i. 341), and this is the general manner in which the work has been

designated. If Caius had designed to refer to this, it is probable that he would have used the common term to designate it.

3. These views receive some confirmation from a passage in Theodoret, “who spoke of Cerinthus in such a way as seems to imply that he had forged an Apocalypse for the promotion of his designs.” That passage is, “Cerinthus forged certain revelations _as if he himself had seen them_, and added descriptions of certain terrible things, and declares that the kingdom of the Lord will be established on the earth,” &c. See Prof. Stuart, i. 342. On the whole, nothing of material importance can be derived from the testimony of Caius in proof that the Apocalypse was not believed to have been written by John.

(b) Dionysius of Alexandria doubted the genuineness of the Apocalypse as {xxxvii} being the production of John, though he did not deny its inspiration. He was made bishop of the see of Alexandria A.D. 247 or 248, and died about A.D. 264 or 265. See Lardner, ii. 643‒722. He was a pupil of Origen, and enjoyed a high reputation. The full testimony of Dionysius in regard to this book may be seen in Lardner, ii. 693‒697. I will copy all that is material to show his opinion. He says, “Some who were before us have utterly rejected and confuted this book, criticising every chapter; showing it throughout unintelligible and inconsistent; adding, moreover, that the inspiration is false, forasmuch as it is not John’s; nor is a revelation which is hidden under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorance.” [Prof. Stuart (i. 346) translates this, “It contains, moreover, no revelation; for it is covered with a strong and thick veil of ignorance.”] “And this not only no apostle, but not so much as any holy or ecclesiastical man was the author of this writing, but that Cerinthus, founder of the heresy called after him the Cerinthian, the better to recommend his own forgery, prefixed to it an honourable name. For this, they say, was one of his particular notions, that the kingdom of Christ should be earthly; consisting of those things which he himself, a carnal and sensual man, most admired, the pleasures of the belly and its concupiscence; that is, eating, and drinking, and marriage; and for the more decent procurement of these, feastings, and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims. But, for my part, I dare not reject the book, since many of the brethren have it in high esteem; but allowing it to be above my understanding, I suppose it to contain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning; for though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some profound sense in the words; not measuring and judging these things by my own reason, but ascribing more to faith, I esteem them too sublime to be comprehended by me.” Then, having quoted some passages from the book, he adds, speaking of the author, “I do not deny, then, that his name is John, and that this is John’s book; for I believe it to be the work of some holy and inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, brother of James, whose is the Gospel ascribed to John, and the Catholic Epistle; for I conclude from the manner of each, and the term of expression, and the conduct of the book, as we call it, that he is not the same person; for the Evangelist nowhere puts down his name, nor does he speak of himself either in the Gospel or the Epistle. I think, therefore, that he [the author] is another, one of them that dwelleth in Asia; forasmuch as it is said, that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of them called John’s tomb. And from the sentiment, and words, and disposition of them, it is likely that he differed from him [who wrote the Gospel and Epistle].”

This is the sum of all that Dionysius says in regard to the genuineness of the book.

Respecting this the following remarks may be made:――

1. Dionysius, though he did not regard the work as the work of John the apostle, yet received it as an inspired book, though far above his comprehension.

2. He does not agree with those who altogether rejected it, as if it were no revelation, and contained no inspired truth.

3. He did not ascribe it, as it has been supposed by some that Caius did, to Cerinthus.

4. _All_ the objections that he urges to its being the work of the apostle {xxxviii} John are derived from the book itself, and from the difficulty of supposing that the Gospel of John, and the First Epistle of John, should have been written by the same author. He refers to no _historical_ proof on that point; and does not even intimate that its genuineness had been called in question by the early writers. It is clear, therefore, that the objections of Dionysius should not be allowed to set aside the strong and clear proofs of a historical nature already adduced from the early Christian writers. See the opinion of Dionysius examined more at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 344‒354. Comp. Hug, _Intro._ pp. 654‒656.

(c) It may be added, in regard to the historical testimony from the ancients, that the book is not found in many of the early catalogues of the books of the New Testament, and that this has been made an objection to its authenticity. Thus Gregory of Nazianzen, in a piece composed in verse, containing a catalogue of the canonical Scriptures, omits the book of Revelation; in the catalogue of sacred writings annexed to the canons of the council of Laodicea, A.D. 363, it is also omitted; in the so-called Canons of the Apostles, a supposititious work of the latter part of the fourth century, it is also omitted; it is also omitted in a catalogue of sacred books published by Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 360; and it is mentioned by Amphilocus, bishop of Iconium, A.D. 380, as among the books that were doubtful. “Some,” says he, “admit the Apocalypse of John, but most persons say it is spurious.” See Michaelis, _Intro. New Test._ iv. 489; Prof. Stuart, i. 357, seq.

