# Encyclopaedia Biblica/Antichrist-Apocalypse

 Encyclopaedia Biblica/Alcimus-Amorites Alcimus-Amorites
 see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

## ANTICHRIST

(antixPICTOC [Ti. WH]). History


1 History "^ ^^"^ Question.- Researches into Earlv Per^d ^'^ meaning of ' Antichrist ' have

' ' always started from the exegesis of

I'or oilier ex.imples see Unicorn, note.

2 Cp. Liicke, /.//. in d. OJTfnb. Jolt. 35-) ff. \ Bornemann, ' Die Thessalonicherbriefe ' in Aleyer's Handbuch ^oojff'.

l'-2 .77

3 Thess. 2 1-I3 and certain jxissages in the Apocalypse (chap. 13).

The first period of the history of the discussion em- braces the Greek and I^atin ecclesiastical writers down to the l>eginning of the Middle Ages. Within this }x.'riod the tradition is unusually stable. The Antichrist is taken to l)e a manifestation which is to be made at the end of time a definite personality, as to whose origin, career, and end, perfectly definite and tradition- ally fixed views are set forth, which rest but partially on the NT. This exegetical tradition, the importance of which is greatly undervalued by recent commentators such as Hornemann, is, for reasons which w ill afterwards apjjcar, of the utmost value. To say that the naive dogmatic lx;lief of the church-fathers in ' the truth of this eschatological phant.isy dow n to its least detail ' was absolute does not in any way disprove the correct- ness of their e.xegesis.

Of the two methods that came into vogue during the Middle Ages the ecclesiastico-political method with jx)lemical purpose (since Joachim of Floris, .afterwards in chief favour with Protestant scholars, especially in the form hostile to papal claims) and the universal- historical (perhaps, since Nicolas de Lyra) neither advanced the cjuestion in the le.ast.

The beginnings of a truly scientific maimer of looking

at these as well ,as at other eschatological traditions

_ TUT. J were made by certain .Spanish and l-Vench

2. Modem. , .. . .u .. , ,

Jesuits, who threw themselves mto the

polemic against Protestant attacks with great learning and acumen. Their first step was to revert to the tradition of the church fathers, which they endxxiied in extensive works. ' Thus the futurist method w.as restored to its ascendency.

This method maintained its ground, until quite recently, among all scientific interpreters of the apologetic scIkxiI. There is one point, however, in which the exegesis of the moderns as, for example, Hofman (Si/iri/t/h-itvis) and Luthardt {Ou- l.ihrc von den letzten Dingen) ami ahiiost tlie whole boily of Kiiglish writers on the sulyect falls far l>elow that of the church fathers: the concrete eschatological figures are more or less spiritualised. Thus, Antichrist becomes an impersonal general tendency; the 'temple '(2 'I'liess. 24) is interpreted as meaning Christendom ; and the Ka.f(\usv, as law and order.

It is in the work of Ludovicus Alcas.ar {I'estigatio arcani sensus in Apocal. , Antwerp, 161 4) that we find the earliest indications of a thoroughly scientilic, historical, and critical handling of this ciuestion. The labours and the method of the Jesuit scholars, however, were afti-r- wards made available for the Protestant Church by Hugo GroUus {A nnotiit/ones, Paris, 1644), who in the treatment of Antichrist may l)e regarded as the founder of the 'historical' or ' preterist ' method. He interpreted 2 Thess. 2i-i2, point by point, as referring to the occurrences of the reign of Caligula. In this method he was followed by Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, and Harduin ; and, since Kern ( Ti/b. Z. f. Theol. , 1833. i. ), the preterist interpretation of the Antichrist has lx.'come almost univers.al, but as referring to Nero redivivus (so F. C. B.aur, Theol. Jahrbb., 1855 ; Holtzmann, in BL ; Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1862, 1866; H.ausrath ; and many others, including Renan, L Antichrist. 1876). Follow- ing an example partly given by Kl6pjx;r, however, Spitta {Zum Gesch. u. Lilt, iles I'nhristenthums \oc) ff.) h.as again sought the explanation of the prcnlic- tions reg.arding Antichrist in the circumstances of the reign of Caligula.

Abandoning this (on the whole, mistaken) line, a few- scholars have sought an interpretation of Antichiist in a

_ ^. . Jewish tradition dating farther Ixick than

^ ^ ' the Christian era and not resting on any historical events.

Among these scholars may l>e named Reiche, I)e Welte, Lilne- mann, and Horneinann (in their respective commentaries) and Kahler (in /'A'A*). Ewald's observations in Jahrb. /. bibl. Il'iss., 1851, p. 250, and i860, p. 241, are of special interest:

1 Malvenda's De Aniichrisfo (Lvons, 1647) being perhaps the fullest. The commentaries of Rilwira (Salamanca. 1591) and Ulasius Yiegas (Ebora, 1601) were specially inlluential.

### 4. NT.

for the first time he combined 2 Thess. 2 with Mt. 24is^ and Rev. 11 "iff., and thus the problem ceased to be one of exegesis merely. The best work in this direction has been that of Schncckenburger (see HOhmen's survey of his writings in /(i//-^. f. (ieutsche 'I keol., 1859), who endeavoured systematically (as the only true method) to ascertain the kindred Jewish tradition that lay at the basis of the NTpassages. (Prelimmary researches in the same sense had been contributeil by Corrodi, Krit. Gcsch. des Cliiliasmus 1781^ ; Hertholdt, Christol. Juti., 1811, 16; and GfrOrer, JahrhuiuUrt des Heils ii^d ff. ^o^ ff- 436.) Schnerkenburger also brought Mt. 24 Rev. 11 ami jn. 643 into the field of his survey, and his view may be said on the whole to have stood the test of time.l

Still more recently Bousset {Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judenthttms, dcs NT. u. der Alien Kirche, 1895), following up the suggestions of Gunkel's Schopfung 71. Chaos (1895), and the method then for the first time securely laid down, has souglu to supplement these investigations in two directions: (i) by a com- prehensive induction based on all the eschatological portions of the NT that belong to the same circle of idciis, and the careful exclusion of all that do not so belong; and (2) by an attempt at a comprehensive and complete presentation of the tradition (which comes before us in the NT only in a fragmentary way) as it is to l)c met with in the Jewish sources, and, still more, in the later Christian exegetical and apocalyptic tradition. This tradition is in great measure quite independent of the NT, and in all probabilitj' dates, as far as its sources are concerned, from pre-Christian times.

The NT Tradition. The name avrLxpiffroi occurs in the NT only in the Johannine l-^[)istlcs ( i Jn. 2 18 22 : 43: 2 Jn. 7), and thus in all probability its formation belongs to the late NT period. For an answer to the question who or what is meant by the name, it is best to start from tlie well- known (probably Pauline) passage in 2 Thess. 2i-i2, where we read that before the end of all things the man of sin, or, rather, of lawlessness (6 AvOpcoiros rijs duo/uLias), the lawless one (6 ivofws), the son of perdition (6 vibs rrjs djrwXeias), nmst be revealed. This ' man of sin,' it is clear, is to make his appearance as a false Messiah an observation which, from the outset, precludes us from referring the expression to any foreign potentate such as Caligula or Nero. He is sent to ' them that are perishing' (namely the Jews), because they received not the love of the truth (the true Messiah). He does not employ any outward force, but accomplishes his work by means of false signs and lying wonders (cp the tradition of the Church fathers, as continued by De Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger, B. Weiss, Lunemann, Bornemann). He will make his appearance in Jeru- salem. In this account of the Antichrist the specially perplexing assertions are that he is to seat himself in the temple of God and that he is to declare himself to be God. This last act, at any rate, does not belong to the ro/e of a ftilse Messiah. It is also doubtful who or what ought to be understood by 6 Karix'^", rb Kar^x^"- ^^'^ power that stands in the way of the manifestation of .Antichrist. If once a reference in the passage to a Jewish false Messiah be accepted, the mystery of iniquity (lawlessness : rb /jlvctt. rrji dvofxias) will most probably mean the cruelty which the Jews as a whole had begun to show towards the Christians (same authorities as above). At this point we obtain a clear light ufKjn Rev. 11. The perplexing fact that there the beast rises out of the deep and makes its appearance in Jerusalem (a view of the passage that appears certain not only from 11 8, but also from the connection of 11 12 with 11 3 as against the other inter- pretations referring it to Rome) is explained by 2 Thess. 2. The beast that rises out of the deep and appears in

1 This applies also to the first part of the Apocalyptische Studien of B. Weiss, 1869.

3 a Thes.s. 24 does not at all fit in with Spitta's interpretation of the pa.ssage as referring to Caligula's proposal to set up a statue of himself in Jerusalem.

CpJn.643.

If we now survey these eschatological fragments as a whole, two conjectures immediately force themselves on

### 5. Results.

"'= <'! *^^' all' these eschatological ph.antasies were not independently con- ceived by the various authors from whom we derive them ; ^ that, on the contrar)-, the authors are mostly reproducing a tradition which already lay before them ; and (2) that it is a single consistent tradition that underlies all these (partly coincident, partly com- plementary) fragments. If the second conjecture be true, we may venture to think that the tradition in question has not been lost beyond all possibility of recovery. In point of fact, our very first glance at later Christian apocalyptic literature satisfies us that this literature rests upon a tradition which is but partially dependent on the NT.

The Tradition 0/ the Early Church regarding Antichrist.

Sources."^ The tradition becomes tangible as soon as we have a Christian literature copious enough. The

### 6. Early Church

tradition. '" '^e Teaching of the 'Twelr'e Apostles

(chap. Hi). Irenacus (Ad7'. haer. 5 25-3o)also presents himself in this connection. Special importance, how- ever, among the earlier witnesses, attaches to Hippolytus's airojeift; ittpX toC ai'TixPiVrov, the Cantten A/>ologeticum of Commodian, I.actantiuss Inst. Div.l \^ ff. (Commodian and Lactantius have a place of their own in the tradition), and the Commentary on the Apocalypse of Victorinus. A further group of writings ascribed to an ecclesiastical writer of very- great influence, Ephraim Syrus, must be mentioned. Under his name are current three Homilies on the .Antichrist : (i) One in Syriac (De L.imy, 3187^, all of it genuine with the exception of a few chapters); (2) one in Greek (.Assemani, 2222-30 3 134-143), perh.-ips genuine ; and (<) one in Latin (Caspari, ut sup. ic&jf.). The historical event from which all these prophecies start is the

1 See the detailed argument for the impossibility of this in Gunkel, SchSpf. u. Chaos.

^ .See .Malvenda, De Ant/chri>to{i6^j): Ebert, 'On Com- modian's " Carmen Apologeticum " ' in Arh. d. kdn. Sachs. Ges. d. Wissensch.h-),iT ff,\ Caspari, Brie/e und Abhandlun^en ('90) 2oZff. 429_^ and, for the Liter period, Zezschwitz, / om rSmischen Kaiserthum deutscher Nation, 1877 ; Gutschmid, Kleine Schri/tenhy>%ff. : W. Meyer, Ludus de Antichristo,

beginning of the great barturian migrations, the invasion of the eastward regions of the Kninan Kmpire hy the Huns (Gog and MiiKog). Allied in character to the foregoing are

Cyril's Catechesis (xv), the psctido-Johannine Apocalypse ('lisch. AfHX. afocr.), and the Commenlary on the Apocalypse by Andrew of Cxsiirca. Dependent on Kphraim's (ircck homily are the irrpi njt <rurr<Aia toO Koaiiou (cd. Lagarde) of the pscudo- Hippoljlus, and the Dioptra of I'hilip Solitariu:t {^\off.; Migne, /'. (,>. 127). This whole moss of tradition is exceedingly valuable on account of its archaic oriental ch;tractcr. Of the older church fathers, Jerome also {AJ Algasiaui, Quaist. xi. ; / Danieltm vii. and xi.) and Thcodoret {ffieret. /al>. 623), but not Augustine, and, of the later, John Damascenus (itern 427) claim special attention.

As, in the uniform view of these apocalyptic interpreters, the advent of the Antichrist is after the downfall of Rome, one might reckon almost with certainty on finding evidence of the currency of the tradition about the time of that downfall. Such evidence we actually possess in the primary document which was the com- mon source of both the so-cillcd Apocalypses of Daniel, the Greek (ed. Klostermann, Analtrta), ancl the .Armenian (cli. Kalemkiar, H'ivm-r /.. ti 1277; \ cp Zahn, Forschungcn 5 119^^). Atjain,

at the time of the Slohamniedan conquests a new rallying-point was given for this eschatolojjical tradition, as we see in the apoca- lypse of the pseudo-.\Iethodius(7th century, OrthoiioxografhaK-), Basel, 1569), closely connected with which is the later .Apocalypse of Peter, now extant in Syriac, .\rabic, and llthiopic redactions (Hratke, ZIVT, 1892), and also a series of late Byzantine (V'assiliev, Aneciioia Gra-co- liyzantina i, Moscow, 1893), and late Jewish apocalypses (Jellinek, lict-ha-Muirash; cp Bousset, i^ff. iT\Jf.'). This l)ody of tradition reached the west through a compilation (/V Antichristo) by the monk -Adso (Migne, /'. Lat. 101 1291^.), b:ised on the l>ook of Methodius and on a .Sibylline book, which last is to be found also (in a red.icted form) in the works of Heda (.Migne, 90 1183) and dates perhaps from the fourth century. Lastly, an isolated and very archaistic source is to be found also in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (Stern, ZA, xS86).

7 He ' who ^iij"'"ecl is a brief summary of this letteth ' tradition as it occurs, almost uniformly,

in the sources that have Ijeen named. ^ In the first place, the universally prevalent conviction is that the (toTe'xioi' (2 Thess. 27) is the Roman empire. This, we may be sure, was the view of Paul also : if he expected a Jewish false Messiah, then the one power left which could ' hinder ' was the Roman empire (cp on this point 4 Esd. 4t_^.). The political rrf/f- played by this idea in the history of Christianity may be seen in Tertullian (A/'o/. 32, ad Sca/>. 2) and Lactantius {/nst. div. 7 25). Of equally universal prevalence is the

conception of .\ntichrist, not as a Roman or

8. Antichrist, foreign ruler, but as a false Messiah, who is to arise among the Jews themselves in Jerusalem. .Almost universally (with the exceiitions to be after- wards mentioned) it is predicted that he is to c-.t.ililish himself in the temple and lay claim to Messianic (.md, so f;ir. (li\ine) honours. (Sometimes, as in Ascens.Jes.ib, Vici. in A/oc. 13 13, and in the Ethiopic Ajjocalypse of Peter, we read that he will set up his statue in the temple doubtless a reminiscence of the Caligula episode.) After the destruction of Jerusalem, accordingly, the expectation that the Antichrist will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem becomes univers.-il. He will show special frivour to the Jews, will receive circumcision himself, and will compel others to do so. He will arise from the tribe of Dan (t/.v., g 9 ; Jewish ha^gada is at the root of this [cp Tcs/atn. Dan s/. : also the omission of Dan in Rev. 7 5 ^, as to which see Iren. v. 30 2, perhaps also even i Ch.(i6i (46l(see.SV;<)r)69l54] 7 12) ; see Schneckenburger-Hiihmer, 412). If, bearing all this in niind, we once more turn to 2 Thess. -J 97?: Jn.543 Rev. 11 3^, it jmmetliately becomes plain that any ' historical ' or preterist interpretation of the .Antichrist is out of the question. On the basis of a hagg.-jdic view of Dan. 11 43 78, there came into the tradition this further element, that the .Antichrist, at his first appearing, is to comiuer the kings of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Libya. Another invariable element of the tradition under consideration is the enumeration of the miracles to be wrought by the .Antichrist, particularly celestial signs (Rev. 13 iiyi), and miracles of healing (although that of raising the dead is Iwyond his reach). Hereupon the .Antichrist will achieve the dominion of the whole world, and gather round himself to his capital all peoplesand vast armies(4 Esd. 13 iJT. Apoc. Bar. 40 Rev. 1 1 9^.). _ Next, a great drought and famine will come upon

