496
; ig 24. καὶ περιπατήσουσι ‘ τὰ έθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς, lat Αη καὶ οἱ " βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς φέρουσι τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν eis αὐτήν--- αλα, 25. "καὶ ot πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὗ μὴ κλεισθῶσιν ἡμέρας" a pcan : "νὺξ γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ--- μμ 26. "καὶ οἴσουσι τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς αὐτήν. ης τν. 27. "καὶ οὗ ph εἰσέλθῃ cis αὐτὴν wav κοινὸν καὶ 6 ποιῶν Jos. BJ. 2βδέλυγµα καὶ * ψεῦδος - w Zech, xiv εἰ μὴ of “ yeypappevor ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου. viii. 3f, XXIL. τ. καὶ "ἔδειξέν por ποταμὸν ’ ὕδατος ζωῆς, λαμπρὸν ὡς τα Σκρύσταλλον, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ “kat τοῦ ἁρνίου r . Tob. ain 11, Sib. iii. 772f. y Isa. lii. 1, Ezek. xliv. ο. z xxi. 8, xxii. 15; cf. Hom. Iliad iii, 278. a Cf. xiii. 8. a ΧΧΙ. 1Ο. b vii. 17. civ. 6, am. λεγ. Ν.Τ. d iii. 21, ν.,
6, 13; cf. En. Ixii. 14.
Vv. 24-26 further traits borrowed from Isa. lx. (see reff.).
Ver. 25. νὺξ κ.τ.λ. “for no night (when even in peace they would be shut, Neh. xiii. το) shall be there’’.
Ver. 26. From the tradition of En. ΠΠ, r and Ps. Sol. xvii. 34-35 (where the Gentile nations seek Jerusalem φέροντες Sapa... καὶ ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν κυρίου, ἣν ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν 6 θεός): cf. Apoc. Bar. Ixvili. 5. The idea of 24 and 26 is of course literally inconsistent with those of xix. 17 f. and xx. 12 f., since on the new earth there were no residents except the risen saints. Both ideas were current in rabbinic eschatology (Gfrorer, ii. 238 f.), but the Apocalypse is entirely free from any such complacent estimate of Gentile outsiders (cf. En. xc. 30). The dis- crepancy here, as in xxii. 5, is imaginary. These details are simply poetical and imaginative, inserted from the older symbolism, in which they were quite appropriate, in order by their archaic and pictorial fulness to fill out the sketch of the future city. They have no allegorical significance.
Ver. 27. R. Jochanan (Baba-Bathra f. 76, 2,) said the coming Jerusalem would not be like the present one: in hanc ingreditur quicunque uult, in illam uero non nisi qui ad eam ordinati sunt. Citizenship similarly in John’s new city is a matter of moral character and of divine election, not of nationality. The Lord’s city is like the Lord’s table, as the Ep. to Diognetus finely puts it (5) κοινή ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κοινή, communis but not pro- fanus, ‘common and open to all, yet in another sense no common thing.”’ The trait is adapted from Slav. En. ix., where the garden-paradise of the third heaven is only for those loyal to their faith,
humble, just, charitable and benevolent, blameless and whole hearted, while the hell of torture (x. 4-6) is reserved for all addicted to sodomy, witchcraft, theft, lying, murder, and fornication, besides oppression and callousness to human suffering. But βδ. and ψ. may be simply “idolatry ’’ (as in LXX); the keynote of the book being struck once more (as in En. xcix. 9). In the Egyptian litany of the nine gods (E. B. D. 35) every petition ends with the words, ‘‘I have not spoken
lies wittingly, nor have I done aught ©
with deceit,”’ and in Apoc. Bar. xxxix. 6 the seer accuses the Roman Empire thus : ‘by it the truth will be hidden, and all those who are polluted with iniquity will flee to it, as evil beasts flee and creep into the forest ’’.
CHAPTER XXII.—Ver. 1. The river is suggested partly by Ezekiel’s repre- sentation of the healing stream which was to issue from the new temple and flow through the dreary Ghor of the Jordan valley (xlvii. 1-12), partly by the reference (in a later apocalypse, Zech. xiv. 8) to perennial waters issuing from Jerusalem as the dwelling-place of God in the new age. John has no use for Ezekiel’s idea that the stream would assist in the messianic transformation of nature. He changes the numerous trees on either side of the wady into the (generic) single tree of life, reverting as before (ii. 7) to the ideal of the Semitic paradise. Also, he drops the notion of the river sweetening the bitter waters of the Dead Sea. Cf. Pirke Eliezer, 51, aquae putei ascensurae sunt e limine templi atque scaturient prodibuntque. The Babylonian origin of the idea is outlined by Zimmern in Archiv fur Relig. Wiss. 1899, 170 f. Unlike the