In regard to these omissions, and the doubts entertained by later writers on the subject, it may be remarked in general, (1) That it is well known that in the latter part of the fourth century and onward many doubts were entertained as to the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, and that, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John, it was reckoned among the books called _Antilegomena_; that is, _books spoken against_, or books whose canonical authority was not admitted by all. (2) This fact shows, as has been often remarked, the great vigilance of the church in the early ages, in settling the canon of Scripture, and in determining what books were to be admitted, and what were to be rejected. (3) These doubts, entertained in a later age, cannot affect the clear historical testimony of the early writers, as we now have it; for the question of the origin of the Apocalypse, so far as the historical testimony is concerned, must be determined by the testimony of the writers who lived near the time when it is alleged to have been written. (4) The objections alleged against the Apocalypse in later times were wholly on _internal_ grounds, and were mainly derived from the fact that it was supposed to countenance the doctrine of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ and the saints, for a thousand years, in Jerusalem; and from the fact that the followers of Cerinthus appealed to this book in support of their pernicious errors. The book _seemed_ (see chap. xx.) to countenance the views early entertained by many on the subject of the millennium, and, in accordance with a common method of controversy, its canonical authority was therefore called in question. Thus Hug (_Intro._ p. 654) says, “It was amidst the disputes concerning the millennium that the first explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apocalypse occurred.” Nepos, bishop of the Arsinoitic præfecture in Egypt, had maintained that the doctrine of the millennium could be defended from the book of Revelation by a literal exposition. {xxxix} Dionysius opposed this view, and, in the violence of the dispute on the subject, the authority of the Apocalypse itself was called in question by Dionysius, on the grounds referred to above. “He did this, however,” says Hug, “with such moderation, that he might not offend those who had so readily agreed to a compromise;” that is, a compromise by which, as bishop, he had endeavoured to reconcile the contending parties. Hug has shown conclusively (pp. 654‒656) that this constitutes no objection to the genuineness of the book. It was on such internal grounds entirely that the authenticity of the book was called in question, and that it was ever placed among the disputed books. That objection is, of course, of no importance now. (5) It is well known that, mainly by the influence of Jerome and Augustine (see Prof. Stuart, i. 334), all these doubts were removed, and that the Apocalypse after their time was all but universally received, until Luther, for reasons derived from the book itself, in the early part of his life, again called it in question.

Such is a summary of the historical argument in favour of the genuineness of the book of Revelation; and such is the nature of the evidence which has satisfied the Christian world at large that it is the work of the apostle John, and is, therefore, entitled to a place as an inspired book in the canon of Scripture. In ancient times there were no objections to it on historical grounds, and it is unnecessary to say that there can be none on these grounds now.

(2) The objections to its genuineness and authenticity in modern times are wholly derived from the contents of the book itself. These objections, as stated by De Wette, and as expressing the substance of all that is urged by Ewald, Lücke, Credner, and others, are the following:――

1. That the Apocalyptical writer calls himself John, which the evangelist never does. It is added, also, by Ewald, Credner, and Hitzig, that in chap. xviii. 20 and xxi. 14 the writer expressly excludes himself from the number of the apostles.

2. That the language of the book is entirely different from that of the fourth Gospel, and the three Epistles of John the apostle. It is said to be characterized by strong Hebraisms, and by ruggedness; by negligence of expression, and by grammatical inaccuracies; and that it exhibits the absence of pure Greek words, and of the apostle’s favourite expressions.

3. That the style is unlike that which appears in the Gospel and the Epistles. In the latter it is said there is calm, deep feeling; in the Apocalypse a lively creative power of fancy.

4. That the doctrinal aspect of the book is different from that of the apostle’s acknowledged writings. It is said that we find in the latter nothing of the “sensuous expectations of the Messiah and of his kingdom,” which are prominent in the Apocalypse; that the views inculcated respecting spirits, demons, and angels are foreign to John; and that there is a certain spirit of revenge flowing throughout the Apocalypse quite inconsistent with the mild and amiable disposition of the beloved disciple.

For a full consideration of these points, and a complete answer to these objections, the reader is referred to the _Commentary_ of Prof. Stuart, vol. i. pp. 371‒422. A more condensed reply is found in Kitto’s _Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature_, in an article by the Rev. S. Davidson, LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Oriental Languages in the Lancashire Independent College, vol. ii. pp. 614‒618.

{xl} The objections do not seem to me to have the importance which has been attached to them by many persons, but it may be satisfactory to see the manner in which they are disposed of by Dr. Davidson; I therefore copy his answer to them.

“Let us now consider the internal evidence in favour of John the Apostle, beginning with an examination of the arguments adduced on the other side by De Wette. These do not possess all the weight that many assign to them. We shall follow the order in which they have been already stated.

