Book of.

The following topics in relation to this book demand examination:—1. The person by whom it was written. 2. Its canonical authority, genuineness, and authenticity. 3. The time and place at which it was written. 4. Its unity. 5. The class of writings to which it belongs. 6. The object for which it was originally written. 7. Its contents.

1. The Person by whom it was Written.—The author styles himself John, but not an apostle (i.e., 9; xxii. 8). Hence some have attributed the book to another John, usually designated the presbyter. The chief argument for believing that there was another John besides the apostle exists in a passage from Papias of Hierapolis, preserved in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39). In this fragment several of the apostles, among whom is John, are mentioned; while immediately after, the presbyter John is specified along with Aristan. In addition to Papias, Dionysius of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 25), Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39), and Jerome (Catal. Scriptor. Ecclesiast.), allude to the presbyter. We must therefore believe with Lücke, Bleek, Credner, Neander, Hitzig, and indeed all the ablest critics who have had occasion to speak of this point, that there were two Johns,—one the apostle, the other the presbyter. It has been much debated which of the two wrote the book before us. On the Continent the prevailing current of opinion, if not in favour of the presbyter, is at least against the apostle. In England the latter is still regarded as the writer, more perhaps by a kind of traditional belief than as the result of enlightened examination.

The arguments against assigning the authorship to the apostle John are the following:—The apocalyptic writer calls himself John, while the evangelist never does so. The language of the book is entirely different from that of the fourth Gospel and the three Epistles of John the apostle. It is characterized by strong Hebraisms and ruggednesses, by negligences of expression and grammatical inaccuracies; while it exhibits the absence of pure Greek words and of the apostle's favourite expressions. The style is besides unlike that which appears in the Gospel and Epistles. It is alleged likewise that the doctrinal aspect of the Apocalypse is different from that of the apostle's acknowledged writings. Such are the arguments advanced by De Wette. They are chiefly based on the investigations of Ewald and Lücke. It will be observed, however, that they are all internal, and do no more than prepare the way for proving that John the presbyter was the writer. Let us glance at the external evidence adduced for the same purpose.

In the third century Dionysius of Alexandria ascribed the book to John the presbyter, not to John the apostle (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 32). The testimony of this writer has been so often and so much insisted on that it is unnecessary to give it here. However, there is no direct evidence in favour of the opinion that John the presbyter wrote the Apocalypse. Many internal considerations have been adduced to show that John the apostle was not the author; but no direct argument has been advanced to prove that John the presbyter was the writer. Others think that a disciple of John undertook to write on a subject which he had received from the apostle; and Hitzig has lately written a treatise to prove that the writer is John Mark, the same from whom the second Gospel proceeded. His arguments are mainly based on parallelisms of language and construction (Uber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, oder welcher Johannes hat die Offenbarung verfasst? Zurich, Svo, 1843.)

Justin Martyr is the earliest writer who attributes it to John the apostle (Dial. cum Tryph.) Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen ascribe it to the apostle. The internal evidence in favour of John the apostle, urged by De Wette, Lücke, Ewald, and Credner, at considerable length, bears mainly upon the language of the writing, characterized as it is by strong Hebraisms, deficient as it Revelation, also is in purely Greek idioms, and contrary as are some of the Gospel statements to those of the Epistles. Some have attempted to turn aside the force of those arguments 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. 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 apocalyptic 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. (Stuart, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, pp. 353, 354.) In view of the whole question, we are disposed to abide by the ancient opinion, that John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse. Ecclesiastical tradition clearly favours this view; while the internal grounds so carefully drawn out and earnestly urged by recent German critics, do not appear sufficiently strong to overturn it. When such grounds are soberly examined, after being divested of all the extravagance with which they are associated; when the nature of the subjects discussed is seen to be such as the fourth Gospel does not present; an impartial critic will probably rest in the opinion, that both writings proceeded from the same author.

The entire question of authorship, so much debated in Germany, is more curious than profitable. The book may not have been written by an apostle, and yet be equal in authority to any acknowledged production of an apostle.

2. Its Canonical Authority, Authenticity, and Genuineness.—We shall first of all consider the external testimonies adverse to its canonicity.

