Читать книгу Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation - Albert 1798-1870 Barnes - Страница 6

Table of Contents

Much has been written on the question who was the author of this book. To enter into an extended investigation of this would greatly exceed the limits which I have, and would not comport with my design in these Notes. For a full examination of the question I must refer to others, and would mention particularly, Prof. Stuart, Com. i. 283–427; Lardner, Works, vi. 318–327; Hug, Intro. to the New Testament, pp. 650–673, Andover, 1836; Michaelis, Intro. to the New Testament, iv. 457–544; and the article “Revelation,” in Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. I propose to exhibit, briefly, the evidence that the apostle John was the author, according to the opinion which has been commonly entertained in the church; the proof of which seems to me to be satisfactory. This may be considered under these divisions: the direct historical evidence, and the insufficiency of the reason for doubting it.

I. The direct historical evidence. The sum of all that is to be said on this point is, that to the latter half of the third century it was not doubted that the apostle John was the author. Why it was ever afterwards doubted, and what is the force and value of the doubt, will be considered in another part of this Introduction.

There may be some convenience in dividing the early historical testimony into three periods of half a century each, extending from the death of John, about A.D. 98, to the middle of the third century.

1. From the death of John, about A.D. 98 to A.D. 150. This period embraces the last of those men who conversed, or who might have conversed, with the apostles; that is, who were, for a part of their lives, the contemporaries of John. The testimony of the writers who lived then would, of course, be very important. Those embraced in this period are Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. The evidence of this period is not indeed very direct, but it is such as it would be on the supposition that John was the author, and there is nothing contradictory to that supposition.

Hermas, about A.D. 100.—In the Shepherd or Pastor, ascribed to this writer, there are several allusions which are supposed to refer to this book, and which resemble it so much as to make it probable that the author was acquainted with it. Dr. Lardner thus expresses the result of his examination of this point: “It is probable that Hermas had read the book of Revelation, and imitated it. He has many things resembling it” (vol. ii. pp. 69–72). There is no direct testimony, however, in this writer that is of importance.

Ignatius.—He was bishop of Antioch, and flourished A.D. 70–107. In the latter year he suffered martyrdom, in the time of Trajan. Little, however, can be derived from him in regard to the Apocalypse. He was a contemporary of John, and it is not a little remarkable that he has not more directly alluded to him. In the course of a forced and hurried journey to Rome, the scene of his martyrdom, he wrote several epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp. There has been much controversy respecting the authenticity of these epistles, and it is generally admitted that those which we now possess have been greatly corrupted. There is no direct mention of the Apocalypse in these epistles, and Michaelis makes this one of the strong grounds of his disbelief of its genuineness. His argument is, that the silence of Ignatius shows, either that he did not know of the existence of this book, or did not recognize it as a part of the sacred Scriptures. Little, however, can be ever inferred from the mere silence of an author; for there may have been many reasons why, though the book may have been in existence, and recognized as the writing of John, Ignatius did not refer to it. The whole matter of the residence of John at Ephesus, of his banishment to Patmos, and of his death, is unnoticed by him. There are, however, two or three allusions in the epistles of Ignatius which have been supposed to refer to the Apocalypse, or to prove that he was familiar with that work—though it must be admitted that the language is so general, that it furnishes no certain proof that he designed to quote it. They are these: Epis. to the Romans—“In the patience of Jesus Christ,” comp. Rev. i. 9; and Epis. to the Ephesians—“Stones of the temple of the Father prepared for the building of God,” comp. Rev. xxi. 2–19. To these Mr. John Collyer Knight, of the British Museum, in a recent publication (Two New Arguments in Vindication of the Genuineness and Authenticity of the Revelation of St. John, London, 1842), has added a third: Epis. to the Philadelphians—“If they do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are but sepulchral pillars, and upon them are written only the names of men. ” Comp. Rev. iii. 12, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God.” It must be admitted, however, that this coincidence of language does not furnish any certain proof that Ignatius had seen the Apocalypse, though this is such language as he might have used if he had seen it. There was no known necessity, however, for his referring to this book if he was acquainted with it, and nothing can be inferred from his silence.

