Many will doubtless feel disposed to question the propriety
of thus bringing out, in a popular book, inquiries which have
hitherto, by a sort of common consent, been confined to learned
works, and wholly excluded from such as are intended to convey
religious knowledge to ordinary readers. The principle has
been sometimes distinctly specified and maintained, that some
established truths in exegetical theology, must needs be always
kept among the arcana of religious knowledge, for the eyes and
ears of the learned few, to whom “it is given to know these
mysteries;” “but that to them that are without,” they are ever
to remain unknown. This principle is often acted on by the
theologians of Germany and England, so that a distinct line
seems to be drawn between an _exoteric_ and an _esoteric_
doctrine,――a public and a private belief,――the latter being the
literal truth, while the former is such a view of things, as
suits the common religious prejudices of the mass of hearers and
readers. But such is not the free spirit of true Protestantism;
nor is any deceitful doctrine of “_accommodation_” accordant
with the open, single-minded honesty of apostolic teachings.
Taking from the persons who are the subjects of this history,
something of their simple freedom of word and action, for the
reader’s benefit, several questions will be boldly asked, and
as boldly answered, on the authorship, the scope, and character
of the Apocalypse. And first, on the present personal question
in hand, a spirit of tolerant regard for opinions discordant
with those of some readers, perhaps may be best learned, by
observing into what uncertainties the minds of the greatest and
most devout of theologians, and of the mighty founders of the
Protestant faith, have been led on this very point.
The great Michaelis (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. IV.
c. xxxiii. § 1.) apologizes for his own doubts on the Apocalypse,
justifying himself by the similar uncertainty of the immortal
Luther; and the remarks of Michaelis upon the character of the
persons to whom Luther thus boldly published his doubts, will be
abundantly sufficient to justify the discussion of such darkly
deep matters, to the readers of the Lives of the Apostles.
Not only Martin Luther as here quoted by Michaelis, but the
other great reformers of that age, John Calvin and Ulric Zwingle,
boldly expressed their doubts on this book, which more modern
speculators have made so miraculously accordant with anti-papal
notions. Their learned cotemporary, Erasmus, also, and the
critical Joseph Scaliger, with other great names of past ages,
have contributed their doubts, to add a new mark of suspicion to
the Apocalypse.
“As it is not improbable that this cautious method of proceeding
will give offense to some of my readers, I must plead in my
behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precisely in
the same manner. His sentiments on this subject are delivered,
not in an occasional dissertation on the Apocalypse, but in the
preface to his German translation of it, a translation designed
_not merely_ for the learned, but for _the illiterate_, and even
for _children_. In the preface prefixed to that edition, which
was printed in 1522, he expressed himself in very strong terms.
In this preface he says: ‘In this book of the Revelation of
St. John, I leave it to every person to judge for himself: I
will bind no man to my opinion; I say only what I feel. Not one
thing only fails in this book; so that I hold it neither for
apostolical, nor prophetical. First and chiefly, the apostles
do not prophesy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St.
Peter, St. Paul, and Christ in the gospel do. It is moreover the
apostle’s duty to speak of Christ and his actions in a simple
way, not in figures and visions. Also no prophet of the Old
Testament, much less of the New, has so treated throughout his
whole book of nothing but visions: so that I put it almost in
the same rank with the fourth book of Esdras, and _cannot any
way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost_. Lastly, let
every one think of it what his own spirit suggests. My spirit
can make nothing out of this book; and I have reason enough not
to esteem it highly, since Christ is not taught in it, which an
apostle is above all things bound to do, as he says, (Acts i.)
Ye are my witnesses. Therefore I abide by the books which teach
Christ clearly and purely.’
“But in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less
decisive expressions. In the preface to this later edition,
he divides prophecies into three classes, the third of which
contains visions, without explanations of them; and of these
he says: ‘As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has
no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy,
and is destitute of the advantages which it ought to afford to
Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for
though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day,
has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made
incoherent stuff out of their own brain. On account of these
uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto
left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers
believed that it was not written by the apostle, as is related
in Lib. III. Church History. In this uncertainty we, for our
part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking
it to be the work of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And
because I should be glad to see a certain interpretation of it,
I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.’