“1. We attach no importance to this circumstance. Why should not a writer be at liberty to name himself or not as he pleases? above all, why should not a writer, under the immediate inspiration of the Almighty, omit the particulars which he was not prompted to record? How could he refrain from doing so? The Holy Spirit must have had some good reason for leading the writer to set forth his name, although curiosity is not gratified by assigning the reason. The Old Testament prophets usually prefixed their names to the visions and predictions which they were prompted to record; and John does the same. But instead of styling himself an apostle, which carries with it an idea of dignity and official authority, he modestly takes to himself the appellation of _a servant of Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation_. This corresponds with the relation which he sustained to Christ in the receiving of such visions, as also with the condition of the Redeemer himself. In the Gospel John is mentioned as _the disciple whom Jesus loved_, for then he stood in an intimate relation to Christ, as the _Son of man_ appearing in the form of a servant; but in the book before us Christ is announced as the glorified Redeemer who should quickly come to judgment, and John is _his servant_, intrusted with the secrets of his house. Well did it become the apostle to forget all the honour of his apostolic office, and to be abased before the Lord of glory. The resplendent vision of the Saviour had such an effect upon the seer that he fell at his feet as dead; and therefore it was quite natural for him to be clothed with profound humility, to designate himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation. Again, in chap. xviii. 20 the prophets are said to be represented as already in heaven in their glorified condition, and therefore the writer could not have belonged to their number. But this passage neither affirms, nor necessarily implies, that the saints and apostles and prophets were at that time in heaven. Neither is it stated that _all_ the apostles had then been glorified. Chap. xxi. 14 is alleged to be inconsistent with the modesty and humility of John. This is a questionable assumption. The official honour inseparable from the person of an apostle was surely compatible with profound humility. It was so with Paul; and we may safely draw the same conclusion in regard to John. In describing the heavenly Jerusalem it was necessary to introduce the twelve apostles. The writer could not exclude himself (see Lücke, p. 389; and Guerike’s _Beiträge_, p. 37, seq.).

“2. To enter fully into this argument would require a lengthened treatise. Let us briefly notice the particular words, phrases, and expressions to which Ewald, Lücke, De Wette, and Credner specially allude. Much has been written by Ewald concerning the Hebraistic character of the language. The writer, it is alleged, strongly imbued with Hebrew modes of thought, frequently inserts Hebrew words, as in chap. iii. 14; ix. 11; xii. 9, 10; xix. 1, 3, 4, 6; xx. 2; xxii. 20; while the influence of _cabbalistic artificiality_ is obvious {xli} throughout the entire book, and particularly in chap. i. 4, 5; iv. 2; xiii. 18; xvi. 14. The mode of employing the tenses is foreign to the Greek language, and moulded after the Hebrew (chap. i. 7; ii. 5, 16, 22, 23, 27; iii. 9; iv. 9‒11; xii. 2‒4; xvi. 15, 21; xvii. 13, 14; xviii. 11, 15; xxii. 7, 12). So also the use of the participle (chap. i. 16; iv. 1, 5, 8; v. 6, 13; vi. 2, 5; vii. 9, 10; ix. 11; x. 2; xiv. 1, 14; xix. 12, 13; xxi. 14); and of the infinitive (chap. xii. 7). The awkward disposition of words is also said to be Hebraistic; such as a genitive appended like the construct state; the stringing together of several genitives (chap. xiv. 8, 10, 19; xvi. 19; xviii. 3, 14; xix. 15; xxi. 6; xxii. 18, 19); and the use of the Greek cases, which are frequently changed for prepositions (chap. ii. 10; iii. 9; vi. 1, 8; viii. 7; ix. 19; xi. 6, 9; xii. 5; xiv. 2, 7); incorrectness in appositions (chap. i. 5; ii. 20; iii. 12; iv. 2‒4; vi. 1; vii. 9; viii. 9; ix. 14; xiii. 1‒3; xiv. 2, 12, 14, 20, &c.); a construction formed of an αὐτός put after the relative pronoun (chap. iii. 8; vii. 2, 9; xiii. 12; xx. 8); frequent anomalies in regard to number and gender (chap. ii. 27; iii. 4, 5; iv. 8; vi. 9, 10; ix. 13, 14; xi. 15; xiv. 1, 3; xvii. 16; xix. 14; and viii. 11; xi. 18; xv. 4; xvii. 12, 15; xviii. 14; xix. 21; xx. 12; xxi. 4, 24; also chap. xvi. 10; xix. 1, 8, 9). In addition to this, it is alleged by Credner, that the use made of the Old Testament betrays an acquaintance on the part of the writer with the Hebrew text (comp. chap. vi. 13, 14, with Isa. xxxiv. 4; chap. xviii. 2, with Isa. xiii. 21, xxi. 9, xxxiv. 14, Jer. l. 39; chap. xviii. 4, 5, with Jer. li. 6, 9, 45; chap. xviii. 7, with Isa. xlvii. 7, 8; chap. xviii. 21‒23, with Jer. xxv. 10, li. 63, 64). In contrast with all this, we are reminded of the fact that, according to Acts iv. 13, John was an unlearned and ignorant man.