9. Conflict, the whole earth (differently and less clearly put in Rev. 11 6), and in these straits the Antichrist will order his servants (spoken of also as demons) to mark men with his mark (according to the Latin Homily of the pseudo-Ephraim, a serpent mark), so that only those who bear it shall be permitted to buy bread (Rev. 13 \6/.). Against the .Antichrist come forward the two witnesses (almost unanimously taken to be Elijah and Enoch), who disclose his real character, .so that many turn away from him (otherwise, and very obscure, what we read in Rev. 11 3^). It is noteworthy that in many sources there is no inention of the resurrection of the two witnesses doubtless an incident introduced for the first time by the author of Rev. n. At the preaching of the witnesse* a coniiderabl company of Israel are converted and l^c^in the opposition to the Antichrist O^rhaps Rom. 9 20 is to be interpreted in thi.* con- nection). The 144,000 who are scaled in Rev. 1 $ff. certainly have their explanation here. The faithful now l>ctake thcm- .selves to the wilderness or to the mountains (.Mt. 24 16^.) ; but the rlays of Antichrist's reign of terror shall be shortened. The years shall Iwcume months, the months days, the days hour* (Mt. 24 22). Then the .Antichrist will send his armies in pursuit of the faithful who have fled into the wilderness ; but there they shall l; delivered by the angel.s of (lod or by the Mcvsiah (Rev. 1213^.), and the army of^ the Antichrist destroyed (cp the mysterious angelic battle outside the city, in Rev. 14 14^., and, in connection with this, the appearance of the lamb with the , T X i c '44.000 in Rev. 16 1 J^.). The Antichrist is 10. Defeat of finally slain, according to authorities, by the Antichrist. Messiah, with the breath of his mouth (Is. 11 4 2 Thevs. 2 B^the same statement is found in late Jewi.sh .sources, such as Targ. Jon. on Is. 1 1 4 and others). Perhaps .in older tradition may be traced in the view that the archangel Michael is to be the conqueror of the Antichrist (Dan. 12 I Rev. 126, Ass. Mas. 10). Now is seen a mighty sign in hea\x-n (Mt. 2430) the sign of the Son of Man interpreted _ by_ later writers (cp alreaily />/>/. 16 6, inuitlov iKitfTaroot iv ovpavio) as referring to the Cross, but originally, we may be sure, betokening the Divine Judge of the world (Housset, 154). Then follows the coming of the Divine Messiah to judg- ment, amid mighty convulsions of nature (Wi.Hii) /. Rev. 6i2 7f".). From the four corners of heaven desolating storms burst upon earth ami cleanse it (Rev. 7i z^^), and before the divine advent descends a tempest of fire, whicli burns the earth down to its depths, and dries up the sea and the rivers (Rev. 21 i). At the very first gLince it is plain that, in this tradition, we are dealing not with an artificial exegetical mosaic of the various passagesof the New Testament (and the Old) 11. Coherence which here come into account, but with an of tradition, original l)ody of tradition, organically and inherently consistent ; and that the separate escbatological fragments of this tradition in the NT become intelligible only when they are brought into their organic place in the scheme of the tradition as a whole, so that their essential consistency becomes m.inifest. Origin of the Tradition. Naturally we turn, in the first instance, to the eschatological ideas of the O'l". Schneckenburger will have it that the idea of the Antichrist comes from the prophecies concerning Gog and Magog 1 For the references in detail see Bousset, Der Antichrist, Gott. 1895. t8z ### 12. OT eschatology. in Kzck. (38/.). That in every form of the tradition the prophecy concerning Gog and Magog occurs in close connection with the story of the Antichrist is indeed true to the extent that they are made to a])iK'ar, sometimes after (Rev. 2O7/. ), and sometimes Ix-fore, the time of his rule. Positive identification of (Jog with Antichrist, however, does not occur till the seventh century, and even then only in Jewish sources. Many of the details of the traditions can be traced, as has tieen already said, to Jewish haggada. In this particular point Dan. 7 11/ is approximated to most nearly; but even here there is a marked difference, and the originality of the view outlined above is conspicuous. In Daniel the disturber is a foreign power ; but here the seducer, who personates God or simulates the Messiah, rises up from amid the people of (jod. Thus there has lx;en an important development since Daniel. Perhaps, as was suggestt?d in conversation to the present writer by Prof. Smend, the historical occasion for this advance was supplied by the experiences of Israel under the Maccal>ees and the Herods. In any case, we RT 1 tiutst note a parallel in Jewish .Apocalyptic. That ideas allied to those in our tradition were active among the Jews al>out the time of Christ is shown by 4 I^sd. biff. (56 ; regnabit quern non sperant), Apoi. liar. 36-40, Sibyll. ^63 ff. (2167^), Test. Dun 5. Ass. Mas. 9,ff., and the (probably Jewish) nucleus oiAsc. Jfs. (323-413). Now, in this tradition, the constantly recurring name of the great enemy of the last times a name already known to the apostle l^ul (2 Cor. 615) is Belial (Beliar). Rut, according to many passages of the Testaments, Belial is a spirit of the air, ruler of the evil spirits. According to Test. Dan ft. the Messiah will fight against him in the last days. The supporters of Belial are the children of Dan. In Sib. 863 ff. (probably dating from the time of Cleopatra). Belial is already presented in an aspect closely resembling that of Antichrist (still more so in the Ascensio, which, how- I ever, has unquestionably undergone Christian revision). ! In the Ascensio the angel Samtnael interchanges parts with Belial, and Sammael figures also in later Jewish j tradition as the enemy of the last times' (on the origin ' of Belial, and on the various developments of meaning, { see Bkmal). Suggestions of the same idea occur in ' Lk. IO18 Jn. 1231 (Col. 215). Here we would seem to have an aspect of the tradition that, in point of time and contents, comes a great deal nearer that of Antichrist (2 Cor. 615: 'and what concord hath Christ with lieliar?'), which is not of historical but of purely eschatological origin : the idea of a rebellion of an angelic power against God at the end of time. Perhaps it is out of this figure behind which in turn stands the wilder figure of the dragon rising in relx,'llion against (Jod in the last times, which Gunkel conjectures to have its origin in the Babylonian creation-myth (see Cke.vtion, 2/. ) that, under the ex- periences of the Maccabean period, the humanised figure of a pseudo- Messiah came into existence. In this way we can explain also the superhuman traits in the picture, such as his declaring himself to be God (2rhess. 24), and his sitting in the temple of God (cp the myth of the storming of heaven by the dragon in Rev. 12 1^). These conjectures find further confirmation in the fact that, in later tradition, the ghostly-demonic element in the portrayal of Antichrist comes again more con- spicuously to the front, and the Antichrist is even represented .as a dragon who rebels against God (cp the writings of I*2phraim Syrus, and Apoc. Zeph. ). Points of Contact with other Traditions. One legend that comes into relation with that of Antichrist ### 14. Dragon. ### 16. Nero redivivus. in many ways is that of Nero redivivus. Not that the figure of Antichrist had its beginning in the story of Nero. Originally both legends had currency side by side. It was only after Nero's return at the head of the Parthians (at first conceived of in a purely human way cj) the nucleus of Rev. 17) had become indefinitely delayed, and after men had liegun to expect the returning Nero only as a spirit from the under-world, that they gradually transferred to him some traits lielonging to the Antichrist- (cp Sib. ^61 ff. , where, in like manner, Belial is interpreted to mean one of the Cnesars ; see Ai'oc ai.vitic, 95). Such an amalgamation of the two figures is already met with in Rev. 13 and 17 (in their present form). The old form of .Antichrist, however, retains such vitality that in the end (Rev. 13 n^^) it appears as a second beast, servant of the first and on the same scene. A similar and (as far as its occasion is concerned) still more manifest doubling of .\ntichrist is seen in Com- modian's Carmen Apoloi^eticiim, in Lactantius (as above), in Martin (see Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 2n), and in the ^i^Xiov K\riiJ.VTOi (Lagarde, Reliq. juris eccl. Zoff.). There is a complete fusion in the Ascensio Jesaiir, and in the commentary on the Apocalypse of Victorinus. This complicated figure of Nero redivivus took special hold on the Sibylline literature of the second century,^ and here again, in the delineation of this, we meet once more with the old features of the dragon myth. A fusion between the Antichrist tradition and the Simon Magus legend has already been observed by Schneckenburger, and tr.aced in a variety of points by the present writer. The same tradition comes into fusion w ith the later .Alexander legend and the old German saga of the end of the world (Muspilli, EJda). On this and other connected subjects see Houssct, /)fr .,4/;- christ, in the English translation of which (1896) special atten- tion has been bestowed on the index (see, e.g., 'Simon Magus,' 'Alexander'). See also K. VVadstein, 'i)ie eschatologische Ideengruppe; Antichrist, Weltsabbath, Weltende und Welt- eesicht in ihrer christlichmittelalterlichen Gesammtentwicke- lung,' ZiVT, 1895 and 1896. On the Armenian form of the t V.X^jtnmcn^cr, Kfttdecktes /ttdentum 1 70^; cp .^sc. /es. 7 g. > This has been already remarked by Schneckenburger. ' Cp Zahn, ' Apocal. Studien ' in Z.y. kirchl. Ltben u. IVtss. Antichrist-Iegena see Conybcare, Acnd., 26th October 1895 ; and on a singular Mohammedan tradition see Lvdda at end. w. B. ## ANTILIBANUS (antiAiBanoc [BA], om. ). Judith 1 7. See Lkh.V.NO.N. ## ANTIMONY (11-1S), Is. 54.. RV mg.. F:V 'fair colours.' See P.MNT. ## ANTIOCH (ANTioxeiA [Ti. WH]). i. in Pisidia ; more correctly, ' .\ntioch towards Pisidia' ('Aj'ri6xeta T) irpbi lliffidiqi), to distinguish it from the Antioch on the Me.ander (the form ' Pisidian Antioch,' 'AvTioxfia. 7) WiaiSia [Ti. WH], Actsl3i4, arose to distinguish it from the more famous .Antioch of Syria). It was really a Phrygian city ; but in NT times it was of course included within the Roman province Galatia. Stralx) (p. 577) accurately descrilx;s it as lying 'on a hill,' on the south side of the range now called Sultan Uagh, in Phrygia Parorea ; but it was not until 1833 that Arundell found its ruins at Yalobatch. The town was founded about 300 H.C. by the Seleucid kings, and the transportation of 2000 Jewish families to the fortresses of Lydia and Phrygia, as recorded by Josephus {Ant. xii. 3), must in part refer to Antioch. By Augustus it was made a Roman colony (6 B.C. ) ; hence its coins Ijear the legend Cajsarea. Antioch was adopted as the centre of military and civil administration in Southern Galatia, and from it rarliated the roads to the colonies designed to check the unruly highlanders of Pisidia and Isauria. As an element in the pacification of this district, the privileges of the Jews were confirmed by the Emperors, and Paul found a large Jewish colony in the city. The Romanisation of this part of Galatia was in especially active progress during the reign of Claudius, 41-54 .A. n. At the time of Paul's visit, therefore, Antioch was at the height of its importance. Besides its relations with Apamea (on the W. ) and with Iconium, Lystra, and east- ern Asia Minor, it must have had a commercial connection with the Pamphylian seaports, among them Attalia and Perga ; and Paul must have reached Antioch by following this southern trade-route, which probably ran through Adada [Kara Bavlo, Bavlo being the modern pro- nunciation of the apostle's name). There was a large body of Jewish proselytes in Antioch, many of them women of position through whom the Jews were able to influence the magistrates against the apostles (.Acts 13 so). The magistrates had summary jurisdiction over disturbers of the public peace, such as the apostles were alleged to be (cp v. 44, irao-a t) ttoXis avvrix&V- and z'. 45, Iddvres tous 6x^ovs) ; but the 'casting of them out of the borders' of the colony could not imply permanent banishment at any rate in the case of Paul, who was a Roman citizen. Accordingly we find the latter returning to Antioch from Derlx; (Acts 14 2.) and perhaps revisiting the city at least twice (.Acts 166 18 23, see Galati.\ ). If the trade of Antioch was concentrated in the hands of the Jews, we can the more easily under- stand Paul's first success here in Asia Minor : the new teaching did not conflict with any commercial interests of the gentile inhabitants, as it did at Ephesus and Philippi, while at the same time the Jewish proselytising had prepared the people for its reception. It is also not without significance that on the death of king Amyntas, some seventy years l)efore Paul's visit, the ancient worship of ' ^ien ' (MV 'AffKaio^. 'ApKoios Strabo, 'A<TKrjif6i coins) had been abolished, so that there was probably no gentile hierarchy in existence to oppose the apostles. Hence the effect of their preaching w.as more marked here than in any other case, except Corinth (Acts 134448/). .All the more strange is the sub- sequent unimportance of the South Galatian churches. 2. In Syria (i and 2 M.acc. AV Antiochia). This great city, the third metropolis of the Roman world, 1 Citv *^^ Queen of the Ivist {rj Ka\^ Athen. I75 ; ' oricntis apex pulcher), and the residence of the impsrial legate of Syria, survives in Antdkleh, a town of only 6000 inhabitants. It is situated at the point of junction of the ranges of Libanus and Taurus, on a fine site hard by the left bank of the Orontes, just where the river turns westwards to run lx;tween Mt. Pieria on the N. and Mt. Casium on the S. , to the sea 16 m. distant. A little higher up the river .Antigonia had Ixx-n built in 307 n.c. by Antigonus ; but seven years later Scleucus Nicator transferred its inhabitants to his new city of .Antioch. .Stralx)'s meagre account (p. 750) is the foundation of our topographical knowledge of the city. Like the district in which it lay, Antioch was a rerpdiroXti, an agglomeration of four parts. The first contained the population of Antigonia ; the second the bulk of the citizens. 'Ihe third part was the creation of SeleucusCallinlcus (246-226 B.C.), and the fourth, on Mt. Silpius, of Antiochus Epiphanes. Each part had its own wall ; but in addition, the whole vast area, larger than that of Rome, was surrounded by huge walls running over the mountains and across the ravines. From Nicator's time dates the well-known statue ' the Fortune ' (Twvi;) of Antioch, a work of the Sicyonian Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippus (Paus. vi. 2 7). The memory of it is preserved on the coins, and in a small marble statuette in the Vatican. The goildess, a graceful gentle figure, rests negligently on a rock ; while the river, a vigorous youth, seems to swnn out from under her feet. Seleucus Nicator also embellished Daphnf, (Aci^i/tj [V.\]), 5 m. distant from .Antioch, but reckoned a suburb. It was a spot musical with fountains ; its groves, crowded with temples, halls, and baths, were the seat of a cult of Apollo and Artemis. .\mong its artistic treasures was a statue of .Apollo Musagetes by the .Athenian Hryaxis. The precincts of Daphne were endowed with the right of asylum and naturally became the haunt of villany of runaway slaves, debtors, and cut-throats (Tac. Ann. 36o; Tiberius in 22 a.d. attempted to regulate this abuse in several cities) : if we may trust the story of Onixs in 2 M.-icc. 4 33, D.iphne 'flung awav the one rare chance of shelter- ing virtue.' The site is now called Bet el Ma, the ' house of Water.' It retains no traces of its former magnificence. From this suburb, which Roman wealth, Greek art, and Oriental licentiousness conspired to make unique even in the ICast, .Antioch took its distinguishing name i] iirl Aa<pvri. In itself the title bore no reference to the pleasure pursuits of the suburb as though insinu- ating that there the true life of the city was to be found : it was a genuine official title. .Accordingly we find it on coins (cp '.\i'tiox'<oi' tSiv iir\ KoAAipoT) ; Tiov iv tilvy&oviif ; toic jrpot tcS idpoi). Hence I'liny (//,V,'i 21 [18]) writes ' Antiochia Epiclaphnes.' Tacitus (Ann. 2 83) transliterates the Greek, and calls the suburb itself ' Epidaphna.' Holm has summed up in a striking sentence the historical position of .Antioch under the Seleucid kings. 2. Character -^J*^""^^ ^'^^ 'o the sea (avatrXovi ai't)r]ij.cp6i> Strabo, p. 751), it was yet no seaport ; on the borders of the desert, it was yet something more than a centre for the caravan trade Ixitween the East and the Wx-st. The city reflected the character of the kingdom of which it was the capital, a kingdom which itself also was neither a genuine naval nor a genuine land power. Antioch was a Greek city, just as the Seleucid kingdom was an attempt to impose upon the Orient the political ideas and forms of Hellas. Yet, in the capital as in the kingdom at large, there was no true Hellenism ; the commingling of Oriental and Western elements resulted in the jjerpetuation of the worst features of both races, and the moral worthlessness of the Syrian found in the brilliance and artistic tem- perament of the (ircek merely the means of concealing the crudities of his own life. The characteristic failing of the Greek also was e.\hibited on a great scale. .A third element, and that the one most important for biblical history, was provided by the Jews. The colony was in fact coeval with the city, for it dated from the time of Seleucus Nicator, who gave the lews the same privileges as he gave the (Greeks (Jos. .-///A .\ii. 3 1). > For this connection with the Syrian kings see i Mace. 11 42/ Herod completed the marble-paved street which we can 1 According to 2 Mace. 49 (cp also v. 19) Jason conferred on the people of Jerusalem the status of citizens of Antioch (Antiochians) on which see T/i. T 12 544 ('78). trace from the ' Gate of St. Paul ' to the modem town (Jos. An/, xvi. 53). Thus all the forms of the civilised life of the Empire found in Antioch some representative. In its agora, said Libanius, the customs of the world might \)K studied. In no city was pleasure more earnestly pursued. Daphnici mores were proverbial ; the Orontes was synonymous with suix.Tstition and depravity (Juv. Sat. 862). Yet it would ix; of value to discover to what extent the lower and middle orders of the [x)()uIation were really affected by the lu.\ury and abandon of which we hear so much ; that is after all but one side of the city's life, and there is a temptation to exaggerate it. There w;is little real intellectual life ; epigram and light prose were the most flourishing forms of literature. Cicero {Fro Arch. 3, 4) is exaggerating with his ' eruditissimis hominibus lilx-ralissimiscjue studiis ad- fluenti." Antioch is far less celebrated than Alexandria in the literature of the first and second centuries A. D. This intellectual attitude is a fact of some imjxjrtance, in its relation to the first Christian teaching. The mixture of Roman, CJreek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted .Antioch for the great part she playrd S.Christianity, l'!/^': ^>' '?>' ^ <^hristiamty. wiiiiBuiaiiiujr. J j^^ ^ijy ^^.^^ j^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j. ^^^ church. There, as elsewhere, Judaism prepared the ground for the seed of the word (cp Chrys. Horn. xxv. ). ' Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch," one of the first deacons (Acts 65), was only one of a ' vast nmltitude of Greeks ' w ho in that city were attracted to the Jewish doctrine and ritual (Jos. BJ \'\\. 83 ; cp Acts 11 19-21). The ancient and honourable status of the Jews in Antioch gave to the infant church a firm and confident organisation. Very early the city became a centre on a level with Jerusalem in importance (Acts 11 22 26-30 13 i). The cosmopolitanism of its inhabitants inevitably reacted upon the Christians in the way of familiarising them with universalist ideas, and Antioch conseciuently became the centre of mis- sionary labour. It was Paul's starting-point on his first journey with Barnabas (Acts 13 1-3), and thither he always returned with his report of work done ( Acts 1 4 26/ 1530 I822). It was at the instance of the church at -Antioch that the council of Jerusalem sent the circular letter to the gentile Christians (,Actsl523 Gal. 24-14), and, according to .Acts 11 26 (on which see Christian, beginning, and 2 [end]), it w.is in .Antioch that ' the disciples were called C:hristians first ' undoubtedly as a nickname. W'e know that the |x;ople of Antioch were noted for their scurrilous wit (Philost. /'/'/. 3 16 Zos. 3n 441 Procop. BP'IZ). w. J. \v. ## ANTIOCHIA (ANTiox[e]iA [ANV]), i and 2 Mace. AV, RY .Antioch, 2. ## ANTIOCHIANS (ANTioxeic [V.A]), 2 Mace. 4.9 ("XIAC L-A]!, and in AV also v. 9 (-XON [V]), where RV has ' titizcris of Antioch.' See Antioch 2, 2 n. ## ANTIOCHIS (ANTiox[e]lC [V'A]). concubine of Antiochus 1\'. l'2piphanes (2 Mace. 430). ## ANTIOCHUS (&NTIOXOC [ANV] ; anticoxoc [N* once, \'* once, .A once]), i. Antiochus III., surnamed the Great, was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and ascended the Syrian throne at the age of fifteen, on the death of his brother Seleucus Ceraunus. He is the earliest of the great Sklkucid.*: (</.:.) mentioned in the .Apocrypha, but Antiochus II. Theos and .Antiochus I. Soter (his grandfather and great-grandfather re- spectively) are alluded to in Dan. 11 (see Daniel, 6). His reign (223-178 B.C.) embraced a series of wars against revolted provinces and neighbouring kingdoms, wars in the prosecution of which his disasters and successes were equally great. The events of his life aiii briefly alluded to in Dan. 11 10^ notably his expedition in Asia Minor in 197 B.C. (cp v. 18) which, after varying fortune, ended in a crushing defeat at the hands of Scipio .Africanus near Magnesia in 190 B.C. (cp v. 18). This was one of the exploits of the Romans which Judas the Maccabec is said to liave heard of (i Mace. 8-8)- . . . ... The account in its present form is not free from inaccuracies. Thus, the writer states that Antiochus, the 'great king of Asia,' had with him 120 elephants (?'. 6, incep. oj'tioi't (*]); but accord- inz to Livy (37 39) there were only fifty-four. ' It is not unlikely that in the popular tradition the original number was exaggerated' (Cambr. liible, ad ioc.). Cp MAtcAHEt^s, First, I 10. One of the conditions of the humiliating peace imposed in 1 88 B.C. was that twenty hostages, incluc'ing a son of the king (cp i Mace. 1 10 and lx;low, 2). should be sent to reside in Rome. .Antiochus the Great was killed in an attempt to plunder the temple at Elymais (187 n.c. ), and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV. I'hilopator. See SiiLEUCio^:^ 2. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes ('E7ri(/>aj^s ' the illus- trious ' [cp I Mace. 1 10 where A -eij], called in mockery 'Ewi/itti'ijs 'the madcap'), youngest son of no. i. On his place as hostage (see above, i) being taken by his nephew Ukmktkius, he returned to the East, and his elder brother, Seleucus IV., having meanwhile been murdered seized the Syrian throne (175 B.C. ), and soon became famous for his conquests in Coele - .Syria, Palestine, and Egypt (cp i Mace. 1 ibff. 2 Mace. 5i ^, and see Dan. 11 21^). During his Egyptian campaign he twice took Jerusalem ( i .\Iacc. 1 20^ 2 Mace. buff.). In spite of the presence of a strong favourable Hellenistic party (see Jason, Menelaus), Antiochus appears to have seen that he could never hope to subdue Judita until he had rooted out the peculiar Jewish religion (see Israel, 69/ ). He accordingly promulgated a decree enjoining uniformity of worship throughout his dominions (i .Mace. 141^), and even went so far as to endeavour to force upon the Jews the worship of heathen deities (see Abomination, ii. ). His persecuting policy w;\s responsible for the rise of the .-\ssiDEANS, and stirred up the successful resistance of the Maccabees. His end (164 B.C.) is variously described. According to i Mace. 61-16 he was visiting a rich and celebrated temple in Persia (see Ei,ym.\is), when tidings of the ill-success of his troops in Judaea, and remorse for his sacrilege at Jerusalem, caused his death according to Polybius (31 2) at Tab.B in Persia.^ The usually accepted reference to his end in 2 Mace. 1 10-17 is not very prob- able, see Maccabees, Second, 7. He is doubtless alluded to in Ps. 75 ^f. , and there are numerous references tohis life and character in Daniel(^.i'. ,i, 6, 8, 10, 18). The post-Talmudic tract Megillath Antiochus is a legendary account, in Aramaic, of the persecutions in his reign ; cp Schii. Cjy\ 123 (see Maccaukks, Second, 11). See Sei.euciu.. 3. Antiochus V. Eup.ator (Ei>7rdTW/3), the young son of -Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (see 2, above), was left under the care of Lysias, whilst the father conducted his wars in Persia (i Mace. 832/). On the death of Epiphanes (164 B.C.) Lysias obtained the regency, ousting his rival Pun. IP, 5, and set up Epiphanes' son as king, giving him at the same time the surname Eupator (i Mace. 614^) 'on account of the virtues of his father' (Appian). Together they entered Jud:ea (see Israel, 75 beg. ) and, encamping at Beth-zacharias, be- sieged Bethsura (see Beth-ZUr). The Maccabreans were defeated and the famous Eleazar [q.v. , 7) was killed (i Mace. 6 28 ff. ).^ The war was brought to an abrupt close, however, by the news that Philip had occupied Antioch, and a hasty peace was concluded restoring to the Jews the privileges they had enjoyed previous to the persecu- tions of Antiochus F^piphanes (cp Isr.ael, /.c. ). In the following year (162 B.C. ) the king and his guardian were put away by Demetrius [q.v., i] (i Mace. 7i^ 2 Mace. 14i^). See SeleuciD/E. 4. Antiochus VI., surnamed Theos (Oe6s), son of Alexander Balas, spent his early youth as a ward of 1 His father, Antiochus III. the Great, died whilst engaged in this same district upon a similar errand. Tradition may have confused the son with the father. • 3 Mace. 13 21 ascribes their ill-success to treachery (see RhodocusX an Arabian (see Imalcue). He was brought forward by Tryphon, a former follower of lialas, and set up as king in opposition to Demetrius Nicaior (see Demetrius, 2) who was rapidly becoming unpopular (i Mace. 11 39 54 ; 145 B.C.). On his coronation he received the surnames ' Ejiiphanes ' and 'Dionysus.' Henceforth he became a mere UkA in the hands of Tryphon, who ultimately found an opportunity of slaying him ( i Mace. 1831). See further Tkvi'Hon, SELEUCiUiK. 5. Antiochus VII. SidCtes(2::i5^7;$), ".., man of Sid6 in Pamphylia, called also Ei/at^ris (Jos. Ani. xiii. 82), was the son of Demetrius I. and younger brother of Demetrius 1 1. N'icator. The capture of his brother by the Parthians gave Sidetes the opportunity of asserting his claim to the Syrian throne in opposition to the unpopular Tryphon. To win over the Jews he wrote, from Rhodes, to Simon ' the chief priest and governor,' and by advantageous concessions, remission of royal debts, and the formal f)ermission to coin money, attained his end (1 Mace. \;)iff. ; acrtwxos [k* v. i]). Tryphon was besieged at Dor [v. 25), and ultimately forced to flee to Orthosia {v. 37). 'Ihe situation immediately changed. Antiochus felt his position secure, and sent Athenobius to Simon demanding Joppa, Gazara, the citadel of Jerusalem, and the arrears of tribute (28 _^). The refusal of these demands brought about war, and Cendkheus was dispatched against the Jews (ir>38^). Sidetes appears no more in i Mace. ; but in the time of John Hyrcanus (see Macc.vhi:es, i. 7) he came and Ixjsieged Jerusalem (133 B.C.), and five years later met his death whilst fighting the Parthians under Phraortes II. (.\rsaces VII., 128 B.C.). See Seleucid.e.

