426
t Foll. by loose in-
7. Καὶ éyévero taddepos ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: 6 "Μιχαὴλ καὶ ot
Ε > a a a ‘ A 5 ΔΝ ς , . of ex- κ κων fin. of εχ- ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ 400 πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος, καὶ ὅ Spd
planation
A 4 (cf Moult. ἐπολέμησε καὶ "οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, 8. “Kal οὐκ ἴσχυσεν,ὶ οὐδὲ
1.217-218).ς u From
να σος
13, 21, xii. ©
1, cf. Judez
9. v Matt. xxv. 41; evil beings in heaven, Asc. Isa.
vi. of
W εἰς Beer δέον συνέβη τελευτῆσαι THY τάξιν αὐτῶν (Papias, cit. Andr.). aii. 20, xx. 3, 8, 10.
56 f. y Isa. xxvii. 1. ZXX. 4.
ς Xi. 15, xix. I.
τόπος "εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.
µέγας, 76 ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος,
Σατανᾶς,͵ ὁ "πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, > ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, ‘ c Ed > “ > > a > ,
καὶ ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ pet αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.
0. καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων
*6 καλούμενος “΄ Διάβολος, καὶ “6
1Ο. καὶ ἤκουσα
«Φωνὴν "μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν
x xx. 11, Par. Lost, vi. b From Slav. En. xxix. 5.
1Read ισχνσεν (Ps. xii. 5, LXX) A, etc., Me., Aeth., Ande (WH, Ws., Sw., Bs.), [verb agreeing as in LXX with principal subject, cf. Vit., ii. 114 f.].
Ver. 7. τοῦ π. (=
Ὀπυπὸ ona ποπ any:
the nomin. makes this rare use of the genit. infin. even more clumsy and irre- gular than the similar constr. with accus. in Acts x. 25 (where see note). The sense is plain, and it is better to put the constr. down to syntactical laxity than to con- jecture subtle reasons for the blunder or to suggest emendations such as the addi- tion of ἐγένετο to πόλεμος (Vit. i. 168), or of ἦσαν or ἐγένετο before 6 Μ. κ. of Gy. αὐτοῦ (Ws., Bousset), the latter being an irregular nomin., or the alteration of πολ. to ἐπολέμησαν (Diist.) or the simple omission of πόλεμος .. . οὐρανῷ. For πολ. μετὰ cf. Thumb 125 (a Copticism ?). In the present form of the oracle, the rapture of messiah seems to have stimu- lated the devil to fresh efforts, unless we are meant to understand that the initia- tive came from Michael and his allies. The devil, as the opponent of mankind had access to the Semitic heaven, but his τό]ε here recalls the primitive mytho- logical conception of the dragon storming heaven (A. C. 146-150). Michael had been for over two centuries the patron- angel or princely champion of Israel (6 els τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὃς ἐπὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγαθῶν τέτακται, En. xx. 5; cf. A. ο. 227 f.; Lueken 15 f.; Volz 195; R. Ὑ. 320 f., and Dieterich’s Abraxas, 122 f.). As the protector of Israel’s interests he was assigned a prominent réle by Jewish and even Christian eschatology in the final conflict (cf. Ass. Mos. x. 2). For the theory that he was the prince-angel, like a son of man (Dan. vii. 13) who subdued the world-powers, cf. Grill 55 and Cheyne 215 f. More generally, a celestial battle. as the prelude of messiah’s triumph on
éyéveTo . « .
earth, forms an independent Jewish tradi- tion which can be traced to the second century B.c. (ef. Sibyll. 11. 795-807, 2 Mace. v. 2-4; Jos. Bell. vi. 5, 3).--καὶ ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ. The only allusion in the Apocalypse (cf. even xx. 11 with Matt. xxv. 41) to the double hierarchy of angels, which post-exilic Judaism took over from Persia (Bund, iii. 11). In the Leto-myth, Pytho returns to Parnassus after being baffled in his pursuit of the pregnant Leto.
Ver. 9. Δράκων and ὄφις are in the LXX interchangeable terms for the levi- athan or sea-monster of mythology, who is here defined as the old serpent (a rab- binical expression, ¢f. Gfrorer, i. 386-389) ; so Tiamat, the primaeval rebel, as dragon and serpent (cf. Rohde’s Psyche, 371) had been identified in JE’s paradise- story with the malicious and envious devil (Sap. ii. 24; En. xx. 7; Test. Reub. 5). The opponent of God was th- adver- sary of man (cf. Oesterley’s Evol. of Mess. Idea, 176 f.). Two characteristic traits of Satan are blended here: (a) cunning exercised on men to lure them into ruin (πλανῶν, κ.τ.λ., cf. 2 Cor. ii. 11, xi. 3), and (6) eagerness to thwart and slander them before God (ver. 10, cf. En. xl. 7; Zech. iii. x f.). The second is naive and archaic, of course, in a Chris- tian apocalypse.