GreekTestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentaryRevelationoverview

CHAPTERVIII

REVELATION

SECTIONI

AUTHORSHIP,ANDCANONICITY

1.THEAuthorofthisbookcallshimselfinmoreplacesthanonebythenameJohn,ch.Revelation1:1Revelation1:4Revelation1:9,Revelation22:8.Thegeneralviewhasbeen,thatthisnamerepresentsSt.JohnthesonofZebedee,theWriteroftheGospelandthethreeEpistles,thedisciplewhomJesusloved.

2.Thisviewrestsonexternal,andoninternalevidence.Ishallfirstspecifyboththese,andthenpassontootherviewsrespectingtheauthorship.Andinsodoing,Ishallatpresentcitemerelythosetestimonieswhichbearmoreorlessdirectlyontheauthorship.Themostancientarethefollowing:

3.JustinMartyr,Dial.81,p.179(writtenbetweenA.D.139and161): , , , , .

Wemaymentionbytheway,thatthistestimonyofJustinisdoublyimportant,asreferredtobyEusebius,himselfnobelieverintheapostolicauthorship:H.E.iv.18: .

TheauthenticityandvalueofthepassageofJustinhasbeendiscussedatconsiderablelengthandwithmuchcandourbyLcke,Einl.pp.54856.He,himselfadisbelieverinSt.Johnsauthorship,confessesthatitisagenuineanddecidedtestimonyinitsfavour.

4.Melito,bishopofSardis(+cir.171),issaidbyEuseb.H.E.iv.26,tohavewrittentreatises(oratreatise,butthepluralismorelikely:andsoJer(219)Catal.24,vol.ii.p.867:dediabololibrumunum,deApocalypsiJoannislibrumunum)onthedevil,andontheApocalypseofJohn: , .ItisfairlyreasonedthatEusebiuswouldhardlyhavefailedtonotice,supposinghimtohaveseenMelitoswork,anyviewofhiswhichdoubtedtheapostolicorigin:andthatthismaythereforebelegitimatelytakenasanindirecttestimonyinitsfavour.SeeLcke,p.564Stuart,p.258Davidson,Introd.iii.540.

5.Ofasimilarindirectnaturearethetwonexttestimonies.Theophilus,bishopofAntioch(+cir.180),whoseLibriadAutolycumarestillextant,issaidbyEuseb.iv.24tohavewrittenabook ,

.

6.AndsimilarlyEusebius,H.E.Revelation22:18,saysofApollonius(ofEphesus?sointhetreatisePrdestinatus,cent.v.:seeLcke,p.567),whoflourishedinAsiaMinorattheendofcent.ii.,andwroteagainsttheMontanists,therebymakinghistestimonymoreimportant: .FromthislattersentencetherecanbenodoubtthatApolloniusregardedtheApocalypseastheworkofJohntheApostle.

7.Wenowcometotheprincipalsecondcenturywitness,Irenus(+cir.180).Respectingthevalueofhistestimony,itmaysufficetoremindthestudentthathehadbeenahearerofPolycarp,thediscipleofSt.John.Andthistestimonyoccursupanddownhiswritingsingreatabundance,andinthemostdecisiveterms.JoannesdominidiscipulusisstatedtohavewrittentheApocalypseinHr.iv.20.1130.4v.26.135.2,pp.256,268,323,336:andJoannesiniv.21.3v.36.3,pp.258,337.AndthisJohncanbenootherthantheApostle:forhesays,iii.1.1,p.174, (intheLatin,asabove) , , .Butthemostremarkabletestimony,andonewhichwillcomebeforeusagainandagainduringthecourseoftheseProlegomena,isinv.30.13,pp.328ff.There,havinggivencertainreasonsforthenumberofAntichristsnamebeing666,heproceeds, , , .Then,aftersomeremarks,andstatingtwonamescurrentassuitingthenumber,heconcludes, , . , , .

Thisisbeyondquestionthemostimportantevidencewhichhasyetcomebeforeus.AndwemayobservethatitisinnowayaffectedbyanyopinionwhichwemayhaveformedrespectingIrenussexegeticalmerits,norbyanyofhispeculiaropinions.Heheremerelyassertswhat,ifhewereamanofordinarypowerofcollectingandretainingfacts,hemustverywellhaveknownforcertain.

8.KeepingatpresenttothedirectwitnessesfortheauthorshipbySt.John,wenextcometoTertullian(+cir.220).Histestimoniesaremanyanddecisive.

Adv.Marcion.iii.14,vol.ii.p.340:NametapostolusJohannesinapocalypsiensemdescribitexoreDominiprodeuntem.

Ib.24,p.356:Hanc(clestemcivitatem)etEzekielnovit,etapostolusJoannesvidit.

DePudicitia19,p.1017:SedquoniamusquedePaulo,quandoetiamJoannesnescioquiddiverspartisupplauderevideatur,quasiinapocalypsimanifestefornicationiposueritpnitentiauxilium,ubiadangelumThyatirenorum,&c.

SeealsodeResurr.27,p.834deAnima,8,p.658adv.Judos,9,p.620deCor.Militis,13,p.96adv.Gnosticos,12,p.147.

9.ThefragmentontheCanoncalledbythenameofMuratori,andwrittencir.200,says,etJoanneseniminApocalypsilicetseptemecclesiisscribat,tamenomnibusdicit,wherethecontextshewsthattheApostleJohnmustbeintended.

10.Hippolytus,bishopofOstia(PortusRomanus),cir.240,inhiswritingsveryfrequentlyquotestheApocalypse,andalmostalwayswith .Whomhemeantbyisevidentfromonepassage,Deantichristo,c.36,Migne,Patr.Gr.,vol.x.p.756: , , , .Andthenheproceedstoquotech.Revelation17:118.MultitudesofothercitationswillbefoundbyconsultingtheindextoLagardesedition(220).Andoneofhisprincipalworks,asspecifiedinthe

cataloguefoundinscribedonhisstatue,was(or,forthewordhasbecomeobliterated,onlyAbeingnowlegible) :mentionedalsobyJerome,Catal.61,vol.ii.p.901.

11.ClementofAlexandria(cir.200),inhisStrom.vi.13(106),p.793P.,saysofthefaithfulpresbyter, , .AndelsewherehefixesthisnameasmeaningtheApostle,bysayinginhisQuisdivessalv.42,p.959: , , .:andthenheproceedstotellthewellknownstoryofSt.Johnandtheyoungrobber.

12.Origen,thescholarofClement(+cir.233),whosodiligentlyenquiredintoandreportedanydoubtsordisputesaboutthecanonicityandgenuinenessofthebooksoftheN.T.,appearsnottohaveknownofanywhichregardedtheApocalypse.InapassageofhisCommentaryonSt.Matt.preservedbyEuseb.H.E.vi.25,hesays, ,, , , .

WehavealsothisremarkabletestimonyinhisCommentaryonMatt.tom.xvi.6,vol.v.p.719f.: , , , , . , , , (Revelation1:9), . .

AndOrigenagainrepeatedlycitestheApocalypsewithouttheleastindicationofdoubtastoitsauthor:asmaybeseenbyconsultinganyoftheindicestotheeditions.HisprocedureinthiscaseformsastrikingcontrasttothatinthecaseoftheEpistletotheHebrews:seeProlegg.tothisvol.ch.i.i.1623.

13.StillkeepingtothoseFatherswhogivedefinitetestimonyastotheauthorship,wecometoVictorinus,bishopofPettauinPannonia,whosufferedmartyrdomunderDiocletianin303.HisistheearliestextantcommentaryontheApocalypse.Onch.Revelation10:4,hesays(seeMigne,Patr.Lat.,vol.v.p.333),Sedquiadicitsescripturumfuisse(Joannes)quantalocutafuissenttonitrua,idest,qucunqueinveteritestamentoerantobscuraprdicata,vetatureascriberesedrelinquereeasignata,quiaestApostolus.

Andafterwards,onoportetautemteiterumprophetare,Hocest,proptereaquodquandohcJoannesvidit,eratininsulaPathmos,inmetallodamnatusaDomitianoCsare.IbiergoviditApocalypsin:etcumjamseniorputaretseperpassionemaccepturumreceptionem,interfectoDomitianoomniajudiciaejussolutasunt,etJoannesdemetallodimissus,sicposteatradidithanceandemquamacceperataDeoApocalypsin.

14.EphremSyrus(+cir.378),thegreatestFatherintheSyrianchurch,repeatedlyinhisnumerouswritingscitestheApocalypseascanonical,andascribesittoJohn:seethereff.inStuartsIntroduction,p.271.IntheGreektranslationofhisworks,wereadinthesecondHomilyontheSecondAdventoftheLord, ,andthenhequotesRevelation21:45vol.ii.p.248,ed.Assem.SeeLcke,Einl.p.598,note.

Nowthesecitationsarethemoreremarkable,becausetheoldSyriacorPeschitoversiondoesnotcontaintheApocalypse:asneitherindeedapparentlydidthelaterorPhiloxenianversionoriginally,noritsrepublicationbyThomasofHarkel(seeLcke,p.598).Itmayfairlybeaskedthen,HowcameEphrembyhisSyriacversionoftheApocalypse(forheseemsnottohavebeenacquaintedwithGreek)?And,HowcamethePeschitotowanttheApocalypse,ifitwasheldtobewrittenbytheApostle?

15.ItwouldexceedthelimitsoftheseProlegomenatoenterintotheanswerstothesequestions,whichhavebeenvariouslygiven:byHugandThiersch,thatthePeschitooriginallycontainedthebook,andthatitonlybecameexcludedinthefourthcenturythroughtheinfluenceoftheschoolsofAntiochandNisibis:byWaltonandWichelhaus,thatthePeschitowasmadeinthefirstcentury,whenasyettheApocalypsehadnotwonitswayamongthecanonicalbooks:byHengstenberg,thatthePeschitowasnotmadetilltheendofthethirdcentury,aftertheobjectionsagainsttheapostolicityofthebookhadbeenraisedbyDionysiusofAlexandria(221).

16.TheseanswersarealldiscussedbyLcke,Einl.pp.597605,andseverallyrejected.Hisownsolutionisbynomeanssatisfactoryastotheformerofthetwoquestions,howEphremcamebyhisSyriacversion.ThelatterheanswersbypostponingthedateofthereceptionoftheApocalypseintothecanontillafterthepublicationofthePeschito,i.e.asnowgenerallyacknowledged,theendofthesecondcentury.

17.Epiphanius,bishopofSalamisinCyprusattheendofthefourthcentury,citestheApocalypseaswrittenbytheApostle.IncombatingtheAlogi,whorejectedthegospelofJohnandtheApocalypse,hespeaksmuchandwarmlyofthatbook,andsaysamongotherthings(Hr.li.35,p.457), , :andib.32,p.455,havingcited1Corinthians15:52,heproceeds, ,

18.BasiltheGreat(+378),adv.Eunomiumii.14,vol.i.p.249,says, , ...,andafterwards, , ,, ,Revelation1:8.

19.HilaryofPoictiers(+368),inhisProloguetothePsalms,says(c.6,vol.i.p.5),itabeatiJohannisApocalypsidocemur:etangeloPhiladelphiEcclesiscribe.SoalsoinhisEnarratioinPs.1:12,p.26,sanctusJoannesinApocalypsitestatur,dicens,Revelation22:2.Stuartcitesfromp.891oftheParisedn.of1693,etexfamiliaritateDominirevelationeclestiummysteriorumdignusJohannes(222).

20.Athanasius(+373)inhisOrat.i.contraArianos,i.11,vol.i.(ii.Migne)p.327,citesJohn1:1,andthensays, , .

21.GregoryofNyssa,brotherofBasiltheGreat(+395),inhisdiscourse,Insuamordinationem,vol.iii.p.546,Migne,says, , ,...Revelation3:15.OfcoursethiscannotmeanthattheRevelationiswhatwenowcommonlyknowasanapocryphalbook,or,asLckeremarks,thesentencewouldcontradictitself:buthereisequivalenttoor:inthesamewayasDion.Areop.DeEccl.Hierarch.iii.4,vol.i.p.287,callsthebook .

22.Didymus(+394)inhisEnarr.inEpist.i.Joann.iv.1,2,p.1795,says,EtinapocalypsifrequenterJoannes(thewriteroftheEpistle)prophetavocatur.

23.Ambrose(+397)constantlycitestheApocalypseastheworkoftheApostleJohn:e.g.Devirginitate14(86),vol.iii.p.234:Quomodoigituradscendamusadclum,docetEvangelistaquidicitEtduxitmeSpiritusinmontemmagnum,&c.Revelation21:10andDeSpirituSanctoiii.20(153),p.697,Sicenimhabes,dicenteJohanneevangelistaEtostenditmihiflumenaquviv,&c.Revelation22:1ff.

24.Augustine(+430)useseverywheretheApocalypseasagenuineproductionof

theApostleandEvangelistJohn.Thuswehave,Ep.55(cxix.)6(10),vol.ii.p.209,Joannesapostolusinapocalypsi:DeCiv.Dei22:7.1,vol.vii.p.666,JoannesEvangelistainlibroquidiciturapocalypsis.InJoan.Tract.xxxvi.5,vol.iii.p.1665,inApocalypsiipsiusJoanniscujusesthocevangelium:seealsoTract.xiii.2,p.1493Depeccat.mer.ii.7(8),vol.x.p.156deTrinit.ii.6(11),vol.viii.p.852,&c.(223)

(223)IthardlyappearsfairinLcketolayastressonsuchexpressionsasthisipsinsJoanniscujusest,asimplyingthatAugustinethoughtitnecessarytoprotestbyimplicationagainsttheoppositeview.ThereisnothingintheexpressionwhichhemightnotverywellhavesaidinspeakingoftheActsasrelatedtotheGospelofSt.Luke:inwhichcasetherewasnodoubt.

