xiii. 49, ot δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἄκρας ἐν ερουσαλὴμ
ἐκωλύοντο ἐκπορεύεσθαι εἰς τὴν χώραν καὶ ἀγοράζειν καὶ πωλεῖν.
ὁ ἔχων τὸ χάραγμα. Our author when writing independently
would probably say ὃ 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 Instituto, 1874, p. 90, one of which is φιλῶ ἧς
ἀριθμὸς φμε (cf. τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου) and the second ἀμέριμνος
ἐμνήσθη ἁρμονίας τῆς ἰδίας κ(υ)ρία(ς) ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ, ἧς ὃ ἀριθμὸς με (or
ade) τοῦ καλοῦ ὀνόματος (cf. τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ).
18, ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν & ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ
θηρίου, ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν᾽ καὶ 6 ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι
ἑξήκοντα ἕξ.
ὧϑε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν. With this expression Eichhorn compares
the cabbalistic phrase 837 NS ΠΣ 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 ὃ ἔχων νοῦν we
should compare Dan. i. 17 (LXX), τῷ Δανιὴλ ἔδωκε σύνεσιν ἐν
... ἐνυπνίοις καὶ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, v. 12 (Theod.), σύνεσις ἐν αὐτῷ
συγκρίνων ἐνύπνια καὶ ἀναγγέλλων κρατούμενα. Cf. v. 11, 14.
The word νοῦς is not found in the Versions of the canonical
Daniel, but σύνεσις (1.6. 12°32) has the same meaning. Thus in
Vili. 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 od vojrovow . . . ἄνομοι (A), xii. το. νοῦς or
σύνεσις (1.6. 713°2) 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 Wydicdrw . . . θηρίου
and ἀριθμὸς γὰρ. .. ἐστίν. Let us take the latter first. This
clause is susceptible of two meanings. 1. It has been proposed
by a number of scholars—Diisterdieck, Holtzmann, Gunkel,
' Clemen, Swete, etc., to take ἀριθμὸς ἀνθρώπου as meaning a
XII. 18.] _ ITS INTERPRETATION 365
human intelligible number, not a supernatural one. They!
compare xxi. 17, μέτρον ἀνθρώπου 6 ἐστιν ἀγγέλου. But whereas |
the statement in xxi. 17 is 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. |
C 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. cv. 17, ἀπέστειλεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν.
ἄνθρωπον (vas DMIBD new’), “He sent a man before them.” |
4 The evidence, therefore, of the words themselves is in favour of .
Ὗ
‘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 xiii. 1, 3,are subsequently in xiil. 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,!
i
'
᾿ 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.
f. 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 = ἅγιος = ἀγαθός, since the numerical
value of each is σπδ, Ζ.6. 284, that Παῦλος Ξε σοφία (Yra=781), κοσμᾶς Ξελύρα
(φλα ΞΞ 531), and from Berosus according to Alexander Polyhistor, Eusebii
Chronic., Liber I. (ed. Schoen, p. 14 sq.), ἄρχειν δὲ τούτων πάντων γυναῖκα 7
ὄνομα dudpwxa (read ὁμόρκα) εἶναι δὲ τοῦτο χαλδαϊστὶ μὲν θαλάτθ, “Ἑλληνιστὶ
δὲ μεθερμηνεύεται θάλασσα, κατὰ δὲ ἰσόψηφον σελήνη. ὁμόρκα (an Aramaic
word =Nprx-ox, ‘‘ mother of the depth ”) as σελήνη: 301.
Like isopsephisms have been discovered by the Rabbis in the O.T.
Thus under πο x2’ in Gen. xlix. 10 mwp (Messiah) is found, because both
expressions = 358. Similarly ΠῚ (‘‘ Comforter”) was found to be designed
in πον (‘* 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 Jewish 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
— in Irenzeus, and ἡ λατινὴ βασιλεία --666, ἡ ἰταλὴ βασιλείατε 16 of
lemen,
366 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΠ1Π11. 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
I. T= 200 v==50 «=
3 5 5 TELTAV
T= 300 t=10 a=I
The clue that the answer must be “the name of a man”
suggested the ending -os or -as.