“The book is deficient in words and turns of expression purely Greek, such as πάντοτε, πώποτε, οὐδέποτε; compound verbs, as ἀναγγέλλειν, παραλαμβάνειν, ἐπιβάλλειν; the double negation; the genitive absolute; the attraction of the relative pronoun; the regular construction of the neuter plural with the verb singular (except chap. viii. 3; ix. 20; xiv. 13; xviii. 24; xix. 14; xxi. 12); ἀκούειν with the genitive. Favourite expressions, such as occur in the Gospel and Epistles, are seldom found, as θεάομαι, θεωρέω, ἐργάζομαι, ῥήματα, πάλιν, φωνεῖν, μένειν, καθώς, ὡς (an adverb of time), οὖν, μέν, μέντοι, κόσμος, φῶς, σκοτία, δοξάζεσθαι, ὑψοῦσθαι, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ἀπόλλυσθαι, οὗτος (τοῦτο) ἵνα; the historic present. There are also favourite expressions of the writer of the book, such as do not occur in John’s authentic writings: οἰκουμένη, ὑπομονή, κρατεῖν τὸ ὄνομα, τὴν διδαχήν, παντοκράτωρ, θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, δύναμις, κράτος, ἰσχύς, τιμή, πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, ἡ ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς, ὧδε in the beginning of a sentence. The conjunction εἰ, so common in the Gospel, does not occur in the Apocalypse; but only εἰ μή, εἰ δὲ μή, and εἴ τις. The frequent joining of a substantive with μέγας, as φωνὴ μεγάλη, θλίψις μεγάλη, φόβος μέγας, σεισμὸς μέγας, rather reminds one of Luke than John; μείζων, so frequent in the Gospel, is not found in the Revelation; and, on the contrary, ἰσχυρός, which occurs seven times in the Apocalypse, is foreign to the Gospel.

“The following discrepancies between the language of the Gospel and that of the Epistles have been noticed: ἀληθινός is used of God both in the Gospel and the Apocalypse, but in different senses; so also κύριος, and ἐργάζομαι; instead of ἴδε the Apocalypse has only ἰδού; instead of Ἱεροσόλυμα only Ἱερουσαλήμ; instead of ἐάν τις, as in the Gospel, εἴ τις; περί, so often used by John, occurs only once in the Apocalypse, and that too in relation to place; ὄχλος is {xlii} used in the plural. Words denoting _seeing_ are differently used in the Gospel and Apocalypse; thus, for the present we find in the latter βλέπειν, θεωρεῖν, ὁρᾶν; for the aorist of the active εἶδον, βλέπειν, and θεωρεῖν; for the future ὄπτεσθαι, and for the aorist of the passive also ὄπτεσθαι; μένειν has a different meaning from that which it bears in the Gospel; instead of ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, and ὁ πονηρός, we find ὁ σατανᾶς, ὁ διάβολος, ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας.

“Such is a summary statement of an argument drawn out at great length by Lücke, De Wette, Ewald, and Credner.

“Some have attempted to turn aside its force by resorting to the hypothesis that the book was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. This, however, is contradicted by the most decisive internal evidence, and is in itself highly improbable. The Apocalypse was written in the Greek language, as all antiquity attests. How, then, are we to account for its Hebraistic idioms and solecisms of language, its negligences of diction, and ungrammatical constructions? One circumstance to be taken into account is, that the nature of the Gospel is widely different from that of the Apocalypse. The latter is a prophetic book――a poetical composition; while the former is a simple record in prose, of the discourses of Jesus in the days of his flesh. It is apparent, too, that John in the Apocalypse imitates the manner of Ezekiel and Daniel. The New Testament prophet conforms to the diction and symbolic features of the former seers. ‘If the question should be urged why John chose these models, the obvious answer is, that he conformed to the taste of the times in which he lived. The numerous apocryphal works of an Apocalyptical nature, which were composed nearly at the same time with the Apocalypse――such as the book of Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, many of the Sibylline Oracles, the fourth book of Ezra, the Pastor of Hermas, and many others which are lost――all testify to the taste and feelings of the times when, or near which, the Apocalypse was written. If this method of writing was more grateful to the time in which John lived, it is a good reason for his preferring it.’[56] In consequence of such imitation, the diction has an Oriental character; and the figures are in the highest style of imagery peculiar to the East. But it is said that John was an illiterate man. Illiterate, doubtless, he was as compared with Paul, who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel; yet he may have been capable of reading the Old Testament books; and he was certainly inspired. Wrapt in ecstasy, he saw wondrous visions. He was _in the Spirit_. And when writing the things he beheld, his language was to be conformed to the nature of such marvellous revelations. It was to be adapted to the mysterious disclosures, the vivid pictures, the moving scenes, the celestial beings and scenery of which he Was privileged to tell. Hence it was to be lifted up far above the level of simple prose or biographic history, so as to correspond with the sublime visions of the seer. Nor should it be forgotten that he was not in the circumstances of an ordinary writer. He was _inspired_. How often is this fact lost sight of by the German critics! It is, therefore, needless to inquire into his education in the Hebrew language, or his mental culture while residing in Asia Minor, or the smoothness of the Greek language as current in the place where he lived, before and after he wrote the Apocalypse. The Holy Spirit qualified him beyond and irrespective of ordinary means for the work of writing. However elevated the theme he undertook, he was assisted in {xliii} employing diction as elevated as the nature of the subject demanded. We place, therefore, little reliance upon the argument derived from _the time of life_ at which the Apocalypse was composed, though Olshausen and Guerike insist upon it. Written, as they think, twenty years before the Gospel or Epistles, the Apocalypse exhibits marks of inexperience in writing, of youthful fire, and of an ardent temperament. It exhibits the first essays of one expressing his ideas in a language to which he was unaccustomed. This may be true; but we lay far less stress upon it than these authors seem inclined to do. The strong Hebraized diction of the book we account for on the ground that the writer was a Jew; and, as such, expressed his Jewish conceptions in Greek; that he imitated the later Old Testament prophets, especially the manner of Daniel; and that the only prophetic writing in the New Testament naturally approaches nearer the Old Testament, if not in subject, at least in colouring and linguistic features.