25.Jerome(+420),adv.Jovin.i.26,vol.ii.p.280,speaksoftheApostleJohnasalsobeingaprophet,viditeniminPathmosinsula,inquafuerataDomitianoprincipeobDominimartyriumrelegatus,apocalypsin,infinitafuturorummysteriacontinentem.Andthenfollows,asalsoinhisCatal.9,vol.ii.p.845,seebelow,ii.par.12,Irenussaccountoftheplaceandtimeofwritingthebook.

WeshallhavetoadduceJeromeagainintreatingofthecanonicity.Andnowthatwehavearrivedatthebeginningofthefifthcentury,thelatterquestionbecomeshistoricallythemoreimportantofthetwo,andindeedthetwoarehenceforthhardlycapableofbeingtreatedapart.

26.BeforewepasstothetestimoniesagainsttheauthorshipbytheApostleandEvangelistSt.John,letusbrieflyreviewthecourseofevidencewhichwehaveadducedinitsfavour.ItwillbeveryinstructivetocompareitscharacterwiththatoftheevidenceforthePaulineauthorshipoftheEpistletotheHebrews,ascollectedintheProlegomenatothatEpistle.

27.Therewefoundthat,whilethereprevailedinthegreatmajorityofthemoreancientFathersahabit,whentheyarespeakingloosely,oradpopulum,ofcitingtheEpistleastheworkofSt.Paul,ontheonehand,allattemptsfailtodiscoveranygeneralecclesiasticaltraditiontothiseffect:andontheother,thegreatestandablestofthesewritersthemselves,whenspeakingguardedly,throwdoubtonthePaulineauthorship,whilesomeofthemsetitasidealtogether.Incourseoftime,wetherealsofound,thehabitofcitingtheEpistleasSt.Paulsbecamemoregeneral:thensprungupassertion,moreandmorestrong,thatitveritablywashis:tillatlastitwasmadeanarticleoffaithtobelieveittobeso.Sothatthehistoryofopinioninthatcasemaybedescribedasthegradualgrowingupofabeliefwhichwasentirelyvoidofgeneralreceptionintheancientchurch.

28.Wearenotyetpreparedtoenteronthewholeofthecorrespondinghistoryofopinioninthiscase:butasfaraswehavegone,itmaybedescribedastheveryconverseoftheother.Theapostolicauthorshiprestsonthefirmesttraditionalground.WehaveitassuredtousbyonewhohadcompaniedwithmenthathadknownSt.Johnhimself:wehaveitheldincontinuoussuccessionbyFathersinallpartsofthechurch.Nowhere,inprimitivetimes,doesthereappearanycountertraditiononthesubject.WehavenothingcorrespondingtotheplaintestimoniesofTertullianinfavourofBarnabas,orofOrigenthattherewasancomedownthatClementofRomeorSt.LukehadwrittentheEpistle.Insubsequentparagraphsweshallseehowvariationofopinionwasfirstintroduced,andwhy.

29.Butbeforedoingso,itwillbewelltocompletethisportionofourenquiry,bymentioningthoseearlywritingsandFatherswhich,thoughtheydonotexpresslystatewhowastheauthorofthebook,yetciteitascanonical,oratalleventsshewthattheywereacquaintedwithandapprovedit.

30.Amongthesetheveryearliesthavebeenmatterofconsiderablequestion.ThesupposedallusionsinPolycarp,forinstance,thoughstronglymaintainedbyHengstenberg,arereallysofaintanddistant,thatnonebutanadvocatewouldeverhaveperceivedthem.Suchare,e.g.theexpressioninPolyc.adPhil.c.l,p.1005,Migne, . ,seeingthatisasaN.T.wordconfinedtotheApocalypse,beingin2Corinthians6:18citedfromtheO.T.:inp.1012,c.8, ,becauseinRev.wefind [],(Revelation1:9,rec.)Revelation3:10.Butsodowein2Thessalonians3:5indeeditneednotbean

allusionatall,beingaveryobviousexpression.AndHengstenbergsnextinstance,whichhecallsasgoodasanexpresscitationoftheApocalypseasaninspiredwriting,c.6,p.1012, , , , ,isinrealitynoinstanceatall,thecitationbeingfromHebrews12:28,andthefollowingwordsbeingjustasapplicabletoSt.JamesandSt.Jude,astoSt.John.Nay,Hengstenbergsargumenthastwoedges:foriftheallusionherebetotheApocalypse,thenwehaveamostimportantearlywitnesstoitsnothavingbeenwrittenbyanApostle.

31.ThepassageswhichHengstenbergbringsfromtheEpistleoftheChurchofSmyrnaonthemartyrdomofPolycarp,areevenmoreuncertainandfarfetched(224).Suchadvocacyismuchtobelamented:ittendstoweakeninsteadofstrengtheningtherealevidence.

32.Thenexttestimonyproducedishoweverofaverydifferentkind.ItisthatofPapias,ofwhomIren.,Hr.v.33.4,p.333,inadducingthetraditionalwordsofourLordrespectingthemillennialabundanceoftheearth,says, , , , .ItiswellknownthatEusebius,inhisfamouschapter,H.E.iii.39s,attemptstosetasidethis bycitingfromPapiashimselfhisassertionthathesetdowninhisworkwhathehadheardasthesayingsoftheApostles,namingSt.Johnamongthem.Butthereisnothingtopreventhishavingunitedbothcharacters,thatofahearer,andthatofacollectorofsayings:andIrenus,thescholarofPolycarp,ishardlylikelytohavebeenmistakenonsuchapoint.NowregardingPapias,asawitnessfortheApocalypse,wehaveascholiumofAndreas,ofCappadocia,attheendofthefifthcentury(seeLcke,p.525note),printedinsubstanceinCramersCatena,p.176,atthebeginningofthecommentariesontheApocalypse: , , ,, , .Andaccordingly,onRevelation12:79,heexpresslycitesPapiasswork: (225),...

33.ThereseemstobeampleproofherethatPapiasdidmaintain,asfromwhatweotherwiseknowweshouldexpect,theinspiration,i.e.thecanonicityofthebook.Allthathasbeenarguedontheothersideseemstometofailtoobviatethefact,ortoweakenthegreatimportanceofthisearlytestimony.SeethewholediscussedatlengthinStuart,pp.250254:Lcke,pp.524546:Hengstenberg,pp.101116.Imaybepermittedtosay,thatboththelastmentionedCommentatorshavesufferedthemselvestobeblindedastotherealworthoftheevidencebytheirzealtoserveeachhisownhypothesis.

34.TheEpistleofthechurchesofLyonsandViennetothechurchesofAsiaandPhrygiaconcerningthepersecutionwhichbefellthemunderMarcusAurelius,A.D.177,ispreservedbyEusebius,H.E.Revelation12:12.ThecitationsinitfromtheApocalypseareunmistakable.Inspeakingofthemartyr,VettiusEpagathus,theysay, (Revelation14:4).TheyaccountfortherageofthePagansagainsttheChristiansbyitsbeingthefulfilmentofRevelation22:11, , (226).TheycallChrist . and ,expressionsmanifestlytakenfromRevelation1:5Revelation3:14.SeeLcke,pp.567,568.

35.ThetestimonyofPolycratesofEphesus,inEuseb.H.E.v.24,concerningtheburialofSt.JohninEphesus,hasbeenpressedbyHengstenbergintotheserviceofthecanonicityoftheApocalypse,butisfartoouncertaininmeaningtobefairlyintroduced(227).SeeHengstb.,pp.125129:andLcke,pp.568571.

36.Cyprian(cir.250)repeatedlyreferstotheApocalypse,andunhesitatinglytreatsitaspartofHolyScripture.InEp.xiii.1,p.260,hesays,maximecumscriptumsitMementoundececideris,etagepnitentiam,Revelation2:5seealsoEp.xxviii.1,p.300,lii.(adAntonianumEp.x.,Migne,Patr.Lat.vol.iii.)22,p.787.InEp.xxvi.4,p.293,hecitestheApocalypseasonalevelwiththeGospels:tubaEvangeliisuinosexcitatDominusdicens,Quiplusdiligitpatrem,&c.:etiterum,Beatiquipersecutionempassifuerint,&c.:et,Vincentidabosederesuperthronummeum,&c.Revelation3:21.

InEp.lii.ubisupra,pnitentiamnonagentiDominuscomminaturHabeo,inquit,adversustemulta,&c.Revelation2:20.

Delapsis,c.27,p.488,ipsequoqueDominusprmoneatetprstruatdicensEtscientomnesecclesi,&c.Revelation2:23.

Deopereeteleem.c.14,p.611,AudiinApocalypsiDominituivocem.Dicis,inquit,divessum,&c.Revelation3:17.Theopeningchaptersofthetreatise,DeExhortationeMartyrii,consistofScripturetestimoniesstrungtogether.InthemhecitestheApocalypseasScripture,c.2,3,8,pp.657f.,661(etinApocalypsieademloquiturdivinprdicationishortatiodicens),10,11,12.ThesameisthecaseintheLibriTestimoniorum.

BesidestheseplacesStuartquotesfromhisworks,p.168,AquasnamquepopulossignificareinApocalypsiScripturadivinadeclarat,dicens,Aqu,&c.Revelation17:15.

37.Athanasius(228)(+cir.373)givesinhis23rd ,Opp.Parsii.vol.ii.p.156,alistofthebooksofthesacredcanon,dividingthemintothreeclasses:thefirstofthesebeingthecanonical,whicharethesourcesofsalvation:inwhichonlyisthetruedoctrineofreligiondeclared,towhichnomancanadd,andfromwhichnonecantakeaway:thesecondecclesiasticalsuchasmaybereadinthechurchforedification,butarenotinspired:thethird,apocryphal,writtenbyheretics,andsupposititious.InthefirstclassheplacestheApocalypse:andinhiswritingsaccordinglyhereferstoitfrequently(229).

38.InChrysostomsownworkswehavenocommentsontheApocalypse,noranydistinctreferencestoitasScripture.Thathewasacquaintedwithit,plainlyappearsfromsuchpassagesasthatinHom.i.onMatt.8,vol.vii.p.23,ed.Migne,whereinspeakingoftheheavenlycity,hesays, , .

Suidassaysunder, , .

39.IrecuragaintoJeromestestimony(230).InhislettertoPaulinus,Ep.53,hegivesthewholesacredcanon.AndinincludingtheApocalypseinit,heremarks,8,vol.i.p.280,ApocalypsisJoannistothabetsacramentaquotverba.Parumdixipromeritovoluminis.Lausomnisinferiorest.Inverbissingulismultipliceslatentintelligenti.InhisComm.onPsalms149,vol.vii.App.p.1267,Migne,hesays,legimusinApocalypsiJoannis,quinecclesiislegituretrecipiturnequeeniminterapocryphasscripturashabetur,sedinterecclesiasticas.

InhisEp.toDardanus,3(vol.i.p.971),wehavethepassagecitedatlengthintheProleg.totheEpistletotheHebrews,i.par.74,inwhichhesays,quodsieam(theEp.totheHeb.)Latinorumconsuetudononrecipitinterscripturascanonicas,necGrcorumquidemecclesiApocalypsinJoanniseademlibertatesuscipiunt.ettamennosutramquesuscipimus,nequaquamhujustemporisconsuetudinem,sedveterumscriptorumauctoritatemsequentes,quiplerumqueutriusqueabutunturtestimoniis,nonutinterdumdeapocryphisfaceresolent,quippequietgentiliumliterarumraroutanturexemplis,sedquasicanonicis.

40.Itishardlyworthwhiletocitelaterandlessimportantauthoritiesonthisside.TheywillbefoundenumeratedinStuart,Introd.p.276:Davidson,p.545:andstillmoreatlengthinLcke,pp.638ff.OfthegeneraltendencyoflatertraditionIshallspeakbelow,par.63.

41.Inowcometoconsiderthoseancientauthoritieswhichimpugntheapostolicity

andcanonicityofthebook.

42.Firstamongtheseinpointoftime,thoughnotofimportance,aretheAntimontanistsorAlogioftheendofthesecondandbeginningofthethirdcentury(seeEpiphan.Hr.li.32ff.pp.455ff.:Neander,Kirchengesch.i.2,p.907)whorejectedthewritingsofSt.John. ,saysEpiphanius, , . .Thenfollowtheirobjectionsagainstthebook,whichareentirelyofasubjectivecharacter: , andagain, , . :&c.TotheseapparentlyDionysiusofAlexandria,presentlytobecited,alludes,whenhesays(utinfra,par.48), , , . , , , . , . , , , , , , , .

43.Ihaveconsidereditimportanttoquotethispassageatlength,asgivinganaccountoftheearliestopponentstotheauthenticityoftheApocalypseandofthereasonoftheiropposition.ThestudentmayfurtherfollowouttheaccountoftheseAlogiinEpiphanius,l.c.TheyhavebeenverylightlypassedoverbyLcke(p.582)andothers,whoarenotwillingthattheirprocessionofopponentstotheapostolicauthorshipshouldbeledbypersonswhosecharacterissolittlecreditable.Butthefairenquirerwillnotfeelatlibertythustoexcludethem.Theywereperhapsmoreoutspokenandthorough,perhapsalsolesslearnedandcautiousthanthosewhofollow:buttheirmotivesofoppositionwereofthesamekind:anditisespeciallytobenoted,asaweightypointintheevidence,that,beinghostiletotheauthorityofthewritingscommonlyreceivedasthoseoftheApostleJohn,theyintheirtimeconceiveditnecessarytodestroythecreditoftheApocalypseaswellasthatoftheGospel.

44.TheRomanpresbyterCaius, accordingtoEuseb.vi.20,wholivedintheEpiscopateofZephyrinus(i.e.196219),wroteapolemicaldialogueagainsttheMontanistProclus,ofwhichafragmenthasbeenpreservedbyEusebiusiii.28,speakingoutstillmoreplainly: , . , .

