The parallels with the rest of
~
452
ανα, xvii. I.
Q. καὶ ἦλθεν ‘eis ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς ἑπτὰ
iv. 1, xvii. Φιάλας, τῶν Ὑγεμόντων τῶν ἑπτὰ πληγῶν τῶν ἐσχάτων, καὶ ἐλάλησε
1.
XXxi. 2. πας ον Xvii. 3; cf, του ἄρνιου. Weinel, 202. Nota wilder-
Το. καὶ
pet ἐμοῦ λέγων “'Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὴν " νύµφην τὴν γυναῖκα Ιἀπήνεγκέ µε ἐν πνεύµατι ἐπ᾽ Ἔ ὄρος µέγα
1
΄ καὶ ὑψηλόν, καὶ ἔδειξε por τὴν πόλιν, τὴν | ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, A A A A ‘ καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ '' ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, 11. ἔχουσαν THY
ness (xvii. ~ ~ ο ποπ. δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ: ὁ φωστὴρ αὐτῆς "ὅμοιος λίθῳ τιµιωτάτῳ, os
3). From Ezek, xl.
2 Contrast xi. 8. Mm XX. 9, xxi. 2.
n xv. 8, ver. 23.
ο Sc. ἦν. Ρ xvii. 4
1 την yuvaika a gloss from xix. 7? (Bousset, Kénnecke, 39-40).
the Apocalypse, as well as the general style, indicate that xxi. 1-8 comes from the pen of the prophet himself; there is no evide.ce sufficient to support the conjecture that 55-8 is a Christian editor's gloss ina Jewish original (Vis- cher, von Soden, S. Davidson, Rauch = 6 b-8, Spitta). The catalogue of vices, not unparalleled in ethnic literature (cf. Dieterich, pp. 163 f., 174 f., Heinrici on 2 Cor. vi. 4 f.), diverges from those of ix. 20-21 and xxii. 15. The second agrees with Sap. xiv. 22-28 in making idolatry the fontal vice, and with Did. ν. in put- ting theft after πορνεία (cf. Heb. xiil. 4-5, Eph. v. 5, etc.). Paul, again, in- variably starts with the blighting touch of πορνεία or ἀκαθαρσία (cf. Seeberg’s Catechismus d. Urc. 9-20, and von Dobschutz, pp. 406f.) as in xxii. 15. No special significance attaches to the lists of the Apocalypse beyond the obviously appropriate selection of idolatry (ix. 20) as the outstanding vice of paganism, with cowardice (xxi. 8) as the foil to victorious confession (xxi. 7, ii. 13, 17, xv. 2); note the division of xxii. 15 into the re- pulsive or filthy (first three) and the wicked (second three), corresponding to xxii. 11. The κύνες of xxii. 15 roughly answer to the ‘‘abominable ” of xxi. 8. xxi. 1-6 are a summary of what fol- lows =) xxi) (1, 29-21, σοι. 35/74 — xx. 22-xxii. 5, ΧχΧΙ. 5-8=xxli. 16-21.
xxi. Q-xxii. 5: the new Jerusalem (re- suming the thought of ver. 2, cf. xix. 7), corresponding to the new universe (ver. 1). The fall of Jerusalem accen- tuated the tendency to rise from the expectation of a new or renovated city on earth to the hope of a heavenly, tran- scendent city (cf. Apoc. Bar. iv. 2-6, etc.), though the passionate desire for a resto- ration of city and temple in the messianic age was still strong (cf. R. $. 226 f., Volz, 334 f.). John introduces the defi- nitely Christian identification of the hea-
venly Jerusalem with the bride of the mes- siah, and combines the various features of a renovated, a heavenly, and a pre- existent city—features which occasion- ally reflect the mythological background of such earlier ideas in Judaism. The whole conception, if not the passage itself, is satirised by Lucian (Vera Hist. ii.) in his account of the golden city with its emerald wall, its river, and the absence of night, to say nothing of vines δωδεκα- φόροι καὶ κατὰ µῆνα ἕκαστον Καρποφο- ροῦσιν. Vv. 11-21 describe the exterior, vy. 22-27 the interior.
Ver. 10: a fresh vision, marked by a new transport of ecstasy (cf. Ezek. ili. 14, xi. 1, etc.).—épos, the vantage-ground of elevation from which the seer views the site and buildings. If the hill is the site of the city, it is a truncated cone like Cirta, or a terraced zikkurat. Ezra sees the vision of the descent of the new Jerusalem in a field of flowers (cf. 4 Esd. ix, 26 f., κα. αν ο) ος John follows either the older tradition of Enoch (En, xxiv., xxv.) who visited a high mountain which, as his cicerone Michael explained, was the throne of God ‘‘ where the great and holy One, the Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will sit when he shall descend to visit the earth with goodness,” or more probably the primitive association of paradise with a mountain (cf. Oesterley’s Evol. of Mess. Idea, 129 f., Volz, 375). 4