Polycarp.—He was bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom, though at what time is not certain. The Chronicon Paschale names A.D. 163; Eusebius, 167; Usher, 169; and Pearson, 148. He died at the age of eighty-six, and consequently was contemporary with John, who died about A.D. 98. There is but one relic of his writings extant—his epistle to the Philippians. There is in Eusebius (iv. 15), an epistle from the church in Smyrna to the churches in Pontus, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. It is admitted that in neither of these is there any express mention, or any certain allusion, to the book of Revelation. But from this circumstance nothing can be inferred respecting the Apocalypse, either for or against it, since there may have been no occasion for Polycarp or his friends, in the writings now extant, to speak of this book; and from their silence nothing more should be inferred against this book than against the epistles of Paul, or the Gospel by John. There is, however, what may, without impropriety, be regarded as an important testimony of Polycarp in regard to this book. Polycarp was, as there is every reason to suppose, the personal friend of John, and Irenæus was the personal friend of Polycarp (Lardner, ii. 94–96). Now Irenæus, as we shall see, on all occasions, and in the most positive manner, gives his clear testimony that the Apocalypse was written by the apostle John. It is impossible to suppose that he would do this if Polycarp had not believed it to be true; and certainly he would not have been likely to hold this opinion if one who was his own friend, and the friend of John, had doubted or denied it. This is not indeed absolute proof, but it furnishes strong presumptive evidence in favour of the opinion that the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John. The whole history of Polycarp, and his testimony to the books of the New Testament, may be seen in Lardner, ii. 94–114.

Papias.—Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, near Colosse, and flourished, according to Cave, about A.D. 110; according to others, about the year 115 or 116. How long he lived is uncertain. Irenæus asserts that he was the intimate friend—ἑταῖρος—of Polycarp, and this is also admitted by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. iii. 39). He was the contemporary of John, and was probably acquainted with him. Eusebius expressly says that he was “a hearer of John” (Lardner, ii. 117). Of his writings there remain only a few fragments preserved by Eusebius, by Jerome, and in the Commentary of Andrew, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia. He was a warm defender of the Millennarian doctrines. In his writings preserved to us (see Lardner, ii. 120–125), there is no express mention of the Apocalypse, or direct reference to it; but the commentator Andrew of Cæsarea reckons him among the explicit witnesses in its favour. In the Preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, Andrew says, “In regard now to the inspiration of the book, we think it superfluous to extend our discourse, inasmuch as the blessed Gregory, and Cyril, and moreover the ancient [writers] Papias, Irenæus, Methodius, and Hippolytus bear testimony to its credibility.” See the passage in Hug, Intro. p. 652; and Prof. Stuart, i. 305. And in nearly the same words does Arethas, the successor of Andrew, bear the like testimony. The evidence, therefore, in this case is the same as in the case of Polycarp, and it cannot be supposed that Papias would have been thus referred to unless it was uniformly understood that he regarded the book as the production of the apostle John.

These are all the testimonies that properly belong to the first half century after the death of John, and though not absolutely positive and conclusive in themselves, yet the following points may be regarded as established:—(a) The book was known; (b) so far as the testimony goes, it is in favour of its having been composed by John; (c) the fact that he was the author is not called in question or doubted; (d) it was generally ascribed to him; (e) it was probably the foundation of the Millennarian views entertained by Papias—that is, it is easier to account for his holding these views by supposing that the book was known, and that he founded them on this book, than in any other way. See Prof. Stuart, i. 304.

2. The second half century after the death of John, from A.D. 150 to A.D. 200. This will include the names of Justin Martyr, the Narrator of the Martyrs of Lyons, Irenæus, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

