The presence of a special source is suggested by e.g. , the unexampled use of οὐαί ( cf. on Revelation 17:16 , and Oxyrh. Fragment of Uncan. Gospel , 31), the large number of ἅπαξ εὑρημένα ( στρήν . 3, διπλόω 6, διπλόος , cf. 1 Timothy 5:17 , στρην . 7 and 9, σιρικοῦ , ἐλεφ ., σι...
Show full excerpt
The presence of a special source is suggested by e.g. , the unexampled use of οὐαί ( cf. on Revelation 17:16 , and Oxyrh. Fragment of Uncan. Gospel , 31), the large number of ἅπαξ εὑρημένα ( στρήν . 3, διπλόω 6, διπλόος , cf. 1 Timothy 5:17 , στρην . 7 and 9, σιρικοῦ , ἐλεφ ., σιδήρου , μαρμάρου and θύϊνον in 12, κινν ., ἄμωμον , σεμίδ ., ῥεδῶν , and σωμάτων , [in this sense] in 13, ἀπώλετο (14), ἐργάζονται [in this sense in Apoc.] in 17, τιμ . 19, ὁρμ . 21, μους ., σαλπιστῶν , κιθαρῳδῶν [only in Revelation 14:2 ] 22, ὀπώρα and λιπαρά , 14) and rare terms, for which the special character of the contents can hardly account. Differences of outlook also emerge; e.g. , Revelation 18:9 f. is out of line with Revelation 17:17 and Revelation 16:13 f., Revelation 18:1-3 (Rome long desolate) hardly tallies with Revelation 18:9 f. (ruins still smouldering, cf. Revelation 19:3 ), and the kings of Revelation 18:9-10 lament, whereas in Revelation 17:16 they attack, Rome. These inconsistencies (Schön, Schmiedel) might in part be set down to the free poetic movement of the writer’s imagination, working in dramatic style and oblivious of matter-of-fact incongruities like the sauve qui peut of 4; just as the lack of any allusion to the Imperial cultus, the Lamb, or the martyrs (exc. 20 and 24) does not necessarily denote a Jewish origin.