EEVELATIOX, BOOK OF
REVELATION, BOOK OF 257
historical explanation of cli. 12 in opposition to Gnnkel's tradition-historical explanation.
We may regard Well Hansen's analysis as plaus- ible, for the war in heaven and the easting of the dragon down to earth must originally have pre- ceded his persecution of the woman (w.** and " suggest this order). But Gunkel is surely right in denjnng that the figure is the pure invention of the Jewish writer, whom he as well as \\'ellh. accepts. Its history goes further back, and its origmal connexion with a sun - mytli is highly jirobable. It is a striking fact that (Jreek myth- ology in its story of the birth of Apollo, and the attempt of the dragon Pytho to kill his mother (Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 117 ii'.), and also the Egyptian story of the birth of Horus (Bousset, p. 410 f.), contain striking points of likeness to Rev 12, so that Gunkel's resort to a postulated Baby- lonian story may not be necessary. In all of these sun-myths, however, the flight of the woman is before the birth of the child, and for its rescue from the dragon.
The questions left open by these recent discus- sions of the chapter are many, and the hypothesis of a Jewish Me.ssianic use of a heathen sun-myth, and then a Christian adaptation of the Jewish form, leaves room for much diversity of opinion in detail ; yet it is a wholly credilde hypothesis, and the actual history of the tradition here era- bodied is probably more rather than less complex than the theory.
Heathen may well be the description of the woman (v.l) and of the dragon (\'v.3-*»), his effort to en;;ulf the woman, her irings, and the wilderness to which she flies (H-'**), Jewish (certainly not Christian) may be the idea of the birth and 'mme<liate translation of the Messiah to God (v. 5),* so also the otflce of Michael (•), and perhaps a chanj;e ol order by which Che woman's fli^'ht is made to follow the birth of the cliild. The Hebrew lanyuajje, according to Wellh. and Gunkel, lies behind the Greek of the chapter. Christian is vM, and, more- over, so plainly out of keeping with the rest, as almost to prove that the Christian writer is using material already shaped (cf. Vischer). The verse contains the messajie of our writer, and is one of his characteristic anticipatory sayintrs. Christian may ■Iso be the chantfe of order by whicli Christ's birth and ascen- sion are made to prece<te tiie casting of the dragon out of heaven (cf. Jn 1'231 14™ lo'l-as. l Jn 38, Col •21i>). This fives Christ an earlier and higher part in the drama than the Jews ucribed to their Messiah.
In answer to the question as to the writer's use of this uncanonical material, we are bound to con- clude that it was as free and poL^tical as his use of OT conceptions. V." gives us the clue. The victory of Christian faith over the world through martyrdom is the counterpart on earth, the inter- pretation for man, of the victory of Michael over the dragon in heaven. The place of Michael here, where we should expect only the direct deed of Christ, shows both the extent of the writer's depend- ence on tradition and the confidence with which he finds a Christian meaning behind unchanged Jewish forms.
Are we not to see, then, in ch. 12 any reference to historical factors and events? Wellhausen's exact determination of the history here symbolized is far from convincing, and, moreover, it fails to explain many features in the picture. It need not, however, be doubted tli;it the dragon was, at Some point in the genesis of the cliapter, regarded •8 a Kynibol of the lioman empire. His seven crowned heads and ten horns mean world-nilership, and his persecution of the W(jman's seed is the same jiersecution with which our whole book deals. So far, indeed, even Gunkel allows the presence of cuntemiiorary hi.story in ch. 12.
The ca-te is a more comjilex one in chs. 13 and 17, but the dillerence is one of projiortion and degree. Traditional elements are hero in abundance, and beyond dispute, yet the reference to Home is more
• BousMt omIU the Jewish link In the chain because this nature has no parallel in Iho Jewish Messianic hope. VOL. IV.— 17
specific and detailed. Gunkel admits the latter element here (as in Dn 7. 8, Enoch 85-90, 4 Ezr 11. 12, Apoc. Bar 5311".), but restricts it within narrow limits, and wUl by no means allow that these figures were freely invented allegories, every feature of which can be explained as a reference to contemporary history. He dill'ers from the ruling critical opinion most radically in his refusal to recognize any allusion to Nero. Two questions must be kept quite distinct in the study of these chapters: (1) the question how much is due to apoc.'ilyptical tradition, and how much is re-shaped or invented for the sake of the apiilication of the traditional figures to Rome ; and ('2) the question whether this application is made by the writer of our book, or was already present in the — possibly Jewish — sources from which he drew.
The seven heads and ten horns appear in each case (12^ 13' 17'). The Roman world-empire was meant by all. Yet the ditt'erences are so great that one must conclude that more or less independ- ent traditions lie behind the three chapters, even if they are ultimately traced to one root. The seven heads and ten horns sum up the outfit of the four beasts in Dn 7, though they do not need that explanation. We can well suppose the numbers to have been symbolic at first, but the ellbrt to apply them to individual kings, and so to estimate the nearness of the end, was inevitable. There is evidence in the chapters of diflerent etibrts of that kind.