Justin Martyr.—He was a Christian philosopher, born at Flavia Neapolis, anciently called Sichem, a city of Samaria, it is supposed about A.D. 103; was converted to Christianity about A.D. 133, and suffered martyrdom about A.D. 165 (Lardner, ii. 125–140). He was partly contemporary with Polycarp and Papias. He travelled in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor, and resided some time at Ephesus. He was endowed with a bold and inquiring mind, and was a man eminent for integrity and virtue. Tatian calls him an “admirable man.” Methodius says, that he was a man “not far removed from the apostles in time or in virtue.” Photius says, that he was “well acquainted with the Christian philosophy, and especially with the heathen; rich in the knowledge of history, and all other parts of learning” (Lardner). He was, therefore, well qualified to ascertain the truth about the origin of the book of Revelation, and his testimony must be of great value. He was an advocate of the doctrine of Chiliasm—or, the doctrine that Christ would reign a thousand years on the earth—and in defence of this he uses the following language: “And a man from among us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a Revelation made to him—ἐν Ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτᾷ—has prophesied that the believers in one Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together.” There can be no doubt whatever that there is an allusion here to the book of Revelation—for the very name Revelation—Ἀποκάλυψις—is used; that Justin believed that it was written by the apostle John; and that there is express reference to what is now chap. xx. of that book. The book was, therefore, in existence in the time of Justin—that is, in about fifty years after the death of John; was believed to be the work of the apostle John; was quoted as such, and by one who had lived in the very region where John lived, and by a man whose character is unimpeached, and who, in a point like this, could not have been mistaken. The testimony of Justin Martyr, therefore, is very important. It is positive; it is given where there was every opportunity for knowing the truth, and where there was no motive for a false testimony; and it is the testimony of one whose character for truthfulness is unimpeached.

The Narrative of the Martyrs of Vienne and Lyons.—Lardner, ii. 160–165. In the reign of Marcus Antoninus, Christians suffered much from persecution. This persecution was particularly violent at Lyons, and the country round about. The churches of Lyons and Vienne sent an account of their sufferings, in an epistle, to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. This, according to Lardner, was about A.D. 177. The epistle has been preserved by Eusebius. In this epistle, among other undoubted allusions to the New Testament, the following occurs. Speaking of Vettius Epigathus, they say—“For he was indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.” Comp. Rev. xiv. 2: “These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.” There can be no doubt that this passage in Revelation was referred to; and it proves that the book was then known, and that the writers were accustomed to regard it as on a level with the other sacred writings.

Irenæus.—The testimony of this father has already been referred to when speaking of Polycarp. He was bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. His country is not certainly known, but Lardner supposes that he was a Greek, and, from his early acquaintance with Polycarp, that he was from Asia. When a youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp, and also a disciple of Papias. He was born about the beginning of the second century, and it is commonly supposed that he suffered martyrdom in extreme old age. He became bishop of Lyons after he was seventy years of age, and wrote his principal work, Contra Hæreses, after this. His testimony is particularly valuable, as he was in early life acquainted with Polycarp, who was a contemporary and friend of the apostle John (Lardner, ii. 165–192). Of his reference to the book of Revelation, Lardner says: “The Apocalypse, or Revelation, is often quoted by him as the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” In one place he says: “It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” And again, he spoke of the exact and ancient copies of the book, as if it was important to ascertain the true reading, and as if it were then possible to do this. Thus Eusebius (Lardner, ii. 167) says of him: “In his fifth book he thus discourses of the Revelation of John, and the computation of the name of Antichrist: ‘These things being thus, and this number being in all the exact and ancient copies, and they who saw John attesting to the same things, and reason teaching us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the acceptation of the Greeks, is expressed by the letters contained in it.’ ” Here is an undoubted reference to Revelation xiii. 18. This evidence is clear and positive. Its value consists in these things: (a) That he was familiar with one who was the friend of John; (b) that he must have known his views on the subject; (c) that he must have been intimately acquainted with the common opinion on the subject of the authorship of the book; (d) that a spurious work could not have been palmed upon the world as the production of John; (e) that he bears unequivocal testimony to the fact that it was written by John; (f) and that he speaks of the “most exact” copies being then in existence, and testified to by those who had seen John himself.

Melito.—Lardner, ii. 157–160. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the churches to which the book of Revelation was directed. He is supposed to have flourished about A.D. 170. He was a man greatly distinguished for learning and piety, and Jerome says that Christians were accustomed to name him a prophet. He was, moreover, remarkably inquisitive respecting the sacred books; and, at the request of Onesimus, he made extracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic prophecies, and also a complete list of the books of the Old Testament, which is still extant in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iv. 26. He wrote a Treatise or Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Dr. Lardner says of this, “What it contained we are not informed. I will say it was a commentary on that book. It is plain he ascribed that book to John, and very likely to John the apostle. I think it very probable he esteemed it a book of canonical authority.” Hug says (p. 653), “Melito himself calls it the Apocalypse of John.” Even Michaelis (Intro. to the New Testament, iv. 466) reckons Melito among the witnesses in favour of the book. The value of this testimony is this: (a) Melito was bishop of one of the churches to which the Apocalypse was directed; (b) he lived near the time of John; (c) he was a diligent student on this very subject; (d) he had every opportunity of ascertaining the truth on the subject; (e) he regarded it as the work of the apostle John; (f) and he wrote a treatise or commentary on it as an inspired book. It is not easy to conceive of stronger testimony in favour of the book.