45.Some,asHug,al.,haveinvainendeavouredtopersuadeusthatsomeotherbookisheremeant,andnottheApocalypseofJohn.Nosuchworkistobetraced,thoughwehaveveryfullaccountsofCerinthusfromIrenus(Hr.i.26,p.105)andEpiphanius(Hr.xxviii.pp.110ff.):andneithertheplural(whichisalsousedbyDionysius,ascitedbelow,ofourapocalypticvisions),northeexaggeratedaccountoftheearthlyKingdomaspromised(seethesameintheobjectionsoftheAlogiascitedbyDionysiusabove)canhavetheleastweightininducingustoconcurinsuchasupposition.

46.WhenLckesetsasideCaiusinthesamecategoryastheAlogi,ashavingequallylittletodowithecclesiasticaltradition,wecannothelpseeingagainthetrickofacraftypartisanwishingtogetridofanawkwardally.

47.UndoubtedlytheweightiestobjectortothecanonicityoftheApocalypseinearlytimesisDIONYSIUS,thesuccessornextbutonetoOrigeninthepresidencyofthecatecheticalschoolofAlexandria,andafterwardsbishopofthatsee(A.D.247).ThisworthyscholarofOrigen(seeNeander,Kirchengesch.i.p.1229f.)remainedeverattachedtohim,lovingandhonouringhim:andwrotehimaletterofconsolationwhenhewasthrownintoprisonintheDecianpersecution.ThisDionysius,ashehimselftellsus,hadbecomeabelieverintheGospelbyacourseoffreeinvestigation,andunbiassedexaminationofallknownsystems:andafterhisconversion,heremainedtruetothisprincipleasaChristianandasapublicteacher.Hereadandexaminedwithoutbiasallthewritingsofheretics,anddidnotrejectthem,untilhewasthoroughlyacquaintedwiththem,andwasinasituationtoconfutethemwithvalidarguments.Whilehewasthusemployed,oneofthepresbytersofhischurchwarnedhimoftheharmwhichhisownsoulmighttakebysomuchcontactwiththeirimpuredoctrines.Ofthisdanger,hesays,hewashimselftooconscious:butwhileponderingonwhathadbeensaidtohimhewasdeterminedinhiscoursebyaheavenlyvision( ):andavoicedistinctlysaidtohim,Readeverythingthatcomesintothyhands:forthouartwellabletojudgeandprovethemall( ):indeedsuchwasatthefirstthesourceofthineownfaith.And,hesays,Ireceivedthevisionasagreeingwiththeapostolicsaying( )whichsaystothestrong( ) .

48.ThenoticesleftusofDionysiusintheseventhbookofEusebius,entirelycorrespondwiththeabove.AndthejudgmentwhichhepassesontheApocalypseischaracterizedbysounddiscretionandmoderation.Igiveitatlength.

Afterthepassagealreadycitedinpar.42,heproceeds(Eus.H.E.vii.25): , . , , , . , , , , , , . . , , , . , , , , . , , , . , , , ., , , . , . , . , , , , . , , .

, , , . , , , , , . . . , ,. , , , , . , . . , . , , , , . . , . , , . , . , . , . , . , . , , , , , , , , . , , , , , . . . , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , . , , , , , , .

. , , , . , , . , , , , , . , , , , , . , , , .

49.ItwillbeseenthatwhileontheonehandheseparateshimselffromthosewhodisparagedthebookandascribedittoCerinthus,ontheotherhedistinctlyrepudiatesallliteralinterpretationsofitasimpossible,andapproachestheenquirywithastrongantichiliasticbias.Thismoreespeciallyappears,fromapreviouschapterofthesamebookofEusebius,inwhichisdetailedtheproceedingofDionysiuswithregardtotheschismofNepos,anEgyptianbishopofchiliasticviews:Eus.H.E.vii.24.

50.WithregardtothewholecharacterofDionysiusscriticism,wemaymakethefollowingremarks:

a)itsnegativeportionrestsupongroundscommontohimandourselves,andrespectingwhichawriterinthethirdcentury,howevermuchwemayadmirehisfreeandabletreatmentofhissubject,hasnoadvantageatalloveronewhowritesinthenineteenth.Itisasopentousasitwastohim,tojudgeofthephnomenaandlanguageoftheApocalypseascomparedwiththeGospelandEpistlesofSt.John.

b)thepositiveresultofhisargument,iffairlyexamined,isworthabsolutelynothing.Thewritertowhomheascribesthebookis,eventohimself,entirelyunknown:moreunknownthanSilvanusasaconjecturalauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrews:moreunknownthanevenAquila.Theveryexistence,inhismind,oftheotherJohn,whowrotetheApocalypse,dependsontheveryshadowywords , .

51.Andthislatterconsiderationisveryimportant.Itshewsusthatatallevents,theideaofJohnthePresbyterhavingwrittentheApocalypsewas,inthemiddleofthethirdcentury,whollyunknowntoecclesiasticaltraditioninthechurchofAlexandria:orelseweshouldneverhavefoundthisseekingaboutandconjecturingonthematter.

52.Ishalltreat,furtheron,thequestionraisedbythiscriticismofDionysiusastotheinternalprobabilityoftheauthorshipbytheApostleJohn.AtpresentIadvancewithnoticesofthosewhoimpugnedordoubteditinancienttimes.

53.AndofthosewenextcometoEusebiusofCsarea,thewellknownecclesiasticalhistorian.Hisopiniononthequestioniswaveringandundecided.InhisH.E.iii.24,havingassertedthegenuinenessofSt.JohnsGospelandFirstEpistle,andplacedtheothertwoEpistlesamongthe,heproceeds, . .Againinthenextchapter,ingivingalistofthe ,whenhehasmentionedthefourGospelsandActsandoneEpistleofSt.JohnandoneofSt.Peter,hesays, , , .Andalittlebelow,whenheisspeakingofthe,hesays, , , .

54.Iniii.39,inadducingthewellknownpassageofPapias, , ,

,hesays, , , , , . , , , . , .

55.Thestudentwillobservehowentirelyconjectural,andvaluelessasevidence,isthisopinionofEusebius.CertainlyLckeiswronginhisverystrongdenunciationsofHengstenbergfordescribingEusebiusasstudiouslyleavingthequestionopen.Forwhatelseisit,whenhenumbersthebookononesideamongtheundoubtedScriptureswithan ,andthenontheotheramongthespuriouswritingswithan also:whileattheverymomentofendorsingDionysiussconjecturethatthesecondJohnsawitsvisions,heinterposes ?ThatamanwiththeantichiliasticleaningsofEusebiusconcedesthusmuch,makesthebalanceofhistestimonyinclinerathertothanawayfromthecanonicityofthebook.Iwouldnotpressthis,butsimplytakeitasindicatingthatinEusebiusstime,aswellasinthatofDionysius,therewasnoecclesiasticaltraditionwarrantingthedisallowingitastheworkoftheEvangelist.Adverseopiniontherewas,whichfounditsfairandworthieremployininternalcriticism,andissuedinvagueconjecture,restingonthemerefactoftwopersonsnamedJohnhavingexistedinEphesus.WhoandwhatthesecondJohnwas,whetherhehadanyrighttospeakofhimselfasthewriteroftheApocalypsedoes,ortoaddresswithauthoritythesevenchurchesofAsia,ontheseandallsuchquestionswearewhollyinthedark.

56.CyrilofJerusalem(+386)isamoredecidedwitnessfortheexclusionoftheApocalypsefromtheCanon.InhisCatecheseis,iv.35,36,pp.68f.,havingprefacedtheaccountofthetwentytwocanonicalbooksoftheO.T.with ,heenumeratesthecanonicalbooksoftheN.T.,thefourGospels,Acts,sevencatholicepistles,fourteenofSt.Paul,andconcludes . , , .Anditistobeobservedthatheappealsforthisarrangementtoancientauthorities:forhesaystohiscatechumen,inthewordsalludedtointhelastcitedclause, , . , .

57.CyrilnowherementionstheApocalypsebyname.Butheseemstouseit,andevenwherehebyinferencerepudiatesit,toadoptitstermsunconsciously.AninstanceoftheformerisfoundinCat.i.4,p.18,wherehesaystohiscatechumen,speakingofhisbaptism, ,Revelation2:7Revelation2:17.Ofthelatter,inCat.xv.13,p.230,where,professingtogethisparticularsrespectingAntichristfromDaniel,andhavingsaid ,heproceeds, , , :thislastparticularbeingfromRevelation17:11.Again,although,ib.c.16,p.232,heprotestsrespectingthethreeandahalfyearsofAntichristsreign, , ,inc.27,p.239,healludestotheheresyofMarcellusofAncyrainthesewords, (Revelation12:3).Indeedpreviouslyinc.15,p.232,hehadwritten , , , ,evidentlyfromthesameplaceintheApocalypse.

58.ThusCyrilpresentstousremarkableandexceptionalphnomena:familiaritywiththelanguageofthebook,soastouseitunconsciouslyasthatofprophecy,combinedwitharepudiationofitascanonical,andaprohibitionofitsstudy.Itwouldappearthattherehadbeenatsometimeadeliberatechangeofopinion,andthatwehave,intheseevidentreferencestotheApocalypse,instancesofslipsofmemory,andretentionofphraseologywhichbelongedtohisformer,nottohissubsequentviews.

59.InthesixtiethcanonofthesynodofLaodicea,heldbetween343and381(seeHefele,Conciliengeschichte,i.721ff.),anaccountofthecanonicalbooksoftheOldandNewTestamentsisgiveninwhichtheApocalypseisomitted.Thegenuinenessofthiscanonhasbeendoubted(Lcke,p.361),butapparentlywithoutreason:seeHefele,utsupra,pp.749ff.WenextcometothetestimonyofGregoryofNazianzen(+390),whoinhispoem, ,vol.ii.(iii.Migne)p.259ff.,givesthesamecanonasCyril,andadds, , .Buthereagain,asinCyrilscase,wearemetbythephnomenonofreferencetothebookandcitationofitasoftheologicalauthority.InOratioxlii.9,vol.i.(ii.Migne)p.755,hesays,speakingoftheangelspresidingoverchurches, , .Andinanotherplace,Oratioxxix.17,p.536,hecites,inspeakingoftheGodheadofChrist, ,adding, .

Lckesuggestsinexplanationofthis,thatpossiblythechurchesofAsiaMinor,especiallythatofCappadocia,hadexcludedtheApocalypsefrompublicreadinginthechurch,onaccountofthecountenancewhichithadbeenmadetogivetotheerrorsofMontanism,andplaceditamongthe.Thismayhavebeenso:butIcannotthinkhisinferencesecure,thatthereforewemayinferthegeneralfact,thatthebookrestedonnosecureecclesiasticaltradition.

60.IntheIambiadSeleucum,printedinGregorysworks,ii.(iii.Migne)p.1104f.,ascribedbysometoGregoryhimself,butmoreusuallytoAmphilochiusofIconium,wehavetheApocalypsementionedbyname: , . .

Butitistobenoticed,thatinthescholiumofAndreascitedabove,par.32,heenumeratesGregoryamongthosewhorecognizedthecanonicityoftheApocalypse.

61.Afterthis,itwillbesufficienttogiveageneralviewoftheantagonismtotheauthorityofthebook.ItwasmaintainedchieflyintheEasternchurchtheWestern,afterthefifthcentury,universallyrecognizingtheApocalypse.ItisremarkablethatSulpiciusSeverus(Hist.Sacr.ii.31,Lcke)saystheApocalypseisaplerisqueautstulteautimpierejected.ButasLckeobserves,hemusthavefoundthesepleriqueintheGreek,notintheLatinchurch.PopeGelasius(MignePatr.Lat.vol.cxxx.p.984)inhisdecreedelibrisrecipiendisetnonrecipiendis(500)givesthebookitsplaceintheCanonoftheCatholicChurch,betweentheEpistlesofSt.PaulandtheCatholicEpistles.PrimasiusandCassiodorus,inthesixthcentury,expounditasapostolicandcanonical.ButJuniliustheAfrican,thefriendofPrimasius,says,Departib.leg.div.i.4,inMignePatr.Lat.vol.lxviii.p.18,thatonlyseventeenbooks,viz.theO.T.prophetsandthebookofPsalms,containtheScriptureprophecy:cterum,hecontinues,deJoannisapocalypsiapudOrientalesadmodumdubitatur.ThishehadlearnedfromPaulus,aPersian,oftheschoolofNisibis:andheconsequentlyseemsinclinednottoplaceitamongthelibriperfectauctoritatis.

62.ThefourthsynodofToledo(633)initsseventeenthcanon,decreesthat,seeingtheApocalypseisbymanycouncilsandPopessanctionedasaworkoftheApostleJohn,andascanonical,itshouldunderpainofexcommunication,bepreachedoninthechurchbetweenEasterandPentecost.TheSynodspeaksofplurimiquiejusauctoritatemnonrecipiunt,atqueinecclesiisDeiprdicarecontemnunt.This,Lckethinks,pointstodoubtersintheWestalso.ButIsidoreofSeville(+636)inhisDeofficiiseccl.i.12,vol.vi.pp.374ff.,havinggiventhegenerallyreceivedcanon,speaksofmanyLatinswhodoubtedofthePaulineoriginoftheEpistletotheHebrews,ofthegenuinenessof2Peter,oftheEpistleofJames,,2and3JohnbutnotawordofanywhodoubtedabouttheApocalypse.Sothatitmaybeafterallthat

theSynodofToledo,asJunilius,mayalludetoOrientalsonly.

63.HenceforwardintheWesternchurch,withthesoleexceptionoftheCapitulareofCharlemagne,which,followingGreekauthoritiesandespeciallytheSynodofLaodicea,excludedthebookfrompublicreading,wefinduniversalrecognitionoftheApocalypseuntiltheReformation.

