415
w xiv. 8, xvi: πλατείας τῆς “ πόλεως τῆς IQ, XVii.- XViii.
x Ps. cv. 38.
"μεγάλης, ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδοµα καὶ ” Αἴγυπτος,! ὅπου καὶ 6 Κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη. 9. μ Y p p
yCf.onii, καὶ βλέπουσιν ᾿ ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν τὸ
Io (parti- 4 tive).
a Hereasin 8= collec-
tive term (“corpses”), as πρόσωπον Gen. xlviii. 20, κεφαλή Lev. x. 6.
πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἥμισυ, καὶ τὰ ’ πτώματα αὐτῶν οὐκ
b Cf. Isa. Ixxviii. (Ixxix.)
3, Ps. Sol. ii. 31, En.xxii. το; 2 Kings ix. το, and Jer. xxiii. το.
‘Pr. om. και Αιγνπτος (an early gloss, Haussleiter 213). Further editorial Christian additions are suspected in ητις . . . εστανρωθη (so ¢.g., Weyland, S. Davidson, Wellh.) or οπου . . . εστανρωθη (so e.g., Sabatier, Schén, Vischer, Pfleid., Rauch, Vélter, Baljon, Bs., de Faye, Kohler, von Soden).
by (a) incidental O.T. comparisons of the Jews to Sodom (Isa. li. 9; Jer. xxiii. 14; so Asc. Isa. iii. 10), (b) the Christian editor’s note ὅπον καὶ 6 κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη, (c) a passage like Luke xiii. 33, (d) the reference in xvi. 1g, and (e) pas- sages in Appian (ΦΥ. 50 μεγίστη πόλις ‘l.), Pliny (Η. N. xiv. 70), Josephus (Apion, i. 22), and Sib. Or. (v. 154, 226, 413, written before 80 Α.Ρ.), all of which confirm this title (cf. the variant addition peyadny in Apoc. xxi. 10): it isindeed put beyond doubt by the peculiar antichrist- tradition upon which the Jewish original was based (4. C. το f., 134f., E. Bi.i. 179, 180). The obscurity and isolated char- acter of this eschatology, ‘‘an exotic growth upon the soil of Judaism’ and much more in early Christianity, may be accounted for perhaps by the historical changes in the later situation, which concentrated the antichrist in anti-Roman rather than in anti-Jewish hostility. As yet, however, the seduction of the Jews ty a false messiah (cf. John v. 43 and its patristic interpretation) was quite a reasonable expectation : see the evidence gathered in A. C. 166 f. Victorinus, fol- lowing the Apocalypse literally (xi. 7 = xvil. 11), makes Nero redivivus beguile the Jews. The alternative to this theory has won considerable support (especially from Spitta and Wellhausen) upon various grounds; it regards the great city as Rome, where the two prophets are sup- posed to preach repentance to the hea- then world and eventually to be killed. But although this suits some portions of the language well (e.g., ver. 13, con- version to God of heaven), it is not exegetically necessary; it introduces Rome abruptly (8 ¢ being of course taken as a gloss) and irregularly: nor does it explain the general contour of the oracle as happily as that advocated above. Bruston’s ingenious attempt to take τ. μεγάλης with πλατείας (= Jewish jus-
tice) is quite untenable, and the great city is not likely to be a translator’s
error (Weyland), κ for re Tp:
—-mvevpatikas (cf. Gal. iv. 24 f.) as posed to σαρκικῶς (‘‘ literally,” Just. Mart. Dial. xiv. 231 d) is “allegorically, or mystically.’’—Kal Αἴγυπτος, not as the home of magic (cf. Blau’s Alijiid. Zauber- wesen, 39 f.) but as a classical foe of God’s people (and Moses of old?). The connexion with the water-dragon of xii. 15 (cf. Ezek. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2) is obvious. Philo allegorises E. usually as a type of the corporeal and ππαϊετία|.-- ὅπου κ.τ.λ., no wonder if Christians suffer, after what their Lord had to suffer (cf. Matt. x. 22- 25, 28 f.) at the hands of impious men. There is none of the modern’s surprise or indignation at the thought of “' Christian blood shed where Christ bled for men ”’.
Ver. ο. Cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. το f., Matt. xxiii. 34 f., Job. i. 12.--ἀφίουσιν, for other N.T. assimilations of irreg. to reg. verb (Win. § 14.16; Blass, § 23. 7), ef. Mark i. 34, Luke xi. 4. In Ep. Lugd. the climax of pagan malice is the refusal to let the bodies of the martyrs be buried by their friends, ὑπὸ γὰρ aypiov Θηρὸς ἄγρια καὶ βάρβαρα φΌλα παραχθέντα