[Sidenote: The Author.] Like the First Epistle of St. John, the Revelation has particularly strong external evidence in its favour. About A.D.150 Justin Martyr speaks of it as the work of "John, one of the apostles of Christ," in his dialogue held with Trypho, a Jew, at Ephesus, where St. John had lived. Still earlier, Papias looked upon the book as "inspired," and "bore testimony to its genuineness." Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, quotes it as written by "John, the disciple of the Lord." About A.D.170 Melito of Sardis, one of the places to which part of the book was specially addressed, wrote a commentary upon it. It was accepted by the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul in A.D.177, for they wrote of it as "Scripture" in their letter to the Christians of Asia Minor. Near the same date the Muratorian Fragment mentions it twice. It will be observed that this evidence is not only good, but it is also mostly drawn from sources which were most closely connected with St. John. The evidence of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons would be important, even if it stood alone. For these Greek-speaking Churches were allied with the Church of Ephesus, and were not likely to be mistaken about this question. And the evidence of Irenaeus and Melito is still more weighty. Strange to say, the belief in the authenticity of the Revelation began to waver as time went on. We need pay little heed to the sect known as the Alogi, who attributed both St. John's {271} Gospel and the Revelation to Cerinthus, because they disliked the doctrine of the Logos contained in these two books. They were too ignorant to have been influenced by any real critical knowledge. But it is an important fact that about A.D.248 Dionysius of Alexandria stated that it was probably written by John the Presbyter, and that the great Eusebius seems at one time to have been inclined to accept the opinion of Dionysius.[1] So far as we can discover, Dionysius founded his opinion solely on the difference of style which can be observed as separating the Revelation from the Gospel. He does not seem to have been in possession of any facts which gave historical support to his theory. Nevertheless, we can legitimately think that there was another reason which induced orthodox Christians to regard the Revelation with less confidence. The Montanist sect, which arose in the latter half of the 2nd century and became powerful in Asia Minor and North Africa, taught an extravagant doctrine about the millennium when Christ would return to reign on earth. This doctrine was partly founded on Rev. xx., and was supported by pretended prophecies. It caused orthodox Christians to be more suspicious about the statements of Christian prophets, and probably made them less anxious to translate and circulate the Revelation. This hesitation was soon overruled, and Eusebius, in spite of his own slight doubts, reckons it as received among the undisputed books of the Canon. This was c. A.D.320. In modern times the controversy about the authorship has been revived. About one hundred years ago a school of critics took up the argument of Dionysius. They urged that the Gospel and the Revelation must have been written by two different authors, the Revelation being much more Hebrew in style than the Gospel. The argument was elaborated by F. C. Baur and the Tuebingen School. As they were determined to deny the genuineness of the Gospel which so clearly teaches {272} that Jesus is God, they tried to discredit the Gospel by insisting upon the authenticity of the Revelation. The successors of these critics soon found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. A closer examination of the Revelation made it clearer that on many important points the theology of the Revelation is the same as that of the Gospel. If they admit that St. John wrote both the books or one of them, they will be forced to admit that the apostle taught definite orthodox Christian theology.[2] If, on the other hand, they affirm that both the books were written by John the Presbyter, they will shatter the old argument that diversity of style proves diversity of authorship. It will therefore surprise no one to learn that they are now engaged in continuous disputes with regard to the identity of the author, and the materials, Jewish or otherwise, which he is supposed to have used in compiling his book. At the present time the writers who hold the Revelation to have been written by various authors, are divided into no less than four camps, while the rationalists who hold that it was written by one author cannot agree who that author was. It is extremely significant that, in spite of his conviction that the book was not all written at the same date, the critic who is now by far the ablest opponent of orthodox Christianity, holds that the Revelation was (i.) published in the time of Domitian, as the tradition of the Church affirms; (ii.) published by the author of the fourth Gospel, though not by the real St. John.