“Still however, he declared he was not convinced that the
Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of
it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther
then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in
this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still
continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther’s
preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible
of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the
present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar
doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther
would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has
been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth
century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists
in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather
unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church,
which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against
it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear
and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the
Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out,
by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of
the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa,
Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from
all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every
interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have
at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events
they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I
declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is
supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of
Luther.
“I admit that Luther uses too harsh expressions, where he speaks
of the epistle of St. James, though in a preface not designed
for Christians of every denomination: but his opinion of the
Apocalypse is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence,
which are well worthy of imitation. And this is so much the more
laudable, as the Apocalypse is a book, which Luther’s opposition
to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable
to him, unless he had thought impartially, and had refused to
sacrifice his own doubts to polemical considerations.”
To pretend to decide with certainty on a point, which Martin
Luther boldly denied, and which John David Michaelis modestly
doubted, implies neither superior knowledge of the truth, nor a
more holy reverence for it; but rather marks a mere presumptuous
self-confidence, and an ignorant bigotry, arising from the
prejudices of education. Yet from the deep researches of the
latter of these writers, and of other exegetical theologians
since, much may be drawn to support the view taken in the
text of this Life of John, which is accordant with the common
notion of its authorship. The quotation just given, however,
is valuable as inculcating the propriety of hesitation and
moderation in pronouncing upon results.
_The testimony of the Fathers_, on the authenticity of the
Apocalypse as a work of John, the apostle, may be very briefly
alluded to here. The full details of this important evidence
may be found by the scholar in J. D. Michaelis’s Introduction to
the New Testament (Vol. IV. c. xxxiii. § 2.) Hug’s Introduction
to the New Testament (Vol. II. § 176.) Lardner’s Credibility of
Gospel History (Supplement, chapter 22.) Fabricii Bibliotheca
Graeca. (Harles’s 4to. edition with Keil’s, Kuinoel’s, Gurlitt’s,
and Heyne’s notes, vol. IV. pp. 786‒795, corresponding to vol.
III. pp. 146‒149, of the first edition.) Lampe, Prolegomena to
a Johannine Theology.
Justin Martyr (A. D. 140,) is the first who mentions this book.
He says, “A man among us, named John, one of the apostles of
Christ, has, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied,”
&c. Melito (A. D. 177.) is quoted by Eusebius and by Jerome, as
having written a treatise on the Revelation. He was bishop of
Sardis, one of the seven churches, and his testimony would be
therefore highly valuable, if it were certain whether he wrote
_for_ or _against_ the authenticity of the work. Probably he
was _for_ it, since he calls it “the Apocalypse of John,” in
the title of his treatise, and the silence of Eusebius about
the opinion of Melito may fairly be construed as showing that
he did not write _against_ it. Irenaeus, (A. D. 178,) who in
his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple
and personal friend of John, often quotes this book as “the
Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” And in another
place, he says, “It was seen not long ago, almost in our own age,
_at the end of the reign of Domitian_.” This is the most direct
and valuable kind of testimony which the writings of the Fathers
can furnish on any point in apostolic history; for Irenaeus here
speaks from personal knowledge, and, as will be hereafter shown,
throws great light on the darkest passage in the Apocalypse, by
what he had heard from those persons who _had seen John himself,
face to face_, and who heard these things from his own lips.
Theophilus of Antioch, (A. D. 181,)――Clemens of Alexandria,
(A. D. 194,――Tertullian of Carthage, (A. D. 200,)――Apollonius of
Ephesus, (A. D. 211,)――Hippolytus of Italy, (A. D. 220,)――Origen
of Alexandria and Caesarea, (A. D. 230,)――all received and
quoted it as a work of John the apostle, and some testify very
fully as to the character of the evidence of its authenticity,
received from their predecessors and from the contemporaries of
John.