“These considerations may serve to throw light upon the language of the book, after all the extravagancies of assertion in regard to anomalies, solecisms, and ruggednesses, have been fairly estimated. For it cannot be denied that many rash and unwarrantable assumptions have been made by De Wette and others relative to the impure Greek said to be contained in the Apocalypse. Winer has done much to check such bold assertions, but with little success in the case of those who are resolved to abide by a strong and prevalent current of opinion. We venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that there are books in the New Testament almost as Hebraizing as the Apocalypse; and that the anomalies charged to the account of the Hebrew language may be paralleled in other parts of the New Testament, or in classical Greek. What shall be said, for instance, to the attempt of Hitzig to demonstrate from the language of Mark’s Gospel, as compared with that of the Apocalypse, that both proceeded from one author, viz. John Mark? This author has conducted a lengthened investigation with the view of showing that all the peculiarities of language found in the Apocalypse are equally presented in the second Gospel, particularly that the Hebraisms of the one correspond with those of the other. Surely this must lead to new investigations of the Apocalyptic diction, and possibly to a renunciation of those extravagant assertions so often made in regard to the harsh, rugged, Hebraized Greek of the Apocalypse. Who ever dreamed before of the numerous solecisms of Mark’s language? and yet Hitzig has demonstrated its similarity to the Apocalyptic as plausibly as Ewald, Lücke, and others have proved the total dissimilarity between the diction of the Apocalypse and that of John’s Gospel.

“The length allotted to this article will not allow the writer to notice every term and phrase supposed to be peculiar. This can only be done with success by him who takes a concordance to the Greek Testament in his hand, with the determination to test each example; along with a good syntax of classical Greek, such as Bernhardy’s. In this way he may see whether the alleged Hebraisms and anomalies have not their parallels in classical Greek. Some of the allegations already quoted are manifestly incorrect, _e.g._, that ἀκούω with the genitive is not found in the Apocalypse. On the contrary, it occurs eight times with the genitive. Other words are adduced on the principle of their not occurring so frequently in the book before us as in the Gospel and Epistles. But by this mode of reasoning it might be shown, that the other acknowledged writings of the apostle John, for instance his First Epistle, are not {xliv} authentic. Thus ῥήματα, one of the words quoted, though frequently found in the Gospel, is not in any of the three Epistles; therefore, these Epistles were not written by John. It is found _once_ in the Apocalypse. Again, ἐργάζομαι, which is found seven times in the Gospel, and once in the Apocalypse, as also once in each of the Second and Third Epistles, is not in the First Epistle; therefore the First Epistle proceeded from another writer than the author of the Second and Third. The same reasoning may be applied to θεωρέω. Again, it is alleged that the regular construction of neuters plural with singular verbs is not found, with the exception of six instances. To say nothing of the large list of exceptions, let it be considered, that the plural verb is joined with plural nouns where animate beings, especially persons, are designated. Apply now this principle, which regularly holds good in classical Greek, to the Apocalypse, and nothing peculiar will appear in the latter. Should there still remain examples of neuters plural designating things without life, we shall find similar ones in the Greek writers. Another mode in which the reasoning founded upon the use of peculiar terms and expressions may be tested is the following. It is admitted that there are words which occur in the Gospel and Epistles, but not in the Apocalypse. The adverb πάντοτε is an example. On the same principle, and by virtue of the same reasoning, it may be denied, _as far as language is concerned_, that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, because πάντοτε, which is found in his other epistles, does not occur in it. In this manner we might individually take up each word and every syntactical peculiarity on which the charge of harshness, or solecism, or Hebraizing has been fastened. It is sufficient to state, that there are very few _real_ solecisms in the Apocalypse. _Almost all_ that have been adduced may be paralleled in Greek writers, or in those of the New Testament. The words of Winer, a master in this department, are worthy of attention: ‘The solecisms that appear in the Apocalypse give the diction the impress of great harshness, but they are _capable of explanation_, partly from anacoluthon and the mingling of two constructions, partly in another manner. Such explanation should have been always adopted, instead of ascribing these irregularities to the ignorance of the author, who, in other constructions of a much more difficult nature in this very book, shows that he was exceedingly well acquainted with the rules of grammar. For most of these anomalies, too, analogous examples in the Greek writers may be found, with this difference alone, that they do hot follow one another so frequently as in the Apocalypse,’ (_Grammatik, fünfte Auflage_, pp. 273, 274). Should the reader not be satisfied with this brief statement of Winer, he is referred to his _Exeget. Studien_, i. 154, seq., where the professor enters into details with great ability.

