5—9-
459
3 a εἰ Ἡ i 8. "κἀγὼ Ἰωάννης 6 ' βλέπων καὶ ἀκούων ταῦτα : καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα § ASini.9
‘ lol ~ - col καὶ έβλεψα, ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου |
τοῦ " δεικνύοντός por ταῦτα.
~ - ~ ? τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου" τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον. τ: ‘ 6. καὶ εἶπέν por, “Odror οἱ λόγοι ᾿ πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί: καὶ
ς
ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς ” δούλοις αὐτοῦ & δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει.
7. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ. ᾽μακάριος 6 τηρῶν τοὺς βιβλίου τούτου.
for they are faithful and true”).
(cf. i. το f., iv. 1), or may be inferred from the context to be that of an angel (e.g., Xvii. 15, cf. I and xix. g), perhaps as the divine spokesman (xxi. 5, 6, cf. 5 and 7). But frequently, even when the seer is addressed (x. 4, xiv. 13), the voice or Bath-Qol is anonymous (¢.g., xi. 12, καν το, Xiy, 2, Xvi. τ cf. 17)» Επ τπε epilogue, as it stands, it is impossible _and irrelevant to determine whether Jesus (16) begins to speak at ver. Το (so Spitta, Holtzm, Porter, Forbes) and re- sumes in 18-20 a. But, while 6-7, and 8-g are both intended in a sense to round off the entire Apocalypse, and not merely the immediately preceding vision, 8-9 (a replica of xix. 9-10) stands closer to xxi. g-xxii. 5 than does 6-7. No λόγοι in the last vision justify the reference in 6, whereas the specific δεικν. pot ταῦτα in 8 echoes the cicerone-function of the angel in xxi. 9-10, xxii. I. Vv. 6, 7 very probably lay originally between 9 and 10 (for the juxtaposition of εἶπεν and λέγει cf. xvii. 7, 15), where they definitely mark the beginning of the epilogue already anticipated in 8 (cf. i. 4, 9) and in the broadened close of 9 (contrast xix. 1Ο above). It is not necessary (though per- haps a later scribe may have thought so) to account for John’s action in 8-9 by supposing that he mistook the angelus interpres for Christ. The λόγοι of 6, when this order is adopted, acquire their natural sense (cf. 10), and the three suc- cessive angel-utterances (8-9, 6-7, 10-11) have a proper sequence, It is needless, in view of xvi. 15 (cf. iii. 11) to omit Τα as an interpolation (K6nnecke). But τ2- 13 probably have been displaced from their original order (13, 12) and position after 16 (Kénnecke), where 17 echoes 12
g. καὶ λέγει po, “dpa µή: 2 u σύνδουλός σού εἶἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν 18.
ὁ κύριος 6 θεὸς τῶν “ πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν ἀπέστειλε "τὸν
λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ
(cf. Dan, X1i. 5). 2 Cor. xii.
< > ty a a ” 3
the ears of my people the words of pro- phecy, and cause thou them to be written on paper,
w Cf. for phrase, partial analogies in Num. xxvii. 16 (LXX), Jub. x. 3, Dan. ii. 28, 2 Macc. iii. 24, Heb. xii. 9, 1 Christian prophets (i. 1), cf. Dan. ix. 10, 4 Esd. viii. 62.
Cor. xiv. 32. x Cf. 1. 1-0. ν1.6., the z Cf. Luke xi. 28, En. c. 6, civ. 12-13.
@, and 14, 15 carries on the thought of 11. Vv. 18, 19 are plainly editorial, inter- rupting the connexion of 17 and 20. In ΙΙ Resch (Agrapha, § 113) attempts to prove that some logion of Jesus is quoted. On the “‘inconsistent optimism” of xxii. 13 and 15, cf. Abbott, p. 107.
Ver. 8. There is no trace of any reluc- tance on the prophet’s part to return to earth, as in Asc. Isa. (Gk.), ii. 33-35.
Ver. ο. The warning against any Christian θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων is not, as in the parallel passage, an indirect exaltation of the prophetic order as equivalent to the angelic in religious function, but an assertion that even or- dinary Christians who accept the Apoca- lypse are equal to the hierophant angel. Unlike Nebo, the angelic interpreter of Marduk’s will in Babylonian religion, he is not to be worshipped, for all his im- portance. Precautions against angel- worship could hardly be more stringent. “The repetition of the scene is enough to show that it does not represent a natural ebullition of feeling and its cor- retction, but that the narrative has a pur- pose ... and that those who observed the practice made use of’’ John’s name, or at any rate believed they could appeal to him as sanctioning their superstition (Weizacker, ii. 203-204).