6. Father of Numemus (i Mace. 12 16 14 22).

## ANTIPAS

(&NT[e]inAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from dfTiiraTpos. see Jos. ^/. xiv. I3; cp Cleopas from KXeoTTarpos). i. See Herodian Family, 2.

2. The 'faithful witness' of Pergamum named in Rev. 213. According to the ^!c7a Sancto>-um (.\pr. 11) he was bishop of Pergamum, and suffered death (by the ' brazen bull ') under iJoiiiitian.

## ANTIPATER

(^NTinATpoc [AKV]), son of Jason [3], an ambassador sent by the Jews to the Lacedae- monians (i Mace. 12 16 14 22). See Sparta. For the Antipater from whom Antipatris (see below) was named see Hekodian Family, i.

## ANTIPATRIS

( ANTinATRlC [Ti. WH]) was founded by Herod the Great on ' the finest plain ' of his kingdom ... . i.e., .Sharon in memory of his father

1. Allusions. ,i^jip.^jgr (Jos. /?/i.2l9),but also, as the history of the town abundantly proves, for strategical reasons. The other details given by Josephus are, that it lay 'close to the mountains' {BJ\.\^) o\\ the plain of Kaphar Saba (Ka</)ap(7a/3a), fertile and well-watered, that a river encompassed the city, and a grove of very fine trees (.f/'. xvi. 52). In another passage, probably from a different source, Josephus identifies it with Kaphar Saba (Xa/3apfa;3a ^ vvv 'AvrnraTpls KaXeiTat), and tells how, to resist Antiochus on his march against the Arabians (circa 85 B.C.), Alexander Jannaeus made a deep ditch and a wall, which however Antiochus destroyed, extending thence, a distance of 150 (?) stadia, to the sea at Joppa {id. xni.l5i). During Roman times Antipatris was a station at or near the junction of the military roads from Lydda and from Jerusalem respectively to Cresarea, where the latter road issued from the hills. Thus Paul was brought by night from Jerusalem to Antipatris and thence, part of his escort returning, to Cnesarea (Acts233i). The return of so much of Paul's escort is explained by the fact that, Antipatris l)eing according to the Talmud {Tnlm. nab., Gittin, j6a) on the limits of Jewish soil, all danger of an attack by the threatened Jewish ambush (.Acts 23 16 20 ^ ) was now past. There, in 66 A. D. , Cestius Gallus halted on his way to Lydda {li/'n. 19 1), and to this point, on his subsequent retreat from Jerusalem, he was pursued by the Jews (ib. 9). There, too, in the same year, Vespasian halted on his march from Cx'sarca to Lydda (ib. iv. 8i).

AiUipatris is not marked in the Tab. Pent. The Bordeaux I'ilgrinj (333 A.n. ) j;ivi.s it as 10 k.m. from _.. Lydda and 26 from Ciu-sarea ; the ///'. Ant. ' as 28 from Ca;sarea ; and Eus. and Jer. in the Ofiom. as 6 S. from Galgulis (in all probability the present Jiljuliyeh). Schiirer (Hist. Zi-^o) and others, following Rob. (i^A'4 139/. ), identify it with the present Kefr Sfiba, 23 R. m. (as the crow flies) from Cajsarea. Hut, as Kefr Saba is no less than 17 R.m. from Lydda and 2 R.m. N. from Jiljuliyeh; as, besides, it has no ancient remains, nor any such wealth of water or en- compassing river as Josephus descrilxis, it is more probable that Antipatris lay farther S. on the upjx;r waters of the 'Aujch, which are about 29 R.m. from Cajsarea, 4 S. of Jiljuliyeh, and about 11 N. of Lydda, in a district which better suits the data of Josephus. Here Dr. Sandreczky and Sir C. W. Wilson {FEF Qu.Sf., 1874, p. 192/.) have suggested the site of Kal'at Rds el-'Ain, at the very copious sources of the 'Aujeh, which they identify with die crusading castle of Mirabel (el-Mirr being a neighbouring place- name). They point out, too, that the valley of the 'Aujoh would Ije a more natural line for the great ditch of .\le.\ander Janiuvus than a line from Kefr Saba to the sea. Although Neubauer [G^og. du Talin. 80 jf.) thinks that the Talmud distinguishes between Kefr Saba and .Antipatris, this is doubtful, for, while their names are given separately, both are defined as border towns Ijctween Samaria, a heathen country, and Judaea. These are all the data for the question of position. Without excavation on the sites named, and the dis- covery of the rest of the Roman road probably the road by which r\aul was brought traced by l':ii Smith in 1843 from Gophna to the plain, but lost at the edge of the hills [Biblioth. Sac .\ ^^'& ff.) , it is imix^ssible for us to be certain where exactly Antipatris stood. We cannot exjject to find many ruins on the site. Unlike other Herodian sites, it is not stated to have Ix^n embellished by great buildings ; and the town did not afterwards develop. Huhl (Pal. 199) f;ivours Ras cl-'Ain.

In 333 the Bordeaux Pilgrim calls it a vtutaiio, or change- house, not a chitas like Lydda (the next 'change' he mentions Hetthar, 10 R.m. towards Ca;sarea is perhaps the present e{.Tlreh, PEF Mem. 2 166). In 404 the Peretp: S. I'autce calls it 'semirutum oppidulum.' In 451 it had a bishop {Acts 0/ the Coun. o/Chalceiion : cp Descr. Parochice Jerusalem, circa 460), and in 744 it still contained Christians. With their disappear- ance before the .^rabs, the Greek ecclesiastical name would vanish, and has not been recovered (but see the curious state- ment of a native in /'A'/-" .V^-w/. 2 134, that the name of Kefr S.'iba is Aiuifatrus). The Crusaders wrongly identified Antipatris with ' Arsuf, tlie ancient Apollonia. c. A. S.

see Jerusalem.

## ANTOTHIJAH

or rather RV:ANTHOTnIJAH (n>nh3y, n^rinpV [Oi.], n^phay [BS.]; probaWy a feminine adjective formed from .Anatiioth [^.t'-]), in genealogy

of UlNJA.MIN [q.v.. 9 ii. /3), I Ch.824t (ANOOGAie [ANABcoeiA. A] KAI A,eeiN [5"'^], ANAea)e(5j.L]).

## ANOTHITE

('ninpy), i Ch. ll 28 AV. See Anatiioi H, I.

## ANUB

(3-i::;; eNNcoNtCn], erNcoB[A], ANcoB[L]; Axoii), a Judahite, descendant of Coz (RV Hakkoz) ( I Ch. 48). Probably to be identified with Anak (We. ).

## ANUS

(annac [B]), I Esd. 948 AV=Neh.87 Han AN, 4.

## ANVIL

(DyS), Is. 41 7t. See Metal Work.

## APAME

(ahamh [BAl, -hh- [L]; \-^ <=^<*: apeme), daughter of Bartacus and concubine of Darius (i Esd. 4291.

## APAMEA

(Jer. Talm. Kil. 932^ N*DDN. but oftener N^ODDX), mentioned in the Vg. text of Judith3i4, apparently as a district ( ' pertransiens . . . omnem Apameam ' ) in the line of march of Holofernes.

Airafi>>ni,oneof the ten districts of N. Syrui under Rome(I>tol. C^tyr. V. 16 19), took its name from 'Atroficta, a fortified town (named after Seleucus Nicator'.s Persian wife), built on a hill some six or more miles east of the Orontes, half-way between Emesa and Antioch, and now represented by important ruins under the village that occupies the site of the old citadel, now calleil l<al'atelMudllf. Sec .Stral>o, p. 752; Ritter, Erdkunde 17, Abth. ii. 1075-86 ; E. Sachau, Keise in Syrien u. Meso^t. Ti-Zji (photographs and map) ; also reff. in Hoettg. Lex. Jos.

## APE

(D*Dp, D^Sip; meHKOi [BAL]; si,ni<r, 1 K. IO22, Xiewv TopfiTuiv [BL], cp 7'. 1 1 ; 2 Ch. 021+). An animal mentioned among the rarities brougiil from Opiiir by Solomon's fleet. The Heb. /kH/iA, 'ajx;,' is evidently a loan-word,' and is usually connected with Jta/>i,^ the Sanscr. name of the ape ; thus the home of the animal, though r\ot necessarily the situation of Ophir, will be indicated. It is mentioned in each case, in MT (the phenomena of (S are here very peculiar), in connection with the jjeacocks (if the common theory is correct) imi^orted by Solomon from Oi'UiK. Perhaps ' monkey' would Ije a more correct modern English rendering than 'ape,' which suggests the tailless quadrumaiia, wiiile the animals of this order represented on the Assyrian and Egyi^tian inscriptions have tails. Just so, Kr)Aot. would have been a lx;tter Greek rendering than iriOrjKoi (the LXX word), if Aristotle is correct in making the iri9riKoi tailless. Four kinds of motikeys are represented on the Assyrian monuments. Those on the black obelisk of Shalmaneser II. seem to belong to an Indian sjjecies ; they appear in company with the Indian elephant and the Bactrian camel (Houghton, 'On the Manmialia of the Assyrian Sculptures," TSPA 5319/ Vn^)- Monkeys (,^(7^) and balloons were nmch in request in Eg>-pt. Queen Ha'tsepsut ('Hatasu,' i8th dynasty) received them among other rarities from the (African) land of Punt ; see the picture of the native ambassadors leading specimens of the Cyno- cepluilus Hamadrj'as and the Cynocef^halus Bubuinus.'^ Halevy, however [K'EJ'lltif. ), would identify Solomon's C'Eip and c\'3n (see Pkacocks) with the tuku and kukupi mentioned in the Amarna tablets in the requests of the Asiatic princes i.e., different sorts of vessels full of aromatic oil, etc.'* Plutarch [de Is. et Osir. 81) gives an account of the sixteen ingredients of the ICgyjJtian K\)(pi.^ N. M. A. K. s.

## APELLES

(AneAAHC [Ti- WH], contracted from A7ro\\6oapoj) is saluted in Rom. 16 10, where he is called 'the approved {Sokl/jlos) in Christ,' an exjjression which seems to suggest that he had shown constancy as a confessor in time of trial. Nolliing further is known of him. Weizsiicker suggests that his Christian activity may have been chiefly within the household of Aristobulus also mentioned in v. 10 (Ajost. Age 1 399).

In the list of the 'seventy apostles' which we owe to Pseudo- Dorotheus, Apelles is represented as bishop of Heraclea ; that of Pseudo-Hippolytus mentions Smyrna. According to the viro/uiTj/ua of Peter and I'aul by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes, he was consecrated bishop of .Smyrna by Peter.

## APHAEREMA

(^ctiAipeMA [NV']), i Mace. 11 34

RV, AV Al'HKKK.MA.

## APHARSACHITES

(N'SD'lDX [Ba.]; '"laX [Gi.]; Ac})ApcAXAiOi [B.\], but -CAKKAIOI [B] in Ezra56; -RACBaxaiOI [L] ; see also next article), a word used (P>.ra56 tJ6t) apparently as the title of certain ofticers under Darius. Another form is Ahuaksathchitks ; see Ezra 49, where the word is misunderstood (see Ezra, ii.

1 If it belongs to the original text : see Edonv, 2 A

2 Whence also Ki\fio^ or ttijjro?, and Eng. a^e.

' Edwards, Pharaohs, Petlahs, ami KxJ>lorers 292. See also the apes and baboons on a wall-painting in a tomb. El Bersheh (Egypt. Explor. Fund), Pt. IL, plate .vi. ; cp p. 29.

• See Am. 'Tab. B 28 = Wi. 294, col. 2,40; i kukupu 5a . . .

(ka]-du naktamiSu, 'a kukupu . . . with its lid ' ; col. 3, 43 . . . kukubu samni {abi, '. ._ . a kukubu of gixxl oil"; B 5, i, 25 (recto) samni .5a tabu aljiya uSiranni II duk kukupu, 'send me, my brother, good oil, two vessels kukupu ' (so Hal., not in Wi.). >uk or tuk (pi. tuke) is the ordinary ideogram for ' vessel, receptacle.'

• The Assyriological notices are mostly due to Prof. Cheync

lo) and treated as the uanic of a tribe settled in Palestine by Asnai'I'KR. Its etymology is still very uncertain. See G. Hoffmann, Z^ 254 / ; Marquart, Fund. 64 ; and Andreas in Marti, Bibl.-aram. Gram., Glossary, p. 53*.

## APHARSATHCHITES, The

(N^^JilpnDN [Bii.] ; N-DHDIDX [Gi.]; 4)&pece^x<MOl L'^]. A(J)ApCAe- [A]VAa49t. See Al'HAKSAClI- ITES.

## APHARSITES

(S^DnSN [Bii. Gi.]; A(t)p&CMOi [B]. A(J)APC- [Al ; cJ)ApAceAlOI [1^1). mentioned in I'>.ra49t as a tribe settled in Palestine by AsNAPi'EK. Various attempts al identification have Ijcen made {Persians, by Kawlinson, Pulp. Com. ad loc. , but see A'AT^"^^ 376; Par sua, a Median tribe, by Del. Par. 327) ; but the word is Ijest regarded as a scribe's error, related (some think) to N-32-12X (EV Apiiaksachites, Kzraf)6 66), or, more probably, miswritten for Nnea 'scribes.' The last letter of n-i-eu (MT K-^tn^, see -Tarpki.itks) was attached bv dittography to the ne.\t word (Marquart, Pun J. 64).'

## APHEK

(pD.^f Acj)eK [BAL]). It is not easy to determine how many i)laces of this name are mentioned in the OT. Only one of them has Ix^en satisfactorily identified.

1. In Josh. 134 (ra0e/c [B], a^e/ca [A], -kk. [L]) .\phek appears as the limit of the Sidonian country, apparently as its northern limit towards the Giblites or Byblians. This Aphek, therefore, is commonly identified with Aphaca (now Afka), famous for its sanctuary of Astarte, which lies at the source of the river of Byblus, the ,\donis or (as it is now called) Nahr Ibrahim ; cp Lucian, Dea Syria 6-8.