The Alogi or Antimontanists in the second century, ascribed all John's writings, including the Apocalypse, to Cerinthus, as Epiphanius relates. It is obvious that no weight can be attached to these assertions. Caius of Rome, from opposition to Montanism, ventured to make the same statement, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 28). The 85th of the "Apostolic Canons," which are supposed to belong to the fourth century, does not mention the Apocalypse among the apostolic writings. In the "Constitutions" also, which probably originated in Syria and the adjacent regions, there is no notice of the book. Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the theologians of Nissibis, Junilius, Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzen, Euthalius, all probably agreed in rejecting the Apocalypse. At the time of the Reformation the controversy respecting the Apocalypse was revived. Erasmus speaks suspiciously concerning it, while Luther expresses himself very vehemently against it. With Semler a new opposition to it began. That distinguished critic was unfavourable to its authenticity. He was followed by Oecer, Merkel, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Bretschneider, Ewald, De Wette, Schott, Bleek, Lücke, Neander, Credner, E. Reuss, Hitzig, Timius, &c. It should, however, be distinctly observed that most of these recent critics go no farther than to deny that John Revelation, the apostle was the writer; which may certainly be done without impugning its indirectly apostolic authority. They do not exclude it from the canon as a divinely-inspired writing; although in attacking its direct apostolicity, some may imagine that they ruin its canonical credit.

We shall now allude to the evidence in favour of its canonicity. The earliest witness for it is Papias, as we learn from Andreas and Arethas of Cappadocia, in their preface to Commentaries on the Apocalypse. (Havernick's Lucubrationis Criticæ ad Apoc. spectantes, Region. 1842, Svo, No. 1, p. 4, sq.) Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven apocalyptic churches, wrote a work exclusively on this book. Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious men, explicitly distinguishes two works, one respecting the devil, the other relative to the Apocalypse. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (Euseb. iv. 24), in his book against Hermogenes, drew many proofs and arguments from the Revelation; so also Apollonius of Ephesus, according to the same ecclesiastical historian (v. 18). The testimony of Irenæus is most important, because he was in early life acquainted with Polycarp, who was John's disciple, and because he resided in Asia Minor, where John himself abode during the latter part of his life. In one place he says, "It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, towards the end of Domitian's reign;" while he frequently quotes it elsewhere as the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord. To these may be added the testimony of the martyrs at Lyons, of Nepos (Euseb. vii. 23), Methodius of Tyre, Didymus of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lactantius, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Rufinus the presbyter, Isidore of Pelusium, Hilary of Poictou, Cyril of Alexandria, Arethas and Andreas of Cappadocia, the Synod of Hippo (a.d. 393, canon 36), the Synod of Toledo (a.d. 633), the third council of Carthage (a.d. 397), Victorin of Pettau in Pannonia, Dionysius the Areopagite, Sulpicius Severus, Joh. Damascenus, Ecumenius, Amphilochius, Novatus and his followers, the Manichees, the Donatists, the Arians, the latter Ambrosius, Rhaban Maurus, Isidore of Spain, Commodian, and others.

At the period of the Reformation Flacius strenuously upheld the authority of the Apocalypse, and since his day able defenders of it have not been wanting. Twells, C. F. Schmid, J. F. Reuss, Knittel, Storr, Lüderwaldt, Hartwig, Kleuker, Herder, Donker Curtius, Hainlein, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, Feilmoser, Kolthoff, Olshausen, J. P. Lange (Tholuck's Lit. Anzeig, 1858); Dannemann, Hävernick (Evangel. Kirchenzeit, 1834, and Lucub. Criticae), Guerike, Schnitzer (Allgem. Literaturzeit. 1841), Zeller (Deutsche Jahrb. 1841), and others. Thus the general tenor of the external evidence is clearly in favour of the canonical authority, while internal circumstances amply confirm it. The style, language, and manner of the book, cannot be mistaken. In dignity and sublimity it is equal to any of the New Testament writings, if not superior to them all. The variety and force of the images impress the mind of every reader with conceptions of a divine origin. Surely no uninspired man could have written in such a strain.

3. The Time and Place at which it was Written.—In ascertaining these points there is considerable difficulty. The prevalent opinion is, that the book was written a.d. 96 or 97, at Patmos or Ephesus, after Domitian's death,—i.e., under Nerva. So Mill, Le Clerc, Basnage, Lardner, Woodhouse, and others suppose. In view of all the circumstances of the case, which cannot here be fully entered into, we are inclined to believe that it was written at Patmos in the time of Nero, a.d. 67 or 68, a date fixed upon long ago by Sir Isaac Newton.