[3] It must be admitted that the style of the book is more Hebrew and less Greek than that of the Gospel. But some arguments may be reasonably alleged against the theory that {273} this proves the Revelation to be by a different author. The difference in the scope and origin of the two books account in a large measure for the differences of vocabulary and style. No book in the New Testament is so steeped as the Revelation in the imagery of the Old Testament; Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are constantly used. The thoroughness with which their spirit has been assimilated, and their ideas combined by the writer, would create a Hebrew tendency in his language. Whether St. John made use of the material furnished by non-canonical apocalypses is uncertain. If he did, their style would also influence him in the same way. We must also beware of exaggerating the contrast in style which does exist between the Gospel and the Revelation. The Gospel is not always in correct Greek, and never shows a thorough mastery of that language. But the Revelation is certainly in much rougher Greek. The writer uses the nominative case for the accusative (vii.9; xiv.6); similar instances are in iii.12; xiv.12. This rugged usage is introduced with magnificent, and perhaps intentional, effect in i.4, where the author emphasizes the eternity of God by using an entirely ungrammatical construction.[4] Apart from the question of grammar, the language of the Apocalypse shows a remarkable affinity with St. John's Gospel. We may observe the use of such words as "witness," "true," "tabernacle," "have part," "keep the word," and "overcome." The theology of the two books is in close agreement. This can easily be shown in the case of the doctrine of Christ's Person. He is called the "Lamb" [5] in the Gospel (i.29, 36) and in the Revelation (v.6, 8, 12, etc.). He is called the "Word" in the Gospel (i.1, etc.) and in the Revelation (xix.13). He is taught to be eternal and divine. He is "the Alpha and {274} the Omega, the first and the last" (xxii.13; cf. Isa. xliv.6). He shares the throne of God (xxii.1, 3); He determines who shall be released from the realm of death (i.18); He joins in the judgment (vi.16); He is worshipped by the elders and the angels (v.8, 11). He is the Bridegroom of the Church (xix.7; xxi.2, cf. John iii.29). The attitude towards Judaism is the same as that in the Gospel. The Jews who oppose Jesus are strongly denounced (iii.9), and though the Church is a new Jerusalem, it is composed of people gathered out of every nation (vii.9). The necessity of good works is strenuously upheld (ii.5, 19); but they are not works of rabbinical righteousness, but works of Jesus (ii.26), and the "righteous acts of the saints" (xix.8) are based on "the faith of Jesus" (xiv.12). Salvation is the free gift of Christ (xxi.6; xxii.17). The saints who overcome, conquer not by relying upon their own righteousness, but "because of the blood of the Lamb" (xii.11). In the Revelation (ii.17) Jesus promises to believers "the hidden manna;" in the Gospel, referring also to the manna, He promises "the true bread from heaven" (John vi.32). In the Revelation (xxii.17) Jesus says, "Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely;" in the Gospel He says, "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink" (John vii.37). If, then, the Revelation is full of Hebrew expressions, it is essentially and profoundly Christian, and linked with the other Johannine books by the closest kinship. The theology and the style of the Revelation are the same throughout.[6] We can therefore reject without hesitation the recent hypothesis that it is one large Jewish work with numerous Christian interpolations. The difficulty of supposing that the book was ever a purely Jewish Apocalypse {275} can quickly be realized by any one who undertakes to strike out all the Christian allusions in the book. The author states that he is John, in the strongest fashion both in the beginning and end (i.4, 9; xxii.8), and his attitude towards the seven Churches is inexplicable unless the writer held a position of the highest ecclesiastical importance. [Sidenote: For whom written.] Plainly for the whole Church, as represented by "the seven Churches which are in Asia" (i.4). [Sidenote: Date.] From i.9 we learn that the revelation was made to John when he "was in the isle that is called Patmos" (in the Aegean Sea) "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." Irenaeus expressly says that the date of this banishment was at the end of the reign of Domitian (Emperor 81-96 A.D.), and therefore he says it was almost within his own generation. On the other hand, some modern writers have assigned part or the whole of the book to the time of Nero (54-68), or a little later. But though some parts of it seem earlier than Domitian, the final form of the book is unquestionably late. A late