Vv. 7-18. An explanation of the vision, cautiously but clearly outlining. the Nero-saga.
Ver. 8. As the Beast seen by the seer cannot be described as non-existent, it must denote here (as in xiii. 3 f., though differently) not the empire but the em- peror, or one of its own heads. Such aw identification was natural in the ancient world especially, where a king and his capital or state were interchangeable terms. The emperor, here Nero redivi- vus (cf. the saying of Apollonius, cited in Philostr. Vit. Apol. iv. 38: ‘ Regarding this wild beast,”’ z.e., Nero, ‘‘I know not how many heads he Πας’), embodied the empire. The Beast is a sort of revenant.. To rise from the abyss was the conven-
5—12
453
, - πόντω, τὸ θηρίον ὅτι ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστι καὶ παρέσται. 9g. “Se ὁ νοῦς ἆ xiii. 18
ς ” , 5
ὁ έχων σοφίαν. ai ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ ἑπτὰ "ὄρη εἰσίν, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ 3 a
KdOntar féw αὐτῶν. 10. καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἰσιν : οἱ πέντε ἔπεσαν,
Cf. Sib. r. ii. 18, ‘Pans έπτα- λόφοιο,
6 eis ἔστιν, 6 ἄλλος οὕπω ἦλθε; καὶ ὅταν ἔλθηῃ, © ὀλίγον αὐτὸν ® δεῖ (ο iii. 8
μεῖναι.
ἐστι, καὶ Ε ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστι, καὶ eis ' ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει. τὰ δέκα "' κέρατα ἃ εἶδες δέκα '"' βασιλεῖς εἰσίν, οἵτινες βασιλείαν
ii. 5.
tional origin of the Beast (cf. xi. 7) even infthe primitive tradition; the Nero-anti- christ, however, introduces the fresh horror of a monster breaking loose even from death. True, he goes to perdition eventually, but not before all except the elect have succumbed to the fascination of his second advent. The Beast of the source here is evidently the antichrist figure of xi. 7 (also a Jewish source) transformed into Nero redivivus. There is less reason to suspect the hand of the Christian editor in 8 (Bousset) than in g a (J. Weiss).
Ver. 9. Spy, cf. Prop. iii. 11, 57 (‘ Sep- tem urbs alta iugis, quae praesidet οτΡί ”), Verg. Georg. ii. 534.
Ver. 11. Bruston takes καὶ ἐκ τῶν
ἑπτὰ ἐστιν as a translation of jy)
NWT νο Τ in the sense that the
eighth was more (or greater) than the seven, {.ε., realising more fully the ideal of the Beast. But even were the case for a Hebrew original clearer than it is, such an interpretation is forced. The verse is really a parenthesis added by John to bring the source up to date. Domitian, the eighth emperor, under whom he writes, is identified with the true Neronic genius of the empire; he is a revival and an embodiment of the per- secuting Beast (cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 17, Tert. Afol. 5: portio Neronis de crude- litate, de pallio 4:. a sub-Nero) to the Christian prophet, as he proved a second Nero to some of his Roman subjects (cf. Juvenal’s well-known sneer at the ca- luus Nero). This does not mean that John rationalises Nero redivivus into Domitian, which would throw the rest of the oracle entirely out of focus. Domitian, the eighth emperor, is not explained as the Beast which was and is not and is to come up out of the abyss (ver. 8), but simply as the Beast which was and is not; no allusion is made to his term of power, and the concluding phrase καὶ εἰς ἀπ. ὑπάγει is; simply the conventional