Il. T = 300 v=50 e= 5 Se
ὃ = 200 t=10 =
A+0=100
III. στε 200 v=50 e=5
v= 400 | 6+a=10 a=TI εὐανθας
(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 (apud Swete?, p. 176), and find
it gives at once
go = 200 o=70 7n=8
o = 200 t= 10 Ἰησοῦς
v= 4οο
“Tt then occurred to me to see if anything in the Apocalypse
suggested this restriction, and I thought it might be contained in
Wyndurdrw—literally to calcu/ate 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
Πρ 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
Ϊ
᾿
i
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 (Wotes on N.T. 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, ze.
Domitian. Abbott (οὐ. cit. 83, note) points out that the Talmud
transliterated turos by DID.
But this solution will not do. The references to ‘the man”
in ΧΙ]. 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 1D‘p is
the proper spelling, but according to Jastrow’s Zalmudic Lexicon
“pp also is found. Besides καισάρεια is transliterated by } pp
as well as by δ». The defective form Dp 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
ΧΙ]. I, 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
Balt ate D=60 1=6
1 =200
Ῥ =I100
600 60 6
1 Trenaeus (v. 28. 2) says with regard to 666: In recapitulationem universze
apostasiae ejus quz 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, Hastings’
D.&B. iv. 258; Vischer, Ζ. f. NT7liche Wassensch. 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 i not yet clear.
Oa στ το στ τ
368 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [XIV. 12-18.
I am not sure that this was intended; for among the many
varieties of Gematria given in the Jewish Encyc. 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
xiii. 10 comes in most aptly after xiii. 10% 2. At the close of
ΧΙ, τὸ 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 ἡ 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...
ot 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. 10. On ὑπομονή cf. i. 9,
ii. 2, 3, 19, 1]. 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.
1 Οὗ the great number of suggestions which have been offered a few
deserve to be mentioned. In Greek T'dios xaioap=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 op 10°p= 666,
and Ewald on 70‘p=616. All these are under certain conditions possible,
but not so Gunkel’s proposal a’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 τὰς 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, το, Xxil. 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 i. 3, ili. 3 is analogous. We might further observe that
ἐντολή is a favourite Johannine word, occurring 27 times in the
Gospel and Epp. and 37 in the rest of the N.T. πίστιν Ἰησοῦ,
7.6. the faith which has Jesus for its object: cf. ii, 13, τὴν
πίστιν pov: Mark xi. 22, πίστιν θεοῦ: Rom. iii. 22; Gal. 11. 16,
he 42> [49..Ὁ 1.
18. 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 blessediiess of the martyrs will not be fully consummated till
the entire body of the righteous is fulfilled.
VOL, 1.—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. r1-21 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 ot νεκροὶ ot ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι. With
οἱ ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες cf. τ Cor. xv. 18, ot 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.
val, λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα. On this clause cf. il, 7, 11, 17, 29,
ili. 6, etc., xxii. 17. For vai cf. i. 7 (note), xvi. 7, XXll. 20.
ἵνα ἀναπαήσονται κτλ. Cf. vi. 11. The ἵνα 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 ἐκ 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” (= and 5p (?): cf. Pirke Aboth vi. 9). In
xiv. 4, 9, XiX. 14, ἀκολουθεῖν 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 τὰ 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.E. iv. 219, xviii. 47 note, 49 note, 54, 117 note, 150, Xxiil.
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.A.Z. v. 241
Sq., XViii. 232 note, xxiii. 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.2 279-284.
But not only are the works weighed: they have been stored
up in heaven in advance, and preserved by God, 1 Enoch
XXXVili. 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
vii. 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 κυρίῳγ. Cf. Matt.
vi. IQ, 20.
But none of these passages conveys exactly the idea of our
text (τὰ γὰρ 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 nassages, the thought conveyed is different.