64.IntheGreekchurchduringthelastnoticedperiodopinionsweremuchinthesamestateasinthefourthcentury.Ononesidewefindrejectionofthebook,attheleastfrompublicecclesiasticaluse:ontheother,unsuspectingreceptionofitasagenuineworkoftheApostleJohn.Neithersidetakesanypainstojustifyitsviewcritically,butsimplyconformstolocalecclesiasticalusage.CyrilofAlexandria,deAdorat.vi.vol.i.p.188,says, , .Theveryexpressionhere,itistrue,betraysconsciousnessoftheexistenceofdoubts,whichhoweverdonotaffecthisconfidence,northatofhiscontemporariesNilusandIsidoreofPelusium(231).

65.AtAntioch,however,theopinionincent.v.seemstohavebeendifferent.ItsgreatestFatherofthisperiod,TheodoreofMopsuestia(+429),nevercitestheApocalypseinhisextantwritingsandfragments,evenwherewemighthavecertainlyexpectedit.InthefragmentsofhisexpositionsoftheN.T.wehavenoallusiontoit,evenwhenon2Thessalonians2:3ff.(Migne,Patr.Gr.vol.lxvi.pp.933ff.)hespeaksofAntichristandofthesecondAdventnoragaininhisCommentaryonthetwelveprophets.Opponentashewasoftheallegoricalmethodofinterpretation,hemayhavebeenwithheldfromreceivingtheApocalypsebyconsciousnessthatnoothermodewouldsuitit:orhemayhavefollowedtheolderpracticeoftheSyrianchurch,andthecanonoftheLaodiceanSynod.Still,herejectedtheEpistleofJames,whichboththeserecognized:andLckethinkshemayhaverejectedtheApocalypsefromthedecisionofhisownjudgment,helpedbyhisdisinclinationtothebook,andtheexistingdoubtaboutitscanonicity:beingoneofthosewho,likeLutherinlatertimes,denKanonimKanonsuchtenundfanden.

66.Theodoret(bishopofCyrus,+457)alludestwoorthreetimestothebookinhisDialoguesontheTrinity(iii.12)andontheHolyGhost(i.18,printedbyMigneamongtheworksofAthanasius,vol.iv.pp.447,485):buton2Thessalonians2.andonHebrews12:22,heleavesitunnoticed,asalsoinhisCommentaryonDaniel.OnPsalms86:2,vol.i.p.1217,heseemstoaimatdescribingtheheavenlyJerusalemincontrasttotheapocalypticdescription.Inspeaking(hret.fabb.lib.ii.3,vol.iv.p.329f.)ofCerinthus,and(lib.iii.1,2,6,pp.340f.,346ff.)oftheNicolaitans,theMontanists,andevenofthechiliastNeposandhisantagonistDionysiusofAlexandria,hesaysnotawordoftheApocalypse.OnlyinhisDialogusImmutabilis(vol.iv.p.59)heoncenamesit,andadducesch.Revelation1:9withtheformula :butthenitisincitingfromAthanasius.

67.Afterthis,inthesixthcentury,theSyrianchurchesweredividedonthematter.TheNestoriansrejectedtheApocalypse,followingTheodoreofMopsuestiaandthePeschito:theMonophysitesreceivedit,followingtheAlexandrians,andHippolytus,andEphremSyrus.SeeLcke,pp.644,5,whothinksfromcertainindicationsthatevenamongthemitwasnotinecclesiastical,butonlyintheologicaluse.

68.IntheGreekchurchinAsiaMinor,wehaveAndreas,ofCsareainCappadocia,thewriterofthefirstentireandconnectedCommentaryontheApocalypse.Hefullyandearnestlyrecognizesitsgenuinenessandinspiration,and(seeabove,par.32)appealstothetestimonyoftheancientstobearhimout:mentioningbynamePapias,Irenus,Methodius,CyrilofAlexandria,andGregoryTheologus(ofNazianzum).ItisperhapshardlyfairinLcketoinferthat,becausehenamessofew,moremightnothavebeenadduced:hardlyfairagaintoconcludethat,becausehepromisestousetheirwritingsinhisCommentary,andhasnotexpresslycitedthem,hedidnotsousethem,orwashimselfoneofthefirstwhoexplainedthebook.

69.Arethas,whofollowedAndreas(232)inhissee,andinhisworkofcommentingontheApocalypse,repeatsinhisprologuethescholiumofAndreasontheInspirationofthebook,addingtheauthorityofBasiltheGreat.Butwearenowapproachingatimewhen,asLckeremarks,itisreallyofsmallimportwhousedthebookandwhodidnot,whoregardeditastheworkoftheApostle,andwhodidnot.Still,afewfacts

standoutfromthegeneralmass,whichmaybeusefulasindications,oratalleventshaveaclaimtoourattention.

70.SuchisthefactoftheomissionofallreferencetotheApocalypseinthewritingsofCosmasIndicopleustesincent.vi.InhisTopogr.Christiana,bookvii.(inMigne,Patr.vol.lxxxviii.),hetreatsofthedurationoftheheavensaccordingtoScripture,andLckethinksmustofnecessityhavecitedthebookhaditbeeninhiscanon.Still,heusestheFestalEpistleofAthanasius,inwhichitisexpresslyincludedintheCanon.

71.ThesecondcanonoftheTrullian,orQuinisextancouncil,sanctionsontheonehandthecanonoftheLaodiceancouncilandthatoftheeightyfiveapostolicalcanons,bothwhichomittheApocalypse,andontheotherthatoftheAfricanSynodsoftheendofthefourthandbeginningofthefifthcenturies,whichincludeit.Variousconjectureshavebeenmadeastotheaccounttobegivenofthis(seeLcke,pp.648,9).Thedesiretoleavethequestionopen(Lcke)canhardlyhavebeenthecause.Wemaysafelyleavesuchevidencetocorrectitself.

72.Thelistmaybeclosedwithoneortwonoticesfromlatercenturies,shewingthatthedoubtswerenotaltogetherforgotten,thoughgenerallygivenup.

Nicephorus(beginningofcent.ix.),inhisChronographiabrevis,p.1057,Migne,reckonsonlytwentysixbooksoftheN.T.,anddoesnotmentiontheApocalypseeitherintheorinthe.

73.Aprologuetothebookinthecursivecodex64(cent.x.orbeginningofxi.),afterdefendingitscanonicityandapostolicorigin,apologizesthusfortheancientFathersnotmentioningitamongthebookstobeopenlyreadinchurch: , , , , , , .

74.InthepromiumgiveninCramersCatenatotheextractsfromthecommentsofcumenius(cent.xi.),p.173,thecanonicityofthebookisstronglyasserted,anditsbeing ,andnot , .Forthis,thewriterreferstoAthanasius,Basil,Gregory,Methodius,Cyril,andHippolytus:andthensays , .

75.IntheChurchHistoryofNicephorusCallistus(cent.xiv.),hetreatsit(ii.42)asanacknowledgedfactthattheApostleJohn,wheninexileinPatmosunderDomitian,wrotehisGospelandhis .Still,whenenumeratingthebooksofthecanoninii.46,partlyfromEusebius,hesayssummarilyoftheApocalypse,that thatitwastheworkofJohnthePresbyter.

76.Itwillbewelltoreviewthecourseandcharacteroftheevidencefromantiquity.Aswehavebeforenoticed,soagainwemayobserve,thatthroughout,wehaveresultshereinmarkedcontrasttothoseofourenquiryregardingtheEpistletotheHebrews.Inthatcasetherewasatotallackofanyfixedgeneraltraditionintheearliesttimes.Gradually,theforceandconvenienceofanillustriousnamebeingattachedtotheEpistleboredownthedoubtsoriginallyrestingonitsauthorship,andthePaulineoriginbecameeverywhereacquiescedin.NothingcouldbemoredifferentfromthehistoryofthedoubtsabouttheauthorshipoftheApocalypse.Herewehaveafixedandthoroughlyauthenticatedprimitivetradition.ItcomesfrommenonlyremovedbyonestepfromtheApostleJohnhimself.Thereisabsolutelynoobjectiveevidencewhateverinfavourofanyotherauthor.Thedoubtsfirstoriginateinconsiderationspurelysubjective.

77.Thesearedivisibleintotwoclasses,antichiliasticandcritical.Itwasconvenienttodepreciatethebook,oncontroversialgrounds.Itwasfoundadvisablenottoreaditinthechurches,andtoforbidittotheyoungscholar.And,asmatteroffact,thusit

wasthatthedoubtsabouttheauthorshipsprungup.Ifitcountenancederror,ifitwasnotinthecanon,ifitwasnotfittoberead,thenitwouldnotbetheworkoftheEvangelistandApostle.

78.Again,tothesameresultcontributedthecriticalgroundssoablyurgedbyDionysiusofAlexandriaandobserveduponabove,par.50.Ihavethereremarked,notonlyhowabsolutelyshadowyandnothingworthisDionysiussthatJohnthePresbyterwrotethebook,buthowthisverywordismostvaluable,asdenotingtheentireabsenceofallobjectivetraditiontothateffectinthemiddleofthethirdcentury.

79.Thusthedoubtsgrewup,andincertainpartsofthechurch,prevailed:thewholeprocessbeingexactlytheconverseofthatwhichwetracedinourProlegomenatotheHebrews.

80.And,asfarastheforceofancienttestimonygoes,Isubmitthatourinferencealsomustbeacontraryone.TheauthorshipofthebookbytheApostleJohn,asmatterofprimitivetradition,restsonfirmandirrefragableground.Threeotherauthorsaresuggested:one,Cerinthus,bytheavowedenemiesoftheApocalypse,anassertionwhichhasneverfoundanyfavour:thesecond,JohnthePresbyter,whoseexistenceseemsindeedvouchedforbythepassageofPapias,butofwhomweknownothingwhatever,norhaveweoneparticleofevidencetoconnecthimwiththeauthorshipoftheApocalypse:andthethirdJohnMarktheEvangelist,whoisequallyunknowntoancienttraditionasitsauthor.

81.Asfarthenaspurelyexternalevidencegoes,Isubmitthatourjudgmentcanonlybeinonedirection:viz.thattheApocalypsewaswrittenbytheApostleJohn,thesonofZebedee.

82.Itwillnowbeforustoseehowfarinternalcriticalconsiderationssubstantiateorimpugnthetraditionoftheprimitivechurch.

83.Andinsodoing,itwillbewellforusatoncetodealwithcertainconfidentassertionswhichLckeandothersareinthehabitofmakingrespectingthetestimonyoftheApocalypseitself.

84.LckebeginsthisportionofhisIntroductionbysettingasideatoncetheevidenceofJustinMartyrandIrenus,onthegroundofsupposedinconsistencywiththeSelbstzeugnissofthewriterhimselfhecannotbetheApostleandEvangelist,becauseheplainlydistinguisheshimselffromtheApostlesreferringbacktoaprevioussectionfortheconfirmationofthisassertion.Onlookingthere,wefindinch.Revelation21:14,indescribingtheheavenlyJerusalem,hespeaksexpresslyofthetwelveApostlesofChristandtheirnamesonthetwelvefoundationstonesofthecelestialcity,butapparentlyinsuchamannerasnotinanywaytoincludehimselfamongthem,butrathertoexcludehimselffromthem,andtospeakofthemasahigherandspecialclassofservantsandmessengersofGod.

85.Nowletthereaderobservethattheapparently(augenscheinlich)oftheformersectionhasbecomeplainly(deutlich)inthelatter:foritisthusthateventhebestoftheGermansareoftenapttocreepon,andtobuildupawholefabricofargumentuponaninferencewhichatfirstwastothemselvesmerelyanuncertainty.

86.Inthisparticularcase,theoriginalassertionhasinfactnogroundtorestupon.Theapocalypticwriterissimplydescribingtheheavenlycityasitwasshewntohim.OnthefoundationsarethenamesofthetwelveApostlesoftheLamb.Nowwemayfairlyask,Whatreasoncanbegiven,whythebelovedApostleshouldnothaverelatedthis?Washewho,withhisbrotherJames,soughtforthehighestplaceofhonourinthefuturekingdom,likelytohavedepreciatedtheapostolicdignityjustbecausehehimselfwasoneoftheTwelve?andontheotherhand,washewhosepersonalmodestywasasnotableashisapostoliczeal,likely,inrelatingsuchhighhonourdonetotheTwelve,toinsertanoticeprovidingagainstthepossiblemistakebeingmadeofnotcountinghimselfamongthem?

87.Sothatthefirsttentativeintroduction,andtheveryconfidentafterassertion,ofthistestimonyofthebookitself,arealikegroundless.Asimilarinstancewillbefoundbelow,whenwecometodiscussthetimeandplaceofwriting,ofconfidentassertionrespectingtwosupposednoticesofdatecontainedinthebookitself.Theyturnouttobealtogetherdependentfortheirrelevancyonaparticularmethodof

interpretation,notborneoutbyfairexegesis

88.ThenoticescontainedintheApocalypserespectingitswritermaybestatedasfollows

First,hisnameisJohn,ch.Revelation1:1Revelation1:4Revelation1:9,Revelation22:8.

89.Secondly,hewasknownto,andofaccountamong,thechurchesofproconsularAsia.

90.Thirdly,hewasinexile(forsowesubmitmustthewordsofch.Revelation1:9beunderstood:seenotethere)intheislandofPatmosonaccountofhisChristiantestimony.

Wemayaddtothesepersonalnotices,thathetakesespecialpainstoasserttheaccuracyofhistestimony,bothinthebeginningandattheendofhisbook:ch.Revelation1:2,Revelation22:8.

