Ver. 20. Here, as at vi. 14, the re- moval of hills tallies with the Iranian belief (shared by later Jewish Christian apocalyptic, cf. Boklen, 131 f.) that
ο Xviii. 5, Acts x. ioe XXV. 15. q Cf. t Exod. ix. 18-25, Ezek. xiii. 11, Sib. iii. 6008,
. Xiv. 8, Io. τ Vi. 14, XX. II.
) U am. λεγ. w µέγας for the fifth time in 17-21.
mountains as the work of Ahriman would disappear with him (5. Β. E. v. 129), leaving the earth in its ideal state of a smooth plane on which mankind could dwell in unity of speech and intercourse, free from barriers. The collocation of mountain and island (so vi. 14) is pos- sibly a relic of the ancient point of view, for which (i.e., for dwellers in the West) these formed the apparent source of the s rising, where his light first became visible.
Ver. 21. Even an abnormal Παϊ]- shower (cf. the fourth Egyptian plague) fails to bring pagans to their senses. ὡς ταλ., 7.¢., literally about sixty times the weight of even the enormous hail- stones (μνααῖαι) which Diodorus Siculus (xix. 45) records. In En. Ix. 17 the ‘spirit of the hail is a good angel,” #.e., amenable to God’s orders.
The obscurity of chapter xvii. springs mainly from the differences oftradition and outlook which are reflected in the canoni- cal text. The threefold interpretation of the Beast as the Imperial power (so xiii.), as Nero redivivus (ver. 8) and as (11) the eighth king (the two latter being applica- tions of the same idea) is accompanied by a twofold explanation of the seven heads (geographical=9g, historical= το), and of the woman’s support (1, 3, 15). The eschatological tradition of Babylon as the supreme anti-divine world-power is applied to Rome, and this involves the re-interpretation of some details (e.g. 15, 18), while the tradition of the Beast as antichrist is further overlaid by the special tradition of Nero redivivus in that capacity. This dual Beast (as Vélter first recognised; cf. Charles’s Ascensio Isaia, pp. |x.-lxi.) is not merely the Im- perial power (as in xiii. 3) but incarnate
ἑπτὰ in an Imperial personality of infernal and supernatural character, which attacks not only the Christian messiah (14) but Rome itself (16-17). The latter trait is unmistakably due to the legend of Nero redivivus, apart from which the oracle is unintelligible. Such variations have left traces in the structure of the passage, which point to some pro- cess of editorial revision, but it is difficult to disentangle the original source or sources, or even to determine their pre- cise character and period. Ver. 14 is certainly out of place, for the allies of the Beast could not destroy Rome after they themselves had been destroyed by the messiah and his allies. it is thus either proleptic or inserted by the Chris- tian writer in his (Jewish) source (so 6.6., Vischer, Charles, Briggs, von Soden). Other traces of this editor might be found in 6 6, 8 (ο a?), and 15, and the Jewish character of the source (so Vis- cher, Weyland, Schmidt, Sabatier, Méné- goz, etc.), would be confirmed by the absence of any polemic against the Im- perial cultus. It would be a Vespasianic oracle, inspired by a passion for revenge on Rome for her cruel, recent treatment of the Jewish people. When the source is regarded as Christian (as e.g., by Erbes, Vélter, and Schén), ver. rr would be an addition inserted under Domitian to bring it up to date (so Harnack, Texte u. Unters. II. iii. 134 f.; Chronologie, 245, 246, followed by Briggs, Gunkel, J. Weiss, etc. ; cf. Introd. § 7). But even so, the structure of the passage is in- volved. Vv. g-II are not vision but calculation or exposition (cf. xiii. 18). The waters of ver. 15 are never seen (cf. I, 3), and the professed explanation (ver. 7) follows a loose order (beast=8, heads ΞΞΟ-11, horns=12-14, waters=15, horns again= 16-17, and finally the woman= 18). The reference to the woman, however, is thrown late in order to introduce the following doom-song (cf. kings in 18, Xvili. 3, 9, and gveat in 18, xviii. 2), and a similar motive accounts for the ir- regular position of 16-17 after 14, Rome’s fall, though viewed from different angles, being the main object before the writer’s mind at the moment. The defeat of 14 is taken up, in its true position, after- wards (xix. 11-21). Ver. 15 (an echo of xvi. το b) is probably thrown in at this point, to contrast dramatically the re-