4. Unity of the Book.—A few writers have thought that the Apocalypse was written at different times by the same author, as Grotius, Hammond, and Bleek; or by different authors, as Vogel. Such dismemberment is now abandoned. Even De Wette allows that no reasonable doubts can be entertained of its unity.

5. The Class of Writings to which it belongs.—Pareus seems to have been the first who started the idea of its being a dramatic poem. The same opinion was also expressed by Hartwig. But the genius of Eichhorn wrought out the suggestion into a theory pervaded by great symmetry and beauty. Hence the opinion that it forms a regular dramatic poem is associated with his name alone. As this theory, however, is now abandoned by all expositors, it needs no refutation.

6. The Object for which it was originally Written.—The books of the New Testament, like those of the Old, were designed to promote the instruction of God's people in all ages. They were adapted to teach, exhort, and reprove all mankind. They do not belong to the class of ephemeral writings that have long since fulfilled the purpose for which they were originally composed. Their object was not merely a local or partial one. So of the Apocalypse. It is suited to all. "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy." But this general characteristic is perfectly consistent with the fact, that it arose out of specific circumstances, and was primarily meant to subserve a definite end. When first written, it was destined to suit the peculiar circumstances of the early Christians.

7. Its Contents.—The body of the work is contained in chaps. iv.–xxii. 6, and is almost entirely a series of symbolic representations. To this is prefixed a prologue (i.–iv.). A brief epilogue is subjoined (xxii. 6–21). After the prologue or introduction, which is peculiarly fitted to admonish and console amid suffering, we come to the body of the work itself, commencing with the fourth chapter. This may be appropriately divided into three parts,—(1.) iv.–xi.; (2.) xii.–xix.; (3.) xx.–xxii. 5.

By far the greater number of works on the Apocalypse are of no value, the authors having failed to perceive the primary purpose of the apostle. We shall only mention a few. The best book on the literature of the Apocalypse is that of Lücke, published in 1832. It is both copious and excellent. In addition to it may be mentioned the Introductions of Michaelis, Haenlein, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Feilmoser, De Wette, Credner, Schott, Guerike; and the Introduction of Samuel Davidson, London, 1848. Bleek's Beiträge zur Kritik der Offenbarung Johannis (in the Zeitschrift der Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Lücke, ii. 252 sq.); Kleuker, Ueber Ursprung und Zweck der Offenbar. Johannis; Steudel, Ueber die richtige Auffassung der Apocalypse (in Bengel's N. Archiv. iv. 2); the treatises of Kolthoff, Lange, and Dannermann, already referred to; Knittel's Beiträge zur Kritik über Johannis Offenbarung; Vogel's Commentatio de Apoc. Johannis, pt. i. vii.; Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church; Olshausen's Proof of the Genuine ness of the Writings of the New Testament (translated by Fos dick, Andover, 1838); Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, vols. i. and iii. 4to edition; Hävernick, in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, and Lucubrationes, already quoted.

The principal commentaries on the Apocalypse are those of Pareus, Grotius, Vitringa, Eichhorn, Heinrichs, Scholz, Ewald, Timus, Bossuet, Alcazar, Henentinus, Salmeron, Herrenschneider, Hagen, and Hengstenberg's Revelations of St John Expounded for those who Search the Scriptures. Of English works, Lowman's Commentary has been highly esteemed, though his scheme is wrong. Mede's Claris, and the Commentary attached to it, have had great influence on subsequent writers; Faber's Sacred Calendar of Prophecy is able and ingenious, but radically wrong; Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Apocalypse, and Bishop Newton's Remarks, are generally incorrect. Cunninghame has written various treatises illustrative of the Apocalypse, but his lucubrations are dark and doubtful. Woolhouse's Commentary is prevailed by commendable diligence and sobriety, though he has greatly deviated from the right mode of interpretation. We specially recommend Hammond and Lee (Six Sermons on the Study of the Holy Scriptures, London, 1830, 8vo). English apocalyptic literature has of late years greatly accumulated; and we can only mention the following:—Hora Apocalyptic, London, 1848; Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse, third edition, London, 1854, a voluminous and exhaustive treatise; Albert Barnes, A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 1851, published both in America and London; Desprez, The Apocalypse fulfilled in the Consummation of the Mosaic Economy, and the coming of the Son of Man, an Answer to the "Apocalyptic Sketches" and "The End," by Dr Cumming, second edition, London, 1855.