91.NowthusfarwehavenothingwhichgoesagainsttheecclesiasticaltraditionthathewastheApostleandEvangelistJohn.Inthelatterpartofhislife,thisApostlewasthusconnectedwithproconsularAsia,longresiding,andultimatelydyingatEphesus:seeProlegomenatoVol.I.,ch.v.i.9ff.ItisimpossibletorejectthisconcurrenttestimonyofChristianantiquity:norhaveeventhosedoneso,whosedoubtsontheApocalypsearethestrongest.

92.Again,theexileoftheApostleJohninPatmosunderDomitianismatterofprimitivetradition,apparentlydistinctfromthenoticecontainedintheApocalypse:forhisreturnfromitunderNerva,ofwhichnonoticeiscontainedinthatbook,isstatedassuchbyEusebius:(whenthesenateafterDomitiansdeathdecreedthattheunjustlyexiledshouldreturntotheirhomes) , ,H.E.iii.20.Andagain,ib.23, , .

93.Equallydefiniteisthetradition,thatSt.JohnlivedonamongtheAsiaticchurchestillthetimeofTrajan:seeProlegg.Vol.I.,utsupra.

94.Itisworthwhilejusttopausebytheway,andconsider,inwhatsituationweareplacedbythesetraditions.Torejectthemaltogetherwouldbeoutofallreason:andthisisnotdonebyLckehimself.Sothatwemusteithersupposethatportionofthemwhichregardstheexiletohavefounditswayin,owingtothenoticeofRevelation1:9,ortohavebeen,independentlyofthatnotice,theresultofaconfusioninmensmindsbetweentwopersonsofthesamename,John.Eitheroftheseisundoubtedlypossible:butitistheirprobability,inthefaceofotherevidence,whichwehavetoestimate.

95.Wemaysafelyaskthen,waseitherofthesemistakesatalllikelytohavebeenmadebyIrenus,whocouldwriteasfollows: , , , , .Iownitseemstomeoutofallprobabilitythatsuchawriter,inascribingtheApocalypsetoJohntheApostle,couldhaveconfusedhimwithanotherpersonofthesamename.Ifweeverhavetrustworthypersonaltradition,itissurelywhenitmountsuptothosewhosawandconversedwithhimrespectingwhomwewishtobeinformed.

96.Itmaybesaidindeed,thatIrenusdoesnotmentiontheexileinPatmos.Butthiswouldbemeretrifling:hedoesnot,simplybecausehehadnooccasiontodoso:buthisowndateoftheseeingoftheApocalypse,attheendofthereignofDomitian(seeabove,par.7),would,incombinationwithothernotices,besufficienttoimplyit:andbesides,headmitsitbyinferencefromhisunhesitatinglyadopting

thebookaswrittenbytheApostle.

97.Itseemsthentomethatthecourseofprimitivetradition,evenamongthosewhodidnotbelievetheApocalypsetohavebeenwrittenbytheApostle,assertsofhimthathewasexiledinPatmosunderDomitian:andthatwehavenoreasonablegroundforsupposingthisviewtohavearisenfromanyconfusionofpersons,ortohavebeenadoptedmerelyfromthebookitself.Personsareappealedto,whoknewandsawandheardtheApostlehimself:andthosewhothusappealwerenotlikelytohavemadeamistakeinapointofsuchvitalimportance.

98.Wenowcometoaweightyanddifficultpartofourpresentenquiry:howfarthematterandstyleoftheApocalypsebearoutthisresultofprimitivetradition.Thereaderwillhaveseen,bythepreviouschaptersoftheseProlegomena,thatIamveryfarfromdeprecating,ordepreciating,suchacourseofcriticism.Idonot,assomeofthosewhohaveupheldagainstallcriticismthecommonlyreceivedviews,characterizesuchanenquiryaspresumptuous,oritsresultsasuncertainandvague.Itisonewhichthesoundestandbestcriticsofallageshavefollowed,fromOrigenandDionysiusofAlexandriadowntoBleekandLke:and,asIhaveelsewhereobserved,isonewhichwillbemoreesteemedinproportionasbiblicalscienceisspreadanddeepened.

99.Inapplyingittothebookbeforeus,certainlytheupholderoftheprimitivetraditionofitsAuthorshipisnotencouragedbyfirstappearances.HeismetatoncebythestartlingphnomenasoablydetailedbyDionysiusofAlexandriaattheendofhisjudgment(above,par.48).TheGreekconstructionoftheGospelandEpistle(233),thoughpeculiar,issmoothandunexceptionable,freefromanythinglikebarbarismorsolcismingrammar: ,saysDionysius, ,, .WhenhoweverwecometocomparethatoftheWriteroftheApocalypse,wefind,atfirstsight,allthisreversed: , , .

100.Allthismustbefreelyacknowledged,andisabundantlyexemplifiedinthefollowingCommentary.Thequestionforushoweverisonewhichliesdeeperthanthesurface,andbeyondmerefirstappearances.Itpresentsitselftousinadoubleform:

1)Isthereanyaccountwhichmightbegivenofthisgreatdissimilarity,consistentwithidentityofAuthorship?

2)Arethereanyindicationsofthatidentitylyingbeneaththesurface,notwithstandingthisgreatdissimilarity?

101.Inreplytothefirstquestion,severalthoughtsatoncesuggestthemselvesasclaimingmentionandcontributingtoitssolution.ThesubjectoftheApocalypseissodifferentfromthoseoftheGospelandEpistle,thatwemaywellexpectanotinconsiderabledifferenceofstyle.Inthose,theWriteris,underdivineguidance,calmlyarranginghismaterial,infullselfconsciousness,anddeliberatelyputtingforththeproduct,inwords,ofhisownreflectiveness:inthis,ontheotherhand,heistheraptseer,bornealongfromvisiontovision,speakinginaregionandcharactertotallydifferent(234).Isthiscircumstanceanycontributiontoourreply?Letusconsiderfurther.

102.St.JohnwasnotaGreek,butaGalilean.TospeakacertainkindofGreekwasprobablynaturaltohim,astoalmostalltheinhabitantsofPalestineofhistime.ButtowritetheGreekofhisGospelandEpistle,canhardlybuthavebeentohimmatterofeffort.Ortoputitinanotherpointofview,thedictionandforminwhichtheywereconveyedweretheresultofadeliberateexerciseofaspecialgiftoftheSpirit,maturedbypractice,anddeemednecessaryforthepurposeofthosewritings,tobeputforthinthem.

103.IntheApocalypse,thecasemaybeconceivedtohavebeendifferent.ThenecessarilyrhapsodicalandmysteriouscharacterofthatbookmayhaveledtotheApostlebeingleftmoretohisvernacularandlesscorrectGreek.Circumstancestoomayhavecontributedtothis.Thevisionsmayhavebeensetdowninthesolitudeofexile,farfromfriends,andperhapsfromtheappliancesofcivilizedlife.The

HebraisticstylemayhavecomemorenaturallyinawritingsofashionedonOldTestamentmodels,andboundbysomanylinkstothepropheciesofHebrewprophets.Thestyletooofadvancedagemayhavedroppedthecarefulelaborationoftheprecedingyears,andresumedtheroughercharacterofearlyyouth.

104.Idonotsaythattheseconsiderationsareenoughtoaccountforthegreatdiversitywhichispresented:nay,Ifairlyown,thattakenalone,theyarenot:andthatthedifficultyhasneveryetbeenthoroughlysolved.StillIdonotconceivethatweareatlibertytocuttheknotbydenyingtheApostolicAuthorship,whichprimitivetraditionhassofirmlyestablished.Farbetterisittoinvestigatepatiently,andnot,byblindpartisanshiponeitherside,tostopthewayagainstunfetteredsearchforabetteraccountofthephnomenathanhashithertobeengiven.

105.Ithasbeenshewnmorethanonce,andinourowncountrybyDr.DavidsoninhisIntroduction,pp.561ff.,thattheroughnessesandsolcismsintheApocalypsehavebeen,forthepurposesofargument,verymuchexaggerated:thattherearehardlyanywhichmaynotbeparalleledinclassicalauthorsthemselves,andthattheirmorefrequentoccurrencehereisnomorethanisduetothepeculiarnatureofthesubjectandoccasion.Thisconsiderationshouldbeborneinmind,andthematterinvestigatedbythestudentforhimself.

106.Oursecondquestionaskedabovewas,whetherthereareanymarksofidentityofAuthorshiplinkingtogethertheGospel,Epistle,andApocalypse,notwithstandingthisgreatandevidentdissimilarity?

107.TheindividualcharacteroftheWriteroftheGospelandEpistlestandsforthevidentandundoubted.Weseemtoknowhiminamoment.EveninthereportofsayingsofourLordcommontohimandtheotherEvangelists,thepeculiartingeofexpression,thechoiceandcollocationofwords,leavenodoubtwhosereportwearereading.AndsostronglydoestheEpistleresembletheGospelintheseparticulars,thatthecriticismaswellasthetraditionofallageshasconcurredinascribingthetwotothesameperson?

108.IfnowwelookattheApocalypse,wecannotforamomentfeelthatitislessindividual,lessreflectingtheheartandcharacterofitsWriter.Itsstyle,itsmannerofconceptionandarrangementofthought,itsdiction,arealikefulloflifeandpersonalreality.Sothatourconditionsformakingthisenquiryarefavourable.Ourtwoobjectsofcomparisonstandoutwelltheoneoveragainsttheother.Botharepeculiar,characteristic,individual.Butaretheindicationspresentedbythemsuchthatwearecompelledtoinferdifferentauthorship,oraretheysuchasseemtopointtooneandthesameperson

109.TheformerofthesequestionshasbeenaffirmedbyLckeandtheopponentsoftheApostolicauthorship:thelatterbyHengstenbergandthosewhoupholdit.Letusseehowthematterstands.Andinsodoing(aswasthecaseinthesimilarenquiryintheProlegomenatotheEpistletotheHebrews),Ishallnotenterfullyintothewholelistofverbalandconstructionalpeculiarities,but,referringthereaderforthesetoLckeandDavidson,shalladduce,anddwellupon,someofthemoreremarkableandsuggestiveofthem.

110.ThefirstoftheseisoneundeniablyconnectingtheApocalypsewiththeGospelandtheEpistle,viz.theappellation giventoourLordinch.Revelation19:13(seeJohn1:11John1:1).Thisname forourLordisfoundintheN.T.,onlyinthewritingsofSt.John.IamawareoftheingenuitywithwhichLcke(p.679)hasendeavouredtoturnthisexpressiontothecontraryaccount,maintainingthatitisaproofofdiversityofauthorship,inasmuchastheEvangelistneverwrites :butImayleaveittoanyfairjudgingreadertodecide,whetheritbenotafargreaterargumentforidentitythattheremarkabledesignation isused,thanfordiversitythat,onthesolemnoccasiondescribedintheApocalypse,thehithertounheardadjunct isadded.

111.Anotherreplymaybegiventoourdeductionfromtheuseofthisname:viz.thatitindicatesnotnecessarilyJohntheApostle,butonlyonefamiliarwithhisteaching,aswemaysupposethatotherJohntohavebeen.AllIcansaytothisis,thatwhichIcannothelpfeelingtoapplytothewholehypothesisoftheauthorshipbythesecondJohn,thatifitbeso,ifonebearingthesamenameastheApostle,havingthesameplaceamongtheAsiaticchurches,putforthabookinwhichhealsoused

theApostlespeculiarphrases,andyettooknopainstopreventtheconfusionwhichmustnecessarilyarisebetweenhimselfandtheApostle,Idonotwellseehowtheadvocatesofhisauthorshipcanhelppronouncingthebookaforgery,oratalleventstheworkofonewho,inrelatingthevisions,wasnotunwillingtobetakenforhisgreaterandApostolicnamesake.

112.Anotherlink,bindingtheApocalypsetobothGospelandEpistle,istheuseof,intheEpistlestothechurches,ch.Revelation2:7Revelation2:11Revelation2:17Revelation2:26,Revelation3:5Revelation3:12Revelation3:21(bis):andinch.Revelation12:11,Revelation15:2,Revelation17:14,Revelation21:7.CompareJohn16:331John2:13141John4:41John5:4(bis),5.ItisamusingtoobserveagainhowdexterouslyLcketurnstheedgeofthis. isneverusedabsolutelyinGospelorinEpistle,asitisintheApocalypse:thereforeitagainisamarkofdiversity,notofidentity.Butsurelythisistheverythingwemightexpect.The , ,,&c.,thesearethedetails,andcomeundernoticewhilethestrifeisproceeding,orwhentheobjectisofmoreimportthanthebareact:butwhentheendisspokenof,andthefinalandgeneralvictoryisallthatremainsinview,nothingcanbemorenaturalthanthathewhoalonespokeof , ,,shouldalsobetheonlyonetodesignatethevictorby .Besideswhich,wehavealsotheotheruse,inRevelation12:11Revelation17:14.

113.Athirdremarkableword,,isonceusedbySt.Luke(Luke16:11),oncebySt.Paul(1Thessalonians1:9),andthreetimesintheEpistletotheHebrews(Hebrews8:2Hebrews9:24Hebrews10:22):butninetimesintheGospelofSt.John(235),fourtimesintheEpistle(236),andtentimesintheApocalypse(237).Hereagain,itistrue,Lckeadducesthisontheotherside,allegingthatwhiletheEvangelistusesthewordonlyinthesenseofgenuine , , ,theAuthoroftheApocalypseusesitofChristasasynonymwith,,,andasapredicateofthe,,ofGod.Thislatteristrueenoughbuttheformerassertionissingularlyuntrue.ForinthreeoutofthenineplacesintheGospel,thesubjectivesenseofmustbetaken:viz.iniv.37,viii.16,xix.35:andinthelastofthese, ,thewordisusedexactlyasinRevelation22:6, .