But from about the middle of the third century, it fell under
great suspicion of being the production of some person different
from the _apostle_ John. Having been quoted by Cerinthus and
his disciples, (a set of Gnostical heretics, in the first
century,) in support of their views, it was, by some of their
opponents, pronounced to be a fabrication of Cerinthus himself.
At this later period, however, it suffered a much more general
condemnation; but though denied by some to be an _apostolic_
work, it was still almost universally granted to be inspired.
Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. D. 250,) in a book against the
Millenarians, who rested their notions upon the millenial
passages of this revelation, has endeavored to make the
Apocalypse useless to them in support of their heresy. This
he has done by referring to the authority of some of his
predecessors, who rejected it on account of its maintaining
Cerinthian doctrines. This objection however, has been ably
refuted by modern writers, especially by Michaelis and Hug, both
of whom, distinctly show that there are many passages in the
Revelation, so perfectly opposite to the doctrines of Cerinthus,
that he could never have written the book, although he may have
been willing to quote from it such passages as accorded with his
notions about a sensual millenium,――as he could in this way meet
those, who did take the book for an inspired writing.
Dionysius himself, however, does not pretend to adopt this view
of the authorship of it, but rather thinks that it was the work
of John the _presbyter_, who lived in Ephesus in the age of John
the _apostle_, and had probably been confounded with him by the
early Fathers. This John is certainly spoken of by Papias, (A. D.
120,) who knew personally both him and the apostle; but Papias
has left nothing on the Apocalypse, as the work of either of
them. (The substance of the whole argument of Dionysius is very
elaborately given and reviewed, by both Michaelis and Hug.)
After this bold attack, the apostolic character of the work
seems to have received much injury among most of the eastern
Fathers, and was generally rejected by both the Syrian and Greek
churches, having no place in their New Testament canon. Eusebius,
(A. D. 315,) who gives the first list of the writings of the New
Testament, that is known, divides all books which had ever been
offered as apostolical, into three classes,――the _universally
acknowledged_, (ὁμολογουμενα _homologoumena_,)――the _disputed_,
(αντιλεγομενα _antilegomena_,)――and the _spurious_, (νοθα
_notha_.) In the first class, he puts all now received into the
New Testament, except the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles
of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third
of John, and the Revelation. These exceptions he puts into the
second, or _disputed_ class, along with sundry writings now
universally considered apocryphal. Eusebius says also, “It is
likely that the Revelation was seen by John the presbyter, if
not by John the apostle.”――Cyril of Jerusalem, (A. D. 348,) in
his catalogue of the Scriptures, does not allow this a place.
Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus, (A. D. 368,) though himself
receiving it as of apostolic origin, acknowledged that others
in his time rejected it. The council of Laodicea, (A. D. 363,)
sitting in the seat of one of the seven churches, did not give
the Revelation a place among the sacred writings of the New
Testament, though their list includes all others now received.
Gregory, of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, (A. D. 370,) gives
a catalogue of the canonical scriptures, but excludes the
Revelation. Amphilochius, of Iconium, in Lycaonia, (A. D. 370,)
in mentioning the canonical scriptures, says, “The Revelation
of John is approved by some; but many say it is spurious.”
The scriptural canon of the Syrian churches rejects it, even
as given by Ebed Jesu, in 1285; nor was it in the ancient
Syriac version completed during the first century; but the
reason for this may be, that the Revelation was not then
promulgated.――Jerome of Rome, (A. D. 396,) receives it, as
do all the Latin Fathers; but he says, “the Greek churches
reject it.”――Chrysostom (A. D. 398,) never quotes it, and is not
supposed to have received it. Augustin, of Africa, (A. D. 395,)
receives it, but says that it was not received by all in
his time. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) of Syria, and all the
ecclesiastics of that country, reject it also.
