XVII. 1. Καὶ ἦλθεν eis ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς φιάλας, καὶ " ἐλάλησε μετ’ ἐμοῦ λέγων “ Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὸ
volt [16] of Rome’s supporters against her. Thus, except for g-11, there are sufficient psychological reasons to ac- count partially for the order and con- tents of the oracle; but source-criticism is required to clear up the passage, in the more or less extensive theories of one source (edited in 6, 9 a, 14:15, so J. Weiss; or variously in 8, 12-14, with some words in 6, 9, 11, so e.g. Pfleiderer, Baljon, Bousset and Forbes) or even two sources (Jewish, A=3-4, 6 6-7, το, B=11-13, 165-17, Wellhausen’s Analyse, 26 f.), for which the linguistic idiosyncra- sies (double use of γέμειν, 3-4, preced- ence of object over verb 13, 16, 18, οἱ κ.τ. Υγ. 2, and the construction BA. τ. 0. ὅτι ἦν, 8) afford some basis. The main problem is to explain how the various strata of tradition overlap; ¢.g., in 8, 12 f., the beast is Nero redivivus, an infernal power of evil, whereas in II Domitian seems identified with Nero the beast. It is hard to believe that one and the same writer could simultaneously regard Domitian as a second Nero and expect Nero redivivus as a semi-super- natural power. In any case the stress falls on the Beast rather than on the woman, and on the eschatological pre- diction, not on the historical applica- tion. It is a fairly open question whether 8 or 11 is the editorial mortar super-imposed upon the earlier tradition. Upon the whole, one of the least un- satisfactory solutions is to take II as a Domitianic gloss by the Christian editor, who has also added 6 ὃ (if not all of 6) and 14 to a Vespasianic oracle (possibly of Jewish origin) in xvii. 4 f. which anti- cipated the downfall of persecuting Rome at the hands of Nero redivivus and his Eastern allies. No hypothesis is free from difficulties. But the general Domitianic reference of the Apocalypse and the presence of the Nero redivivus saga must be worked in somehow, and some hypothesis on the above lines seems to do most justice to the literary structure of this chapter as well as to the data of the book in gene- ral. It is impossible to determine how far the Christian editor worked over his source. That the difficulties of the oracle arise mainly from the presence of an earlier source (cf. Introd. § 7), which John has revised slightly and brought up to date, is axiomatic, however.