114.Theword,whichdesignatesourLord29timesintheApocalypse,onlyelsewhereoccursinJohn21:15,notwithreferencetoHim.ButitisremarkablethatJohn1:29John1:36aretheonlyplaceswhereheiscalledbythenameofalamb,thewordbeingused,inreferencedoubtlesstoIsaiah53:7(Acts8:32),asinoneotherplacewhereHeiscomparedtoalamb,1Peter1:19.TheApocalypticwriter,asLckeobserves,probablychoosesthediminutive,andattachestoittheepithet,forthepurposeofcontrasttothemajestyandpowerwhichhehasalsotopredicateofChrist:butisitnottobetakenintoaccount,thatthispersonalname,theLamb,whetheror,whetherwithorwithout,iscommononlytothetwobooks?

115.Tothesemanyminorexamplesmightbeadded,andwillbefoundtreatedatlengthinLcke,p.669ff.,Davidson,p.561ff.(238)ThelatterwriterhassucceededinmanycasesinshewingtheunfairnessofLckesstrongpartisanship,bywhichhemakeseverysimilarityintoadissimilarity:butontheotherhandheonhissidehasgoneperhapstoofarinattemptingtoanswereveryobjectionofthiskind.Afterall,whiletherecertainlyareweightyindicationsofidentityofauthorship,thereisalsoaresiduumofphnomenaofdiversityquiteenoughforthereasonablesupportofthecontraryhypothesis.Ifthebookstoodaloneinthematterofevidence,IownIshouldbequiteatalosshowtosubstantiateidentityofauthorshipbetweenitandtheGospelandEpistle.Butasitisourmainrelianceisontheconcurrenttestimonyofprimitivetradition,whichhardlycanbestrongerthanitis,andwhichtheperfectlygratuitoushypothesisrespectingasecondJohnastheauthorentirelyfailstoshake.

1. ,John16:12 ,Revelation2:2.

2. ,John4:6.

,Revelation2:3.

3. John20:12. ,Revelation3:4.

4.Theverbusedofmereposition,John2:6John19:29John20:56John21:9Revelation4:2only.

5. ,John1:6John3:1(Revelation18:10)Revelation6:8Revelation9:11.

6.CompareRevelation3:18with1John2:201John2:27,astotheanditseffects.

116.OurquestionrespectingtheinternalevidencefurnishedbythebookitselfisthusinapositionentirelydifferentfromthatwhichitoccupiedintheProlegomenatotheEpistletotheHebrews.There,wehadnoprimitivetraditionsogeneral,orofsuchauthorityastocommandourassent.Thequestionwasperfectlyopen.TheauthorshipbySt.Paulwasanopinionatfirsttentativelyandpartiallyheld:thenastimeworeon,acquiringconsistencyandacceptance.Judgingofthisbythebookitself,isitforustoacceptortorejectit?Inlackofanyworthyexternalevidence,wewerethrownbackonthisasourmainmaterialforajudgment.

117.ButwithregardtotheApocalypse,externalandinternalevidencehavechangedplaces.Theformerisnowthemainmaterialforourjudgment.Itisofthehighestandmostsatisfactorykind.Itwasunanimousinveryearlytimes.ItcamefromthosewhoknewandhadheardSt.Johnhimself.Itonlybeginstobeimpugnedbythosewhohaddoctrinalobjectionstothebook.Thedoubtwastakenupbymorereasonablemenoninternalandcriticalgrounds.Butnorealsubstantivecounterclaimantwaseverproduced:onlyonewhoseveryexistencedependedonthereportoftwotombsbearingthenameofJohn,andonanotveryperspicuouspassageofPapias.

118.Thisbeingso,ourinquiryhasnecessarilytakenthisshape:Isthebookitselfinconsistentwiththisapparentlyirrefragabletestimony?AndinreplyingtoitwehaveconfessedthatthedifferencesbetweenitandtheGospelandEpistleareveryremarkable,andofacharacterhithertounexplained,ornotfullyaccountedfor:butthatthereareatthesametimestrikingnotesofsimilarityinexpressionandcastofthought:andthatperhapswearenotinapositiontotakeintoaccounttheeffectofatotallydifferentsubjectandtotallydifferentcircumstancesuponone,whothoughknowingandspeakingGreek,wasyetaHebrewbybirth.

119.Thus,allthingsconsidered,beingitistruefarfromsatisfiedwithanyaccountatpresentgivenofthepeculiarstyleandphnomenaoftheApocalypse,butbeingfarlesssatisfiedwiththeprocedureoftheantagonistsoftheApostolicauthorship,wearenotpreparedtowithholdourassentfromthefirmandunshakentestimonyofprimitivetradition,thattheauthorwastheApostleandEvangelistSt.John.

SECTIONII

PLACEANDTIMEOFWRITING

1.Theenquiryastotheformeroftheseisnarrowedwithinaverysmallspace.Fromthenoticecontainedinthebookitself(ch.Revelation1:9)thewritingmusthavetakenplaceeitherinPatmos,orafterthereturnfromexile.Thepasttenses,inch.Revelation1:2,andinRevelation1:9,donotdecideforthelatteralternativetheymaybothbeusedasfromthepointoftimewhenthebookshouldberead,asiscommoninallnarratives.Ontheotherhand,itwouldbemoreprobableabextra,thatthewritingshouldtakeplaceafterthereturn,especiallyifwearetocredittheaccountgivenbyVictorinus,thatSt.JohnwascondemnedtotheminesinPatmos.Wehavenomeansofdeterminingthequestion,andmustleaveitindoubt.Ifthestyleandpeculiaritiesaretobeinanydegreeattributedtooutwardcircumstances,thenitwouldseemtohavebeenwritteninsolitude,andsentfromPatmostotheAsiaticchurches.

2.TheonlytraditionalnoticeworthrecountingisthatgivenbyVictorinus:onRevelation10:11,Migne,Patr.Lat.vol.v.p.333:whereherelatesthatJohnsawthe

ApocalypseinPatmos,andthenafterhisreleaseonthedeathofDomitian,posteatradidithanceandemquamacceperataDeoApocalypsin.ArethasindeedsaysonRevelation7, :butthisistoolatetobeofanyaccountinthematter.

3.Ithasbeenremarked(239),thatthecircumstanceofJohnhavingpreparedtowritedownthevoicesoftheseventhunders,Revelation10:4,appearstosanctiontheviewthatthewritingtookplaceatthesametimewiththeseeingofthevisions.

4.AsregardsPatmositself,itisoneofthegroupcalledtheSporades,totheS.ofSamos(Pliny,iv.23.Strabo,x.p.488.Thucyd.iii.23).ItisaboutthirtyRomanmilesincircumference.Acaveisstillshewnintheisland(nowPatmo)whereSt.JohnissaidtohaveseentheApocalypse.SeeWinersRealwrterbuch,andtheDictionaryofGreekandRomanGeography.

5.Withregardhowevertothetimeofwriting,therehasbeennosmallcontroversy.Andatthisweneednotbesurprised,seeingthatprinciplesofinterpretationareinvolved.

Wewillfirstdealwithancienttraditionasfarasitgivesusanyindicationastothedate.

6.Irenus,v.30.3,p.330,inapassagealreadycited(i.par.7),tellsusthattheApocalypse(forsuchistheonlylegitimateunderstandingoftheconstruction) , .

7.ClementofAlexandria(Quisdivessalvus,42,p.949P.,citedalsobyEusebius,H.E.iii.23),says ,...Thispassage,itistrue,containsnomentionwhothetyrantwas,noranyallusiontothewritingoftheApocalypse:butitisinterestingforourpresentenquiryasshewing,initscitationbyEusebius,howheunderstoodthedatefurnishedbyit.ForheintroducesitbysayingthatSt.John , ,andcitesClementasoneofthewitnessesofthefact.

8.OrigenmerelycallsSt.Johnspersecutor ,withoutspecifyingwhich.Andheseemstodothiswittingly:forhenoticesthatJohnhimselfdoesnotmentionwhocondemnedhim.Seethepassagequotedabove,i.par.12.

9.Eusebius,H.E.iii.18,havingcitedthepassageofIrenusnoticedabove,says , , , , .AndthissamestatementherepeatsinhisChronicon,A.D.95,vol.i.p.551f.,Migne.InH.E.iii.20hegivestheaccountofthereturnofSt.JohnfromPatmosinthebeginningofNervasreign,citedabove,i.par.92.

10.TertulliandoesnotappearquitetobearoutEusebiussunderstandingofhim,H.E.iii.20:forheonlysays,Apol.c.5,vol.i.p.293f.,aftermentioningthepersecutionofNero,TentaveratetDomitianus,portioNeronisdecrudelitate:sedquaethomo,facilecptumrepressit,restitutisetiamquosrelegaverat.HerehecertainlymakesDomitianhimselfrecalltheexiles.

11.Victorinus,inthepassageabovereferredto(quandohocviditJohannes,eratininsulaPatmos,inmetallumdamnatusaDomitianoCsare),andafterwards(Johannes,demetallodimissus,sicposteatradidithanceandemquamacceperataDeoapocalypsin),plainlygivesthedate:asalsoinanotherplace,p.338:Intelligioportettempusquoscriptaapocalypsiseditaest,quoniamtunceratCsarDomitianus.unusexstatsubquoscriptaestapocalypsis,Domitianusscilicet.

12.Jerome(deVir.illustr.9,vol.ii.p.845)says,quartodecimoannosecundampostNeronempersecutionemmoventeDomitianoinPatmosinsulamrelegatus

scripsitapocalypsin.interfectoautemDomitianoetactisejusobnimiamcrudelitatemaSenaturescississubNervaprincipereditEphesum.Soalsohistestimonyabove,i.par.25.

13.SoalsoSulpiciusSeverusandOrosius,andlaterwritersgenerally.ThefirstwhobreaksinuponthisconcurrenttraditionisEpiphanius,Hr.li.,intwoverycuriouspassages:thefirstwherehesaysc.12,vol.i.p.433f., , , , :theother,c.33,p.456, , .

14.Nowitisplainthattheremustbesomestrangeblunderhere,whichLcke,whomakesmuchofEpiphaniusstestimonyasshewingthatthetradition,whichhecallstheIrenan,wasnotreceivedbyEpiphanius,entirely,andconveniently,omitstonotice.ThepassageevidentlysetsthereturnfromexileintheextremeoldageofSt.John.Tosaythataconsiderableintervalmaybesupposedtoelapsebetweentheandhisninetiethyear,wouldbemeretriflingwiththecontext.Nowifthisisso,seeingthatClaudiusreignedfrom41to54A.D.,puttingthereturnfromexileatthelastofthesedates,weshouldhaveSt.Johnagedninetyintheyear54:inotherwords,thirtythreeyearsolderthanourLord,andsixtythreeatleastwhencalledtobeanApostle:aresultwhichisatvariancewithallancienttraditionwhatever.EitherEpiphaniushasfallenintosomegreatmistake,whichisnotveryprobable,orhemeansbyClaudiussomeotherEmperor:ifNero,thenhewouldstillbewrongastoSt.Johnsageatorneartohisreturn.

15.ThetestimonyofMuratorisfragmentontheCanonhasbeencited(byStuart,p.218)astestifyingtoanearlydate.Butallitsaysisthis:IpsebeatusApostolusPaulussequensprdecessorissuiJohannisordinem,nominenominatimseptemecclesiisscribatordinetali.Andthewordprdecessoris,ashasbeenpointedoutbyCredner,merelyseemstomeanthatSt.JohnwasanApostlebeforeSt.Paul,notthathewrotehissevenepistlesbeforeSt.Paulwrotehis.

16.TheprefacetotheSyriacversionoftheApocalypsepublishedbyDeDieu,supposedtohavebeenmadeinthe6thcentury,saysthatthevisionswereseenbySt.JohnintheislandofPatmos,inquamaNeroneCsarerelegatusfuerat.

17.Theophylact,inhisprefacetotheGospelofSt.John,vol.i.p.504,saysthatitwaswrittenintheislandofPatmos,thirtytwoyearsaftertheAscension:andinsosaying,placestheexileunderNero.Butheclearlyiswrong,asLckeremarks,ofhismeaningnotclearlyunderstood,whenheattributesthewritingoftheGospeltothistime:andmoreoverheisinconsistentwithhimself:forincommentingonMatthew20:23,vol.i.p.107,heremarksthatasHerodputtodeaththeApostleJamesthegreater,soTrajancondemnedJohnasamartyrtothewordoftruth.

18.Jerome,adv.Jovin.i.26,vol.ii.p.280,determinesnothing,onlycitingTertullian,RefertautemTertullianusquodaNerone(foraNerone,MignereadsRom)missusinferventisoleidoliumpurioretvegetiorexiveritquamintraverit.ButTertullianonlysays,ifatleastDeprscript.Hret.c.36,vol.ii.p.49,betheplacereferredto,Felixecclesia(Romana).ubiPetruspassionidominicadquatur,ubiPaulusJohannis(scil.baptist)exitucoronatur,ubiApostolusJoannesposteaquaminoleumigneumdemersusnihilpassusest,ininsulamrelegatur.ItsurelyisstretchingapointheretosaythatheimpliesallthreeeventstohavetakenplaceunderNero.

19.TheauthoroftheSynopsisdevitaetmorteprophetarum,apostolorumetdiscipulorumDomini(ostensiblyDorotheus,bishopofTyre,socitedinTheophylact,vol.i.p.500:butprobablyitbelongstothe6thcentury),makesJohntobeexiledtoPatmosbyTrajan.AndreasandArethasgivenodecidedtestimonyonthepoint.Arethas,incommentingonRevelation6:12,says,thatsomeappliedthisprophecytothedestructionofJerusalemunderVespasian:butthisisdistinctlyrepudiatedbyAndreas:allowinghowever(onRevelation7:2)thatsuchthingsdidhappentotheJewishChristianswhoescapedtheevilsinflictedonJerusalembytheRomans,yettheymoreprobablyrefertothetimesofAntichrist.Arethasagain,onRevelation1:9,citeswithoutanyprotestEusebius,asassertingSt.JohnsexileinPatmostohave

takenplaceunderDomitian.

