serious attention. 7,a.\\-n(Zeil.f. kirchl. Wi-ssensch. u. k. Leben, 1885, p. 508 H'.) argued that Irenseus opposed the readinjj 616 because those w ho held it did so for the sake of applying it to Caligula (FAIOS KAI2AP = 616) — an interpretation which Iren. re- jected. Holtzmann (Stade's Gesr/iicA<e, ii. 388 ff.), Spitta, and Erbes independently (as Zahn predicted) came to the conclusion that tliis was, in fact, the original reading and meaning of the number, and that ch. 13 is part of a Jewish oracle of Caligula's time. In fact no ruler since Antiochus Epiplianes so UUed the r61e of Antichrist in the Jewish mind as he who attempted to have his image erected in the temple. To liim 13^"', and to the priesthood of his worship w.''- ", would admirably apply. More- over, he recovered from what seemed a fatal illness at the beginning of his reign. Bousset does not wholly reject the hypothesis that a Caligula apoca- lypse underlies this chajiter (Komm. pp. 433-5). Other interpretations of the number 666 must heie be passed by, though Gunkel's ' the chaos of old ' may be mentioned. The number does not prove, and can hardly be said to give substantial support to the identification of the beast with Nero.
Beyond the unmistakable general reference to Rome, it is hard to find histoi-y in our author's visions ; and this reference had certainly been given already to the figure of the beast, and in all proba- bility by Jews. Events during the last half of the century must have led Jewish apocalyptical writers to many more expressions of their hatred of Rome and visions of its overthrow than have sur- vived. Indeed, Pompey is already called the dragon in Ps-Sol 2-^ (see Assunip. Mos., 4 Ezra, Apoc. Bar). Our author and the Christian communities for which he writes have reason to share the Jewish hatred of Rome, and enter into the inheritance of various Jewish expressions of it. Our author has, as it were, eaten the book of past prophecies against peoples and nations before he utters his own. The ancient language has, as we have seen, often the value of poetry to him ; but it is impossible, though we might wish it, to refer the polemic against Rome only to sources used by our author, or to resolve it into a figure of the war against evil in general.
iv. Historical Situation. — We have already seen that the date of separate oracles in our book cannot be assumed to be the date of the book as a whole. 11'"" is from some time before 70, but is not literally used by our author. The figurative application of this oracle to the safe keeping of the true people of God « ould be more natural alter the event of 70 had disproved its literal sense. Ch. 13 may have been shaped in Caligula's reign, or soon alter Nero's death. 17'" must have been written under the sixth emperor of Rome, i.e. Nero, count- ing from Julius Ca-sar, or his successor, counting from Augustus, but Nero's successor might be regarded as Galba, or as Vespasian. That one more emperor is expected only shows that the number seven is fixed; and that he is to reign a short time could be inferred from the nearness of the end, and does not require the knowledge on the WTiter's part that the reign of Titus was in fact short. But if v." comes from Vespasian's reign (and so is consistent with II'""), must not v." have been added by some later hand ? The writer, it would seem, already lives under the eighth emperor (Domitian), and adds this verse in order to adjust what was writtf n under Vesj)asian (v.'") to his own time by so addl<ig an eighth as not to overpass the fixed number, seven. On the basis of this verse Hamack [Chronolorjie, p. 245f.) confidently dates the book under Domitian. Yet it is possible that the writer of v.'", under Vespasian, expected the return of Nero, one of the seven, as an eighth, who, coming back after death out of the abyss, could be regarded as the very demon spirit of Rome, th«
REVELATION, BOOK OF
REVELATION, BOOK OF 259
beast itself. But even if, in this way, with Bousset, we date ch. 17 as a whole under Ves- pasian, this also may be the date only of a source.
Though historical allusions do not Ox the date, yet, taken in connexion with other indications of age, the date ascribed to the book by Iren»us (V. XXX. 3), ' near tlie end of the reign of Domitian,' i.e. about a.D. 93-96, is to be preferred to that which was for some time the ruling view of critics, A.D. 66-69 (Liicke, Bleek, etc.). It is not in sections clearly dependent upon apocalyptical tradition, but in those more ori^nal, and especially in the letters, that we should confidently expect to find indications of the author's o^vn time. In spite of the ideal and typical significance of the seven Churches, actual conditions unquestionably meet ns here. Persecution past and future forms the background of the letters. The writer was (not is) in the little island of Patmos ' on account of the word of God and on account of the testimony of Jesus,' i.e. probably not in order to receive his revelation (cf. 1'), but because of his Christian preaching (cf. 6'), that is, in banishment (see 1**). But the baiiisIiTiient of a conspicuous Christian seems to disclose a definite movement against Christianity in Asia Minor on the part of Kome Buch as we do not know of before Domitian. There are persecutions already past (Epliesus, 2'; Pergamum, 2", had its martyr ; Philadcli)hia, S"' '"* ; in Smyrna and Philadelphia at the hands or Bt the in.stigation of Jews, 2* 3"); yet this past per- secution could be that under Nero. A renewed and greater trial, of world-wide scope (3'"), is soon to come. At present the Koman world tempts rather than compels Christians to adopt a heathen manner of life and heathen worship. (Is this present quiescence in the writer's mind when he says tliat tlie beast * was, and is not ; and is about to come up out of the aby.ss, and go into perdition '(17*)?) Imprisonment and death are anticipated for the faithful, and for this the letters, indeed the whole book, will prepare them. Its tlieme is the glory and reward of^ martyrdom. The heretical teach- ings which are condemned in Pergamum (the teach- ing of Balaam) and in Thyatira (that of Jezebel) result in heatlien ways of living rather than in doctrinal errors, though they seem to have based their worldliness on some sort of gnosis (2-*). It is uncertain whether 'Nicolaitan' was tlie proper name of this sect (possibly derived from the Nicolas of Ac 6°) or only the Or. name for Balaamites (so Schiirer, who appeals to the viK-q of Jos. Ant. IV. vi. 6). Schiirer argues with mucli force that Jezedel was the priestess of the Chaldean Sibyl, Samliethe, who had a sanctuary at Thyatira (Theol. Ahhandl. C. von Weizsdckcr gewidmet, 1892, pp. 37-58). To this hypothesis it has been objected (Bous.set, Zahn) that tlio impression is given that she is directly under the discipline of Christ (vv.n-a), that the church is at fault for allowing her (v.*>), and that the sphere of lier activity is the Christian community (\'v.*>- ''*), so that a false Chris- tian prophetess ratlier than a heathen is indicated. The wife of the bishop (Zahn) she surely need not be. Satan's throne in Pergamum (2'^j may refer to the worship of Asklepios there, whoso symbol was the serpent, or to the fact that hero emperor- worship was first introduced, with temple and priesthood. The latter would better explain the martyrdom of Antipas (unless he were killed by a mob), and would better fit the figure of the second beast (13"") Cii'sar-worship was Home's worst deed, and resistance to it was that overcoming even to death which our book urges by entreaty, threat, and promise (15" 16"- '» 17" ig^"'- 20«-').