2. The Aphek assigned in Josh. 19 30 to the tribe of .\sher is mentioned in Judg. 1 31 (where the name is written p-EN, Ai'iiiK, a^eK [AL], vaei [B]) as one of the towns which the Canaanites were able to maintain against the invaders. Here also some suppose that .\phaca is meant ; but it is difticult to believe that .Asher ever attempted to extend so far north, and, as it appears from Josh. 17iii that .Asher had a theoretical claim to l)art of the plain of Sharon S. of Mt. Carniel as far at least as Dor, it is probable that Aphek in Sharon (no. 3) is meant.

3. In Josh. 12 18 {o<l>iK [B]) we read, in the list of the kings smitten by Joshua, ' the king of Aphek, one ; the king of Lasharon, one ' ; but it is better to emend the verse with the aid of (0</>^(c r^s 'ApwK) and read ' the king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon, one' (see Di. on the passage). This Aphek in Sharon, as W'ellhausen has pointed out, is the city {a) from which the Syrians of Damascus made repeated attacks on Samaria, i K. 2O2530 (a</)eKa [B.\], -kk. [L]), aK.lSi?,^ and {b and c) from which the Philistines assembled their forces for war with Israel before the battles of Gilboa ( i S. 29 1 ) and of Eben-ezer (i S. 4i ; Jos. a/i^eKa or a<pKa).

(a) As regards the Aphek of Kings : that it lay in a lowland plain is clear from i K. 20 23, and that the plain is that of Sharon follows from 2 K. 1822 (S^, where we find the addition (undoubtedly genuine) 'and Hazael took the Philistine from his hand from the Western sea to .\phek. Aphek therefore lay on the verge of Philistia i.e.. in Sharon and we must understand that, both in Benhadad's time and in the time of Hazael, the Syrians avoided the difficulties of a direct attack on the central mountain-land of Canaan by striking into the maritime plain south of Carmel and so securing the mastery of the fertile coast-land without having to besiege Samaria. Their route would, in fact, be the present great road from Damascus to Ramleh through Megiddo.^ At Aphek,

soinewhcre in the north of the Sharon Plain, they had a great military post from which they could direct their armies either against Samaria or against the Philistines (2K. 12i7[i8]).

{b) As regards the Aphek of Samuel : it is clear that a point in the northern part of the Sharon Plain, on the road to Megiddo and the plain of Esdraelon, is appropriate to i S. 29 1. The mustering-place of the Philistines cannot have teen in the heart of the Hebrew territory, least of all at such a place as el-Faku' on Mt. Gilboa (in the rear of Sauls army !) where it is absurdly placed by Conder and Armstrong. It is argued that the Philistines were at Shunem (iS. 284) tefore they reached Aphek ; but to argue thus is to forget that i S. 283-25, the story of Saul and the witch of Endor, is a distinct narrative, by a different hand, and that 29 1 originally followed directly on 28 if.

(c) Finally, the attack on central Israel which issued in the battle of Eten-ezer and the destruction of Shiloh (iS. 4) would naturally te taken to have teen made from the same .Vphek, were it not that commentators have assumed that the position of Eten-ezer, and therefore of Aphek, is fi.xed somewhere near Mizpah by i S. 7 12. It is certainly safer, however, to distinguish the battle- field of Eten-ezer in i S. 4 1 from the stone Eten-ezer set up by Samuel many years later, than to assume the existence of two Apheks fitted to te the starting-point of a Philistine campaign (cp Eben-ezkk). And here also it is to te observed that chaps. 4 and 7 are derived from distinct documents, and that the historical value of the second is very insecure.

Eriini w hat has been said it will appear without further argument that it is illegitimate to seek an Aphek in the region, between Mt. Tabor and the Sea of Galilee, to

1 On this passage see Asher, 3.

- - '/., ET, 39 [but cpGASm. //G

401/].

-' .See We. C// 254 ; cp //ist.,

s'Cp the route of Al-NabulusI, ed. Tuch.

which Eus. and Jer. give the name of Saron, or to place the .\phek of Kings at the caravan-station of Elk in the mountains to the E. of the Sea of Galilee. This may be the Apheca near Hippus or Hippe of OS 91 24 and 219 72 ; but is not a biblical site. W. K. S.

The existence of an Aphek in Sharon is put te-yond doubt by the following additional evidence. Firsf, in the lists of Thotmes III. {c 1600 B.C.) nos. 60-76 form a group V)y themselves ; 62 is Joppa, 64 Lydda, 65 Ono. Then come 66 Apukn, 67 Suka, 68 Yhm. At this last place, Thotmes had to decide which of three roads he should take over Carmel. Yhm must therefore have lain near the most southerly road that is, somewhat south of the mouth of the Wady 'Abu Nar and may be the present Yemma by the high road along the edge of the Samarian Hills. Suka is doubtless the present Shuweikeh, 2 m. farther S. Apukn therefore lay between it and Ono. Maspero, it is true, identified Suka and Apukn with the Judoean Shocoh and Apheka of josh. 154853; butW. Max Miiller {As. u. Eur. 161) has shown that the list contains nothing S. of Ajalon. The n of Apukn may te the common termination of place-names jr. Max Mtiller says it may also te read as i. Secondly, in the autumn of 66 A. D. Cestius Gallus, advancing on Jerusalem from Caesarea, reached Antipatris, and ' sent before ' a party to drive the Jews out of 'the tower of Aphek' (IIi;p70S 'A^ckoO). After taking the tower he marched on Lydda (Jos. DJ\\. 19 i). This agrees with the data of Thotmes III. and places Aphek te'tween the River "Aujeh and Lydda. Here there is now no place-name which affords any help in the case, unless it te that of the village Fejjeh i.e., originally, Feggeh about 9 m. NE. of Joppa (which, however, does not lie quite near enough to the E. limit of the plain to suit Lucian's text of 2 K. 1822), and it ought not to te overlooked that in a list of mediaeval Arab place-names quoted by Rohricht {ZDPV, 1896) there occur both Sair Fuka and Fakin. A,^ain, in a

fragment of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.) a city Apku is descrited as 30 ' kasbu-kakkar ' from Raphia on the Egyptian frontier. Schrader( A'.-/ rC-' 204), who translates kasbu-kakkar by * double leagues," takes Apku to lie on the K. of the lake of Ciennesaret {i.f., the present Fik) and the Aplick of i K. 2O26, etc. This, however, seems less likely to give the distance from Raphia of a place so situated than of an Aphek on the plain of Sharon. The 'Aujth, it may Ix; remarked, is 70 m. from Raphia. It oufjht not to Ix; overlooked that the particularis- ing of one Aphek as ' in Sharon ' (Josh. 12 18, see above, 3) implies the existence of other Apheks in the land. f;. A. .s.

## APHEKA

(Hi^QN, a^jaka [AL], (|>akoya ['5]). an miidctiliticd citv in the mountain-land of fudah (Josh.

ir)5;tl-

## APHEREMA

, RV Ai'I1/Kkkm.\ (AcJjAipeMA [N], A4)ep. \y'-'^] fUiSii ). I .Mace. 1134, probably a CJnvciscd form of the city-name I-".rnK.\iM (i/.z'., ii. ).

## APHERRA

(A(i)eppA [HA]), a group of children of Solomon's servants (see NiCTlllNlM) in the great post- exilic list (I'>.K.\, ii. 9, 8(), one of eight inserted in I I-".sd. 0^4 (om. L) after I'ochereth-hazzeljaim of j I'.zra 257 = N'eh.7 59-

## APHIAH

(n'DX; A(t)eK[BL], -(t)AX [A*]. -(J)ix [A]). iS. Oif, according to MT, one of Saul's ancestors; but '.son of Aphiah, a Hcnjamitc,' should probably l)e ' of Gilxjah of Benjamin ' (p' j3 [njvajc). So virtually Wellhau.seii ; but he did not notice that Aphiah (cp and note that k = ];, e.i;., in Rcba \u. :n8) is a corrup- tion of (jilx-ah. This was reserved for Marcjuart {I'lnul.

15). T. K. C.

## APHIK

(p*pX), Judg. 1 3it- Sec .\i'iiKK, 2.

## APHRAH, House of

RV Eeth-lcs-Aplirah (n'5 rr\^t>- OIKOY KATAreAooTA [HA(JJ), Mic. I10+, the name of a town not identified with any certainty. The determination of the site of Beth-le-Aphrah cannot be separated from the larger question of the text of the whole passage, Mic. 1 10-15, which cannot be discussed here (see Taylor, MT of Mic. ; Ryssel, Untersuch. on the Hook of Mic. 26 ff. ; We. Kl. Pn>ph. ; Wi. A T Unters. 185/., AOF\io^). So much, however, is plain the vocalisation cannot \vi trusted, especially in view of the paronomasia ( ' house of dust ' RV mg. ), and even the consonants were differently read by . The older writers {e.g. , Winer, so now also Xowack) identified -Aphrah with Ophr.-mi {q.v.)\ cp Pesh. 'the houses of Ophrah.' But the context seems to demand some place farther ^^^ and S. Winckler, w ith his rather too ingenious emendation ' Bethel ' (reading iSjr'^N for "icy r\-\-:'^ AOF, I.e.), seeks to avoid this objection by reading '(Jilgal' for the historically im[)ossible '(iath," and (with We.) ' Bekaim ' (see BociiiM) for the very questionable bdko (133) in 1 io. Ww/.. [KG I!, ad loc), followed by Miihlau in H\VB<-\ suggests a ' Afrd that Yakut [Mo jam el bulddii, sub voc. ) mentions as 'a castle in Palestine near Jerusalem. ' Ges. -Bu. suggests doubt- fully lietogabra (Kleutheropolis, Be it Jibrln), which, however, represents an Aram, xiaj n'a(-N'estle in '/.DPV I224/). Perhaps the name of the Wady el-Ghafr running E. not far S. of Mirash may be an echo of Micah's Aphrah. So GASm. [Twelve Proph.X^Z^), Che. (JQR, July 1898). The ? in .iisy'? seems to be a scribe's error (as if ' in the dust ').

## APHSES

(VVSn). I Ch.24i5t AV, RV H.vpi'izzez.

## APIS

(^in; o &nic [BXAQ J. ott. [Q* (superscr. a (J' f<'")] ; Egyptian Hapi), the bl.ick bull-god of Mem- phis (sc-e Egyht, 14). Though the name of this famous deity does not occur in EV, he is mentioned once in OT (Jer. 46 isrz). alone has preserved the true division of the words : for r^nDj, AV ' are swept away ' (similarly RV Pesh. Vg. ), we must read rn D3. 'hath fled Apis' [^(fivyev 6 'Airts). Cp Konig, Syntax 210, n. i. For an analogous correction see Giesebrecht and Cornill aJ loc. and cp C.VLi", Goi.dk.n, 2. 13 193

## APOCALYPSE, The (Book of Revalation)

According to the best authorities (NC.\ [in subscription]

### 1 Name

^^' ^^' ^^' ^^ ' '  ^^^^)' '^*^ **^ "'"'