Let us, therefore, return to our text, and restudy it in the
272 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN [ΧΊΨΡ. 18.
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,
ili. 9), 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 ts already redeemed tn 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 11. 2, οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ τὸν κόπον Kal τὴν ὑπομονήν cov.
Here the omission of cov 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 Kal τὴν
ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν καὶ THY διακονίαν Kal THY ὑπομονήν σου Kal
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 iil. 2, od 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, 111. 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 are 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,
ΙΧ. 3, 4, X. 25, xiv. το, 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. vil. 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. 1. 11, etc. 3
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 τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. This award (in some sense
external) is spoken of as a recompense or wage, or reward in
XXll. 12.
> , 8 Ud
ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ,
Ν 3 A
καὶ ὁ μισθός pou pet 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. 184sqq.): 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 ili. 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,” z.e. 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
Published by
ἘΦ Τὶ GLARK, oa iden
DR. JAMES HASTINGS’
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
RELIGION AND ETHICS
The purpose of this Encyclopzdia is to give a complete.
account of Religion and Ethics so far as they are known. It
contains articles on every separate religious belief and practice,
and on every ethical or philosophical idea and custom. Persons
and places that have contributed to the history of religion and
morals are also described. Subjects of social and economic
interest are all treated in separate articles, each article being
full enough to give the reader a workable acquaintance with the
subject.
This great work appeals to every man and woman who has
any interest in the history of human progress, or in the present
moral or spiritual well-being of mankind.
‘*Dr. Hastings and the publishers are to be congratulated on the steady
progress of their great Encyclopedia, and the uniformly high character it
maintains, Everything is written with skill by men well qualified for the
work assigned to them.”—Times.
TO BE COMPLETED IN TWELVE VOLUMES.
Present price per volume—In cloth binding, 35/- net;
and in half-morocco, 45/- net.
‘‘The editor has risen to the height of his great undertaking. The
work deserves the fullest and best encouragement which the world of readers
and investigators can give it.”—Athenzum.
tlaloa
Published by
ΤΟ T. CLARK, srtecy
9 and London
With Maps, Illustrations, and full Indexes.
DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE
Dealing with its Language, Literature, and
Contents, including the Biblical Theology.
EDITED BY JAMES HASTINGS, D.D.
** The standard authority for Biblical students of the present generation.”
Times.
“ΤῊ best work of its kind which exists in English.” —Guardian.
**Far away in advance of any other Bible Dictionary that has ever been
published.”—Methodist Recorder.
IN FIVE VOLUMES. Price per Volume—In cloth
binding, 26/- net; and in various half-morocco
bindings from 40/- net per volume.
In one large Crown 4to volume (1040 pages).
A CONCORDANCE TO
THE GREEK TESTAMENT
According to the Texts of Westcott and Hort,
Tischendorf, and the English Revisers.
EDITED BY W. F. MOULTON, D.D., AND
Ao SS. GEDEN, D.D;
‘*There can be no question that this work is destined to be the standard
Concordance to the Greek Testament for another generation at least, and
probably longer, and no divinity student’s library will be complete without
it.’—Church Times.
‘For all English students of the Greek Testament this great work is
indispensable.”—British Weekly.
SECOND EDITION, REVISED THROUGHOUT.
In cloth binding, 30/- net ; half-morocco (on application).
es
- ae
ie ὝΠΟ
ἐτῶν ard
᾿
Soke
ate
Ἔν
ἢ
sara
ane Ἐν ον
Si re.
Chita rast
cas
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
p Doan
a oe
BAA 944;
Foy
ad
Ψ
(ἢ
Hie,
: Sy "τ΄ Lars Ee
Jes τ - ΚΣ ww τοὶ re
tas RHI
SAR ΩΣ
- one -
τ > δ Σὰν 2 =
2.
ΞΞΞΣ ΣΙ ΤΣΤΕ
od Peepers
ae
φ'
eg δὰ ΘΑ ΣΝ
ogee
ee ee
ἧς