date is indicated by the corruptions existing in some of the Churches addressed, by the expression "the Lord's day" (i.10) instead of the older expression "first day of the week," by the strong opposition to Judaism which is called the "synagogue of Satan" (ii.9; iii.9), and above all by the attitude of the writer towards Rome. The imperial rule is no longer regarded with the tolerance which we find in Acts and in St. Paul's Epistles. It is no longer the "restraining" and protecting power. It is denounced as cruel and aggressive, and not only is the worship offered to the Roman emperor mentioned as widespread, but also the worship offered to Rome. The city is called the Great Harlot, because in prophetical language idolatry is described as an act of fornication, being a violation of the pure love which should be felt by man towards his Creator. The worship of Rome does not seem to have become common in {276} Asia until late in the 1st century, and it is not even mentioned once in Acts. The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely mentioned in xi.2, where the earthly Jerusalem is symbolized as the "court which is without the temple," the temple which the prophet measures being the heavenly temple only (xi.19). This chapter seems to imply that Jerusalem is already destroyed, and is founded on Ezek. xl., when the prophet measures the ideal city, not the city which had been destroyed previously. We are therefore pointed to a date later than A.D.70. The same seems to be suggested by xiii.1 and xvii.10. For the beast in xiii.1 is the pagan Roman State as typified by Nero, and so is the number 666 in xiii.18; for if the words Nero Caesar are written in Hebrew letters, and the numerical values of the letters are added together, the result is 666. In xvii.8 Nero is described as dead, and in xvii.10 Vespasian is the sixth emperor, Titus the seventh, and the eighth, in xvii.11, is Domitian, who plays the Satanic part of Nero. The sixth emperor is described as still living, and we therefore seem compelled to assign part of this passage to Vespasian's reign. Nevertheless, there is abundant internal evidence for thinking that the book was not completed until the time of Domitian. It is worth noting that Domitian exacted a more extravagant worship of his own person than any previous emperor, and that his policy therefore made the publication of the book doubly appropriate. [Sidenote: Character and Contents.] There were a number of Jewish books called by the name of Revelation or Apocalypse (i.e. revelation or unveiling). In the Old Testament an Apocalypse is to be found in the second part of Daniel, and there is a fine short Apocalypse in Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., where we find striking passages relating to the resurrection and eternal life. The Book of Enoch and the Apocalypse of Baruch are later examples of this class of literature. These books were generally written with the special purpose of giving encouragement to the {277} servants of God in times of distress and persecution. The Revelation of St. John was written under similar circumstances, but is by far the most sublime of these writings. The interpretation of the Revelation appears to have always been a standing difficulty, in spite of the fact that there has been no age of the Christian Church which has not been able to draw consolation and vigour from its beautiful pages, all illuminated as they are with glowing pictures. The question as to whether different portions of the book were written at different dates, and afterwards edited in one volume by the writer, does not necessarily interfere with the interpretation. For the book is one work, the materials have been fitted into one structure. The connection between the different parts is organic and internal. Not only is the doctrinal standpoint the same throughout, but the whole book has an immense number of connecting thoughts and words. The letters to the seven Churches contain statements which are taken up in the visions which follow. Among such we may compare ii.7 with xxii.2; ii.11 with xx.6; ii.26 with xii.5, ii.28 with xxii.16; iii.5 with xix.8; iii.12 with xxi.2. The description of the glorified Redeemer in i.10-18 is reflected in numerous passages, and the strong assertion of the author's personality in i.9 is again presented in xxii.8. And the meaning of the book rapidly becomes clearer to the reader if he sees (a) that the notices of contemporary history in each of the seven parts of the book are arranged chronologically in reference to what is contained in that part; (b) that these seven parts are not related to one another in the order of temporal succession: each part is complete in itself, and is a full presentation of one aspect of the whole subject. This is exactly what we find in Isaiah, Amos, and Zechariah. This leads us to another fact. Some writers have held that the Revelation is to be interpreted simply on historical lines, as