Theophilus.—Lardner, ii. 203–215. He was bishop of Antioch, and flourished about A.D. 169–180. He wrote a work against the “heresy” of Hermogenes, referred to by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iv. 24. In that work he expressly speaks of the Apocalypse as the production of John; and Lardner says of his testimony, “That the book of Revelation was owned by him is undoubted from Eusebius. Eusebius has assured us that Theophilus, in his book against Hermogenes, brought testimonies from the Apocalypse of John,” pp. 214, 215. The value of this testimony is, that Theophilus doubtless expressed the current opinion of his time, and that he had ample opportunity for ascertaining the truth. There is also a passage in the writings of Theophilus which seems to be a direct allusion to the book of Revelation: “This Eve, because she was deceived by the serpent—the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who thus spoke to her by the serpent—does not cease to accuse; this demon is also called the dragon. ” Comp. Rev. xii. 9.

Apollonius.—Lardner, ii. 391–393. He flourished about A.D. 192. Eusebius says of him, “He makes use of testimonies out of the Revelation of John.” The value of this testimony is, (a) that he quotes the book as of authority; and (b) that he ascribes it to John, evidently meaning the apostle John.

Clement of Alexandria.—Lardner, ii. 222–259. He flourished about A.D. 192–220. Many of his writings are extant. Lardner (p. 245) says of him, “The book of Revelation is several times quoted by him, and once in this manner: ‘Such an one, though here on earth he be not honoured with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.’ ” Comp. Rev. iv. 4; xi. 16. Lardner adds, “And that he supposed this writer to be John the apostle appears from another place, where he refers to Rev. xxi. 21, as the words of the apostle.” Professor Stuart says (i. 317), “There is no good ground for doubt, from anything which is found in the work, that he received and admitted the Apocalypse as a work of John the apostle.” The known character of Clement makes this testimony of great value.

Tertullian.—He was the contemporary of Clement, and was the most ancient, and one of the most learned, of the Latin fathers (Lardner, ii. 267–306). He was born at Carthage about the middle of the second century, and died about A.D. 220. He was reared in the study of the Greek and Latin languages, of philosophy and the Roman law, and possessed extensive information. “His testimony to the Apocalypse is most full and ample. He quotes, or refers to it in more than seventy passages in his writings, appealing to it expressly as the work of the apostle John” (Elliott, i. 27). “The declarations of Tertullian are so frequent and plain, that no doubt can possibly remain as to his belief” (Prof. Stuart, i. 318). “The Revelation of John is often quoted. I put together two or three passages, which show his full persuasion that it was written by the apostle and evangelist of that name” (Lardner, ii. 295). One of the passages referred to by Lardner is the following: “The apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.” Another is, “Though Marcion rejects his revelation, the succession of bishops traced to the original will assure us that John is the author.” There can be no doubt, therefore, that Tertullian regarded the apostle John as the author of the book of Revelation; and his confident assertion may be considered as expressive of the prevailing opinion of his time.

Thus far, to the end of the second century, the testimony of the fathers of the church, as far as we now have it, was uniform and unbroken; and so far as historical testimony is concerned, this should be permitted to decide the question. Marcion, indeed, who lived in the time of Polycarp, and whom Polycarp called “the first-born of Satan” (Lardner, ii. 95), rejected the book of Revelation (see the declaration of Tertullian in Lardner, ii. 275); but it is also to be remembered that he rejected the whole of the Old Testament, the account of the genealogy and baptism of the Saviour, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, the Hebrews, and the Catholic Epistles (Lardner, vi. 142–151, 347–350; viii. 489–513). Besides the opinion of Marcion, the testimony was uniform, with the exception of the heretical sect of the Alogi, if there was any such sect, which is generally supposed to have arisen in the latter half of this century, who derived their name from their antipathy to the name of Logos, and who on this account denied both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. See Lardner, iv. 190, 191; viii. 627, 628. Lardner, however, maintains that there never was any such sect (viii. 628).