“The following linguistic similarities between John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse deserve to be cited: μετὰ ταῦτα, Apoc. i. 19; iv. 1; vii. 1, 9; ix. 12; xv. 5; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xx. 3;――Gosp. iii. 22; v. 1, 14; vi. 1; vii. 1; xix. 38; xxi. 1. μαρτυρία, Apoc. i. 2, 9; vi. 9; xi. 7; xii. 11, 17; xix. 10; xx. 4;――Gosp. (μαρτυρέω or μαρτυρία) i. 7, 8, 15, 19, 32, 34; ii. 25; iii. 11, 26, 28, 32, 33; iv. 3, 9, 44; v. 31‒34, 36, 37, 39;――1 Epist. i. 2; iv. 14; v. 6‒11. ἵνα, Apoc. ii. 10, 21; iii. 9, 11, 18; vi. 2, 4, 11; vii. 1, &c.;――Gosp. vi. 5, 7, 12, 15, 28‒30, 38‒40, 50; xi. 4, 11, 15, 16, 19, 31, 37, 42, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57; xii. 9, 10, 20, 23, 35, &c.;――1 Epist. of John i. 3, 4, 9; ii. 1, 19, 27, 28. ὄψις, Gosp. vii. 24; xi. 44;――Apoc. i. 16. πιάζειν, Apoc. xix. 20;――Gosp. vii. 30, 32, 44; viii. 20; x. 39; xi. 57; xxi. 3, 10. τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον, τὰς ἐντολάς, or some similar expression, Apoc. iii. 8, 10; xii. 17; xiv. 12; xxii. 7, 9;――Gosp. viii. 51, 55; {xlv} xiv. 15; xxiii. 24, &c. ὁ νικῶν, Apoc. ii. 7, 11, 17, 26; iii. 5, 12, 21; xv. 2; xxi. 7. This verb is quite common in the First Epistle, chap. ii. 13, 14; iv. 4; v. 4, 5;――Gosp. xvi. 33. ὕδωρ ζωῆς, Apoc. xxi. 6; xxii. 17; comp. Gosp. vii. 38. Compare also the joining together of the present and the future in Apoc. ii. 5, and Gosp. xiv. 3. The assertion of the same thing positively and negatively, Apoc. ii. 2, 6, 8, 13; iii. 8, 17, 21; Gosp. i. 3, 6, 7, 20, 48; iii. 15, 17, 20; iv. 42; v. 19, 24; viii. 35, 45; x. 28; xv. 5‒7; 1 Epist. ii. 27, &c. In several places in the Apocalypse Christ is called the Lamb; so also in the Gospel, chap. i. 29, 36. Christ is called ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Apoc. xix. 13, and in the Gospel of John only has he the same epithet. τηρεῖν ἔκ τινος, Apoc. iii. 10; Gosp. xvii. 15. σφάττειν, Apoc. v. 6, 9, 12; vi. 4, 9; xiii. 3, 8; xviii. 24; only in the 1st Epistle of John, chap. iii. 12. ἔχειν μέρος, Apoc. xx. 6; Gosp. xiii. 8. περιπατεῖν μετά τινος, Apoc. iii. 4; Gosp. vi. 66. σκηνόω, Apoc. vii. 15; xii. 12; xiii. 6; xxi. 3; Gosp. i. 14. The expulsion of Satan from heaven is expressed thus in the Apoc. xii. 9: ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν; in the Gosp. it is said, νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, chap. xii. 31. (See Scholz, _Die Apokalypse des heilig. Johannes übersetzt, erklärt_, u. s. w. Frankfurt am Main, 1828, 8vo; Schulz, _Ueber den Schriftsteller, Character und Werth des Johannes_, Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; Donker Curtius, _Specimen hermeneuticotheologicum de Apocalypsi ab indole, doctrina, et scribendi genere Johannis Apostoli non abhorrente_, Trajecti Batav. 1799, 8vo; Kolthoff, _Apocalypsis Joanni Apostolo vindicata_, Hafniæ, 1834, 8vo; Stein, in Winer and Engelhardt’s _Kritisch. Journal_, v. i.; and the _Jena Literatur-Zeitung_ for April, 1833, No. 61.) It is true that some of these expressions are said, by Lücke, De Wette, and Credner, to be used in a different sense in the Apocalypse; others not to be _characteristic_, but rather accidental and casual; others not _original_, but borrowed. Such assertions, however, proceed more from _à priori_ assumption than from any inherent truth they possess. In regard to the charge of _cabbalism_, especially in the use of numbers, it is easily disposed of. The cabbala of the Jews was widely different from the instances in the Apocalypse that have been quoted. Perhaps John’s use of the number 666 comes the nearest to one kind of the cabbala; but still it is so unlike as to warrant the conclusion that the apostle did not employ the cabbalistic art. His mysterious indications of certain facts, and the reasons of their being in some measure involved in darkness, are explicable on other than Jewish grounds. There is no real cause for believing that the apostle had recourse to the artificial and trifling conceits of the Rabbins. In short, this argument is by no means conclusive. As far as the language is concerned, nothing militates against the opinion that the Apocalypse proceeded from John, who wrote the Gospel. The contrary evidence is not of such a nature as to demand assent. When rigidly scrutinized, it does not sustain the conclusion so confidently built upon it.

