Revelation 2:13

οἶδα ποῦ κατοικεῖς. B2 and almost all cursives arm[89] syr[90] and Text. Rec[91] read οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ ποῦ κατοικεῖς.

[89] Armenian.
[90] Syriac.
[91] Rec. Textus Receptus as printed by Scrivener.

[καὶ] ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἀντίπας. With AC Vg[92] Cop[93] Bed. Harym.; אB2P 1 Primas[94] omit καὶ; אccA read Ἀντειπας; א* reads ἑν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐν ταῖς Ἀντίπας; B2 reads ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αἷς Ἀντίπας, and so Weiss; אcP 1 Text. Rec[95] ἐν ταῖς ἡμ. ἐν αἶς Ἀντ.

[92] Vulgate.
[93] Coptic.
[94] Primasius, edited by Haussleiter.
[95] Rec. Textus Receptus as printed by Scrivener.

ὁ πιστός μου. With AC; אB2P Prim. Vg[96] Text. Rec[97] omit μου.

[96] Vulgate.
[97] Rec. Textus Receptus as printed by Scrivener.

13. θρόνος. A high seat, in post-Homeric Greek, always a seat of special dignity: the word, which was imperfectly naturalised in Latin, was fully naturalised in English as a seat royal. The Latin translations tend, though not consistently, to distinguish the “throne” of God from the “seats” of those who reign with Him. The Old or African Latin (as attested by Cyprian, Primas[112] and cod. flo[113]. and for Revelation 20:1 … Revelation 21:5 in a later modified form by Augustin) invariably employs thronus for God’s seat, with the single exception of Revelation 22:1. Satan’s seat in this sense is also rendered thronus and similarly the seat of the Beast in Revelation 13:2, but in Revelation 16:10 sedes. On the other hand sedilia or sedes are used of the elders or the saints (Revelation 4:7; Revelation 11:16; Revelation 20:4). But in an European form of text (represented by St Ambrose and cod. gigas (g) θρόνος seems to be translated by sedes even when it is God’s throne. St Jerome who aimed at a classical vocabulary seems to have intended to follow this type, but he falls back on the African rendering at Revelation 3:21 sedere in throno, and uses thronus in all similar phrases, still he uses sedes not infrequently of God’s throne Revelation 4:2 bis, 3, 4, 6 ter, Revelation 14:3; Revelation 22:1; Revelation 22:3, while he never uses thronus of Satan or of the Beast. A. V[114] reserves “throne” consistently for God’s seat, extending the Latin distinction between His seat and His saints’ seat to the distinction between His seat and Satan’s. R. V[115] rightly has “throne” everywhere, Luther everywhere has “Stuhl.” Why Satan’s throne and dwelling-place is localised at Pergamum is not clear. The old explanation was, that it was a great seat of the worship of Asclepius or Aesculapius, whose traditional image held a serpent, and who in many of his shrines (though not so far as we know at Pergamum) was worshipped under the form of a serpent. Recent excavations have suggested that the throne of Satan was the great altar of Zeus Soter, which Attalus set up to commemorate his victory over the Gauls—the last great triumph of Hellenism over barbarism. The altar was certainly very like a throne: it was approached by a flight of steps enclosed by a raised platform, supporting colonnades, forming three sides of a hollow square; the faces of the platform were carved with the Wars of the Gods and the Giants. To a pious Jew or Christian it might seem the chosen throne of the god of this world, as the worship of the serpent might naturally and excusably seem more direct and avowed devil-worship than any other idolatry. Neither in those days would reflect of himself that both the worship of Asclepius and the thank-offering of Attalus belonged to the better side of heathenism: nor if he had reflected would he have renounced his first judgement: even the better side of heathenism would have only proved to him that Satan could transform himself as an angel of light. As Antipas is the only Asiatic martyr mentioned, it is possible that Pergamum may have been a special seat of the Satanic spirit of persecution, if so this, so far as it goes, might be the safest explanation.

[112] Primasius, edited by Haussleiter.
[113] flor Codex Toletanus 10th century at Madrid.

[114] Authorised Version.
[115] Revised Version.

ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἀντίπας. If this reading be right Ἀντίπας is treated as indeclinable: it is equally likely that the final C arises from an accidental duplication of the following O, the rather that Ἀντίπα would be an unfamiliar genitive. A legend is given of the martyrdom under Domitian of Antipas, bishop of Pergamum: it can probably be traced up to the fifth or sixth century. But by that time the fashion had set in of the “invention” (half fraudulent, half imaginative) of relics and legends of martyrs: and it is more than doubtful whether anything authentic is known of Antipas except from this passage. Perhaps it is presumable that he was a Jew by birth; the name is a shortened form of Antipater. The latter, like Philip and other Macedonian names, had become common all over the Levant: but perhaps especially common among Jews, from its being borne by the father of Herod and (in this shortened form) by his son, the tetrarch of Galilee.

ὁ μάρτυς. Here, as often in this book, we seem to have a nominative in apposition to other cases, for Ἀντίπας does duty for a genitive. The word “witness” is perhaps used in its technical ecclesiastical sense of one who bears witness to the Faith with his life: cf. Revelation 6:9; Revelation 12:11 (“testimony”). So Revelation 17:6; Acts 22:20.