The result of all this evidence is, as will be observed by
glancing over the _dates_ of the Fathers quoted, that, until
the year 250, no writer can be found who scrupled to receive the
Apocalypse as the genuine work of John the _apostle_,――that the
further back the Fathers are, the more explicit and satisfactory
is their testimony in its favor,――and that the fullest of all,
is that of Irenaeus, who had his information from Polycarp,
the most intimate and beloved disciple of John himself. Now,
where the evidence is not of the ordinary cumulative character,
growing weighty, like a snowball, the farther it travels from
its original starting-place, but as here, is strongest at the
source,――it may justly be pronounced highly valuable, and an
eminent exception to the usual character of such historical
proofs, which, as has been plentifully shown already in this
book, are too apt to come “but-end first,” as the investigator
travels from the last to the first. It will be observed also,
by a glance at the _places_ where these Fathers flourished, that
all those who rejected the Apocalypse belonged to the EASTERN
section of the churches, including both the Greeks and the
Syrians, while the WESTERN churches, both the Europeans and
Latino-Africans, adopted the Apocalypse as an apostolic writing.
This is not so fortunate a concurrence as that of the _dates_,
since the _easterns_ certainly had better means of investigating
such a point than the _westerns_. A reason may be suggested
for this, in the circumstance, that the Cerinthians and other
heretics, who were the occasion of the first rejection of
the Apocalypse, annoyed only the eastern churches, and thus
originated the mischief only among them. Lampe, Michaelis and
others, indeed, quote Caius of Rome, as a solitary exception
to this geographical distribution of the difficulty, but Paulus
and Hug have shown that the passage in Caius, to which they
refer, has been misapprehended, as the scholar may see by a
reference to Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. II.
pp. 647‒650, [Wait’s translation,] pp. 593‒596, [original.]
There is something in Jerome too, which implies that some of
the Latins, _in his time_, were beginning to follow the Greek
fashion of rejecting this book, but he scouts this new notion,
and says he shall stick to the old standard canon.
_The internal evidence_ is also so minutely protracted in its
character, that only a bare allusion to it can be here permitted,
and reference to higher and deeper sources of information, on
such an exegetical point, may be made for the benefit of the
scholar. Lampe, Wolf, Michaelis, Mill, Eichhorn and others,
quoted by Fabricius, [Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. IV. p. 795, note
46.] Hug and his English translator, Dr. Wait, are also full on
this point.
This evidence consists for the most part in a comparison of
passages in this book with similar ones in the other writings of
John, more especially his gospel. Wetstein, in particular, has
brought together many such parallelisms, some of which are so
striking in the peculiar expressions of John, and yet so merely
accidental in their character, as to afford most satisfactory
evidence to the nicest critics, of the identity of authorship.
A table of these coincidences is given from Wetstein, by Wait,
Hug’s translator, (p. 636, note.) Yet on this very point,――the
style,――the most serious objection to the Apocalypse, as a work
of the author of John’s gospel, has always been founded;――the
rude, wild, thundering sublimity of the vision of Patmos,
presenting such a striking contrast with the soft, love-teaching,
and beseeching style of the gospel and the epistles of John.
But such objectors have forgotten or overlooked the immense
difference between the circumstances under which these works
were suggested and composed. Their period, their scene, their
subject, their object, were all widely removed from each other,
and a thoughtful examination will show, that writings of such
widely various scope and tendency could not well have less
striking differences, than those observable between this and the
other writings of John. In such a change of circumstances, the
structure of sentences, the choice of words, and the figures
of speech, could hardly be expected to show the slightest
similarity between works, thus different in design, though by
the same author. But in the minuter peculiarities of language,
certain favorite expressions of the author,――particular
associations of words, such as a forger could never hit upon
in that uninventive age,――certain personal views and sentiments
on trifling points, occasionally modifying the verbal forms of
ideas――these and a multitude of other characteristics, making
up that collection of abstractions which is called an author’s
_style_,――all quite beyond the reach of an imitator, but
presenting the most valuable and honest tests to the laborious
critic,――constitute a series of proofs in this case, which
none can fully appreciate but the investigators and students
themselves.