“But it is also affirmed, that the doctrinal views and sentiments inculcated in the Apocalypse are quite different from those found in the Gospel. This may be freely allowed without any detriment to their identity of authorship. How slow the Germans are in learning that a difference in the exhibition of truths substantially the same is far from being a contradiction! A difference of subject in connection with a different plan, demands correspondent dissimilarity of treatment. Besides, there must be a gradual development of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God on earth. Sensuous expectations of the Messiah, such as are alleged to abound in the Apocalypse, may be perfectly {xlvi} consistent with the spirituality of his reign, though it appears to us that the representations so designated are figurative, shadowing forth spiritual realities by means of outward objects.

“But what is to be said of the pneumatological, demonological, and angelogical doctrines of the book? The object for which John’s Gospel was primarily written did not lead the apostle to introduce so many particulars regarding angels and evil spirits. The intervention of good and the malignant influence of evil spirits are clearly implied in the Old Testament prophets, particularly in Zechariah and Daniel. It is therefore quite accordant with the prophetic Hebraistic character of the Apocalypse, to make angelic agency a prominent feature in the book. And that such agency is recognized in the Gospels, is apparent to the most cursory reader. The special object with which the fourth Gospel was written was different from that which prompted the composition of the Apocalypse, and therefore the subject-matter of both is exceedingly diverse. But still there is no opposition in doctrine. The same doctrinal views lie at the foundation of all the representations contained in them. In the one, the Redeemer is depicted in his humble career on earth; in the other, in his triumphs as a king――or rather, in the victorious progress of his truth in the world, notwithstanding all the efforts of Satan and wicked men to suppress it. As to a spirit of revenge in the Apocalyptic writer, it is not found. The inspired prophet was commissioned to pronounce woes and judgments as soon to befall the enemies of Christ, in consequence of their persevering, malignant efforts. As well might an evil disposition be attributed to the blessed Saviour himself, in consequence of his denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. The same John who wrote the Apocalypse says, in the Second Epistle, ver. 10, ‘If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.’ It must ever strike the simple reader of the Apocalypse as a positive ground for attributing the authorship to John the apostle, that he styles himself THE _servant_ of God by way of eminence, which none other at that time would have ventured to do; and that he employs the expression, _I John_, after the manner of Daniel, as if he were the only prophet and person of the name. Nor can it be well believed that a disciple of the apostle, or any other individual, should have presumed to introduce John as the speaker, thus deceiving the readers. The apostle was well known to the Christians of his time, and especially to the Asiatic churches. He did not therefore think it necessary to say John the Apostle for the sake of distinguishing himself from any other. See Züllig’s _Die Offenbarung Johannis_, Stuttgart, 1834, 8vo, p. 136.”

§ II.――_The Time of Writing the Apocalypse._

The evidence as to the date of the Apocalypse may be considered as external or historical, and internal.

1. External or historical. On this point the testimony of the early Christian fathers is almost or quite uniform, that it was in the latter part of the life of the apostle John, and towards the end of the reign of Domitian; that is, about A.D. 95 or 96.

The principal testimony to this fact is that of Irenæus. It will be recollected that he was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John. See § I. (b). He had, therefore, every opportunity of obtaining correct information, and doubtless expresses the common {xlvii} sentiment of his age on the subject. His character is unexceptionable, and he had no inducement to bear any false or perverted testimony in the case. His testimony is plain and positive that the book was written near the close of the reign of Domitian, and the testimony should be regarded as decisive unless it can be set aside. His language in regard to the book of Revelation is: “It was seen _no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian_” (Lardner, ii. 181). Or, as the passage is translated by Prof. Stuart: “The Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s reign.” There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the meaning of the passage, or as to the time when Irenæus believed the book to have been written. Domitian was put to death A.D. 96, and consequently, according to Irenæus, the Apocalypse must have been written not far from this time.

This testimony of Irenæus is confirmed by that of Clement of Alexandria. Relating the well-known story of John and the robber, he speaks of the event as having occurred on his return from exile in Patmos “_after the death of the tyrant_,” and represents him as _then an infirm old man_. The testimony in the book itself (chap. i. 9) is clear, that John was on the island of Patmos when these visions were seen. The “_tyrant_” whose death is here referred to must necessarily be either _Nero_ or _Domitian_, as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christians. It cannot be supposed to be Nero, since at the time of his persecution (A.D. 64) John could not be supposed to be an “infirm old man;” being probably not much above, if indeed so much as sixty years of age. See Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._, b. iii. chap. 23. Of this testimony Prof. Stuart, who himself supposes that the Apocalypse was written before the death of Nero, says (i. 264), “The tyrant here meant is probably Domitian; at least, although he is not named by Clement, it is clear that Eusebius so understands the matter.”

Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw and martyr in Diocletian’s persecution, in his _Commentary on the Apocalypse_, written towards the close of the third century, says twice expressly that the Apocalypse was seen by the apostle John in the isle of Patmos, when banished thither by the Roman emperor Domitian. See the passages quoted in Elliott, i. 39, and in Prof. Stuart, i. 264. The testimony is unequivocal.

To these testimonies from the early fathers may be added that of Jerome, who says that “John saw the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, to which he was sent by Domitian,” and in another place he says that this occurred in the fourteenth year of the reign of Domitian (Adv. Jovin. lib. i., Lardner, iv. 446, 447).