, , ' a7^o^aX^'j'lJ $$t)a.[v^vo^<. Later MSS add toi/ ftZlCl Pid.C6 /I , ^-^ 1 V in NT "^0^070" (v '*"^' many cursives), or tov aTTOffToXov, or tov air. Kai evayYeXiffrov ( P vg. cod. , Syr. ). In almost all MSS the Apocalypse now holds the last place in the NT. The stichometry of Cod. Claro- montanus (D, Paul) arranges as follows : Evang. Paul. Cath. Apoc. Act. (see (Jreg. Prol. '.i 136 ; cp also what is said alxjut the Evangeliaria, 175 and 368). In the Syriac version of the A])ocalypse which has t)een edited by Gwj-nn, the book was preceded by the Fourth (jospel. The hiatus in Cod. D was perhaps originally occupied by the Apocalypse and Johannine Epistles (Bousset, TI.'A, 1892), thus giving the order Evang., -Apoc, Epp. Joh. , Acts. All this jjerh;i|3s indicates that the Apocalypse and the other Johannine writings were originally handed down together. In point of fact, Tcrtullian actually speaks of an ' instrumentum Johannis,' which consisted of .Apoc. and i Jn. [Resiirr. 38, 39 ; Pud. 19 ; Pi/ga 9 ; Pnrscr. 33). Cp Ronsch, Da.<: neue Te.st. Tertull. 528. The Book seems to be presupposed in two places in the Ignatian epistles, [a) Ad Eph. 153 : '" tI'M"' aiToO ### 2. External evidence canonicity. (NA read \aol in Rev. 21 3) k(x.I avrbi ^ (V rj/j-iv Oeos. [b) Ad Pliilad. 6 i : oi'rot //oi aTy)\a.i. elaiv Kai rd^oi vcKpQv icp' oh yeypavTai fiovov opofxara avOplwwv (cp Rev. 3 12/. , in the ej)tstle to the church of Philadelphia). Andrew of Ctesarea, UKjreover, mentions Papias, amongst others, as bearing witness to the Apocalypse (raiVr; TTpojxapTvpovvTwv t6 OL^LbiTLaTov), and on Rev. 12 7 adduces (.3240 ^. , ed. Sylb. ) two observations taken verbatim from Papias. That Eusebius does not mention the testimony of Papias is doubtless to be accounted for by the historian's unfriendly attitude towards the book. Iren;uus appeals in support of the traditional number 666 to 'elders' who had actually seen John. (In all probability we could reduce this testimony of the elders to that of Papias alone : Harnack, Chron. der alkhristl. Lit. 1333^.). We find a writer so early as Justin asserting the book to be apostolical [Dial. 81 : Trap' ir)iLiv avrip ris v dvo/xa 'lajdvprji eh twv dTrocrT6\un> XpLffTod ev dwoK. ) and canonical [Apol. 1 28 : (is fK rdv r]fXT/>wi' avyypa/x/jLaTwv fxaduv dvvaade). This early recognition of the Apocalypse as a canonical writing need not surprise us : the book itself puts forward a claim to this character (1 18/: 22 18). In the second half of the second century we find the Apocalypse widely recognised. It is generally current (a) in Asia Minor, alike among Montanists, anti-Montanists (Apollonius ; Euseb. //A" v. 18 14), and mediating writers (.Melito of .Sardis; I'b. iv. 2i) 2; ; 3. 2nd and (/) in Caul, both with Irenaeus (,-/,/^'. Jhr>. Cent. ' rt 3 ^- iii- 1 I 34 .\i. I v. :;0 i 3) and in the writing; of the church of Lugdiinum and Vienn.i (in Pais, ///i v. 1 58). {c) In .Africa, as already mentioned, Tertulliart knows of an insiruiiientuiii Jo/iannii to which bi.tti the Apocalypse and i Jn. belong; the Arts of J\'rpetua and Feliciias shows acquaintance with it (cp cc. 4 and I'.'), (if) In Egypt the /udiciiiin Petri seems to know the book (Hilgtnf. Naz'. Test.'cxtr. Can. Reccptuin loi); (<) for Antioch, lii^hop Theophikis (Eus. II Ii iv. 24 i) is our witness 10 the same efTuct ; and (y ) for Home, the Muratorian Canon, (g) Clement of .Mex- andria cites the Apocalypse (I'ud. 2 108 iig; Strom. 106), Origen is unaware of any reason for doubting its apostolic origin {in Jos. J loin. 6; cp Eus. HE vi. 209). The situation changes, however, in the third century. As early as in the second century Marcion had refused to recognise the book (Tert. Adz: Marc. 45) 4, oFu , ., _ __ii_,i _f .u \i : .^**^;k..*.^. Cent. and the so-called sect of the Alogi attributed both the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gosjiel to Cerinthus (Epiph. ///-. 51, Philastr. Hirr. 60 -- Hippolytus ; cp Iren. iii. 11 9) probably on account of their own hostility to Montanism (after Irenxus ; Th. Zahn, Kaiioin-gesch. 1239^, Bousset, Koinm. 16/). This opposition by the .Alogi was continueil by the Roman presbyter Caius, who, in his dispute with the Montanist Proclus, also attributed the work to Cerinthus (Eus. HE iii. 28a). From the refutation of Cains by Hippolytiis ((cn/)aAaia acaro. raiov, As-iem. Bihl. Or. iii. 1 15; fragments in Gwynn, Hermalh. 6 3)7-418 ; cp also the writuijj catalogued in the inscription on the throne iiirfp toO ko-to. '\\oa.vvi\vtva.-f^tKLovKaL\ airoKaAvi^cuit) we learn that Caius directly took up and continued the criticism of the Alogi. The criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. HE vii. 25) was more moderate and more effective. He does not liold Cerinthus to have l)ecn the author of the Apocalypse, but conjectures that it must have l)ccn the work of some other John than the son of Zchedee, arguing from a comparison between the Apocalypse on the one hand and the Cjosijel and Epistles on the other as to style, language, and contents. The criticism of Dionysius was afterwards taken up by Eusebius, who was the first to provide a firm basis for the conjecture of Dionysius as to a second John by a reference to what Papias says of ' both ' Johns {HK iii. 39) and inclines to class the Apocalypse with the spurious books, voOoi \ IIP. iii. 254). Henceforward the view of Dionysius and Eusebius became the prevailing one in the Eastern Church. The book was recognised, indeed, by Methodius of Tyre (.?;w/r'j. I5O5 84^) and I'amphilus (. )/o/., ed. de la Rue, 4 25 3^), but on the other hand unrecognised 0. Eastern l,y Cyril (fatcch. 4 33-36), Greg, of Naz. (Carm. Church. 33)1 the Synod of Laodicea (Can. 64, see Zahn, iif>. cit. 2 197 Jf.), the Afiostolical Constitu- tions (Can. 85 (84]; Zahn, 2 191^^), the Janihics of .Seleucus (Zahn, 2 217). The Apocalypse is not mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia, or by Chrysostom (cp the wpo6e<opia of the Synopsis of Chrysostom, Zahn, 2 230), or by Theodoret. In the Stichometry of Nicephorus manipulated in Jerusalem (circa 850; Zahn, 22882967^) it figures among the Aniilcgomena ; in the list of the sixty canonical books it is not found, though it is again introduced into the Syno/>sis of .\thanasius. The unf;ivourable judgment of the Syrian church re- garding it is very noteworthy. The Doctrine 0/ Addai which, in the form in which we now have it, dates from about 400 A.U., recognises, as authoritative scripture, nothing beyond the four gospels (Diates- 6. Syrian saron), the Pauline Epistles, and Acts. p'rom Church, 'he Peshitta it is wholly absent. Whether Ephraim recognises the Apocalypse as canonical is, to say the least, doubtful. The Greek works that pa-ss under his name, beingofuncert.ain authenticity, cannot here betaken into account, and thus the evidence that he did appears to rest mainly on a single passage (Opera, Assem. 2 232, cp Rev. 01-3).! In any case, the noteworthy fact remains that Ephraim cites the Apocalypse but little, and develops his apocalyptical ideas on lines supplied by other writings. Besides, the Syrian Church did not look upon the book with favour.^ Jacob of Edessa (oh. 708) cites it (Ephraemi opera, ed. Assem. 1 192), and ." r Salll) (oh. 1171), bishop of Mabug (MabbOgh), comments on it (Gwynn, Ixx.xvii ci); but Kar-Hebrsus (oh. 1286) holds it to be the work of Cerinthus or of the 'other' John (Assem. Hihl. Or. 3 15), and 'Ebed Je'Su' (oh. 1318) omits it from his list of canonical scriptures. In an Armenian Canon also, by Mechitar of Aivirank (1290), the .Vpocalypse is reckoned among the Aiitilegomena. Though the opposition to the Apocalypse was thus persistent in the S3Tian Church, it gradually died away in the other Eastern provinces. The book is acknowledged by Athanasius, Didymus, Cyr. Alex., Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium (Egypt),^ Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius of Salamisj and Johannes Damascenus. Andrew, archbishop of Csesarea \n Cappadocia, wrote his commentary on it in the first half of the fifth century. He was not, however, followed in this until the ninth century, when Arethas, his suc- cessor in office, also undertook the task. In the Western Church, on the other hand, the Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first. 8 West Hippolytus (sec above) defended and com- mented on it in a no longer e.\tant work, and makes copious quotations from it in his Com- mentary on Daniel and in his De Antichristo. Similarly, it is recognised by Lact.antius (fnstit. 2 2 T 10, epit. 42; cpTis^X Hilary {De Trin. (52043), Ambrose 1 Owjnn(7"/j<' Apocalypse 0/ St. John in a Syriac I'ersion, Dublin-London, 1897, p. ciii) cites also De Lamy, Hymn. 1 66 a pass.ige which the present writer finds himself unable to accept as proof. 2 Thomas of Harkel, it is true, included it in his translation, as probably also (according to the latest researches of Gwynn) did Philoxenus of Mabug (Mabbugh). 3 See Lflcke, V^ersuch einer vollst&ndigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis (*), Bonn, 185a. (De Virg. 14, De Spiritu 3 ao), Rufinus {Exp. in Symh. 37) ; on Novatus, Commodian, Arnobius, and others see Lardner, Credibility o/the Gospel History. Augustine (in Evang.-Joh. 1836, Epist. 118, Civ. Dei 2ii7) insists on the identity of the author of the Gospel with the writer of the .^pocalypse. The liook was acknowledged at the synods of Hippo (39p)and Carthage (397). As early as the end of the third century it was commented on by Victorinus, bishop of Pettau (i;;^. 303 a.d.). j He was followed by the Uonatist Ticonius (Ixrfore 380). An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who, under eastern influence, relegated the Af>ocalypse to the second class of script urce ecclesiastiae {in Ps. 149), as also afterwards by Philastrius, if it be indeed the case that the book was not mentioned in the Canon of his De hceresibus 87/. At a later date the capitulum Aquisgranense {Corp. Jur. Germ., ed. Walter, ii. l77y;, cap. 20), adopting the decision of the Synod of Laodicea, removed it from the Canon. At the Reformation the view of Jerome was revived by Erasmus in his Annotationes. Luther's well-known adverse judgment, pronounced in his preface of 1522, rests more on a religious than on a scientific foundation. Subsequently he gradually modified his view in a sense more favourable to the book. In his translation, however, he indicated his unfavourable opinion so far at all events that he relegated James, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse to the end of the NT without pagination. The last edition of the NT in this form appeared in 1689. C'arlstadt {Libellus de caiumicis scriptttris, 1520), falling back on the criticism of Eusebius, classed the Apocalypse among the seven Aniilcgomena. The opposition to its reception lasted down to the following century, and disappeared only after the introduction of John Gerhard's cunningly devised distinction between canonical and deutero-canonical writings {Loc. theol. i. cap. 9, 241). In the reformed churches the opposition disappeared much earlier from the time of Calvin, indeed. In the eighteenth century the question was again revived by Abauzit (Discours hist, surtapoc. (in (Euz'res diverses, torn, i., 1770); Hermann Oeder {Christlich freie Untersuch. iib. d. sogcnanntc Offenh. Joh., published by Sernler, Halle, 1769), reverting to the view of Caius of Rome, attributed the book to Cerinthus. He was followed by Sernler (Freie Untersuch. des Canons, 1772, and in many controversial writings), and byCorrodi (Gcsch. des Chiliasmus, 1781). The best defence was that of Ha.n\v\g {Apolo/;ic der ApoA., 1780-83). Cp also the .successive editions of J. D. Michaelis, Junl. in die gSttliclien SchHften from 1750 onwards. Our sources for the text are the following : A. Greek .1A9.9. (t) Uncials. It exists in KAC (89-5 14 V 14-17 85-016 IO10-II3 1013-182 19 5-22 21 being absent), also in P Porfirianus Chiovensis s^c. 9 Act. Cath. Paul. 10. Text:' Apoc. (10 12-17 I 1912-20 2 226-21 being absent), the material. =i"J Q ('" Tischendorf, li), Vaticanus 2066 sa;c. 8 (Apoc. only). (2) Cursives. Of these some seventy are more or less collated. Their readings can be learned from the editions and collations of Mill-Kuster (1710), IJengel (i734#), Wetstein (1751-2), Matthsei (1782-88, torn, x.). Alter (1786-87), Birch {\'arite Lectt. in Apok., 1800), Scholz ('30-36), Scrivener {Codex Augiensis, 1859; Adversaria Critica, '93), Tregelles ('57-72), Ti.schendorf (ed. octava major), Alford {.Me^v Test. vol. iv. ed. 2, 1885), Simcox (/. Phil. 22 28577:). B. I'ersions. (i) Latin. .\ good deal is now known about these. The oldest stage is represented by h (Floriacensis), the Latin translation used by Primasius (Haussleiter, Forschungen zur Gesch. des Kanons iv.) ; the intermediate, by the Gig.as Holmensis (ed. Belsheim, '79). The best material for the Vulgate is lirought together in Lachmann (.\o7\ Test.) and Tischendorf. (2) Syriac A valuable Syriac rendering (probablv the Philoxeniana) has recently been edited by Gwynn {op. cit.y^ The Syriac MSS hitherto known (see Gwynn, xiv._^.) represent the text of Thomas of Harkel. (3) Importance also attaches to the still comparatively unexplored Coptic (see Goussen, Stud. Theol. i.) and Armeni.-n versions. C. Church Fathers. There are copious citations in Origen, Hippolytus (especially in the De Antichristo and in the com- ' See F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, 1861 ; B. Weiss, 'Die Joh. -Apok.' in Texte u. Untersuch.' i ('91); W. Bousset, ' Text-kritische Studien ' in Texte u. L 'ntersuch. 1 1 4 ('94); Gwynn, The Apocalypse in a Syriac version, 1897; on which see T. K. Abbot, 'Syriac version of Apocalypse,' Htrm- athena, 1897, pp. 27-35. 2 See last note. nietitarj- on Daniel; ee the new edition by lionwetMih and Acheliii), and Cyorian. The text used hy Andrew of Ca:>area and Arelha.1 in tneir commentaries han nut a-s yet t>een fully cstalilished. The text of the lost coninicntary of Ticonius can 1m-xi l>e made out from the excerpt from the commentary on the INrudo-Augustinian Homilies. In the attrnipi to classify this material, it is l>est to Ikj;!!! witli ilu- class which shows the latest text namely, 11 Clasaifica. ^ ' ^ ^^^ Arethas class, so named because tion. '^ "^"^ ^^ *'" order was used by Arethas for his Commentary (hence also many cursives of this class are, strictly sijcaking, MSS of Arethas-Comnientaries). To this class belong Q and about forty of the more or less known cursives. The material being so defective, separate groups within the class can hardly be distinguished. Tentatively and under great reservation a few may here be suggested, (i.) 9, 13, 27, 93 are somewhat closely connected (cp 7V,/r, j8^, p. 658) ; {ii.)2, 8, (14), 140, 151, 29, 50, 97 (the last three very mtimately related), 94; (iii.) 6, 11, 31, (47); (iv.) lastly, y, 14, 93 show near affinities. The group "formed by (v.) 7, 16. 39, 45, 69 represents the transition-stage between this class (i) and the next class (2). The second class, which we can detach from the rest as having arisen out of a Liter redaction, is (2) the so- called ' .Andrew ' class the cla.ss to which the text used by Andrew (see alxne, 10 (') in his conmientary belonged. It falls into several clearly distinguishable sulMjrdinate groups. (i.) The group consisting of 35, 68, 87, 121 stands almost entirely apart, presenting .is it does many points of contact with the .\reth.as group, but often showing a very peculiar text. The following three groups, on the other hand, are very closely akin : (ii.) i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (often with a very archaic Latinising substratum); (iii.) 28, 73, 79, 80, 09 ; (iv.)io, 17, 37, ^9, (72], 91, 96, (154], 161. Cod. P admits of Ijeing ranked with this class as a whole, but cannot be associated with any of the subordinate groups in particular. Of all the known cursives there are only (3) four [26], 38, 51, 95 which it h.-is hitherto been found impossible to classify ; they show an ancient te.xt. It is as yet difficult to detect the 'Western text" 12. 'Western Jf":^ '^.':) '" the Apocalypse ; hut Text ' ^^' gradually l>ecome practic- able as in recent years new sources have lieconie accessible. Witnesses to it, though only in part, are the uncial K (with a very erratic and only ijarlially ancient text), the text of Priniasius (identical, according to Haussleiler's investigations, with C'y- prian's text, and thus old African), the fragments of A, the (ligas Holniensis g; Ticonius (containing a later development of the text), and the Syriac version edited by Gwynn and designated 2 (the later version known .ys ,S shows a text almost everywhere corrected in accordance with the .Arethas class, though in many places also it contains a text older than 2). To the same cate- gory l)elong also, in part, the ^roup i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (cp (Iwynn, cxli.) and, finally, the Armenian version, which, unfortunately, is not yet sufficiently known (note the coincidence of i, 12, 36, etc. with arm. ; cp Uousset, Koiiiih. 178). .A further point worthy of notice is the close affinity of K, 2 (S), and Origen ; one might almost venture to constitute N20r. a distinct group in the Western Cla.ss (Housset, 181 ; Gwynn, Iv^). Distinctly the best text is that presented by ACVg. The \'ulgate furnishes us with good means of con- 13 Result ^""""'"S 'h^ t^"' f -^^^ especially where the two differ or where (J is wanting. A\g. , therefore, w here C is wanting, often constitutes a stronger testimony than that of all the other witnesses together. ' I John am he that heard and saw these things ' (228 k\' ; cp 1 4 9). Are we to identify this John with the 14 V^ntaaaaA '^postle, the son of Zebedee? Within author '^^ ^^"^ ^'^'^ ^^ ' "S^' f'^"'>' ^ urged against this identification. The first to submit the question to thorough discussion was Dionysius of .Me.xandria (see above, 4) ; in the result he attributed the txjok to another John. 'Ihis theory of a second John, adopted also by Eusebius (HE iii. 39 I ff.), w.as revived in the present century (Hleek, Ewald, de Weite, LUcke, Neander, Diisterdieck. etc. ), the John of the .Apocalypse l)eing usually in this case identified with the ' IVesbyter ' of Eus. HE iii. 39 1 ff. Criticism advanced another step, however. I and declared the whole tradition regarding the presence of John the .AiH)stle (and Evangelist) in .Asia Minor to have been due to a confusion Ijetween his name and that of the presbyter. .So Vogel, Der EvaH^tlist Johannts, 1801-4 ; LiitzcllieTger, Die kinklicht Trattilton fiber den Aposttt Joktinn,s, 1840; Keim, Cesch. Jesu voh Sazam, 1867, 1 161 / ; Scholtcn, Per Af>. Johantus in Kleinasien, 187a; WeiflTenbach, Dot t'ufiat- fragment, 1874 ; Thoma, Das Johannisev., 1882 ; and other*. .Against .Scholten cp Hilgenfeld, /UT, 1876 77, also Zahn, St. A'r. 1866, p. 649^. ; Actajoannis civ., .Steitz, St. Kr., 1868, p. 509^., Herzog, A' A' 11 78^ The question is difficult. The first remark to l)e made upon it is that the assumption that there were two Johns 16 Onlv '" '^^^ Minor the ajwstle and the presbyter one John *^"^ ""'X slender supix)rt in ancient in Asia "'^'^'""- Whatever the interpretation we Minor '"'^^ "^ ^^ ^^^ important testimony of Fapias preserved by Eu.sebius {I/Ji iii. 39 1 ^), it is at least certain that I^ipias spe-aks not of two Johns in Asia Minor the ajKjstle and the presbyter but of one John, whom we are to look for as a near neighlxjur of Papias in space and time. Of a second John the second century and the first half of the third know nothing ; he is unknown to Iren;vus and to those who disputed the claims of the Fourth {jos(x;I, to the Alogi and to Caius, to Tertullian, to Clement, and to Origen. Not till the time of Dionysius of .Alexandria is reached do we find any indication of the sort (Eus. I/E vii. 25i6). Even Dionysius alleges no other evidence than that in his day two graves of ' John ' were shown. The inference he draws from this that there must have Ijcen two Johns is by no means a stringent one. It would not lie less reasonable to suppose that in his day the precise burial-place of John was no longer known, or that the twofxi^/iiaTa represented two distinct holy ' places ' of John (so Jer. <ie vir. ill. 9 : ilu,r tiientoricf ; Zahn, Acta Jo. civ). For this supposition, Kusebius h.xs supplied a plausible basis by combining the statement of Papias about two Johns with the traditions mentioned by Dionysius about two graves of John at Ephesus. If the assumption that there were two Johns in Asia Minor proves to tie a baseless hypothesis and its base- ifi Vi th lessness is shown bv the fact, among other Presbyter *'^'"S^' ^'^ """ ' J"*^" ' ^^ ^^^ ^"o*" '^ " so often spoken of w ithout distinguishing phrase of any kind the question which next arises is as to whether this John was the ajnistle or the presbyter. At this point the inijxirtant testimony of Fapias turns the scale in favour of the presbyter. For his contem]j<3rary and the authority w hom he cjuotes is next to Aristion the ' presbyter ' John (Eus. ///.' iii. 394) ; and Aristion and John are doubtless also to Ik- identified with the Trpfff^vTfpoi whom, according to Eus. ///;' iii. 393, Fapias could still directly interrogate. The evidence of 2 Jn. and 3 Jn. , claiming as they do to l>e written by the Tfxa^VTfpos, points in the same direction. Moreover, as has already lieen ix)inte(l out (^ 14), the .Apocalypse I apparently does not profess to have Ijeen written by the I apostle. On the other sitle, it is true, we already find Justin [Dial. 81 ; see above, 2) asserting the apo.stolic authorship. It is, however, noticeable that Ircnanis for whom the tjospel, the Epistles, and the .Ajjocalyjise are all by one and the same author sjwaks of John as an apostle only in indefinite expressions similar to those in (ial. 1 19, but elsewhere invariably designates I him as 'disciple' (/ia^Tp-i^s) ; see liousset, op. cit. 41/ I Further, Ircn.tus, who calls Papias a disciple of John. i also speaks of Folycarp as his fellow disciple ( Eus. //^iii. 39i). If we refuse to supjxjse that Iren;eus had already confounded the presbyter with the apostle, then the great teacher of Folycarp was also, according to Irenaius, the ' presbyter ' John ; for Fapias was a disciple of the presbyter. In the Muratorian canon, further, John is called simply ' discipulus,' whereas Andrew is 'apostolus.' The testimony also of Foly- crates in the letter to Victor (ap. Eus. HE\. 24 a_^) claims particular attention in this connection. Here, in a passage where everything turns upon the exact titles of the persons named. Polycrales designates as the <rroix<** of Asia Minor (i) the apostle Philip and his daughters ; (2) John who lay on the bosom of the Lord, fidprvi Kal SiSdffKaXoi, who was buried in Kphesus, 6s (yevrjd-rj lepei's t6 iriraKov ire(f)o- priKu)i ; (3) the bishops Polycarp, Thrascas, Sagaris, F'apirius, Melito. Polycrates thus designates, plainly with intention, the author of the Fourth Gospel also as teacher and witness, not as apostle. Indeed, the traditions relating to the Fourth Gospel Ijeconie much more intelligible if we are al>le to assume that the witness (Jn. 19 35, ^Ktivos olStv) is not the Galihean apostle, the son of Zelx.'(lee, but another John, a Jerusalemite (Fiousset, h'omin. 43/.). It may also be remarked that the statement of the Fourth Gos[x;l that the beloved disciple was ' known unto the high priest' (18 15) -harmonises well with the account of Polycrates, 'who Ix-came priest' (5s ie/iei/y eyevijdr) ; cp further, II. Dclff, .S7. A>. , 1891, and Harnack, Chronol. I456/. ). The inference from all this would seem to be that the (one) John of Asi.i Minor, who was the presbyter, was one who had seen Jesus indeed, but not one of the numljcr of the apostles. The John of the Apocalypse (cp the superscription of the lipistlcs) is thus the presbyter. Whether the .\pocalypsc was really written b\' him is another question. In order to understand how the 17 Rpal Apocalypse and the Fourth (iospel could authorship ' ""^ *^ attributed to the same disciple ^' of the Lord, it is necessary to remove them both a little distance away from him. John is only the eye-witness, not the author of the Fourth Gospel ; .so, in like manner, in the Apocalypse we may have here and there a passage that can be traced to him, but the book as a whole is not from his pen. Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse all come from the same school. They show also at various points linguistic affinities (Housset, Komm. 202 ff.). They had, moreover, at first the same history : they were, it would seem, the favourite writings of Montanism, and were all three alike rejected by the opponents of Montanism, the Alogi. The earliest Cireek fathers who in any measure attempted to interpret the Apocalypse were Iren;BUS, Hippolytus, and .Methodius : Iren;;iis, in Adv. /f,rr. 5; Hippolytus, in Comm. on Daniel, in airoSetfis ;repi toD acnypio-Tou, in extant fragments of the _ KecJaAaia Kara. Vaiov, and in a no longer extant commentary on the book itself; ### 18. Interpretation Greek -Methodius in Sym/>. 150584^ Of and Latin. continuous commentaries originating in the (Ireek Church we possess only those of .Andrew (5th cent., ed. .Sylburg) and of Arethas (9th cent., ed. Cramer). The oldest Latin commentary, which contains much interesting and ancient material (for example, the interpretation of various passages referring to Nero), is that of Victorinus of Pettau (o/'. 303). We possess it only in Jeromes redaction. Haussleiter is about to edit it in its original form. An e.xceedingly powerful influence was exercised also by the commentary of Ticonius. This work is, unfortunately, no longer extant, and has to be reconstructed, as far as the materials allow, from the pseudo- Augustinian Iloinilite in Afioc. (Migne, Pat. Lat. 35), the commentary of Prim.asius {oh. 586, ed. princ. Ha.sel, 1544), and (mainly) the great compilations of Beatus, written in 776 (in .-{/'ocrily/'sim, ed. F'lorez, i77o). In his commentary, written before 380 A.ii. , wholly from the Donatistic point of view, Ticonius consistently carries out the spiritualistic interpretation. In his explanation of the millennium pas.sage (20 i^) he was afterwards followed by Augustine (Mousset, Komm. 65). Down to the Middle .\ges the exegesis of the book continuetl to follow that of Ticonius, if his Donatistic tendency \vi left out of account. 1 Cp also below, 8S 28 and 34. 2 See Liicke, Einl. in dit Offeyibarung ^'^^ 1853; Holtzmann, HK \\ Bousset, Komm. ^iff. 3 See Haussleiter, ZKW'L 7 -iyiff. \ Bousset, Komm. (>off. Apart from the works already named, mention must be made of those of Cassiodorus (Comfilexiones in apocalyfuin [ed. Scipio Maffey, Florence, 1721]), Bcda (oA. 735; expianatio apocalypsis in Biblioth. I'atr. Cologne, vol. v.), and Ambrosius Ansbertus (c. 770 : in Af>ocalyftiim UM x., Bihl. Patr., Col., ".t 2). Dependent, in turn, on Ansbertus are Alcuin (Migne, J'nt. y.a/. 100)and Haymo of Halberstadt [84J] (Migne, 117), while Walafried Strabo s Glossa oniinaria (Migne, Pal. I. at. 114) depends on Haymo. To the same class of interpretations l)elong the ]>erforniances of Ansclm of Laon (Migne, ItVJ), Bruno of .\ste (.Migne, Wo), Rupert of Deutz (Migne, lOit), Richard of St. Victor (Migne, I'.Ml), Albertus M.-ignus (O^eia, Lyons, 1651, tom. 12), a commentary, prokibly in reality of Waldensian origin, which is found, in two recensions, among the works of Thomas Aquinas (Opera, Parma, 1869; tom. T.\ 3247^ 5."j^-). Hugh of St. Caro(i263; J'oslilla), Dionysius Carthusius (14th cent.). Thus the single commentary of Ticonius continued to dominate the whole interpretation of the Apocalypse until far down in the Middle Ages. The next interpreter of the Apocalypse to attain wide influence was Joachim of Floris (soon after 1195; 10 Tnar>>iim Hxpositio . . . abbatis Joachim in Apoc. , i. joacmm. Venice, 1527). With him the fantastic futurist (chiliastic) interpretation Ijcgan to gain the upix;r hand over the formerly prevalent spiritualising view. He was at the same time the originator of a 'recapitulation theory,' which he carried out into the minutest details. As ' the Age of the Spirit,' associated with a mendicant order that was to ajjpear, occupied a central place in the prophecies of Joachim, he naturally became the prophet of the ' opposition ' Franciscans, and his works were accepted by them as sacred. It was in these circles accordingly that his immediate followers in the interpretation of the Apocalypse arose (Peter Johannes Olivie, Ubertino de Casale, Sera- phinus de Fermo, Annius Viterbiensis, Petrus Galatinus) ; but his influence spread very widely in the course of succeeding centuries, and a continuous chain of many links connects the name of Joachim with that of Cocceius, who, in virtue of his Coj^ita/iones de apoc. S. Joannis (Leyden, 1605), is usually taken as the typical representative of the modern ' recapitulation theory. ' Among the precursors of the Reformation the anti- Roman and anti- papal interpretation began to gain ### 20. Reformation. ground, although the only methodic: exposition of this view that can be named is the commentary (by J(jhn Purvey?), emanating (rom \\'yclifiitei circles and written in 1390, which was afterwards published by Luther [Commen/arius in Apoc. ante centum annos editus, 1530). The founder of a consistently elaborated universal- historical interpretation was Nicolaus de Lyra (1329, , -- . 1 ^ ^^^ Postils, which have been often h- t^^^ 1 " printed). He is followed by certain nfpthofT Catholic interpreters, and, in method at least, by Luther, who in his pre- face of 1534 (Walch. , 11) gives, in the sp.ace of a few pages, a clever but fantastic interpretation of the entire book, in which, as might be expected, the anti- papal interest holds a central place. Luther's view- continued to dominate the interpretation of the Apoca- lypse within the Lutheran church. it prevailed from the time of Lucas Osi.tnder (BiHiorum sacrorum, pars 3) down to that of Jo. Gerhard (.Xnnot. in Apoc. /oh., ]ena., 1643) .ind Abr. Calovius (Hi/'lia K07: Test. Illtistr., tom. 2 Frankfort, 1672 a learned work with valu- able introductory material and persistent polemic .igainst Hugo Grotius ; for a list of the commentaries dependent on Luther see Bousset, Komm. 94). None of the works mentioned was of any value for the real interpretation of the book ; the .\poc:dvpse and its interpretation, so far as the Lutheran Church in Germany is concerned, became merely the arena for anti- (iatholic polemics. Within this period the number of works produced in Germany and Switzerland on this subject without dependence on the dominant Lutheran view was very small. .\mong them the Dilis^ens atque eruiiita enarratio lihri Apoc. Joh., 1547, of Theodor Bibliander is worthy of notice; in it we can discern in the treatment of chaps. 12 and 13 the 1 Cp Wycliflfe's own interpretation of Rev. 20 in the Dialofcui in Neander, KG 6 228. ### 22. Scientific. beginnings of an interprct.-xtion looking to contemporary con- ditions. Kullin^cr (I'redigUH, 15^7) and Junius (Afioc. Joli. lUuitratit, 1591) have a good deal vn common with Hil>liander. Wildest and most fanUistic of all are the English commentaries of this [x^riod. Among them may \x named Napier of Merchiston, the inventor of logarithms (A Plain nisan'try 0/ the ivhoU Rtvela- tion 0/ Saint fohn, 1593), Thom.