“‘Sodvai pot τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ”
4 A ~ 11. Kat *Aéyouciv por, “Aet σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι Ὀλαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσι καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ ’ βασιλεῦσι πολλοῖς ”. See Dieterich’s Mithras-Liturgie, p. 1ΟΙ.
z =“I was told” (like xi. 1, xvi. 15 impers. plur.). b Pleonastic, as v. 9, vii. 9, Dan. iii. 4, vii. 14, cf. xiii. 7.
. Kat λέγει por, "'' Λάβε καὶ κατά-
πα Ἡ ‘ a N , > . 3 A / , Φαγε auto" καὶ πικρανεῖ σου τὴν κοιλίαν, GAN ἐν τῷ στόµατί σου t 1Ο. Καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ἐκ τῆς
να > a / , και ην εν τῷ στοµατι
µου ὡς μέλι, γλυκύ᾽ καὶ ὅτε 7 ἔφαγον αὐτό, ἐπικράνθη ἡ κοιλία
4 * ἐπὶ
y In sense of κατέφαγον which it echoes (cf. a Cf. xxii. 16,
dently forms part of the βιβλαρίδιον (cf. Introd. § 2). Its enigmatic contents. interrupting the trumpet-visions, with edges which do not fit into the context or the rest of the Apocalypse, point to the incorporation of a special and dis- parate source. Any analysis is more or less hypothetical, but the writer is evi- dently not moving with absolute free- dom. He has his own end in view, but he reaches it, here as elsewhere (ef. vii. 1 f.) by means of stepping-stones which originally lay in different surroundings. This is widely recognised by critics and editors, who commonly take 1-2 and 3- I3 as separate oracles. Each indeed might be the torso o a larger source. But, in spite of the different descriptions of Jerusalem, the hypothesis of their original unity has much in its favour. How could so tiny a scrap of papyrus as that required for 1,2 be preserved? Be- sides ver. 3 goes with ver. 2 (the pro- phetic mission as a counterpart to the punishment), the two periods are alike, the strange 8{8wpt-construction occurs in both (here only in Apoc.), and the in- version of object and verb is common {ο both (2, 5, 6, 9, 10). To discover an oracle of the Zealots in 1, 2 (Wellhausen, Bousset, Baljon, J. Weiss) is precarious, for even if we could suppose that these passionate citizens took time to write oracles, they had not a monopoly of be- lief in the temple’s inviolability. The latter belief conflicts with Mark xiii. 1, 2 (Ac. vi. 14); but, while this makes it extremely unlikely that the passage was adopted, or at least composed, by one of the Twelve, it does not necessarily dis- prove a Jewish Christian origin for the fly-leaf. Patriotism must have often swayed hope, even in face of authorita- tive logia. Still, a Jewish origin is more probable (so from Vischer and Sabatier to Baljon, Forbes, von Soden, Wellhausen and J. Weiss), in which case 8 ¢ (ὅπου . « « ἐσταυρώθη), with possibly 9 a and: