Meta ταῦτα ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν " μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ
402 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ a Ver. 6, De bee Vu. ο. b Cf. er.li. ἐν τῷ " οὐρανῷ "λεγόντων, 495. ς .. c Irreg. ή Αλληλουϊά ϱ appos. to de , νε / ας ῃ ~e θε ος collective ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δόξα Kat ἡ δύναμις τοῦ "θεοῦ " ἡμῶν : oxAov. 4 ° 6» 9 ,f97 οκ ’ > ~ dvil.ro,xi, 2. ὅτι fadnOwat καὶ *Sikarar at ' κρίσεις αὐτοῦ - 15, Xii. 10 ο 5 ν , . , (see ὅτι ἔκρινε τὴν πόρνην τὴν peyadny, note). e Cf. Joh.
xx. 17 Αρος, iii. 12, below 5-6.
prophecy in the shape of a curse, this vehement, sensitive oracle against Rome’s insolence and cruelty may be termed a curse in the form of a pro- phecy. A similar idea underlay the view of certain pious people who, ac- cording to Josephus (cf. Eus. Η. E. ii. 23. 20-21), considered the fall of Jeru- salem a retribution for the foul murder of James the Just nearly ten years before.
The doom-song is followed by an out- burst of celestial triumph (xix. 1-8) in answer to xviii. 20. The conclusion as well as the commencement of the victory (xii. 12 f.) is hymned in heaven. The stern, exultant anthem, which is morally superior to the delight voiced by In. xlvii. 4, forms an overture to the final movement of the Apocalypse, as well as (like vii. ο f., xiv. 1-5) a relief to the sombre context. 8 6 is a prosaic edi- torial gloss, probably due to the liturgical use of the book, and the last clause of το (ἡ yap . . . προφητείας) might be the same (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 56), aS many editors think, were it not for the genuinely Johannine ring of the words. In any case it is an after-thought, probably (so Baljon,. Barth, etc.) added by the author himself, in order to bring out here what is brought out in xxii. 9 by the ex- plicit mention of the prophets, since ἐχ. τ.µ. Ἰησοῦ alone would mean Christians in general. The presence of g b-10 here, however, is not motived as at xxii. 8, 9, where it comes in naturally at the finalé of the revelations and after a distinct allusion (xxii. 1) to the revealing angel. Here the angel of the second λέγει (at least) has not been mentioned since xvii. I, 7, 15, and no reason at all is given for the superstitious impulse to worship. The passage is certainly Johannine, but probably misplaced (like xviii. 14, etc.). Can it have originally lain at the end of xvii., where the hierophant angel is speaking (cf. also xvii. 17, words of God and xix. g b)? Such technical disloca- tions and derangements are common enough in primitive literature (cf. my
f xv. 3; ef. on xvi. 7.
Historical New Testament, pp. xxxix.. 676, 690). The passage must have been shifted to its present site either by acci- dent or more probably by a scribe who saw that the similar assurance in xxi. 5, xxii. 6 related primarily to future bliss rather than to judgment; perhaps he also took the first λέγει not asa divine saying (cf. xxi. 5) but as angelic (xxii. 6, cf. i. το, II, 19, and note on xxii. ro), and sought to harmonise the same order as in xlv. 13 (command to write, beatitude, asseverance). Otherwise I-10 15 a unity as it stands. The change of situation in 1-3, 4-10 does not prove any combination of sources; it is simply another of the inconsequences and transitions charac- teristic of the whole book. The mairiage- idea of 7, 5 is a proleptic hint which is not developed till later (xxi.), while the supper (ο) is only mentioned to be dropped—unless the grim vision of 17-21 (for whichcf. Gressmann’s Ursprung d. Isv.-jid. Eschatologie, 136 f.) is meant to be a foil to it (so Sabatier and Sch6n).