-is Hrightman (AfuKalyfisis A/>oca/y/>sfos, Frankfort, 1609), Joseph Nietle (Clavii a/>,na- lyptica, 1627), and .Sir Is.-iac Newton {Cf/iscrrations u/><in II: f I'rophfcies 0/ Daniel and the Apocalypse 0/ St. John, 1732 dcjMindent upon Mcde). 'I'hc history of a strictly scientific interpretation of the .\|)()c:ilyijsc, on the other hand, must bo held to Ix'jjin wit!) the learned commentaries of French and .Spanish Catholic theo- logians. They meet the Protestant polemic with con- spicuous and indeed often astounding erutlition, and, going back to the pointof view of the earlier (.'hurch fathers, lay the foundations of .n cautious and for the most part purely escliatological interpretation. In this connection the works of Franciscus Ribeira (1578), Ulasius Vieg.xs(i6oi ? cpalso Hell.irniinus, Df SuiHino /'onti/ice, lib. tert. De .^ntichristo), Hcnedictiis IVreyra ( i ^^.06 ?), and Cor- nelius a I^apide (1626) are well worthy of mention. Conspicuous alwve them all is the Ve^ligatio arcani sensui in Afocalypsi of Ludovicus ab Alca/.ar. That writer was the first to carry out consistently the idea that the .\pocalypse in its earlier part is directed against Judaism, and in its second against Paganism, so that in ch.ips. 12 / we read of the first persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire, and in ch. 19 of the tinid conversion of that Empire. He thus presents us with tlie first serious attempt to arrive at a historical and psychological understanding of the book. The ide.- worked out Ijy .Mcazar had already been expressed by McMtc-nius in the preface to his edition of .Arethas (("/;, uinenii Coiitiitrntor., ed. .Morelius et Hentenius i), and by .Salmeron (C^ptra, 12, Coliv^ne, 1614, 'In sacram Jo. Apoc. prailudia '). It ouRht to be added here that the explanation of the wounded head as referring to Nero Redivivus is found (for the first time since Victorinns) in the commentary of the Jesuit Juan Mariana. It U.1S fro'u the Jesuits that Protestant science first learned how to v.ork thi, field. (irotius [Aftnot. ad XT, Paris, 1664), who is so often spoken of as the founder of scientific e.\egesis, is, in his remarks on the .Apocalypse at any rate, entirely depend- ent on .Mcazar, whose interi)retation, indeed, he has not improved by the details assuming references to universal history and contemporary events which he has introduced into it. (Irotius in turn was followed by Hammond (cp the Latin editions of Clericus, torn. 1, .\msterdam, 1698, and Clericus's notes to Hammond), Bossuet (i633), and Herva;us (1684). In Holland and ( lermany the fantastic school of interpretation continued to flourish for some time longer, prominent repre- sentatives Ijeing, in Holland, Vitringa, with his profoundly learned acaKpio-tt ajroKoAui/ifait (1705; dependent on Mede), and his many followers, and in tlermany, Bengel, with his commentary (1740-46-58) and sixty practical discourses on the Ap<3calypse. Much greater sobriety is shown by ^oh. Marck in his fn Apoc. Coinm. 1699, with its copious exegetical material and valuable introduction; also by a group of eschatological interpreters in which .are included F^leonora Peters (1696), Antonius I Iriessun (1717), and Jo.-ichim Lange {.-Ipokalyptisches Liclit u. Kfc/U, 1730). In the eighteenth century, although Aubert de Verse (/.<: I If/ lie I' apocalypse, 1703) followed the lines laid 23 Since dow n by Grotius, Hannnond, and Hos- 18th"century. ""T'- ^^ "^rpretation founded on ' allusions to contemporary events gained the ascendency, and in a very narrow form. At this lx;riod it took for the most part the very unfortunate course of endeavouring to treat the w hole of the AjxJca- lypse, after the analogy of Mt. 24, as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. In this category must be placed the expositions of A))auzit {Kssai siir Tapoc., 1733), Harduin (1741). Wetstein (A/7'<-//i a*/ crisin atquc interpretationcm .^'7'ed. Semler, 1766), Harenbcrg (1759), Hartwig (cp g 9), and, finally, Zidlig (1834). On the other hand, we find much that is rightly said in Semler's noies to Wetstein in Corrodi's Gesch. des Chiliasmus. And a return was made to the sounder general principles of Alcazar by Herrenschneider {Inaugural disi., Str.issburg, 1786) and by Kichhorn (Cummenlarius, 1791). Even those shreds of the interpretation that l(xjks to universal history, which had still jx'rsisted in showing thcm.selves in .Alcazar's work, were now stripped away, and thus a provisional resting- place was reached. This stitge is seen in the works of Bleek (Theol. Ztschr. 2, licrlin, 1820, I'orlesungen iiher d ie A Pol; . publi-hcd by Hossb.ich ill 1862), Kwald (Cow///;. 1828, Die Johann. S^hriften, 2, 1862), De VVette (Kurze Krklitrun^, 1848-54-62), I.iitke ( / enuch cinet vollst&ndigen liinleitung tn die Offenba 1852), V * * (59-87)- ttie Offent'arung, 1812, 2nd 1852), Volkmar ('62), and also, for the most part, iJiisterdicck In all these works the interpretation from contem- porary history is consistently carried out. All set forth from the decisive observation that in chap. 11 the preserva- tion of the temple is jiredicted, and all, accordingly, date the book from Ijefore 70 A.I). Further, they .-ill rightly recognise that the main drift of the .Xpf/calyiJse is directed against Rome ; all, too (e.vcept Diisterdieck), recognise Nero Redivivus in the woundeti head. In particular, since the discovery, independently arrived at by Fritzsche, lienary, and Reuss, that the nunilxT 666 is intended for pij ^Dp, the reference to Nero has Ijecome the rocker de bronce of all exegesis of the Apocalypse. In passing, mention may be made ol some works which, although following obsolete exegetical methods, are not without a scientific value: Hengstenberg ^'49-'5i-'6i), Kbrard ('53), Kiliot {Hone Apocalyptictf, 1851; univ. -hist.), .\iiberlen ('54-'74), Christian ('61), Luthardt ('61), Alford (A'rtf Testament, 4 2), Kliefoth ('74), P.eck {Erkl. von Offenh. i.-xii. ; eschatol.) and Kiibel (in .Strack-Zdckler's IfK, 1888; this takes a mcdi.-iting course between the standpoints of contemporary history and eschatology). See also Zahn, 'Apokalyptische Stutlien," in ZKHL, 1885-85. The interpretation of the Apocalypse entered on a new ph.^se ' as soon as doubts arose regarding the unity of the work and the method of literary ### 24. Question of unity. criticism to be applied. The conjecture, which had l)een hazarded more than once,- that the .Apocalypse was really a com[X)site work was again taken up independently (i) by Daniel \'blter, at nr T>j_ i- _ the suggestion of W'eizsacker, whose 26. Redaction i u t-u . i u hvDothe-is P"'"' ^^ ^^- ^^^ particular hypo- nypoineois. ^,^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^, \o\xqx as to the composition of the .Apocalypse may for convenience be called the redaction hyjxithesis [Ueberarbeitungs- Hypothcse). He .issumed in his first sketch, which he has not substantially modified, a fundamental text (Crvndscliri/t) consisting (apart from .single verses) of 1 1-4 4-fi 7 1-8 8/ 14 1-7 18 19 1-4 14 14-20 195-10 dating from the sixties, and an appendix IO1-II13 17, dating from 68-70 a.d. This underwent three (or rather four) redactions, of which the latest was in 140 A.u. or, at all events, later than 130. The work of Vdlter is based on a few happy observa- tions. For example, he saw that 14 14-20 really forms the close of an apocalypse, recognised the divergence Ijetween 7 1-8 and 79-17. the true character of lOi-ll 13, and so forth. Nevertheless, broadly, \'olter's performance gave the student an impression of excessive arbitrariness, and was rejected on almost every hand. Against the first edition see Harnatk, TL/,, 1882, Dec. ; Hilgenfeld, ^Cll'T, 1882; Warfield, /'/w/, Ke7'. 1884, p. 228; against the second edition, Jiilicher, G'tP.-i, 1886, pp. 25-38; Zahn, ZKH-L, 1886. The question was next taken up from an entirely different side (2) by E. Vischer ( ' Die Offenb. Joh. eine jiidische Schrift in christlicher fiearbeitung,' in l^exle u. Unters., 1886, 2nd ed. 1895); the result has been a lively and fruitful discussion. Vischer lx;lieved himself to have discovered that the ruling chapters (11/.) of the Apocalypse can be understood only on the as- 1 In connection with what follows see Holt?mann, JPT, 1891; Baldensperger, /../. 7'lieol. u. Kircltc, 1894 ; .A. Meyer, Theol. Rundschau, 1897, Hefie 2-3. 2 (;rotius, Hammond, V'ogel (Comm. vii. De Apoc. J ok. i8ii- 1816), Bleek (lierl. theol. /.tschr. 2 24oyC; he aljandoned his view in Beitr. 2. Evang.-Ktitik, 1846, p. 81 ; St. h'r. 1855, p. 220^). 3 Die Entsteh. der Apok., 1882, and ed. 1885; Tk. T, i8<}i, pp. 259i?: 608^; Prot. KZ, 1886, p. 32/ ; Dot Problem der Apoc., 1893. sumption of a Jewish origin. As he nevertheless con- tinued to Ijc convinced of the essential unity of the book, he inferred that in the form in which we now have it it is a Ckristian redaction of a Jewish writing. To the Christiaiv redactor, besides isolated expressions, he attributed the following passages: 1-3 59-14 79-17 1^ " 139/ 14I-S13I3 103 I615 17i4 199-'i3^2U4-6 2l5*-8 226-21. Vischer's able treatise found wide acceptance. Among those who signified their acceptance of his main thesis were Iselin (Theol. /.. aus iter Schveitz, 1887 ; ' Apocalyplische Studien ') ; an anonyi ' ^ "" ""^ '- '^ i-.,i. :_ TLZ, ZATn\ i886, pp. 167-71 ; Overbeck 1887, p. 28 / ; Mdn^^oz in Re-,: tie tlUol. et phil. 161 ; Krriger in CGA, 1887, pp. 26-35; Simcox in Ex- poiitor, 1887, p. 425/; On the other hand, Viiher (/J/V Offenb. Jolt, keine ursfiriint;!. jud. Apok., 1886), Beyschlag (St. Kr. 1888), and Hilgenfeld (ZW'T, 1890) declared themselves against it. Athough it must be cordially acknowledged that to Vischer belongs the honour of having first raised the question in its entirety, it nmst be said that he was not successful in his attempt to solve it. He has neither proved the Jewish character of chap. 11 / nor justified his fundamental thesis regarding the unity of the book. We shall Ix; doing him no injustice if we classify him among those who uphold the ' redaction ' hypothesis. The earliest exponent of the ' sources ' hypothesis {QueUen-Hypotkese), which has lately come into coiu- __ _ petition with that of redaction, was VVey- ### 26. Sources , . 1 1 1  . ., . land,whowrote almost contemporaneously hypothesis. ^^.,^j^ y.^^^^^^ ^.^1^ ^_ jggg pp ^^^.^^^ . and Om-verking en Compilatiehypothesen toegepast op de Apocal. van /. , 1888). Weyland finds in the Apocalypse tico Jewish sources (N and 3) which have been worked over by a Christian redactor. K corresponds, roughly, to Viilter's primary document ; 3 to the first and second of VOlter's redactors (in Vulter's Appendix K and 3 are separ.-\ted). Weyland's Christian redactor corre- sponds in a general way with Vischer's redactor. In 1894 Kauch (Die Offo.b. des J.) signified his adherence to Weyland. Against both the hypotheses we have just described serious and far-reaching objections present themselves. _, . ,. Against the 'sources' hypothesis must ### 27. Objectlons. j^ ^^ggj jj^ substance! the linguistic  unity of the Iwok (see below, 34); against the redaction theory it has to be observed (</) that the fundamental document made out by Volter and his followers (see above, 25) has no special character of its own, inasmuch as all the really living and concrete passages occurring within it are attributed to the redactor ; {h) that the disapp)earance of every trace of these numerous later redactions is remarkable. From such considerations the necessity for a third way became apparent. This third way was first . pointed out by Weizsiicker in his Apo- h Jf. ^tolic Age. He rightly discerned in the fiypo Apocalyptist's thrice repeated number of seven the fi.xed plan of an author who wrote the Apocalypse as a whole, and gave to his work the character of a literary unity. Into this literary unity certain interpolations intrude with disturbing effect (71-89-17 11 1-13 12 i-ii 12-17 13 17). Thus Weiz- siicker arrived at his fragment hypothesis. According to him the Apocalypse is a literary unity proceeding from a single author, into which, however, apocalyptic fragments of various date have been introduced by the author himself. In the opinion of the present writer these are the lines along which the true solution of the problem is to be sought. All later investigators in this field have followed one or other of the three hypotheses just enumerated. Oscar Holtzmann (CrV 2 658-664) assumes a Jewi.sh ground- work into which again a still older source (13 14 6-13) has been worked in a Christian revision. Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum, 1887, pp. 318-56) steers an eclectic course ; Sabatier (Les i^ri^inei littcraires de Capocalypse, 1887) and Schoen (L'origine de fapoc. 1887) represent a combination of Weizsacker and Vischer (regarding the Apocalypse as the work of a Christian author who has embodied Jewish fragments in bis book). 203 ### 30. Gunkel. A thoroughly elalxjrated ' sources ' theory is that of Spitta {Offenb. Joh. , 1884). In diametrical opposition 2fi Snitta. '" Weizsacker, he claims to see, in the P thrice repeated series of seven, three sources. These are (a) the seal source or Christian primitive Apoca- lypse U (U = Urapokalypse), written soon after 60 A.u. (practjc- alfy, apart from the specifically Christian inteqjolations of the redactor, chaps. 1-tl and "9-17 81 19 9 10 228-21); (h) the trumpet source J(l), a Jewi.sh writing (J = Judi.sch)of the reign of Caligula (7i-a 89 IO1-7 11 15 12 13 14i-ii I613-20 19ii-2o liOi-is 21 1-8); (c) the vials source Ji2), from the time of Pompcy (containing, approximately, the remainder of the book). These three have been worked together into a collected whole by a Christian redactor. (The additions assigned to iiim by Spitta are of alxjut the same e.xtent as those assigned to him by Vischer. ) The sources theory was next carried to the utmost by P. .Schmidt {Anmerkungen iiber die Comp.der Offenb. Joh., 1891). Erl>es(/>/> Oj^enb.Joh., 1891) in his separation of the literary sources agrees in the main with O. Holtzmann, but also main- tains with Volter (whose hypothesis he simplifies) the thoroughly Christian character of the whole book. Bruston (Les origines de l^ apocalypse, 1888) pursues a path of his own. .Mi-ndgoz (.Xniiales de bihliogr. tlieot. 1 ('88] pp. 41-45) assumed two Jewish apocalypses and a Christian redactor. The unity of the book is defended by certain scholars : Not only by the critics of Vischer mentioned above, but also by B. Weiss (AY/., and Texte u. V ntersuch. 8 1891), Bovon (Revue de tlu-ol. et phil., 1887, pp. 329-62), Hirsclit (Die Apoc. u. ihre neueste Kritik, 1895), and Bloin ( Tit. T, 1883-84). .\n ex- pectant attitude is taken by H Holtzmann (Junl., 1892 ; Hand- koiiim., 1893). Finally, altogether new lines of investigation were opened up by (Junkel in his Schbpf. u. Chaos ('94). He controverted sharply, and sometimes per- haps not altogether fairly, both the current me.thods of interpreting the .\pocalypse (that which looks to contemporary history for a clue, and that which adheres to literary critical methods), and pro- posed to substitute for them, or at least to co-ordinate with them, a history of apocalyptic tradition. He insisted with emphasis upon the thesis that the (one) Apocalyp- tist was not himself the creator of his own representa- tions ; that his prophecies were only links in a long chain of tradition. In his investigation of this apo- calyptic tradition he greatly enlarged the scope of the usual question ' Jewish or Christian ? ' by his endeav- ours to prove for chap. 12 a Babylonian origin, and in other places also (see below, 40) to trace Baljylonian influences in the book. Even if we grant that Gunkel has often overshot the mark, as, for example, when he refuses to recognise Xero in the beast and its number it is undeniable that his book marks the beginning of a new epoch in the interpretation of the Apocalypse. Stimulated by Gunkel, and accepting some of his results, Bousset {Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung _ . des Judenthians, des neuen Testaments, 31. iJOUBSet. ^^^^^ j^^ ^^.^^^ Kirche, 1895) proceeded to illustrate Gunkel's method by applying it to a definite concrete example, investigating the entire tradition regarding .\ntichrist, and endeavouring to show that in this instance a stream of essentially uniform tradition can be traced from New Testament times right through the Middle Ages and beyond them. In his view the Apocalypse can be shown to be dependent in a series of passages, particularly in chap. 11, on this already ancient tradition regarding .Antichrist. This view has been controverted by Erbes (T/ieologisckt Arbeiten aus detti r/teinischen ivissenschaftiichen Prediger- verein geivaudt, Neue Folge, 1, Freiburg, i. B., 1897), who, as against it, argues for the contemporary-history method in its most perverse form. Finally, in the Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar ('96), Bousset has sought to bring to a focus the result of the labours of previous workers. In his method of inter- pretation he follows Weizsacker (fragment hypothesis), and therefore gives a continuous commentary, describing the character of each particular fragment in its own I place. In his exegesis he has given special attention to the indications of (Junkcl, and to the result of his own researclies on the sul)jcct of Antichrist. To Sinn up the result of the lalxjurs of the last fifteen years upon the Apocalypse. It seems to be settled that P It ^^^ Ajx)calypse can no longer Ik: rej^arded ### 32. Resuits. ^ ^ literary unity. Against such a view criticism finds irresistible considerations. .\mong these is the intuiigruiiy between 7 j-8 and 79-17, as also th.-\t Ijctween 7 i-8 and 12^, the two explanations of the 144,000 in 7 i_^ and 14 ij/"., the interruption of the connection caused by 10-U 13, the jieculiar new becinning made in 12 i, the sini;ular character of chap. 12, the tioublelte presented bv chaps. 13 and 17, the fact tliat in 14 14-20 a Last judBment is depicted, whilst that involved in 13 does not arrive till I'J 11^; the observ.-i- tion that in chap. 17 two representations of the beast and his associates are given alongside each other (see below, 45) ; and the isolated character of chaps. 17 and 18, 21 9-22 5. Further, the chapters do not represent the same religious level. Chap. 7 1-8 (cp 20 7-9), with Us particularistic character, is out of harmony IxJth with cliaps. 1-3 and with "9-17 ; in 11 \/. the preservation of the temple is expected, whilst in 21 22 the new Jerus.nlem is to have none. Moreover, different parts of the book require different dates : chap. 11 1-2 must h.ive been written Ijefore 70 a. I)., chap. 17 prob- ably when Vesp.-isian had alre.idy been emperor for some time ; whilst the svriting, as a whole, cannot, at the earliest, have been llnislied before the time of Do This result holds good notwithstanding Gunkd's warning against the overhasty efforts of criticism. That a variety of sources and older traditions have been worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even by the student who holds that it is no longer possible to reconstruct the sources. It may seem doubtful whether a general character, date, and aim can be assigned to the Apocalypse ; T? 1 f ^'^' '^ ^'^^ been seen, the work is not a ### 33. Relative literary unity. Still, if there be good f ^^ J grountl for the critical conclusion indicated structure. :_^^^^.^^ that the Apocalyptist is himself an inde|x'ndent writer who has simply introduced various fragments into his corpus apocalypticum (Weizsiicker, Schon, Sabatier, Bousset), a relative unity has already been proved for the Apocalypse. This conclusion is contirmed, step by step, when the details of the book are examined. The relative unity is shown (i) in the artificial structure of the whole. Four separate times do groups of seven occur (epistles, seals, trumpets, vials) ; within these groups the prevailing distribution is into 4 + 3. The delineations of judgment and its horrors are reijularly followed by pictures of joy and heavenly bliss ; cp 7 11 14-19 14 1-5 15 1-4 19i-io. Everywhere artificial con- nections are employed in order to bind the separate parts together into one whole : cp, for example, 1 20 and 4 i, 64 and I4 10 5-7 11 11 13; also 19 2 14689-11 165-12^; also IS 19 7 8 21 2. (2) Further, the relative unity is shown clearly in the uniformity of the language throughout. The following are the more important ### 34. Of language facts. Throughout the entire boi)k are and style. found (a) strongly marked gr.ammatical irregularities anacolutha and impossible constructions {f.g., 1 ^f. 12 7), and confusions of case, especially with following participles(l4 io2 18 [see the reading of X] 20812 5 11/ Oi 7 4 9^;^; s 9 9 14 10 8 11 1 14 6 12 14 10 12 1748 IS i2y: 10 6 20 2 21 27 [reading of K]). In 1 13 and 14 14 (to Like only one instance) the reading ii/itoioi' vl'ov avOpiunov cannot have been due to two separate persons. (/') Hebraisms, especially the repetition of the demonstrative pronoun in the relative cl.ause (38 72 9 138 12 208, cp I2014 179, also 271726 3x2 21 O4 21 6), and the Hebraistic cai' (3 20 10 7 149/). (<) The const rue tio ad sensum is specially frequent (e.g.. Ait/. 5 6 12/ 74 93^. 13 11 4 15 13 14 143 173 II 16 194 14); sometimes involving a plural predicate after a neuter plural subject (324 4589 5 14 920 11 2 13 18 1^4 16 14 18 3 23 21 24). Less clearly attested is the simple ungramm.atical confusion of gender (9 7 14 19 19 20 21 14 22 2 ; see the MSS.). ((j) Various other systematic peculiarities of idiom. For example, irpoaKvvtiv governs the dative when the object is efO(4 10 7 II 11 16 19 4 229, cp 14 7) or JpaKajr (13 4), whilst, on the other hand, we have wpoo-ic. to ^piov, ttji' e'tKOva, 13[4l8 13 15 14 9 1 1 [19 20) 20 4 (in 16 2 also we should read tfji' t'lKova accord- 1 A justification of these results in detail will be found in the Author's Commentary on this l)Ook (Introd. pp. 183-208). In some cases, where the reading adopted is less strongly attested, the citations are in brackets. ing to the readings of K, which are wrongly given in the primed editions). The instrumenlal dative is extremely rare in the Apocalypse j its place is often taken by the construction with Hebraistic ty, or even (but rarely) with 6ia and the accusative (4 1 1 12 1 1 13 14). The vocative is rarely used (twice only : kv/h*, 11 17; ovpavi, IS 20). After a neuter plur.'il ihe predicate is usually also plural (1 19 8 11 I64 lti2o[18i4| 20 12 21 4). The Apocalvptist, except in a very few cases, construes 6 KaBrnityot itrC with the accusative, tow KoBi'itLtvov ini with the accusative, TOW Ka0rijxii'ov ini with the genitive, T<j KoBriiitixf ini with the dative ; he writes rl to litriunov, but tni Tiuf inrutnutv (ex< tp- tion in 14 9), and f'lrl riji' Kt<fM\r)v invariably (except in 12 1). He construes either 7ri rji yrj? or it rijf yiji' (14 16, <ri Trif yiji'), rl r^ #aAa<r<jTjs or i Tijf da^atraav. He invariidjly construes ypajftfLv, ioTofai ini with accusative (14 i ytyp. in\ tuv fitTunutv and 10 5 iaTai-ai 'irt ttjs yVjt are no exceptions but only con- firmations of other rules). Noteworthy, also, is the coiist.int vacillation in tense between present and future, and, in descrip- tions, between present and aorist. The Apocalyptist uses llie infinitive almost invari.ably in the aorist. Exceptions occur in ilie case of p Aim IV, of which he apparently never makes an aorist ; ahio in Il6l3i3(?). On the other han<l, following the rule that is customary elsewhere, he construes fjw'AAtii' almost always with the present infinitive. The copula is often wanting, particularly in relative sentences (1 4 2 13 5 13 9 1 1 20 ic). A clumge in the use of subjunctive and indicative is made only after iVa (oirut does not occur at all), but here also a certain regularity prevails. A quite extraordinary use of iva occurs in 12 14 and 14 13 (cp Jn. 856 92 11 15). In its use of particles the book displays an oppressive monotony : Kai is predominant everywhere ; only in the epistles to the seven churches is the style somewhat livelier. The arrangement of the words is markedly Hebraistic. In choice of words it is remarkably so. 'I'he following characteristic phr.ases and turns of expression may be noted : Aoyo? toO 9<oO Ka'i fiap-rvpia 'lijcroi/ ; o Kvpio^ 6 6(iii o navroKpaTuip ; oTi'Of Tou dvfxoi) TTj? opy*)? ^**"' *i5 TOU9 aiuiua^ tujj' atwfuji' ; Aifjiimj Tov TTDpot <cal Sfiou ; (^uAal yAJxrcrai Aaoi tdti) ; /Si^Aov ni? iVirit ; ^poi'Tttl (^Mui/al aarpaiTai creicrfios ; 7rj)-yai_ viaTiup ; 6 iiv Kai o ^v Kai 6 fp\6^i'o^ ; AoAcii/ and aKo\ov0(iu fxtrd', oi'Ofxa avru*; fitTo. Taiira ; aAr)6i'0 ; oouAos (in a pregnant sense), iJ.apTvpia, fi.apTvp(lv ; heiKvvtiv \ ciicdi' ; cr<f>dTTfiv ', <rKr)fovi> ; njptii/ rat tiToAav. Compare, furllier, the eiuimcrations in 15 11 18 l;f 16 19518 20 12 (tlie formula fiocpoi Kai fieydXoi); the beatitudes (jiaicapios ; I3 14 13 10 15 19 9 206 22714): the doxologies (lb 4 II 59 12/ 7 12 153 19 I 6); the formul.e introduced with ii&t (\3ioiS l-i iil7g);'JiA0i'rir)p.epa(,ipYi'i,iopa etc.; tii7lli8147 15 18 10 197). The general style of the Apocalyjise is monotonously diffuse : article and pre[5osition are almost always rejjealed when there are more substantives than one, as also is the governing word before the governed. Whole clauses are gone back upon and repealed in the negative : Hebrew parallelism is not unconuiion. We are now at last able to form a tolerably clear conception of the personality, the time, the circumstances, and the literary aims of the apocalyptist who planned the .Apocalypse, as a whole, in the form in which we now have it. (a) The Apocalyptist writes at a time in which violent persecutions have already broken out indeed they are beginning to become, so to say, epidemic. Of the seven churches, four Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna, Philadelphia are passing through such times of trial. The martyrs already form a distinct class in the general body of believers. They are destined to have part in the first resur- rectionbefore the thousand - years reign begins (204^. cp Tgj/'.). The seer beholds them under the altar (69^.). All through the book this time of struggle is kept in mind (13 i 149^. ISijf 106 17 6 IS 20-24). {!>) The .Apocalyptist predicts a still mightier and more strenuous struggle. In this struggle the predestinated number of martyrs is to be fulfilled (69^:). Philadelphia is to be preserved^in this Last great tribulation (3 10 ; cp the jxeyoAij #Ai'i/t of 7 14). This time is not far off: the martyrs who have already suffered arc bidden endure only a little longer (0 1 1). Therefore, ' Blessed are they that die in the Lord from henceforth ' (oir' oprt ; 14 1 3). (c) This Struggle turns, and will in the future turn, upon the worship of the beast. That this beast is in one sense or another the Roman Empire or con- nected with it, is admitted on all hands. It is important, however, to consider the grounds on w hich the .Apocalypse opposes Rome. Rome's horrible deed is not, as might perhaps be guessed, the destruction of Jerusalent, nor yet in the first instance, at le;isi the Neronian per- secution, but the worship of the beast i.e., Cwsar worship (cp 13 149/". 152/: ItJs/ o 17619ji/: 20 4-6; cp Mommsen, J?dm. Gesch. Ssaon.). What the book predicts is the great conflict about to break out all over the world between Christianity on the one hand and the Roman Empire (with the Roman state religion, the worship of the emperors) on the other (cp Antichrist, 7). (</) This great battle will begin with the return of Nero Rcdivivus. In common with the rest of the men of his day, the Apocalyptist shares the popular expt-ctatioii of tlie coming again of that emperor. Nero is(13 3 12 14) the head that was wounded to death and afterwards healed. He is only ' .as it were ' (u)) slain, like the lamb (.'> 6). For as the latter continues to live on in heaven, so does Nero prolong a shadowy existence in hell. Out of the abyss (17 s) he will again return, and as Roman Kmperor demand acloration. Then will l>e the days of the great future struggle. Hence the name of the beast is 656 i.e., nop nn: (cp An iichkist, 15). (() Thus the date of the Ai5ocaly[)se admits of lieiiig ajjproximately determined. The ciui of tlic first century is already sufficiently indicated by the fact tiiat the Apocalyptist expects the return of Xero from hell (Th. Zahn, 'Apocal. Stud.' inZA'II'Z., 1885, pp. 561-76, 1886, pp. 337-52 393-405 ; see below, 45). The following consideration points to the same inference, liehind the Apocalyptist in point of time there already lies a great persecution. He himself is again living in limes of persecution, and is expecting worse to come. Inasmuch as the former persecution must be assumed to be the Xeronian, we are compelled to carry the Apocalypse down to the later period of Domilian. When we do so the fact that 11 i ff. points to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem need not cause us any luisgiving : doubtless the passage comes from an earlier source. On the other side we sh(juld be able to fix an inferior limit for the date, could it be shown that the epistles were already known to Ignatius (see above, 2). The date thus indicated the close of the first century was in ]joint of fact the date at which, it would seem, the general persecutions of the Christians, turning substantially on the rendering of divine honour to the emperor, first broke out (see CiiKisTiAN, 6). The Apocalypse, as we now have it, presupposes conditions very siinilar to those which we meet in the well-known corresjjondence between I 'liny and Trajan. In this it is not implied that the Apocalypse could not have been written some ten years or more earlier. In the conclusion just indicated we find ourselves in agreement with the best attested tradition as to the date of the writing of the Apocalypse. According to Irenitus (v. 30 2 ; cp v. 20 7), the Apocalypse was 'seen ' at the close of Domilian's reign at Patmos, and therefore, of course, to say the least, not written earlier (cp Vict. Pettau. Comin. on Apoc. 10 11 ; Eus. HE iii. 18 1-3 ; Jer. Dc vir. iltus. p; Sulp. Sev. Chron.'l-},$$. .A. different tradition is met with, it IS true perhaps in Tertullian, who (De pru-scr. Hit-r. 36) mentions the martyrdom of John (by boiling oil a death from which he was miraculously delivered), and his subse(|uent banish- ment, in connection with the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (but see, on the other hand, Scot-piace 15). It is certain that at all events Jerome {Adv.Jcmin. 1 26 [2 16]) understood Tertullian as assigning this martyrdom and banishment of John to the reign of Nero (cp Eus. Dem. ETans:. 3 ; the superscription of the .Syriac translation of the Apocalypse edited by Ludovicus de Dieu ; the Gnostic Acts of John; Theophylact [who gives the date as thirty-two years after the Ascension ; cp the notes of some of the Greek cursives of the Fourth Gospel : thirty years after the Ascension, under Domitian (I); Erbes, 48]). Finally, Epiphanius (Hier, .51 12 33) will have it that the book was written under Claudius. The same statement occurs in the Commentary of Apringius (upon whom see Rousset, CGN, 1895, p. 2), whence it found its way into that of Heatus (ed. Florez, 33).

