the surrounding districts. The visions of the book are frequently put in terms of local and contemporary religion. Even the contour of what are apparently Old Testament reminiscences is occasionally modified by the collateral foreign tendencies which permeated post- exilic Judaism, especially along apocalyptic lines (cf. Cheyne’s Bible Problems, 70 f.). Thus (a) the Babylonian background of several conceptions! is now recognised on all hands (see notes on i. 4, 20, iv. ie vac, wil εκ, 11, κιν. 6, εἰς 7) 9G) xxi? 1-2, 18, xxii. 1, 16). The gnosticism of Asia Minor during the second century reveals the survival and adaptation of more than one feature which was ultimately due to Babylonian mythology or astro-theology, and the previous developments of Judaism had already assimilated ideas from the older speculations of the Babylonians. (b) Along with this, traits corresponding to analogous conceptions in Egyptian religion are fairly common (see notes on i. 8, ii. 7, 11, 17, 26 {., iv. 3, 9, v. 13, vii. 16, xii., xiv. 5, xv. 6, xxii. 4, 16). This is hardly surprising, as Egyp tian prophecy probably affected Hebrew prophecy (cf. Wilcken it Hermes, 1905, 544 f.), as the relations between Asia Minor and Egypt were close, and as the latter country was the natural home of escha- tology. (c) The Hellenic traits, though fewer and fainter, are not inconspicuous (cf. notes on ii. 17, iv. 11, vii. 9, 16, viii. 5, ix. 11, xii., xv. 6, xx. 8 f.), but specifically Orphic features (cf. Maas, Orpheus, 1895, pp. 250-261) are scarcely recognisable. (d) The Zoroastrian ὃ
1 Especially behind xii. (cf. Calmes, Rev. Biblique, 1903, 52-68, and Jeremias pp. 34 f.). But cosmological traits or traditions from Babylonia will not explain the entire form of this oracle (cf. Cheyne’s Bible Problems, 195-207, and Kohlhofer, ΡΡ. 72 f.), and even elsewhere they break down. Thus it is extremely questionable if the Babylonians had any conception of the millennium or of the resurrection of the dead; the accusing function of the devil is absent from Babylonian theology, as are the features of xiii. 11-17; and the Babylonian origin of the heavenly temple seems to be highly doubtful (cf. Prof. G. B. Gray in Exfos., 1908, May-June).
2 Hermas, the next apocalypse of the early church, is tinged at one point by this influence (cf. Reitzenstein’s Poimandres, 12 f.). The occupation of the Cyclades led to the introduction of many Egyptian deities into the local cultus between 308 and 146 B.c. (cf. F. Hiller von Gaertringen’s Beitrdge zur alten Gesch., i., 1902, pp. 218 f.), including not only Isis but that worship of the Ptolemies which, e.g. in Thera (cf. the same writer’s Thera, i., pp. 237 f.) fostered the later Imperial cultus of Rome. Some further Egyptian parallels are collected by Miss A. Grenfell in The Monist (1906), 179-200. ¢
3 The English reader may consult Prof. Moulton’s article on ‘‘ Zoroastrianism ” in Hastings’ Dict. B., vol. iv., E. Bi. iv. 5428-5442, Lightfoot’s Colossians, pp. 385 f.), and Renan (pp. 470 f.). I have stated and discussed the general evidence in H. F., 1903-1904. The best investigations are in the ¥ahr. fir protest. Theologie,
Hiibschmann (1879, pp. 203-245) and Brandt (1892, pp. 405 f., 575 f.) respectively., Cf. also Boklen and Stave (5 το).