though it contained a list of events occurring through the whole of history since the time of St. John. Other writers {278} have held that little or no historical meaning can be found in the book, and that it is to be interpreted on ideal lines, as teaching certain principles of religion. The truth seems to be that these two methods of interpretation are both partly true. Certain historical facts, such as the Ascension of our Lord, the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Church, the struggle between the Church and the Roman empire, are taken as a basis. Certain great principles of God's dealings with the world, and of the continued conflict between good and evil, are then illustrated in connection with these facts, and the whole is knit together by the fixed expectation that Christ will come again to vanquish the wicked and rescue the good. While each division of the book thus possesses a real meaning, it seems hardly possible to attach a significance to each detail in the imagery which is employed. Many items and even numbers appear to be introduced in order to make the scenes clear to the mind's eye rather than impart a knowledge of independent events. In after-ages Dante, like St. John, showed this care for minute imagery in the midst of verses of mystic vision. The book is the highest example of Christian imagination led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, and although at is written in prose it is of the nature of a poem. The book contains seven revelations, which are preceded by a prologue concerning the divine Son of Man and the seven Churches of Asia. Of these seven revelations, the fourth is central both in place and meaning. It represents the kingdom of the world becoming the kingdom of Christ as the result of the coming of the Messiah, born of that glorious mother, the woman whose seed wars against the serpent (Gen. iii.15), and the maiden who bears Immanuel (Isa. vii.14), and who also represents the Church banished to the wilderness. On each side are three revelations, which correspond with one another like the petals of a mystical rose. The third, which deals with the divine judgment upon Jerusalem, corresponds with the fifth, which contains God's judgment upon {279} Rome. Here we see the triumph of God over corrupt religion and corrupt imperialism. The second, which describes the powers of divine judgment kept in check, and the seal of God imprinted on the saints of the new Israel, corresponds with the sixth, which describes the war of the Word of God with the Beast, and events which end with the universal judgment. The first, which describes the Lamb that was slain and the book of destiny which He alone could open, corresponds with the seventh, which describes the Bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem in heaven. Thus the final glory of the Church corresponds with the glory which the ascended Jesus already receives in heaven. The whole closes with a short epilogue. It will be observed that the book contains seven choric songs. The first revelation contains two such songs, one after each division. The second, third, and fifth revelation, each close with a song. The fourth and central revelation contains two songs; one is sung by the bodyguard of the Lamb before they go to war, the other is sung after the victory is gained. The seventh and last chorus celebrates the fall of Babylon (Rome), and ushers in the marriage of the Lamb. It comes at the end of the fifth revelation. Its form is double, and it sums up the remaining action of the book. Two more facts must be mentioned in this connection. The first is that the words of the song of the bodyguard of the Lamb (xiv.3) are not told; it can only be learned by the redeemed. It begins with the voice of Christ, the voice "of many waters," and it is taken up by the "thunder" of the cherubim and the harps of the elders. The second is that there is no song between the sixth and seventh revelation. It is simply the voice out of the throne itself, the voice of the cherubim who uphold the throne of God (see iv.6), which proclaims that the tabernacle of God is now with men, and that He shall wipe away every tear (xxi.4). The exquisite art of this arrangement of the songs is manifest. {280} ANALYSIS Title and description (i.1-3). Prologue (i.4-iii.22). The vision of the Son of Man (i.4-20). The message to each of the seven Churches of Asia (ii., iii.). A general idea of conflict is present in this introduction. The Churches of Asia have special temptations against which they must fight, e.g. coldness at Ephesus, false prophecy at Thyatira, emperor worship at Pergamum. I. Revelation of the Book of Destiny: iv.-v. -- The throne of God is manifested, surrounded by the elders and by the four living creatures who represent the created universe, chorus of creation (iv.). The sealed book which none can open but the Lamb, chorus of redemption (v.). II. Revelation of the Seals: vi.