* Exc. καὶ κ. τὸ ὀν. αὐτ. ὁ λ, τ. θ. 135; ὁ ψευδ—καὶ οἱ λ. 20, 21.

† Exc. καὶ τ. ψ. τ. τ.-αύτων, 4; ὅπ. καὶ τ. θ. καὶ ὁ ψ. 10.

A=a Jewish apocalypse, written towards the close of Vespasian's reign.

PFLEIDERER.

E a Christian editor, of time, traces of

Domitian's

whose work appear chiefly in the following (including references to "Lamb").

R a second Christian editor, of Hadrian's time, the redactor of the whole work in its present form.

gent and alien, into a glowing unity which is unmistakably marked in style, structure, and conception. The whole book is a religious and artistic masterpiece of its class; and the process of analysis which scientific criticism is amply justified in applying to the completed work, merely brings out by its very success the greater synthesis dominating the author's mind amid the heated visions of earlier seers and the medley of traditional pieces, which were often impressive and enigmatic as runes. The hypothesis which practically set in motion the modern work of analytic criticism upon this book was Völter's. His arrangement differed from time to time, especially during the controversies with Vischer and others; but the variations never affected the main outlines of the scheme as given in the second edition of his Die Entstehung der Apocalypse (1885). Cp. the reviews by Jülicher, GGA (1886), pp. 25–38; Schürer, ThLz (1888), p. 135 f.; and Milligan, Discussions on Apocalypse (1893), pp. 20-34; besides the notices in the commentaries. The chief change made by Völter in the scheme as here printed, was the subsequent discovery of a new source in several parts of D (e.g. 511-14 616 79-17 1211 144-5 and also 141).

Vischer's analysis (TU, ii. p. 3) proceeds upon a simpler principle, and hardly requires detailed exhibition. The groundwork of the present book he finds in 4-225, a Jewish apocalypse dating from the years 66–70 A.D., but in part due to a period slightly later. This writing has been interpolated (e.g. in the Lamb-passages) by Christians, and issued under the name of John. Chaps. 1-3, 226-21 represent the Christian prefix and appendix which were added-with a double recension of the whole-(a) in Domitian's reign, (b) in ± 136 A.D. Chaps. 11, 12 form for Vischer the clue to this dissection; he is on stronger ground when he emphasises not the Jewish basis, but the final and essential unity of the whole book. Cp. approving reviews by Simcox, "Revelation " (CGT); Exp.3 v. pp. 425– 443; Martineau, Seat of Authority, pp. 224-227; Overbeck, ThLz (1887), p. 28 f.; Ménégoz, Revue de théol. et phil. 1887, p. 161; also Krüger, GGA (1887), pp. 26-35; otherwise Milligan, op. cit. pp. 35-44.

The Jewish element is further developed by G. J. Weyland (Theol. Tijd. 1886, pp. 454-470, etc.), whose scheme is printed alongside of Völter's, with which it has some distinct correspondences. Similarly Pfleiderer (Urc. pp. 318-356) finds in 4-225 a Jewish apocalypse dating from Vespasian's reign, and including (111-13 12) a still older fragment composed between 60 and 70 A.D. The book has been twice edited, first by a Christian redactor in the age of Domitian, and later by another, not earlier than Trajan's reign, to whom are due the prefix (1-3) and appendix (226-21). This general view, analogous to Vischer's, is partly shared by O. Holtzmann (in Stade's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. pp. 658-664), who finds embedded in the extant book a Jewish apocalypse of Nero's age, containing, however, an older fragment (13, 146-18) dating from Caligula's age (reading δέκα for ἑξήκοντα, 1318, and interpreting it as Γάϊος Καίσαρ).1 On a different line, Schön (L'origine de l'apocalypse de Saint Jean, 1887)

I strongly suspect that in its original form chap. 13 contains, more or less completely, a Caligula-apocalypse, as Erbes, O. Holtzmann, Spitta, and Zahn contend. The details suit Caligula's period so well (e.g. 3, 6, 8), that even the editorial touches do not altogether obliterate the original sketch. Bousset (-Meyer, pp. 433-435) rejects the reference, though not confidently, but J. Weiss seems to favour it (SK, 1892, p. 261 f.).

A

is disposed to regard the nucleus of the book as Christian and even apostolic, with 111-13 121-9. 13-17 13, 18 (except 1820) as Jewish insertions. Sabatier (Les origines littéraires et la composition de l'apocalypse de St. Jean, 1887) takes the same general view. He considers the homogeneity of the first ten chapters in style and conception to be unimpeachable, but finds Jewish passages in 111-13 12, 13, 146-20 171–192 1911-2010 219-225. third French critic, Bruston, in his latest work (Les origines de l'apocalypse, 1888), places an apostolic apocalypse, written in Hebrew, in the latter years of Nero: another work, written in Greek, was composed thirty years later, whereupon both were united and edited by a Jewish-Christian. Bruston had already (Le chiffre 666 et l'hypothèse du retour de Neron, 1880) referred 133 not to Nero himself, but to the death of Julius Caesar and the subsequent re-establishment of the empire under Augustus. Still more independently, Professor Briggs (Messiah of Apostles, pp. 285-461), in an elaborate discussion, founds his argument on the following analysis of the Apocalypse, which must be printed separately. It implies the successive accretion of matter to an original nucleus :

a =

5

Reign of Caligula; ß shortly afterwards.