And to these plain testimonies may be added those of Sulpicius Severus and Orosius, contemporaries of Augustine; Gregory Turonensis (cent. vi.), Isidorus Hispalensis (cent. vii.), Marianus Scotus, Primasius, and others. See Prof. Stuart, i. 264, 265, and Elliott, i. 38, 39.

Such is the _positive_ testimony that the book was written near the end of the reign of Domitian and about A.D. 96. It is true, that notwithstanding this positive testimony, there were some writers who assigned it to an earlier date. Thus Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century, speaks of John as having prophesied in the isle of Patmos in the days of the emperor _Claudius_ (A.D. 41‒54); a time when, as Michaelis observes, it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of Christians {xlviii} whatever, and when, moreover, the probability is that, of the seven Apocalyptic churches, scarcely one was in existence, and the apostle John was in no way associated with them. Lardner (iv. 190) seems to suspect that, in the passage referred to, the name _Claudius_ was a fault of the transcriber. Epiphanius, however, received the Apocalypse as the work of John and as an inspired book (Lardner, iv. 190). Others have ascribed the date of the book of Revelation to the time of Nero. Thus, in the later Syriac version, the title-page declares that it was written in Patmos, _whither John was sent by Nero Cæsar_. This version, however, was made in the beginning of the sixth century, and can have little authority in determining the question. It is not known by whom the version was made, or on what authority the author relied, when he said that John was banished to Patmos in the time of Nero. So also Andreas and Arethas, commentators on the book of Revelation, one of them in the beginning of the sixth century and the other in the middle of the sixth century, make quotations from the book in such a manner as to show that they supposed that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. They, however, made no express declaration on that point, and their testimony at anyrate, at that late period, is of little value. A few other later writers also supposed that the book was written at an earlier period than the reign of Domitian. See Prof. Stuart, i. 268, 269.

Such is the sum of the historical testimony as to the time when the Apocalypse was written; and that testimony, it seems to me, is so clear as to settle the point so far as the historical evidence is concerned, that the book was written near the end of the reign of Domitian, that is, about A.D. 95 or 96. My exposition of the book proceeds on the supposition that it was written at that time.

2. There is another inquiry, however, as to the _internal_ evidence, for on this ground it has been maintained that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem and in the time of Nero. See the argument in Prof. Stuart, i. 270‒282.

Now, in regard to this it may be remarked in general, that on the supposition that it was written near the close of the life of John, and in the time of Domitian, it can be shown that there is no internal improbability or inconsistency; that is, in other words, all the known circumstances in regard to John, and to the condition of the church at that time, would accord with that supposition. For,

(a) It is known that John spent many of the later years of his life at Ephesus, in the midst of the seven churches to which the book was addressed, and the epistles in the book are such as they would be on that supposition.

(b) It is admitted that there was a persecution of Christians in the time of Domitian; and of the persecution which he excited against Christians, Mosheim remarks that “he was an emperor little inferior to Nero in baseness of character and conduct. This persecution undoubtedly was severe; but it was of short continuance, as the emperor was soon murdered” (Mosheim, i. 69). It commenced about A.D. 93 or 94. It is not certainly known how far it extended, but as the _ground_ of the persecution was a fear of Domitian that he would lose his empire from some person among the relatives of _Christ_ who would attempt a revolution (Mosheim, i. 69; Milman, _Hist. of Christianity_, 193), ere is every probability that it would be directed particularly to the East and the countries near where the Saviour lived and died.

{xlix} (c) It is not improbable that John would be _banished_ in this persecution. He was a man of great influence among Christians, and it is to be presumed that he would not escape the notice of those who were actively engaged in carrying on the persecution. Moreover, it is _as_ probable that he would be _banished_ as that he would be put to death; for, though we have few facts respecting this persecution, and few names are mentioned, yet we have one recorded instance in which banishment on account of professing the Christian religion took place. Thus Milman (_Hist. of Christianity_, p. 193), speaking of two of the cousin-germans of Domitian, says, “The one fell an early victim to his jealous apprehensions. The other, Flavius Clemens, is described as a man of the most contemptible indolence of character. His powerful kinsman, instead of exciting the fears, enjoyed for some time the favour of Domitian. He received in marriage Domitilla, the niece of the emperor; his children were adopted as heirs to his throne; Clemens himself obtained the consulship. On a sudden these harmless kinsmen became dangerous conspirators; they were arraigned on the unprecedented charge of Atheism and Jewish manners; the husband Clemens was put to death; _the wife Domitilla banished to the desert island of either Pontia or Pandataria_.” Nothing is more probable, therefore, than that John the apostle should be also _banished to a desert island_――and Patmos was admirably adapted to such a purpose. See Notes on chap. i. 9. There is, therefore, everything in the circumstances to make it _probable_ that the book was written at the time in which it is so uniformly said by the early historians to have been. Those things seem to me to make it proper to acquiesce in the general opinion so long entertained in regard to the date of the Apocalypse, for there is, perhaps, no book of the New Testament whose date is better determined on historical grounds than this. These considerations also make it unnecessary to examine the alleged internal evidence from the book that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, especially as it will be shown in the Notes that the passages usually relied on (chap. vi. 9, 10; vii.; xi. 3, 8; xvii. 8, 11; and chap. i. 1, 3;