20.Muchmoreevidenceonthissubjectfromotherlaterwriterswhosetestimoniesareoflessconsequence,andmoreminutediscussionoftheearliertestimonies,willbefoundinElliott,HorApocalyptic,i.pp.3146,andAppendix,No.i.pp.503517.Inthelastmentioned,hehasgonewellandcarefullythroughtheargumentsonexternalevidenceadducedbyLckeandStuartforthewritingunderGalbaandNerorespectively,and,asitseemstome,disposedofthemall.

21.Ourresult,asfarasthispartofthequestionisconsidered,maybethusstated.WehaveaconstantandunswervingprimitivetraditionthatSt.Johnsexiletookplace,andtheApocalypsewaswritten,towardstheendofDomitiansreign.Withthistradition,ashasbeenoftenobserved,thecircumstancesseemtoagreeverywell.Wehavenoevidencethatthefirst,orNeronic,persecution,extendedbeyondRome,orfoundventincondemnationstoexile.Whereasinregardtothesecondweknowthatboththesewerethecase.IndeedtheliberationatDomitiansdeathofthosewhomhehadexiledissubstantiatedbyDioCassius,who,inrelatingthebeginningofNervasreign,lib.lxviii.1,says . , . , .

22.AssumingthenthefactofSt.JohnsexileatPatmosduringapersecutionfortheGospelssake,itisfarmorelikelythatitshouldhavebeenunderDomitianthanunderNeroorunderGalba.Butonemainrelianceoftheadvocatesoftheearlierdateisinternalevidencesupposedtobefurnishedbythebookitself.Andthis,first,fromtheroughandHebraisticstyle.Ihavealreadydiscussedthispoint,andhavefullyadmitteditsdifficulty,howeverweviewit.Ineedonlyaddnow,thatIdonotconceiveweatalldiminishthatdifficultybysupposingittobewrittenbeforetheGospelandEpistle.TheGreekoftheGospelandEpistleisnottheGreekoftheApocalypseinamaturerstate:butifthetwobelongtooneandthesamewriter,wemustseekforthecauseoftheirdiversitynotinchronologicalbutratherinpsychologicalconsiderations.

23.Again,itissaidthatthebookfurnishesindicationsofhavingbeenwrittenbeforethedestructionofJerusalem,bythefactofitsmentioningthecityandthetemple,ch.Revelation11:1ff.,andthetwelvetribesasyetexisting,ch.Revelation7:48.ThisargumenthasbeenverymuchinsistedonbyseveralofthemodernGermancritics.Butwemaydemurtoitatonce,ascontaininganassumptionwhichwearenotpreparedtogrant:viz.thatthepropheticpassageistobethusinterpreted,orhasanythingtodowiththeliteralJerusalem.Letthecanonofinterpretationbefirstsubstantiated,bywhichwearetobeboundinourunderstandingofthispassage,andthenwecanrecognizeitsbearingonthechronologicalquestion.CertainlyLckehasnotdonethis,pp.825ff.,but,asusualwithhim,hasfallentoabusingHengstenberg,forwhichheundoubtedlyhasastrongcase,whileforhisowninterpretationheseemstometomakeoutaveryweakone.

24.Anothersuchassumptionisfoundintheconfidentassertionbythesamecritics,thatthepassagesinch.Revelation13:1ff.,Revelation17:10pointoutthethenreigningCsar,andthatbytheconditionsofthosepassages,suchreigningCsarmustbethatonewhosuitstheirchronologicaltheory.Itisnottheplaceheretodiscussprinciplesofinterpretation:butwemayfairlydemuragaintothethusassumingaprincipleirrespectiveoftherequirementsofthebook,andthenjudgingthebookitselfbyit.ThisismanifestlydonebyLcke,pp.835ff.Besideswhich,thedifferencesamongthemselvesofthosewhoadoptthisviewaresuchastodepriveitofallfixityasanhistoricalindication.ArewetoreckonourCsarsforwards(andifso,arewetobeginwithJulius,orwithAugustus?),orbackwards,uponsomeindependentassumptionofthetimeofwriting,whichtheotherphnomenamustbemadetofit?Ifthereaderwillconsultthenotesonch.Revelation17:10,Itrusthewillseethatanysuchviewofthepassagesisuntenable.

25.Uponinterpretationslikethese,insulated,andderivedfrommerefirstimpressionsofthewordingofsinglepassages,isthewholefabricbuilt,whichistosupersedetheprimitivetraditionastothedateoftheApocalypse.Onthisaccount,Irenusmustbesupposedtohavemadeamistakeinthedatewhichheassigns,whohadsuchgoodandsufficientmeansofknowing:onthisaccount,allthoseadditionaltestimonies,whichinanyothercasewouldhavebeenadducedasindependentandimportant,aretobeassumedtohavebeenmererepetitionsofthat

ofIrenus.

26.Butitismostunfortunateforthesecriticsthat,whenoncesosureagroundisestablishedforthemasadirectindicationinthebookitselfoftheemperorunderwhomitwaswritten,theycannotagreeamongthemselveswhothisemperorwas.Someamongthem(e.g.Stuart,al.)takingthenatural(andonewouldthinktheonlypossible)viewofsuchanhistoricalindication,beginaccordingtogeneralcustomwithJulius,andbringthewritingunderNero.EwaldandLcke,onaccountofthe ofch.Revelation17:8,whichtheywishtoapplytoNero,deserttheusualreckoningofRomanemperors,andbeginwithAugustus,thusbringingthewritingunderGalba.Again,EichhornandBleek,wishingtobringthewritingunderVespasian,omitGalba,Otho,andVitellius,relyingonanexpressionofSuetoniusthattheirreignswereamererebelliotriumprincipum.Thusbychangingtheusualstartingpoint,andleavingoutoftheusuallistoftheCsarsanynumberfoundconvenient,anyviewwepleasemaybesubstantiatedbythiskindofinterpretation.Thosewhoseviewoftheprophecyextendswider,andwhoattachalargermeaningtothesymbolsofthebeastandhisimageandhisheads,willnotbeinducedbysuchveryuncertainspeculationstosetasideaprimitiveandasitappearstothemthoroughlytrustworthytradition.

27.ItmaybeobservedthatLckeattemptstogiveanaccountoftheoriginofwhathecallstheIrenantradition,freelyconfessingthathisproof(?)ofthedateisnotcompletewithoutsuchanaccount.Thecharacteroftheaccounthegivesiswellworthobserving.When,hesays,menfoundthattheapocalypticprophecieshadfailedoftheiraccomplishment,theybegantogiveawidersensetothem,andtoputthematalaterdate.Andhavinggiventhisaccount,heattemptstovindicateitfromthechargeofoverthrowingtheauthorityofScriptureprophecy,andsaysthatthoughitmaynotbeasconvenientasthewaywhichmodernorthodoxyhasstruckout,yetitleadsmoresafelytothedesiredend,andtothepermanentenjoymentoftruefaith.

28.Witheverydispositiontosearchandproveallthings,andgroundfaithuponthingsthusproved,IownIamquiteunabletocometoLckesconclusions,ortothoseofanyofthemaintainersoftheNeronicoranyoftheearlierdates.Thebookitself,itseemstome,refusestheassignmentofsuchtimesofwriting.Theevidentassumptionwhichitmakesoflongstandingandgeneralpersecution(ch.Revelation6:9)forbidsustoplaceitintheveryfirstpersecutionandthatonlyapartialone:theundoubtedtransferenceofJewishtempleemblemstoaChristiansense(ch.Revelation1:20)ofitselfmakesussuspectthoseinterpreterswhomaintaintheliteralsensewhenthetempleandcityarementioned:theanalogyofthepropheciesofDanielforbidsustolimittoindividualkingstheinterpretationofthesymbolicheadsofthebeast:thewholecharacterandtoneofthewritingprecludesourimaginingthatitsoriginalreferencewaseverintendedtobetomerelocalmattersofsecondaryimport.

29.Thestateofthosetowhomitwasaddressedfurnishesanotherpowerfulsubsidiaryargumentinfavourofthelaterdate.Thiswillbeexpandedinthenextsection.

30.Thesethingsthenbeingconsidered,thedecisivetestimonyofprimitivetradition,andfailureofallattemptstosetitaside,theinternalevidencefurnishedbythebookitself,andequalfailureofallattemptsbyanunwarrantableinterpretationtoraiseupcounterevidence,Ihavenohesitationinbelievingwiththeancientfathersandmostcompetentwitnesses,thattheApocalypsewaswritten ,i.e.abouttheyear95or96A.D.

SECTIONIII

TOWHOMADDRESSED

1.Thesuperscriptionofthebookplainlystatesforwhatreadersitwasprimarilyintended.Atthesametimeindicationsabound,thatthewholeChristianchurchwasinview.Intheveryepistlestothesevenchurchesthemselves,allthepromisesandsayingsoftheLord,thougharisingoutoflocalcircumstances,areofperfectlygeneralapplication.Andinthecourseoftheprophecy,thewiderangeofobjectsembraced,theuniversalityofthecautionsandencouragements,thevastperiodsoftimecomprised,leaveusnoinferencebutthis,thatthebookwasintendedforthecomfortandprofitofeveryageoftheChristianchurch.Intreatingthereforethe

questionattheheadofthissectioninitsnarrowerandliteralsense,Iamnotexcludingthebroaderandgeneralview.Itliesbehindtheother,asintherestoftheapostolicwritings.Thesethings,astheolderScriptures,arewrittenforourensamples,uponwhomtheendsoftheworldarecome:or,inthelanguageoftheMuratorifragmentontheCanon,etJohanneseniminApocalypsilicetseptemecclesiisscribat,tamenomnibusdicit.

2.ThebookthenwasdirectlyaddressedtothesevenchurchesofproconsularAsia.Afewremarksmustbemadeonthegeneralsubjectofthenamesandstateofthesechurches,beforeenteringonadescriptionofthemseverally.

3.First,astotheselectionofthenames.Thenumberseven,sooftenusedbytheSeertoexpressuniversality,hashereprevailedinoccasioningthatnumberofnamestobeselectedoutofthechurchesinthedistrict.ForthesewerenotallthechurchescomprisedinAsiaproper.WhethertherewereChristianbodiesinColossandHierapoliswecannotsay.Thosecitieshadbeen,sincethewritingofSt.PaulsEpistle,destroyedbyanearthquake,andinwhatstateofrestorationtheywereatthisdate,isuncertain.ButfromtheEpistlesofIgnatiuswemayfairlyassumethattherewerechurchesinMagnesiaandTralles.Thenumberseventhenisrepresentative,notexhaustive.Thesesevenaretakeninthefollowingorder:Ephesus,Smyrna,Pergamum,Thyatira,Sardis,Philadelphia,Laodicea.Thatis,beginningwithEphesusthefirstcityintheprovince,itfollowsalinefromSouthtoNorthuptoPergamum,thentakestheneighbouringcityofThyatira,andfollowsanotherlinefromNorthtoSouth.

4.Asregardsthegeneralstateofthesechurches,wemaymakethefollowingremarks:

WehavefromSt.Paul,settingasidetheEpistletotheEphesians,notfromanydoubtastoitsoriginaldestination,butascontainingnolocalnotices,andthattoPhilemon,asbeingofaprivatecharacter,threeEpistlescontainingnoticesoftheChristianchurcheswithinthisdistrict.ThefirstinpointoftimeisthattotheColossians(A.D.6163):thenfollowthetwotoTimotheus,datingfrom67to68.Itisimportanttoobserve,thatalltheseEpistles,eventhelatestofthem,thesecondtoTimotheus,haveregardtoastateofthechurchesevidentlyprecedingbymanyyearsthatsetbeforeusinthisbook.Thegermsofheresyanderrorthereapparent(seeVol.III.prolegg.ch.vii.i.par.12ff.)hadexpandedintodefinitesects(ch.Revelation2:6Revelation2:15):thefirstardourwithwhichsomeofthemhadreceivedandpractisedtheGospel,hadcooled(ch.Revelation2:45,Revelation3:2):othershadincreasedinzealforGod,andweresurpassingtheirformerworks(ch.Revelation2:19).Again,thedaysofthemartyrdomofAntipas,aneminentservantofChrist,arereferredbacktosometimepast(ch.Revelation2:13).

5.ItisalsoimportanttonoticethatLaodiceaisdescribed(ch.Revelation3:17)asboastinginherwealthandselfsufficiency.NowweknowfromTacitus(seebelow,par.13),thatinthesixthyearofNero,orinthetenth,accordingtoEusebius(andapparentlywithmoreaccuracy),Laodiceawasdestroyedbyanearthquake,andrecoveredherselfpropriisopibus,withoutanyassistancefromtheHeadofthestate.Howmanyyearsitmighttakebeforethecitycouldagainputonsuchaspiritofselfsufficingprideasthatshewninch.Revelation3:17,itisnotpossibletofixexactly:butitisobviousthatwemustallowmoretimeforthisthanwouldbeconsistentwiththeNeronicdateoftheApocalypse.ThisisconfirmedwhenweobservethespiritualcharactergivenoftheLaodiceanchurch,thatoflukewarmness,andreflect,thatsuchacharacterdoesnotordinarilyaccompany,norfollowcloseupon,greatjudgmentsandafflictions,butistheresultofaperiodofcalmandprosperity,andgraduallyencroachingcompromisewithungodliness.

6.Imayfurthermention,thatthefactoftherelationhereshewntoexistbetweenJohnandthechurchesofproconsularAsia,pointstoaperiodwhollydistinctfromthatinwhichPaul,orhisdiscipleTimotheus,exercisedauthorityinthoseparts.AndthisalonewouldleadustomeetwithadecidednegativethehypothesisoftheApocalypsebeingwrittenunderNero,Galba,orevenVespasian.Atthesametime,seenoteonch.Revelation2:20,thementionof thereidentifiesthetemptationsanddifficultieswhichbesetthechurcheswhentheApocalypsewaswritten,withthosewhichweknowtohavebeenprevalentintheapostolicage,andthusgivesastrongconfirmationoftheauthenticityofthebook.

Inowproceedtoconsiderthesechurchesonebyone.

7.EPHESUS,thecapitalofproconsularAsia,hasalreadybeendescribedandasketchofitshistorygiven,intheProlegg.totheEpistletotheEphesians,Vol.III.prolegg.ch.2.ii.parr.16.Moredetailedaccountsaretherereferredto.ThenotestotheEpistlewillineachcaseputthestudentinpossessionofthegeneralcharacterandparticularexcellenciesorfailingsofeachchurch,sothatIneednotrepeatthemhere.InreferencetothethreatutteredbyourLordinch.Revelation2:5,wemayremark,thatafewmiserablehuts,andruinsofgreatextentandmassiveness,areallthatnowremainsoftheformersplendidcapitalofAsia.Thecandlestickhasindeedbeenremovedfromitsplace,andthechurchhasbecomeextinct.Wemaynotice,thatEphesusnaturallyleadstheseven,bothasthemetropolisoftheprovince,andascontainingthatchurchwithwhichtheWriterhimselfwasindividuallyconnected.

8.SMYRNA,afamouscommercialcityofIonia,attheheadofthebaynamedafterit,andatthemouthofthesmallriverMeles:fromwhichHomer,whosebirthplaceSmyrna,amongothercities,claimedtobe,issometimescalledMelesigenes.Itis320stadia(40miles)northofEphesus.Itwasaveryancientcity(Herod.i.149):butlayinruins,afteritsdestructionbytheLydians(B.C.627:cf.Herod.i.16),for400years(tillAlexandertheGreat,accordingtoPlinyv.31Pausan.vii.5.1tillAntigonus,accordingtoStrabo,l.xiv.p.646ofthefirstCsars,oneofthefairestandmostpopulouscitiesinAsia(Strabo,ibid.).ModernSmyrnaisalargecityofmorethan120,000inhabitants,thecentreofthetradeoftheLevant.ThechurchinSmyrnawasdistinguishedforitsillustriousfirstbishopthemartyrPolycarp,whoissaidtohavebeenputtodeathinthestadiumthereinA.D.166(cf.Iren.Hr.iii.3.4,p.176).

9.PERGAMUM(sometimesPergamus),anancientcityofMysia,ontheriverCacus,an (Strabo,l.xiii.p.623).AtfirstitappearstohavebeenamerehillfortressofgreatnaturalstrengthbutitbecameanimportantcityowingtothecircumstanceofLysimachus,oneofAlexandersgenerals,havingchosenitforthereceptionofhistreasures,andentrustedthemtohiseunuchPhiletrus,whorebelledagainsthim(B.C.283),andfoundedakingdom,whichlasted150years,whenitwasbequeathedbyitslastsovereignAttalusIII.(B.C.133)totheRomanpeople.Pergamumpossessedamagnificentlibrary,foundedbyitssovereignEumenes(B.C.197159),whichsubsequentlywasgivenbyAntonytoCleopatra(Plut.Anton.c.58),andperishedwiththatatAlexandriaunderCaliphOmar.ItbecametheofficialcapitaloftheRomanprovinceofAsia(Pliny,v.33).Therewasthereacelebratedtempleofsculapius,onwhichseenote,ch.Revelation2:13.Thereisstillaconsiderablecity,containing,itissaid(Stuart,p.450),about3000nominalChristians.ItisnowcalledBergamah.

10.THYATIRA,oncecalledPelopiaandEuippia(Plin.v.31),atowninLydia,aboutadaysjourneysouthofPergamum.ItwasperhapsoriginallyaMacedoniancolony(Strabo,xiii.p.625).Itschieftradewasdyeingofpurple,cf.Acts16:14andnote.Itissaidtobeatpresentaconsiderabletownwithmanyruins,calledAkHisar,andtocontainsome3000Christians.

11.SARDIS,theancientcapitalofthekingdomofLydia,layinaplainbetweenthemountainsTmolusandHermus,onthesmallriverPactolus:33milesfromThyatiraand28fromPhiladelphiabytheAntonineItinerary.Itsclassicalhistoryiswellknown.InthereignofTiberiusitwasdestroyedbyanearthquake,butrestoredbyorderofthatemperor,Tacit.Ann.ii.47Straboxiii.p.627.ItwasthecapitalofaconventusinthetimeofPliny(Acts16:30)andcontinuedawealthycitytotheendoftheByzantineempire.MorethanoneChristiancouncilwasheldhere.IntheeleventhcenturySardisfellintothehandsoftheTurks,andinthethirteenthitwasdestroyedbyTamerlane.Onlyavillage(Sart)nowremains,builtamongtheruinsoftheancientcity.

12.PHILADELPHIA,inLydia,ontheN.W.sideofMountTmolus,28milesS.E.fromSardis.ItwasbuiltbyAttalusPhiladelphus,KingofPergamum.Earthquakeswereexceedinglyprevalentinthedistrict,anditwasmorethanoncenearlydemolishedbythem:cf.Tacit.Ann.ii.47Straboxiii.628.ItdefendeditselfagainsttheTurksforsometime,butwaseventuallytakenbyBajazetin1390.ItisnowaconsiderabletownnamedAllahshar,containingruinsofitsancientwall,andofabouttwentyfourchurches.

13.LAODICEA,LaodiceaadLycum,wasacelebratedcityintheS.W.ofPhrygia,neartheriverLycus.ItwasoriginallycalledDiospolis,andafterwardRhoas(Plin.Acts16:29):andthenameLaodiceawasowingtoitsbeingrebuiltbyAntiochus

TheosinhonourofhiswifeLaodice.ItwasnotfarfromColoss,andonlysixmilesW.ofHierapolis.ItsufferedmuchintheMithridaticwar(Appian,Bell.Mithr.20Straboxii.578):butrecovereditself,andbecameawealthyandimportantplace,attheendoftherepublicandunderthefirstemperors.ItwascompletelydestroyedbythegreatearthquakeinthereignofNero:butwasrebuiltbythewealthofitsowncitizens,withouthelpfromthestate,Tacit.Ann.xiv.27.ItsstateofprosperityandcarelessnessinspiritualthingsdescribedintheEpistleiswellillustratedbythesefacts.St.PaulwroteanEpistletotheLaodiceans,nowlost.SeeColossians4:16,andProlegg.toVol.III.ch.11.iii.2.Itproducedliterarymenofeminence,andhadagreatmedicalschool.ItwasthecapitalofaconventusduringtheRomanempire.ItwasutterlyravagedbytheTurks,andnothing,saysHamilton,canexceedthedesolationandmelancholyappearanceofthesiteofLaodicea.Avillageexistsamongsttheruins,namedEskihissar.

14.SeeforfurthernoticesontheSevenChurches,Winer,RWB.,andDr.SmithsDictionaryofGeography:fromwhichtwosourcestheaboveaccountsaremainlycompiled.Inthoseworkswillbefounddetailedreferencestotheworksofvarioustravellerswhohavevisitedthem.

SECTIONIV

OBJECTANDCONTENTS

1.TheApocalypsedeclaresitsownobject(ch.Revelation1:1)tobemainlyprophetictheexhibitiontoGodsservantsofthingswhichmustshortlycometopass.Andtothisbyfarthelargerportionofthebookisdevoted.Fromch.Revelation4:1toRevelation22:5,isaseriesofvisionspropheticofthingstocome,orintroducingintheircompletenessallegorieswhichinvolvethingstocome.Intermixedhoweverwiththispropheticdevelopment,wehaveacourseofhortatoryandencouragingsayings,arisingoutofthestateofthechurchestowhichthebookiswritten,andaddressedthroughthemtothechurchuniversal.

2.ThesesayingsaremostlyrelatedinstyleandsensetotheEpistleswithwhichthebookbegan,soastopreserveinaremarkablemannertheunityofthewhole,andtoshewthatitisnot,asGrotiusandsomeothershavesupposed,acongeriesofdifferentfragments,butoneunitedwork,writtenatoneandthesametime.ThepracticaltendencyoftheEpistlestotheChurchesisneverlostsightofthroughout.Sothatwemayfairlysaythatitsobjectisnotonlytoprophesyofthefuture,butalsobysuchprophecytorebuke,exhort,andconsoletheChurch.

3.Suchbeingthegeneralobject,ourenquiryisnownarrowedtothatofthepropheticportionitself:andwehavetoenquire,whatwastheaimoftheWriter,orratherofHimwhoinspiredtheWriter,indeliveringthisprophecy.

4.Andinthefirstplace,wearemetbyanenquirywhichitmaybestrangeenoughthatwehavetomakeinthisday,butwhichneverthelessmustbemade.Isthebook,itisasked,strictlyspeaking,arevelationatall?Isitssocalledprophecyanythingmorethantheardentandimaginativepoesyofaraptspirit,builtuponthethenpresenttrialsandhopesofhimselfandhiscontemporaries?Isnotitsfutureboundedbytheageandcircumstancesthenexisting?Andarenotallthosemistaken,whohaveattemptedtodeducefromitindicationsrespectingourownoranysubsequentageoftheChurch?

5.Twosystemsofunderstandingandinterpretingthebookhavebeenraisedonthebasisofaviewrepresentedbytheforegoingquestions.Theformerofthem,thatofGrotius,Ewald,Eichhorn,andothers,proceedsconsistentlyenoughindenyingallprophecy,andexplainingfiguratively,withregardtothenpresentexpectations,rightorwrong,allthethingscontainedinthebook.Thelatter,thatofLcke,DeWette,Bleek,Dsterdieck,andothers,whileitprofessestorecognizeacertainkindofinspirationintheWriter,yetbelieveshisviewtohavebeenentirelyboundedbyhisownsubjectivityandcircumstances,denyingthatthebookcontainsanythingspeciallyrevealedtoJohnandbyhimdeclaredtousandregardingitswholecontentsasonlyinstructive,insofarastheyrepresenttoustheaspirationsofafervidandinspiredman,fulloftheSpiritofGod,andhisinsightintoformsofconflictandevilwhichareeverrecurringinthehistoryoftheworldandtheChurch.

6.Iownitseemstomethatwecannotinconsistencyorinhonestyacceptthiscompromise.Forletusaskourselves,howdoesitagreewiththephnomena?It

convenientlysavesthecreditoftheWriter,andrescuesthebookfrombeinganimposture,byconcedingthathesawallwhichhesayshesaw:butatthesametimemaintains,thatallwhichhesawwaspurelysubjective,havingnoexternalobjectiveexistence:andthatthosethingswhichseemtobepropheciesofthedistantfuture,areinfactnosuchprophecies,buthaveandexhausttheirsignificancewithinthehorizonofthewritersownexperienceandhopes.

7.Butthen,ifthisbeso,Idonotsee,afterall,howthecreditoftheWriterissoentirelysaved.Hedistinctlylaysclaimtobespeakingoflongperiodsoftime.Tosaynothingofthetimeinvolvedintheothervisions,hespeaksofathousandyears,andofthingswhichmusthappenattheendofthatperiod.Sothatwemustsay,onthetheoryinquestion,thatallhisdeclarationsofthiskindarepuremistakes:and,inexegesis,ourviewmustbeentirelylimitedtotheenquiry,notwhatisforusandforallthemeaningofthisorthatprophecy,butwhatwastheWritersmeaningwhenhesetitdown.Whethersubsequenteventsjustifiedhisguess,orfalsifiedit,isforusapurematterofarchologicalandpsychologicalinterest,andnomore.

8.Ifthisbeso,Isubmitthatthebookatoncebecomesthatwhichisknownasapocryphal,asdistinguishedfromcanonical:itisofnomorevaluetousthantheShepherdofHermas,ortheAscensionofIsaiah:andismerematterforcriticismandindependentjudgment.

9.Itwillbenosurprisetothereadersofthisworktobetold,thatwearenotpreparedthustodealwithabookwhichweacceptascanonical,andhaveallreasontobelievetohavebeenwrittenbyanApostle.Whilewearenobelieversinwhathasbeen(wecannothelpthinkingfoolishly)calledverbalinspiration,wearenotpreparedtosetasidethewholesubstanceofthetestimonyofthewriterofabookwhichweacceptascanonical,nortodenythatvisions,whichhepurportstohavereceivedfromGodtoshewtotheChurchthingswhichmustshortlycometopass,weresoreceivedbyhim,andforsuchapurpose.

10.Maintainingthisground,andtakingintoaccountthetoneofthebookitself,andtheperiodsembracedinitsprophecies,wecannotconsenttobelievethevisionoftheWritertohavebeenboundedbythehorizonofhisownexperienceandpersonalhopes.Wereceivethebookasbeingwhatitprofessestobe,arevelationfromGoddesignedtoshewtohisservantsthingswhichmustshortlycometopass(240).Andsofarfromthisword offendingus,wefindinit,ascomparedwiththecontentsofthebook,ameasurebywhich,notourjudgmentofthosecontents,butourestimateofworldlyeventsandtheirduration,shouldbecorrected.The confessedlycontains,amongotherperiods,aperiodofathousandyears.Onwhatprinciplearewetoaffirmthatitdoesnotembraceaperiodvastlygreaterthanthisinitswholecontents?

11.Weholdthereforethatthebook,judgedbyitsowntestimony,andwithregardtotheplacewhichitholdsamongthecanonicalbooksofScripture,iswrittenwiththeobjectofconveyingtotheChurchrevelationsfromGodrespectingcertainportionsofhercourseevenuptothetimeoftheend.Whethersuchrevelationsdisclosetoheracontinuousprophetichistory,oraretobetakenasp