Older than d, and younger than both (perhaps,

=

reign of Galba).

"In the main these apocalypses come from an early date, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Latest of series, not earlier than Nero, perhaps as late as Domitian."

Two analyses further claim to be considered in greater detail. Spitta's (Offenbarung des Johannes, 1889) 1 is remarkable for its attempt to break up the book into two Jewish sources; and on this line Schmidt (Anmerkungen über die Komposition der Offenbarung Joh. 1891) has gone much further, finding at least three. The clue detected by Spitta is the use of "seven." From this he works back to his sources, and their date. Like O,

1 Cp. reviews by Schmiedel (LC, 1888, pp. 74-76), Düsterdieck (GGA, 1889, pp. 554-564), and Weizsäcker (ThLz, 1890, p. 468). Schmidt dates the final editing of the Apocalypse in Hadrian's reign, considers that the Jewish nucleus (41-78 82-1115 101-1113 121-225 146-20 171-195) was written originally in Hebrew, partly before and partly after the year 70 (e.g. 171=Vespasian), and places the Christian letters (1-3) under Domitian.

Holtzmann, he takes 616=Taïos Kaîoap and discovers a Caligula-apocalypse. In the last point, though not in the Jewish character of the sources, he is followed by Erbes, whose analysis I print side by side with his (Die Offenbarung Johannes kritisch untersucht, 1891).

Weizsäcker (AA, ii. pp. 173–205) still prefers to think, not of various apocalyptic writings worked over and incorporated in one another, but of single fragmentary visions-belonging to various periods-which lay before the final author, a Jewish-Christian, who in the name of his master John gathered together into a single collection the most treasured prophecies of the last decades. Chap. 11 Weizsäcker regards as originally dating from 60-70 A.D. and, like chap. 12, referring to the Jewish war. Chap. 13 comes from Vespasian's reign, and chap. 17 somewhat later. At the same time he regards it as hardly possible to reconstruct in any likely form whole writings as its sources.' For the final composition of the whole he refuses to go much beyond the close of the first century. Jülicher (Einl. pp. 181-183) is similarly reticent. He takes the book as a unity in its present form, but with older apocalyptic pieces incorporated; neither the sources nor the spirit of the latter can be, as he thinks, deciphered with any accuracy.

These theories, along with some others which I have passed over as either minor or inaccessible, are discussed, with reference to the whole apocalyptic problem, by Rovers (Apoc. Studien, 1888, pp. 56-86). A. Meyer (TR, 1897, Zweites und drittes Heft), Holtzmann (JpTh, 1891, pp. 520-545), Baldensperger ("die neueren kritischen Forschungen über die Apok. Joh." ZThK, 1894, pp. 232-250), Bousset (-Meyer, pp. 127–141), and Barton (AJT, ii. pp. 776-801). Adverse to them more or less are the critiques by Düsterdieck (GGA, 1889, p. 554 f.), Beyschlag (SK, 1888, pp. 102-138), Bovon (Revue de théol. et phil. 1887, pp. 329-362), and Hilgenfeld (ZwTh, 1882, pp. 396 f.; 1888, p. 374 f.; 1890, pp. 385–469), although the last-named admits one or two interpolations (11-3 1615 1986. 10b. 18b. 2218-20). Holtzmann's attitude to the whole problem of the sources is that of an open but cautious observer (HC, Iv. 2; Einl. pp. 411–414), while Weiss (INT, ii. pp. 68–71; TU. vii. p. 1), Reuss (Histoire de la théologie Chrétienne au Siècle Apostolique (Eng. tr.), i. pp. 369–389), Milligan (op. cit. chap. ii.), and Hirscht (Die apokalypse u. ihre neueste Kritik, 1895), argue strongly for the essential unity of the writing.

The questions at issue really concern (a) the sources, their number, nature (Jewish or Christian), and date (Caligula, Nero, Domitian, or even later), and (b) the final editor. Was he little more than a compiler, who has rather awkwardly fitted earlier pieces together with additions of his own, or was he an author who worked with freedom and creative power, partly upon material that lay to his hand, partly upon visions and prophecies of his own?

Connected with this series of hypotheses is the important line of criticism anticipated by Dr. Barton (Journal of Amer. Oriental Society, xv. pp. 26, 27), but elaborately and independently worked out in Gunkel's Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (1895).1 Here the Babylonian or rather Akkadian mythology is used to throw light upon the ancient traditions underlying chap. 12 of the Apocalypse, the dragon-myth

1 Though Zahn is contented to pass by on the other side with a flippant sentence, the hypothesis in its main outline has been tentatively favoured by Cheyne (CR, v. pp. 264, 265), and receives more or less favourable notice from Wrede (ThLz, 1896, pp. 623-631), Staerk (ZwTh, 1896, pp. 330-334), and Clemen (SK, 1895, pp. 619-630, also LC, 1895, pp. 481-483). Vide Gunkel's similar method in his recent and masterly edition of 4th Esdras (KAP, ii. p. 331 f.), also Cheyne, Job and Solomon, pp. 76–78, but especially A. S. Palmer, Babylonian Influence on the Bible, 1897.