-viii.1. -- The first four seals of the book are opened. Christ appears riding on a white horse, and is followed by four symbolic powers of evil: (a) Apollyon, who rides on a red horse; (b) the Steward, who rides on a black horse, and dispenses corn at a dear price, representing a perverted ministry of the Word, which nevertheless cannot hurt the unction given to the Christian nor the wine of Christ's Passion; (c) Death on a pale horse; and (d) his companion Hell. When the fifth scene is opened, the martyrs who are under the altar which is before the throne cry in expectancy. With the sixth seal there is a warning of prophetic horrors. The day of God's wrath all but comes. But judgment is restrained for a season (vi.). Chastisement is suspended until 144,000 of Israelites are sealed, then a multitude of all nations, chorus of salvation (vii.). The seventh seal, which discloses a war against God, can now be opened; silence (viii.1). {281} III. Revelation of the Trumpets: viii.2-xi.18. -- Seven angels receive trumpets, incense offered. With the sounding of each of the first four trumpets a chastisement is sent from above to rouse repentance (viii.). With the fifth, chastisement ascends from the pit; with the sixth, angels and terrific horsemen come from the Euphrates; but men repent not (ix.). Before the seventh trumpet sounds, an angel tells the seer that when it has sounded the mystery of God as declared to the prophets will be finished (x.). Two prophets resembling Elijah and Moses appear as the symbols of Christian prophecy; they are slain in Jerusalem where our Lord was crucified, they ascend like Christ amid the wreck of a tenth of the city. The city confesses God. Then the seventh trumpet proclaims the subject of the next revelation: the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdoms of Christ, chorus of God reigning (xi.1-18). IV. Revelation of the Lamb's Redemption: xi.19-xv.4. -- The ark itself is revealed to show that the coming revelation manifests what is most sacred and most profound. The conflict between Christ and evil is shown first as the conflict of the Child of the Woman against the dragon, then as the conflict of Michael and his angels against the dragon, then as the conflict of the dragon against the woman's seed (xii.). Next come the allies of the dragon, the beast out of the sea, which is imperial pagan Rome; and the beast out of the earth, which is the priesthood of Asia appointed to promote the worship of the emperor (xiii.). Then there is seen on Mount Zion the Lamb with His bodyguard of 144,000, singing the incommunicable chorus. An angel proclaims the eternal gospel; another tells that Babylon, i.e. pagan Rome, has fallen; another proclaims the eternal punishment of those who worship the beast. Then a voice from heaven announces the blessedness of the dead in Christ. The Son of Man is seen with a sickle; then comes the harvest of the good, and the vintage of those who {282} are to suffer in the winepress of God's wrath (xiv.). Seven angels appear, and the victors over the beast sing the chorus Of Moses and the Lamb (xv.1-4). V. Revelation of the Bowls: xv.5-xix.10. -- The heavenly temple opens, and the seven angels come to pour out the seven last punishments from the golden bowls (xv.6-8). There is a plague, and the turning of the sea, and then of the rivers, into blood, then the sun's heat is intensified, then darkness is poured over Rome. Then, in conformity with Revelation III., we are shown the Euphrates. It is dried up that the kings of the East, probably conceived of as Parthians, may march to destroy Babylon. Other kings come to aid the beast. They muster at Har-Magedon. The seventh bowl is poured on the air. Babylon breaks into three parts. Storms (xvi.). Then an angel shows John Babylon riding triumphantly upon a beast as the mother of harlots, drunken with the blood of the martyrs, and he explains how she shall be destroyed by her subject kings (xvii.). There follows a solemn dirge on Babylon (xviii.). Then comes a triumphant chorus for the judgment of the city (xix.1-8). John is forbidden to worship his angel-guide (xix.10). VI. Revelation of the Word of God and the universal Judgment: xix.11-xx.15. -- It is now shown that judgment is the work of the Word of God Himself. As in Revelation II., He appears upon a white horse. Brief sections display the complete overthrow of the great enemies of Christ, the beast, the false prophet, and the dragon. Then comes the millennium, when the martyrs of Jesus reign with Christ while Satan is bound. Satan is then loosed, and with Gog and Magog, who are leaders of nations hostile to God's people, he is finally vanquished. The final judgment takes place, and Death and Hell are cast into fire. {283} VII. Revelation of the New Jerusalem: xxi. i-xxii.5. -- From a mountain-top is seen the Church, the holy city, New Jerusalem, the Bride prepared for Jesus. Its luminary and structure are described. It rises on a vast rock of jewels. The