The Apocalj'p-se is distinguished from the apocalyptic literature of Judaism from the time of the book of

### 36. Personality of Apocalyptist.

Daniel onwards by the high prophetic consciousness which it displays. The Apocalyptist as he stands at one of the turning-points of the world's history looks with a clear eye into the future and feels himself to be a prophet. He is a Christian of an especial type. For the prophets are servants of God in a peculiar sense ( 1 1 I O7 11 18 226 [cp 153]) : they are the fellow-servants of the angels (229) ; other Cliristians are so only in so far as they follow the revelation of the prophets

(229). God is master of the spirits of the prophets (226 cp 17 17 19 10). Hence the author directly claims for his work the rank of a sacred book. It is intended from the first to Ije publicly read ( 1 3) ; those who hear it and obey what is written therein are blessed ( 1 3 227), and whosoever adds to or takes away from it falls under the most grievous curse (22 18/). The frec|uent mention of the propliets along with the saints {i.e.. Christians in general) see 11 18 166 I82024 is a proof, not, as many critics have supposed, of the Jewish, but of

j the Christian, origin of the related passages. The .Apoca- lypse in this respect was the forerunner of Montanism, and it is no matter for surprise that it was specially valued in Montanistic circles. It is also noteworthy

' that the Apocalyptist speaks to his own age and time.