3. The third half century after the death of John, A.D. 200–250. Among the names embraced in this period are those of Hippolytus, who flourished about A.D. 220; Nepos, an Egyptian bishop; the well-known Origen, the most acute critic of all the early fathers, and who devoted his life to the study of the Scriptures; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who flourished about A.D. 246; and Methodius, bishop of Olympia in Lycia. All these, without exception, have left a clear and decided expression of their belief that the apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse. See that testimony at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 321–326.

It is unnecessary to pursue the historical evidence further. If the testimony in favour of the work is unbroken and clear for an hundred and fifty years, the testimony of those who lived subsequent to that period would add little to its strength. To the names already mentioned, however, there might be added those of Epiphanius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary of Poictiers, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and many others.

Such is the external positive testimony in favour of the opinion that the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John.

To this might be added certain internal marks, or certain facts in the life of John which accord with this supposition, and seem to confirm it. They are such that if they did not exist there might be some room for plausible doubt, though it must be admitted that, in themselves, they do not amount to positive proof of any considerable strength that he was the author. There is not room to dwell upon them, and they can only be briefly referred to. They are such as these:—(1) That the author calls himself John , evidently with the design of representing himself as the apostle of that name; for (a) his supposed relation to the churches of Asia Minor is such as the relation of the apostle John was, and (b) the name John, unless there was something to qualify it, would be naturally understood as referring to the apostle of that name. (2) The fact that John lived at Ephesus, and was well known to the seven churches of Asia Minor. (3) The fact that he lived to extreme old age—to the time when the book was supposed to have been written. See § II. (4) The fact that there was a persecution in the time of Domitian, when this book is supposed to have been written; and (5) what might be derived from a comparison of this book with the acknowledged writings of John.

II. To confirm the argument, it is necessary to show the insufficiency of the reasons for doubting that John was the author. This point may be considered under two heads—the alleged grounds for doubting that it was written by John by the ancients; and the reasons alleged by the moderns.

(1) The ancients.

(a) It has been maintained that it was rejected by Caius, a presbyter at Rome. He flourished, according to Cave, about A.D. 210. See Lardner, ii. 394–410. There is a single passage in his writings, from which it has been inferred that he designed to reject the Apocalypse. This is in the following words—“And Cerinthus also, who by his revelations, as if written by some great apostle, imposes upon us monstrous relations of things of his own invention, as shown him by an angel, says, ‘that after the resurrection there shall be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ, and that men shall live again in Jerusalem, subject to sensual desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the divine Scriptures, and desirous to seduce mankind, he says there will be a term of a thousand years spent in nuptial entertainments’ ” (Lardner, ii. 400, 401).

The whole force of this depends on the supposition that Caius meant to refer to Rev. xx. 4–6.

But in regard to this the following remarks may be made:—(a) Caius was strongly opposed to Cerinthus, and to his views; (b) he was opposed to the prevailing doctrine of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the millennium, as then extensively held—that Christ would reign personally on the earth with his saints for a thousand years; (c) it may be possible that Cerinthus may have forged a work pretending to be of apostolic origin, in which these doctrines were affirmed; (d) it is possible that the book of Revelation, as left by John, may have been interpolated and corrupted by Caius thus. Some one of these suppositions is more probable than the supposition that Caius meant to reject the book of Revelation; for,

1. The views referred to by Caius, as held by Cerinthus, are not the views which are found in Rev. xx. He spoke of a “terrestrial kingdom of Christ;” says that “men would again live in Jerusalem;” that they “would be subject to sensual pleasures;” and that the “term of a thousand years would be spent in nuptial entertainments.” None of these opinions are found in the book of Revelation as we now have it.

2. The title given by Caius to the book—Revelations instead of Revelation—Ἀποκάλυψις—as we find it in the book itself, chap. i. 1, would seem to indicate a different work from that of John. Eusebius always refers to the Apocalypse by the noun singular (Prof. Stuart, 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 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 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. 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.

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 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 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 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 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; 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.