Revelation 16:21

Even an abnormal hail-ahower (cf. the fourth Egyptian plague) fails to bring pagans to their senses. ὡς ταλ, i.e., literally about sixty times the weight of even the enormous hailstones (μνααῖαι) which Diodorus Siculus (19:45) records. In En. lx. 17 the “spirit of the hail is a good angel,” i.e., amenable to God's orders.

The obscurity of chapter 17 springs mainly from the differences of tradition and outlook which are reflected in the canonical text. The threefold interpretation of the Beast as the Imperial power (so 13), as Nero redivivus (Revelation 16:8) and as (11) the eighth king (the two latter being applications of the same idea) is accompanied by a twofold explanation of the seven heads (geographical = 9, historical =10), and of the woman's support (Revelation 16:1; Revelation 16:3; Revelation 16:15). The eschatological tradition of Babylon as the supreme anti-divine world-power is applied to Rome, and this involves the reinterpretation of some details (e.g. 15, 18), while the tradition of the Beast as antichrist is further overlaid by the special tradition of Nero redivivus in that capacity. This dual Beast (as Völtei first recognised; cf. Charles's Ascensio Isaiæ, pp. lx. lxi.) is not merely the Imperial power (as in Revelation 13:3) but incarnate in an Imperial personality of infernal and supernatural character, which attacks not only the Christian messiah (14) but Rome itself (Revelation 16:16-17). The latter trait is unmistakably due to the legend of Nero redivivus, apart from which the oracle is unintelligible. Such variations have left traces in the structure of the passage, which point to some process of editorial revision, but it is difficult to disentangle the original source or sources, or even to determine their precise character and period. Revelation 16:14 is certainly out of place, for the allies of the Beast could not destroy Rome after they themselves had been destroyed by the messiah and his allies. It is thus either proleptic or inserted by the Christian writer in his (Jewish) source (so e.g., Vischer, Charles, Briggs, von Soden). Other traces of this editor might be found in 6 b, 8 (9 a?), and 15, and the Jewish character of the source (so Vischer, Weyland, Schmidt, Sabatier, Ménégoz, etc.), would be confirmed by the absence of any polemic against the Imperial cultus. It would be a Vespasianic oracle, inspired by a passion for revenge on Rome for her cruel, recent treatment of the Jewish people. When the source is regarded as Christian (as e.g., by Erbes, Völter, and Schön), Revelation 16:11 would be an addition inserted under Domitian to bring it up to date (so Harnack, Texte u. Unters. II. iii. 134 f.; Chronologie, 245, 246, followed by Briggs, Gunkel, J. Weiss, etc.; cf. Introd. § 7). But even so, the structure of the passage is involved. Revelation 16:9-11 are not vision but calculation or exposition (cf. Revelation 13:18). The waters of Revelation 16:15 are never seen (cf. Revelation 16:1; Revelation 16:3), and the professed explanation (Revelation 16:7) follows a loose order (beast = 8, heads = 9 11, horns=12 14, waters = 15, horns again = 16 17, and finally the woman = 18). The reference to the woman, however, is thrown late in order to introduce the following doom-song (cf. kings in 18, Revelation 18:3; Revelation 18:9, and great in 18, Revelation 18:2), and a similar motive accounts for the irregular position of 16 17 after 14, Rome's fall, though viewed from different angles, being the main object before the writer's mind at the moment. The defeat of 14 is taken up, in its true position, afterwards (Revelation 19:11-21). Revelation 16:15 (an echo of Revelation 16:19 b) is probably thrown in at this point, to contrast dramatically the revolt [16] of Rome's supporters against her. Thus, except for 9 11, there are sufficient psychological reasons to account partially for the order and contents of the oracle; but source-criticism is required to clear up the passage, in the more or less extensive theories of one source (edited in 6, 9 a, 14 15, so J. Weiss; or variously in 8, 12 14, with some words in 6, 9, 11, so e.g. Pfleiderer, Baljon, Bousset and Forbes) or even two sources (Jewish, A = 3 4, 6 7 b, 10, [919] =11 13, 16 b 17, Wellhausen's Analyse, 26 f.), for which the linguistic idiosyncrasies (double use of γέμειν, 3 4, precedence of object over verb 13, 16, 18, οἱ κ. τ. γ. 2, and the construction βλ. τ. θ. ὅτι ἦν, 8) afford some basis. The main problem is to explain how the various strata of tradition overlap; e.g., in 8, 12 f., the beast is Nero redivivus, an infernal power of evil, whereas in 11 Domitian seems identified with Nero the beast. It is hard to believe that one and the same writer could simultaneously regard Domitian as a second Nero and expect Nero redivivus as a semi-supernatural power. In any case the stress falls on the Beast rather than on the woman, and on the eschatological prediction, not on the historical application. It is a fairly open question whether 8 or 11 is the editorial mortar super-imposed upon the earlier tradition. Upon the whole, one of the least unsatisfactory solutions is to take 11 as a Domitianic gloss by the Christian editor, who has also added 6 b (if not all of 6) and 14 to a Vespasianic oracle (possibly of Jewish origin) in Revelation 17:4 f. which anticipated the downfall of persecuting Rome at the hands of Nero redivivus and his Eastern allies. No hypothesis is free from difficulties. But the general Domitianic reference of the Apocalypse and the presence of the Nero redivivus saga must be worked in somehow, and some hypothesis on the above lines seems to do most justice to the literary structure of this chapter as well as to the data of the book in general. It is impossible to determine how far the Christian editor worked over his source. That the difficulties of the oracle arise mainly from the presence of an earlier source (cf. Introd. § 7), which John has revised slightly and brought up to date, is axiomatic, however.

[919] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

The double object of the oracle is (a), by a re-editing of the tradition of 13 to represent Rome in her Imperial pride, before describing her downfall, and (b) to define more precisely the final appearance of the last foe. The chapter could readily be spared as isolated (Simcox), but this only proves that the author is again working upon disparate materials which he inherited. The oracle contains (Revelation 16:1-6) a vision of the Harlot (by way of foil to Revelation 12:1-6 and especially Revelation 21:9 f.) and the Beast, with (Revelation 16:7-18) an explanation of the vision.