Εαὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη, «αἱ " ἐθαυμάσθη.
x , ~ 4. καὶ προσεκύνησαν ‘ta δράκοντι
3 [ή nw [ή 1 4 , a , the Ῥεασι. ὅτι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῷ Onplw, Kal προσεκύνησαν τῷ Onpiw-
h xvii. 8; pregn. constr. “went after him
λέγοντες,
Acts viii. g-11. An- tithesis to John xi. 48-49. i Apart from this
δύο:
verse, προσκ. in Apoc. takes the dative only with God or angels (xix. 10). 1Cf. En. v. 4, xcviii. 7-8, ci. 3, cii. 6, 4 Esd. xi. 43, Ps. xil. 4.
11, Jud. vi. 2, Ps. cxiii. 5, etc.
“tis Χὅμοιος τῷ Onplw ; ες ‘ , , n~ > 3 -”) ae καὶ τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι pet αὐτοῦ ; 5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στόµα Ἰλαλοῦν µεγάλα καὶ βλάσφημα -* 9 sco yee ee! , m a a“ n , καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία "' ποιῆσαι µῆνας "τεσσαράκοντα.
6. καὶ ἤνοιξε τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ cis βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν͵
k xviii. 18, Exod. xv.
m From Dan, viii. 12, 24, xi. 28, 30, 32: pregn. Heb. use =‘ exercise” ος “‘ practise” (intrans.), with:
ἐξ. not μήνας (Jas. iv. 13). n Xi. 2.
1 For το θηριον (A 79, Anda, Ws., WH marg., Bs.) read τω θηριω (ΝΕΟ. etc., Ande, Areth., edd.). [The acc. is conformed to general usage of προσκ. with
θηριον, see ver. 8, 12, xiv. 9, 11, xx. 4.] ? Read βλασφημα A, 12, 28, 34, 35, 47,
79, 87, And., etc. (Lach. Al. Ws.): the
idiomatic ποιησαι has been early improved by the addition of ο θελει (8) oF πολε- μον (Q, Andc, Areth.), and Naber conj. σηµεια ποιησαι.
Rome as strong as ever, thanks to her marvellous recuperative power. The al- lusion is not to the murder of Czsar (so e.g., Bruston, Gunkel, Porter), nor to the illness of Caligula (Spitta), but (so Diisterdieck, O. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, etc.) to the terrible convulsions which in 69 A.D. shook the empire to its founda- tions (Tac. Hist. i. 11). Nero’s death, with the bloody interregnum after it, was a wound to the State, from which it only recovered under Vespasian. It fulfilled the tradition of the wounded head (Dan. viii. 8). So 4 Esd. xii. 18 (where the same crisis 15 noted) ‘‘ post tempus regni illius [1.ε., Nero’s] nascentur contentiones non modicae et periclitabitur ut cadat et non cadet tunc, sed iterum constituetur in suum initium”; also Suet. Vesp. 1 and Joseph. Bell. iv. 11, 5, vii. 4, 2 (Rome unexpectedly rescued from ruin by Ves- pasian’s accession). The vitality of the pagan empire, shown in this power of righting itself after the revolution, only added to its prestige. The infatuation of loyalty, expressing itself in the worship of the emperor as the personal embodi- ment of the empire, grew worse and worse. A comparison of 3 a with 12 (cf. 18) shows, however, a further allusion, viz., to the Nero redivivus belief (cf. Introd. § 5). This is not developed until xvii., but already the beast is evi- dently identified in a sense with one of its heads, who is a travesty (3 a =v. 6) of the Lamb, ἐ.ε., an antichrist. The context would certainly read quite natur-
ally without 3 @, but it is implied in 12 (and 18), and none of the numerous at- tempts to analyse the chapter into source and revision is of any weight, in view of the general style and characteristics. These indicate the author’s own hand. Even the translation-hypothesis (e.g., Bruston, Gunkel) leads to arbitrary hand- ling. See Introd. § 6.
Ver. 4. All that had transpired—. Nero’s own death heralding a return, and the collapse of his dynasty proving no fatal blow to the empire—had simply ασσταπάϊςεά the influence of Rome. ‘Ihe Caesar-cult which characterised it is dubbed a worship of Satan by the in- dignant prophet. The hymn to the in- comparable and invincible beast is a parody of O.T. hymns to God. In the following description (vv. 5-8) two traits are blended: insolent blasphemy towards God and almost irresistible powers of seduction over men. Both are adapted from the classical sketch of Antiochus Epiphanes (in Dan. vii. 8, 20, 25, xii. 7), the prototype of that anti-divine force whose climax had been reached, as the prophet believed, in the divine preten- sions of the Caesars.