Ver. 4. They are further described in the terms applied by Zechariah to the two most prominent religious figures of his day, except that they are compared to two lampstands, not to one which is septiform. The idea is that their autho-
2—8.
5. καὶ el τις αὐτοὺς θέλει ἀδικῆσαι,
lel A ~ A ἀπῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ oTduaTos αὐτῶν καὶ
τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν ᾿
καὶ el! τις αὐτοὺς ’ θελήση ἀδικῆσαι,
οὕτω δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποκτανθῆναι.
6. οὗτοι ἔχουσιν τὴν ἐξουσίαν " κλεῖσαι τὸν " οὐρανόν, ἵνα μὴ ὑετὸς βρέχη τὰς ἡμέρας αὐτῶν τῆς προφητείας
αὐτῶν,
καὶ ἐξουσίαν ' ἔχουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν * ὑδάτων,
στρέφειν αὐτὰ εἰς αἷμα,
καὶ "πατάξαι τὴν γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ,
ὁσάκις ἐὰν θελήσωσιν.
7. Καὶ ὅταν τελέσωσι τὴν µαρτυρίαν αὐτῶν, τὸ θηρίον τὸ ἀναβαϊ-
νον ἐκ τῆς " ἁβύσσου " ποιήσει μετ
8.
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀποκτενεῖ αὐτούς.
uCf. Encycl. Relig. and Ethics, i. 53-55.
cone xiii. 7)?
καὶ. τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς
417
σα 1χι 17 2 Kings i. τοῦ., Luke ix.
, κατεσθίει
54) (Moses) Num. xvi 39. ἳ
t For subj. with εἰ, cf. 1 Cor XIV. 5 (Deissm. 118).
81 Kings XVii., Sir. xlviii. 3, Jub. xxiii. 18.
t See feats ascribed to Moses in Exod.
+ er / A , αὐτῶν πόλεμον καὶ νικήσει
Bell. ν.9
v From Dan. vii. 21; divine permission
‘For και ει Bl. conj. καν (from katy $9*C, 1).
rity and influence are derived from God. As in ver. 7, the function of the two witnesses (cf. Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15) is defined as ‘“‘ prophecy,” but no details are given.
Vv. 5, 6. In this description, borrowed from traditional features of Moses and Elijah (whose drought lasted for three and a half years, according to Luke iv. 25; James v. 17), the metaphorical ex- _ pressions of passages like Jer. v. 14 and ’ Sir. xlviii. 1 are translated into grim reality (see reff.), as in Slav. En. i. 5 and the thaumaturgic practices chronicled by Athen. iv. 129 D and Lucian (Philopseud. 12). These are no meek apostles of the Christian faith. To stop rain was equi- valent to a punishment for iniquity (Ps. Sol. xvii. 20-22, En. c. 11, etc.)
Ver. 7. The influence of Hebraic idiom helps to explain (cf. xx. 7-9) the translator’s ‘“‘transition from futures through presents to preterites’’ here (Simcox). τελέσωσι (Burton, 203) dicates no uncertainty. When their work is done, they are massacred—not till then; like their Lord (Luke xiii. 31 f.), they are insured by loyalty to their task. The best comment upon this and the following verses, a description col- oured by the famous passage in Sap. ii. 12-iii, 9, is Bunyan’s description of the jury in Vanity Fair and their verdict. This beast ‘from the abyss”’ is intro-
duced as a familiar figure—an editorial and proleptic reference to the beast ‘‘from the abyss’’ in xvii. 8 or from “the sea”’ (xiii. 1; the abyss and the sea in Rom. x. 7 = Deut. xxx. 13) which was (cf. Encycl. Rel. and Ethics, i. 53 f.) the haunt and home of daemons (Luke Viii. 31, etc.), unless he is identified with the supernatural fiend and foe of ix. 2, 11. (Bruston heroically gets over the diffi- culty of the beast’s sudden introduction by transferring xi. 1-13 to a place after xix. 1-3). The beast wars with the wit- nesses (here, as in ix. g and xii. 17, Field, on Luke xiv. 31, prefers to take πόλεμονΞ- pay nv,a single combat or battle, as occasionally in LXX [e.g., 3 Kings xxxii. 34] and Lucian), and vanquishes them, yet it is the city (ver. 13) and not he who is punished. The fragmentary character of the source is evident from the fact that we are not told why or how this conflict took place. John presup- posed in his readers an acquaintance with the cycle of antichrist traditions according to which the witnesses of God were murdered by the false messiah who, as the abomination of desolation or man of sin, was at feud with all who opposed his worship or disputed his authority. Ver. 8. God’s servants rejected and cast aside, as somuchrefuse! See Sam. Agonistes, 667-704. The ‘great city”’ is Jerusalem, an identification favoured