( Whilst Daniel is represented as receiving, at the close of his vision, the command to seal the book for long, here

! in sharp contrast we read (22 10) ' Seal not up the words of the pro]5hecy. ' The Apocalyptist seems to have been a Jewish Christian of universalistic sympathies. For him the name of Jew is a name of honour (29 89) ; he seems to uphold a certain prerogative for the Jewish

peo|)le(7 1-8 11 1-132O7/. ). He shows himself intimately familiar with the language of the OT.

Into the apocalyptic unity thus defined, isolated frag- ments ha\e been introduced in a manner which can still be more or less clearly detected. Of these the more imjiortant at least must now be discussed, and some detailed account of the more noteworthy results of criticism given. Of recent critics the majority (Vischer, \'61ter, Weyland, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Schmidt) regard the epistles to the seven churches (chaps.

aps. - . ^_g^ ^^ having been originally separate from the rest of tlie book and as having been prefixed only after the Apocal3'pse had in other respects assumed its present form ; but Spitta has shown good grounds for believing that chaps. 1-3 and 4-6 ought not to be separated, and (as against Vischer and others) has established for the whole of chaps. 4-6 that Christian character which unquestionabl)' belongs to ^d ff. Thus Spitta takes chaps. 1-6 as a single original document ((Christian primitive apocalypse = U).

He seeks to prove this by pointing out that there is a definite close at the end of (>, and a fresh beginning of a new apocalypse in V I (so also P. Schmidt). But the sixth seal (Oi2_^.) does not represent the final catastrophe ; it only pictures a great earth- quake in the typical apocalyptic manner. In t3i5_^ the end is still to come, and if, with .Spitta, we pass on to 79-17 immedi- ately after 617, any representation of the end of all things h.as completely disappeared from our reconstructed Apocalypse. In any case, it is impossible that one should fail to recognise an interpolated fragment in the .short passage (C9-11) relating to the fifth seal. We have an exact parallel to it in 4 E.sd. 435 (cp also /Ethiop. Enoch 47). And the tradition of 4 Esd. must l)e regarded as the original one. It speaks quite generally of a predestined number of the righteous which has to be fulfilled before the coming of the end, whilst in the Apocalypse the conception is applied to the predestined number of the martyrs a modification which can be explained very easily from his general position (see above, 35).

Spitta's view that 7 1-8 constitutes a fresh beginning, which has nothing to do with the preceding chapters, is certainly correct ; but neither has the passage anything to do with that which follows it (79-17) ; as to this practically all critics are agreed. These facts, however, will not justify us in attributing 79-17 to the redactor (as do Volter, Vischer, Pfleiderer and Schmidt), nor yet in carrying out a system of deletions in chap. 7 (as do Erbes, Wej-l. , Rauch) until the two disparate sections have been brought into harmony. Our proper course is to recognise (cp also Spitta)- in 7 1-8 an interpolated fragment probably Jewish.

The sudden mention of the four winds, which are held by the angels and are nowhere in the succeeding narrative let loose, points to this conclusion, as also does the introduction of the 144,000 I.sraelites of the twelve tribes a numl^er which in 14 1_^ is interpreted in a sense inconsistent with the original ' '

Bousset has hazarded the conjecture that here have a fragment of the Antichrist legend.

39. Chap.

41. Chap.

12i-io.

The next passage wliicli presents sjx;cial difficulties is 11 1-13. Here all critics are agreed in recognising a _. fragment interpolated Ixilsveen the sixth

'. P' trumpet and the seventh (cp 9 11 and '"'^' 11m). Further, almost all critics agree in regarding chap. 10 as an introductory chapter connected with this fragment. On closer examination it is found, moreover, that 11 1-13 really consists of two smaller fragments: (a) lli /, a prediction of the preservation of the temple, written before the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, and presenting points of contact with Lk. 2124; (/'I the prophecy relating to the beast and the two witnesses (11 3-13). This latter piece is of an extremely fragmentary and enigmatical character.

Certain matters are introduced without any preparation : the two witnesses, the l)cast from the ahyss, the war of the beast with the witnesses, the jjeoples and tribes rejoicing over the death of these last. .\li these are disjecta membra which point to some larger connection.

In this passage, too, Housset has sought to show that we have a fragment from the Antichrist legend.

In accordance with Jewish :ind primitive Christian anticip-ition tlie .\ntichrist is destined to appear as a (jod-defying ruler in Jerusalem, to lead the people astray and tyrannise over them, and to gather together a great army from all nations. Against liim will arise the two prophets Elijah and Enoch, and Israelites to a definite number (7 1-8?) will be converted. A great famine and drought will come. Then .Xntichrist will put to death the two witnesses, and the end will draw near. It is evident that here we have a coherent tradition, of which some fragments are preserved in ch.ap. 11.

Chap. 12 is the most difficult in the book. It also falls into two sections, 12 1-12 and I213-17, and betrays itself as a foreign intrusion both by its unfamiliar character and by its strange and bizarre representations.

.\. Dietrich (Abraxas) was the first who sought to trace in the chapter an adaptation of the myth of the birth of Apollo : he liL-ld tlie i^x^iiaiil tu^jitive woman to be Leto, the dragon was tlii; I'Nihoii, the child (who in the original legend himself slew llu- l'\tlii)ii, Mich.icl liL-iiig a later introduction) was Apollo. The water which in the ("ireek myth figured as a protecting power h;is here become auxiliary to the dragon.

Recently Guiikel, in his Schopjiitig u. Chaos, has directed special attention to this chapter, and shown that an adequate understanding of it could Ix: arrived at neither on the assumption of a Christian nor on that of a Jewish origiti (\'ischer, W'eyland, Spitta) that on either hypothesis there remains an intractable residuum, bearing a mythological character. Here, accordingly, as elsewhere in the Apocalypse (cp the seven angels, stars, candlesticks, torches [EV 'lamps'], e3'es, pp. 294-302; the twenty-four elders, 302-8 ; Armageddon, 263-66, and p. 325 n. 2; the numlx;r 3^, pp. 266-70; also chaps. 13 and 17, 379^), he found elements taken from Babylonian mythology, and in particular the myth of the l)irth of the sun-god Marduk and of the persecution of Marduk by the dragon Tiamat. The difficulty

in this construction of Gunkel's is that down to the present date it has been impossible to find in the liaby- lonian mythology any trace of the myth of the birth and ])ersecution of the youthful sun-god. Bousset (Apok. 410/;), however, has called attention to parallels with one chapter in Egyptian mythology (the myth of the birth of Horus).

In the result, there seems much probability in the supposition that chap. 12 embodies a myth of the birth of the sun-god and the persecution of the young child by the dragon, the deity of winter and of night. The Apoca- lyptist has changed the sun-god, however, into the ttois 'iTjffoOj Xpiarbs, the persecutor into the devil, and the deliverance of the child into the resurrection (observe the inconcinnity of this adaptation). In this treatment of the material laid to his hand, he was not able to give full significance to the flight of the woman, which is so prominent a feature in the original myth. This is accordingly only briefly touched on in 126 ; but it receives copious and special treatment in the second half of the chapter {w. 13-17). Hence the incongruity between 12 1^ and 12 13/; which \\'eizsacker pointed out.

What historical occurrence is intended by the flight of the woman in 12 13-17 is not quite clear. Usually the 42 ChaD *^'^'^' '** ^*"'"" '^^ refi-'Ting to circumstances

, A *^* connected with the destruction of Jerusalem '^^" either to the destruction and (in a sense) the deliverance of Judaism, or, better, to the flight of the primitive Christian ( hurch.

Erijes, who seeks to explain ch. 13 as referring to the Caligula period (see below), interprets the flight and deliverance of the woman in connection wuh the first persecution of Christians at Jerusalem, strangely taking v. 17, 'the remnant of her seed who hold the testimony of Je.sus,' as pointing to the Jews (I) at the time of the Caligula persecution. Spitta actually takes the persecution of the woman as representing an occurrence in heaven. ' The remnant of the seed of the woman ' represents, he thinks, the actual Israel as contrasted with the ideal pre- existent Jerusalem (Israel?). Others (Vischer) interpret the rentnant as meaning believers as distinguished from tlie Nlessi.ih.

Chap. 13 also contains two passages of a peculiar character tho.se describing the first beast and the

.o /^i. 10 second. O. Holtzmaiui, Spitta, and

43. Cnap. 13:,., , . '. . ,

i.v c i. I. J. I'-rbes were agreed m recoijinsinij here the first beast. ^ j^^^.^,^ (Holtzm.. Sp.) or a Christian (Erb. ) source dating from the time of Caligula. Independently of each other, they all (as had already been done by Th. Zahn) acceiited the numlier 616 which is given in some .\I.SS (C. 11 Ticoiiiiis), instead of 666, and inter]3ieted it as meaning Tdibs Katcrap. The beast demanding worship, whose image {('iKihv) is repeatedly spoken of, is, on this view, the half- mad tyrant Caius Caligula, who in 39 .\.n. ordered his i)rocurator, I'etronius, to set uj) his statue in the temple at Jerusalem. Parallels to this prop-hecy belonging to the same date were found in Mt. 2-1 ( ' abomination of desolation ' ) and in 2 Thess. 2. The ' wound (irXrjyri) of the beast was interjjreted by Spitta as meaning the sickness which befel Caligula towards the beginning of his reign. These conjectures are by no means impossible ; but if they are acceisted, certain important particulars in the cha[)ter must be deleted in particular, references to the wounded head of the beast. This and the number 666 {-op jnj) show- distinctly that (in its present form) the chapter was intended to be understood of the return of Xero Redivivus. Whether an older source dating from Cali- gula's time has here been worked over remains doubtful.

As compared with this interpretation, the view which takes the wounded head to be Julius Ca;sar (Ciunkel, P.ruston) has little to be said for it since the number 666 in that case remains unexplained ; nor c.in we reasonably interpret the deatli-wouiid to mean the interregnum of (ialba-Otho-Vitelliiis, or refer the number to the Roman empire (Aareti'os, Diisterdieck ; C'CII 1ST> Ewald). '

Still greater has been the perplexity of interpreters

over the second beast. All attemjjts to make it out to

^ be some definite personality have hitherto

, been unsuccessful. Bousset {Cumm. ad loc.)

vf ^'^'t upholds the view that it is in reality a modifi- cation of the older conception of Antichrist, who is here represented as serving the first l)east, the Roman emperor, and perhaps is to be interpreted as signifying the Roman provincial priesthood, the active agency in promoting the worship of the emperor.

The objection usually urged against referring the pass- age to Nero that the beast whose number is 666 cannot mean Nero the man ; that it must mean the Roman empire is not valid. To the .Xpocalyptist Xero Redivivus is at the same time the incarnation of all that is dreadful in the Roman empire. The number of the beast is the number of a man : cp 17 " ' and the lieast ... is himself also an eighth ' {koX avroi 5y8oos e<XTiv). Chap. 17 is intimately connected with chap. 13, and this duplicate treatment of the same subjects is in itself proof _, .. sufficient that the .\pocalyptist had l)efore ap. /. him older prophecies, which he has worked over more than once. In this chapter also the reference to the returning X'ero is clear. Since Eichhorn, h<iw- ever, it has further been recognised on all hands (cp Ue Wette, Bleek, Lucke), and with justice, that the kings with w hom the beast returns for the destruction of Rome are the Parthians, whose satraps might already be regarded as independent kings (Momnisen, Rom. Kaisergesch. 5521). Thus our present chapter also conies into a larger historical connection. As early as the year 69 A.I), a psoudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia Minor and (Ireece (Tac. Hist. 2if. ; Dio C;issius, 649 ; Zonaras, 11 15) ; in the reign of Titus a second pseudo- Nero showed himself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 11 18) and was acknowledged by the I'arthian King Artabanus (Momm.sen, 5521). About 88 A. u. a third pseudo-Nero again made his appe;irance, also among the Parthians, and threatened the Roman empire (Suet. i\'cro, 50 ; Tac. IJis'. 1 2). In this form we find the same expectation also in the fourth Sibylline book, written shortly after 79 -X. D. {Sil'vll. 4 119^ ^yi ff-)< ^"d '" 'he oldest portion of the fifth book, written about 74 A.I). (5143^ 361^) ; in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation of Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Rev. IS 21) ; cp Zalms exhaustive researches (as above, 35)- tiy '*"'l^ iwwv: and place our chapter (perhaps associated with the threatening utterance against Rome and the prophecy of a new Jerusalem) belongs to the same circle of expectations and predictions. It was doubtless written in Asia Minor ; but the e.xact date is disputed.

According to 17 10 the Apocalyptist represents himself as writinj; under the sixth eniptror, five having died and .1 seventh having yet to cume, to be succeeded by the eiglilh, who is to be one of the seven (Xero). In reckoning, it is possible to begin either with Juhus Ocsar or with .\ugustus, to count or not to count the interregnum of C.alba-Otho-Vitellius, and finally to ask whether the p.issage was really written under the si.xth emptror, and not, rather, as a vaticinium ex enentu, under the seventh or eighth. Thus interpreters have taken the si.xth emperor to be now Nero (so all who hold the Apocalypse to have been written before 70 a.u. ; also V'Olter), now "Vespasian, and, conformably, take the chajiter to have been written now under the last-named emperor, now under Titus (the .seventh ; Wey- land) or Domitian, who is then taken, on rationalising lines, as Nero Redivivus (Erbes).

The parallels cited above appear to render the reign of \'cspasian the most probable date. The writer probably a Christian expected after Vespasian a short reign for his successor al.so. The tradition was that seven Roman emperors were destined to reign. There- after Xero was to come back with the Parthians, and, in alliance with these, to take vengeance on Rome, the bloody persecutor of the Christians (176; 'with the blood of the saints ' ; the words ' with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus ' appear to be a gloss). The denuncia- tion of Rome (chap. IS) connects itself very well with this prophecy (see Sibyll. 5).

It is further to be noted that chap. 17 has already, in the form in which we now have it, undergone redaction.

On the nne hand, Nero is simply the eighth ruler who was one of the seven ; on the other, he is the beast who comes up from the abyss. On the one hand, he wages war along with the Parthians against Rome ; on the other, he wages war along with the kings of the earth against the lamb. In this redacted form (17812-14 or 15; cp also Volter) Nero is designated as the dread spectre of the time of the end who comes back from hell. Now, we find the same expectation in chap. 13, where Nero is plainly represented as dead (ws eiriftaytievev, 'as though it had been smitten unto death ') and as counterpart (Wiederspiel) of the lamb that had been slain and is to come again. This mode of repre.senting Nero probably comes from the latest redactor. Parallels to it can be found in the later portions of the fifth book of tlie Sibyllines (33/^ 215-26), and in the eighth book (1-215).

The legend of Nero Redivivus first arose towards the end of the century, a full generation after Nero's death, when he could no longer well be supposed to be still alive among the Parthians (cp Zahn, as above). Its reception into the Apocalypse supplies one of the elements for determining the date of the book.

Chap. 16 12^ (the sixth and seventh vials) also must

have originally belonged to chap. 17. In this passage the

46 Various =^"5'"' Po^^^"' his vial upon the Euphrates,

^^ kings from the east' (cp 9i3j^, with its

reference to the angels bound and loosed at the

Euphrates ; on which, see Iselin in TAeo/. Z. aus der

Schweiz, 1887, as above, 25). The representation of the gathering of the kings at Armageddon (Har- Magedon) in this passage is noteworthy ; it is not very intelligible, as we read of no mountain of Megiddo, but only of a plain (but see Armageddon). It recalls the ancient accounts of battles of the gods upon the moun- tains (Gunkel, Schopf. 263^ 389 n. 2).

Chap. 14 14-20 also appears to be an ancient fragment. It thus early sets forth a final judgment by the Son of \lan. The passage, however, is so very fragmentary that it is hardly possible for us to make out what its original character may have been (cp the expression 'without the city' in 14 20). liousset has sought to explain it by reference to the Antichrist legend.

Fragments of older date seem to have been in- troduced into the account of the chaining of the dragon, the millennium, the irruption of (Jog and Magog (2O1-10; cp 2O9, irapffxjioXT} rCiv ayiwf, ttoXij qyairy}fj.ivri, and .^thiop. Enoch 56, Sil'vll. '6 319- 322). The description of the binding and loosing of Satan recalls the Persian legend of the chaining of the dragon Azi Dahak on Mt. Dcmavend. Finally, a continuous piece perhajjs of Jewish origin (see 21 24 26 222) lies before us in the description of the new Jerusalem, 21 9-225.

We ought to compare Tob. 13 16^, Ps. Salom. 17 23^, Sil'vll. 6247-85, 414-33, and the Hel)rew Apocalypse 0/ Elijah, edited by M. Buttenwieser, 65-67. In this last-named Jewish source also we find the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven.

To summarise the results of the forcs^oing analysis : With the conclusion of the epistles to the seven churches 47 Summarv (chaps. 1-3) the Apocalypse, properly so ^' called, begins. Here the first six seals succeed one another uninterruptedly, till the interpolated fragment in 7 1-8 is reached. As a pendant to this fragment, with its distinctly Jewish character, the Apoca- lyptist proleptically introduces in 79-17 a picture of the blessedness of believers from every nation who have come out of the great tribulation. Now follow the seventh seal and, arising out of this, the seven trumpets (chaps. 8-11). Between the sixth and tlie seventh trumpet -x the passage 10 i-ll 13 has lx;en interpolated. In chap. In the Apocalyptist indicates to some extent what the ' dis- position ' of the remainder of the book is to be (cp 10 n). It is to be observed that in chaps. ^ ff- , in addition to the distribution under seven trumpets, the Apocalyptist has attempted a second under three woes. The first woe answers to the fifth trumpet ; the second, the mention of which might have been expected after the sixth trumpet, does not come up until 11 14, after the great interpolation has been reached. The third great woe (which is not expressly named by the Apocalyptist) is doubtless indicated in 12 12. It is hardly likely that we have here a redaction from an older source. Before, then, he comes to the culmination of his prophecy, in chap. 13, the Apocalyptist casts his glance backwards in chap. 12. Borrowing the imagery of an ancient sun-myth, he depicts the birth, persecution, and rescue of the Saviour, and afterwards the persecution of the Church. In chap. 13 he goes on to foretell the coming final struggle, the last great ,ind decisive battle between the faithful ones and the beast who demands adoration. For him the supreme crisis of this struggle still lies in the future, when Nero Redivivus is to appear. In the bright picture which he prophetically introduces at 14\$ by way of contrast to chap. 13, he adapts and modifies 7 1-8. 146-13 is intended to effect the transition to what follows. 1 4 14-20 is a smaller interpolated fragment. The great finale remains. The Apocalyptist still had to work in the prophecies contained in chap. \7 /. \ by way of introduction to these, chap. 1.')/ are given. Then follows, after an intermediate passage (19i-io), the picture of the final judgment (19ii-2l8); after which we have a new fragment, 21 9-22 5, followed by the close.

Literature. The literature of the subject has been indicated in the course of the article. w. B.