throne of God is no longer remote from man, but in the midst of the city. From the throne pours the river of life through the very heart of the city. The river is shaded on both sides by the "tree" or wood of life, with its perpetual variety of fruit. This is in contrast with the one tree and its forbidden fruit which was the means of the Fall. Epilogue (xxii.6-21). The attestation of the angel, the watchword of Jesus, John again forbidden to worship the angel. The book to remain unclosed. The watchword repeated. The attestation of Jesus to Himself and the angel, to His Bride, to the book, to His advent. The response of John to the Lord Jesus. Salutation. [1] H. E. iii.25, 39; vii.25. [2] The determination to deny that St. John could have believed in the Divinity of Christ made Zeller maintain that in the Revelation Christ is called the Word of God as a mere honorary title. Davidson interpreted it as meaning "the highest creature." Renan tried to extricate himself from the difficulty by saying that St. John did not write the Revelation, but, "having approved of it, saw it circulate under his name without displeasure" (L'Antichrist, p. xli.). [3] Harnack, Chronologie, vol. i. pp.245, 246, 679. [4] Many of the supposed wrong constructions in the Revelation are capable of justification (Dr. Benson, The Apocalypse, p.131 ff.). [5] It is true that a different Greek word for Lamb is used in the Revelation from that in the Gospel, but the variation can be accounted for by the author's desire to use a word similar in form to the word used for the Beast, who is contrasted with the Lamb. [6] The attempt to divide a supposed Judaizing element in the book from a more Catholic element has led to the assertion that vii.1-8 is inconsistent with vii.9-17. There is no more incongruity between these two passages than in the statement of St. Paul in Rom. i.16, that the gospel is a power unto salvation "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." {284} APPENDIX A RATIONALIST CRITICISM ON ST. JOHN'S WRITINGS The following table will illustrate the points of agreement arrived at by the more prominent Rationalist critics of the last sixty years: -- THE GOSPEL. 1 JOHN. 2 AND 3 JOHN. REVELATION. F. C. Baur, By a forger, By a By a By St.1847. 170 A.D. second third John. forger. forger. Th. Keim, By the same forger, -- -- Not by 1867. 100-117 A.D. St. John. A. Hilgen- By a forger, All by a second forger, By St. John. feld, 1875.120-140 A.D. 130 A.D. E. Renan, By the Presbyter John and others, who Not by St.1879. pretended that they were by St. John, John, but 120 A.D. circulated by him. C. Weizsaec- By a disciple Not by St. John nor by the Not by ker, 1886. of St. John. author of the Gospel. St. John. A. Harnack, The Gospel and Epistles all probably by By the 1897. the Presbyter John, who did not pretend Presbyter that they were by St. John, John, A. C. Uncertain. By the Uncertain. Possibly McGiffert, author by the 1897. of the Presbyter Gospel. John. B. W. By an All by another unknown By St. Bacon, unknown writer, A.D.95-100 A.D. John.1900. writer, P. W. Not by St. By a By a third Possibly Schmiedel, John, nor second forger. by the 1901. by the forger. Presbyter Presbyter. John. {285} APPENDIX B PAPIAS AND JOHN THE PRESBYTER Papias, a Phrygian by birth, and Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century a book called Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Among the "Elders" whom Irenaeus quotes, Papias and Polycarp alone are called "ancient" (archaios -- Adv. Haer. v.33). This helps us to fix the date of Papias. For Polycarp died either in A.D.155 or 156. He had been a Christian for eighty-six years, and was therefore born in A.D.70 at the very latest. Papias was therefore probably born about A.D.70. We know from Irenaeus that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and several ancient writers, including Irenaeus, expressly assert that Papias also was a hearer of St. John. Eusebius (H. E. iii.39) says that "in his preface" Papias does not declare that he was an "eye-witness of the holy apostles." But Eusebius in his Chronicle (Syncell. 655, 14) plainly says that Papias, like Polycarp, was a "hearer" of John the Divine and Apostle. The preface of Papias, which Eusebius transcribes, mentions John the Presbyter. The following is a literal translation of it: -- "But for your advantage I will not hesitate to put side by side with my interpretations everything that in time past I learnt well from the Elders, and remembered well, guaranteeing its truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who say much, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in those who relate such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from 'the Truth' itself. And again, on any occasion when a person came who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the Elders -- what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and the things which Aristion and John the Presbyter (Elder), the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did {286} not suppose that the contents of books would profit me so much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice." The exact meaning of this passage is disputed, but much of it is perfectly clear. It is plain that Papias is referring to his action at a time long past (pote), probably about A.D.100. It is also plain that he had no direct access at that date to the apostles about whose sayings he inquired. They were already dead, their speech was a thing of the past (eipen). On the other hand, Aristion and John the Presbyter were then living, their speech was a thing of the present (legousin). They survived at the time of his inquiries, and we cannot accept the hypothesis that Papias only meant that he inquired what Aristion and John the Presbyter said in their books. He recorded what they said to his friends, and he quoted them both so freely that Eusebius believed that Papias also wrote down words which Aristion and John the Presbyter said in his own hearing. But whether he heard them or only heard about them, it is evident that he had reached manhood before they were dead. It is also certain that he calls them "disciples of the Lord." He must mean by this that they had been personally in contact with Christ, like the apostles whom he has just mentioned. We therefore can only draw the conclusion that Papias believed that these two men had known the Lord in their boyhood, and the fact that he mentions only two such men favours this interpretation. With regard to the other Elders, the question at once arises, Did Papias include among those Elders the apostles whom he mentions? If he did not include them, he means that he inquired of travellers what they had heard from Elders who had known the apostles. This seems incredible; the information gained would be far inferior to that contained in books, whereas Papias speaks of it as superior. Moreover, it would imply that the knowledge possessed by Papias about those who had known the Lord was less direct than that possessed by Irenaeus! For Irenaeus (1) knew Polycarp (2) and others, who knew St. John and others who had seen the Lord. Whereas, according to this theory, Papias (1) was instructed by travellers (2), who had heard the Elders (3) speak about the apostles. If Papias had no better knowledge than this, Irenaeus would not have referred to Papias with such marked deference. We conclude, therefore, that Papias used the word "Elders" to denote Christians who had actually seen the Lord, including the apostles whom he mentions. This interpretation is {287} supported by the fact that in the New Testament both St. Peter and St. John give themselves this very title. If the above views are correct, they have an important bearing on the authenticity of St. John's Gospel. The lifetime of Papias, like that of Polycarp, covers the whole period of dates to which modern Rationalists now assign that Gospel. If it was not written by the apostle, it is hard indeed to suppose that Papias did not know the truth, and record it. And it is equally hard to believe that his statements about it would not have been copied by such men as Irenaeus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. {288} APPENDIX C THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT The Muratorian Fragment is part of a Latin list of the books of the New Testament, named after Muratori, the librarian at Milan, who published it in A.D.1740. The Canon of which the Fragment is a part was probably written about A.D.180. It begins in the midst of a sentence relating to St. Mark -- [Sidenote: The Gospels.] ". . . at some things, however, he was present, and has thus recorded them." "The third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke compiled in his own name from report, the physician whom Paul took with him after the ascension of Christ, for a companion as devoted to the law: however he did not himself see the Lord in the flesh, and hence begins his account with the birth of John as he was able to trace (matters) up." [Sidenote: The Epistles of St. John.] "Of the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of the disciples. At the instance of his fellow-disciples and bishops he said, 'Fast with me to-day for three days, and whatever shall be revealed to each, let us relate it to one another.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write all in his own name, the rest revising. . . . And therefore, although varying ideas may be taught in the several books of the Evangelists, there is no difference in that which pertains to the faith of believers, since by one Sovereign Spirit in all are declared all things that relate to the nativity (of the Lord), His passion, resurrection, intercourse with His disciples, and concerning His double advent, the first in humble guise, which has taken place, the second splendid with royal power, which is yet to be. . . . What wonder, then, if John in his Epistles also, speaking of his own authorship, so boldly advances each {289} detail, saying, 'What we have seen with our eyes, and have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written unto you.' For thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of all the wonders done by the Lord in their order." [Sidenote: Acts.] "But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book, Luke relates them excellently to Theophilus, confining himself to such as fell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the omission of all reference either to the martyrdom of Peter or the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. . . ." [Sidenote: The Epistles of St. Paul.] "But the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who would know both what they are, and from what place, or what occasion they were sent. At considerable length he wrote to the Corinthians first, forbidding schismatic divisions, then to the Galatians (forbidding) circumcision, and to the Romans (expounding) the general tenor of the Scriptures, showing, however, that Christ is the essence of their teaching; to these (Epistles) we must devote separate discussion; for the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, wrote by name to seven Churches only in this order: First to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third to the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. True, he wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, but he shows thereby[1] the unity of the universal Church; for John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven Churches only, yet speaks to all. He also writes one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy, out of personal regard and affection, but these too are hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline. Moreover, there is in circulation an Epistle to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul, looking towards the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for gall should not be mixed with honey. However, the Epistle of Jude, and two of John the above named, are received among Catholics. Also the Book of Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honour." {290} [Sidenote: Apocalypses.] "We receive, moreover, the Apocalypse of John and Peter only, though some of our body will not have the latter read in the Church. The Shepherd indeed was written quite recently in our own times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother Pius occupied the seat of Bishop of the Church of Rome; wherefore the private reading of it is indeed commendable, but it can never be publicly read to the people in the Church whether among the Prophets . . . or among the Apostles." "We receive nothing whatever of the Arsinoite, or Valentinus, or of Mitias (?) . . . who also were the compilers of the new Book of Psalms (?) for Marcion, together with Basilides. . . ." [1] As symbolized by the number seven. {291} APPENDIX D SOME EARLY WITNESSES TO NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS[1] CLEMENT OF ROME. Bishop of Rome. BARNABAS. Epistle of, not by the Barnabas who DIDACHE. "The Teaching of the Twelve IGNATIUS. Bishop of Antioch and Martyr. POLYCARP. Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr. PAPIAS. Bishop of Hierapolis. Expositions of HERMAS. The Shepherd, an allegory . . . . . . . . c. A.D.140 MARCION. Heretic from Pontus at Rome . . . . . . . c. A.D.144 JUSTIN MARTYR. Apologist. 1 and 2 Apologies EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. Anonymous defence TATIAN. Syrian Apologist, disciple of Justin THEOPHILUS. Apologist of Antioch. Ad Autolycum c. A.D.180 IRENAEUS. Bishop of Lyons. Against Heresies c. A.D.185 [1] In the case of most of these witnesses the date here given is that of their chief literary activity. {292} CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Head of the Catechetical TERTULLIAN. Of Carthage. Apologist . . . . . . . . A.D.200 HIPPOLYTUS. Presbyter at Rome. Refutation of ORIGEN. Of Alexandria. Successor of Clement, DIONYSIUS. Bishop of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . A.D.248 EUSEBIUS. Bishop of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical APHRAATES. Syrian writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D.338 ATHANASIUS. Bishop of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . A.D.328-373 EPIPHANIUS. Bishop of Salamis . . . . . . . . . . . A.D.380 JEROME. Author of the revised or "Vulgate" {293} APPENDIX E BOOKS RECOMMENDED In this list are included the most useful books written in English or translated into English. An * is placed before those commentaries which contain the whole Greek text of the books indicated, or which comment much on the Greek text. 1. CANON -- 2. TEXT -- 3. TEXTUAL CRITICISM -- 4. INTRODUCTION -- 5. THE GOSPELS AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM -- {294} Hawkins (Sir J. C.), *Horae Synopticae, 7s.6d. 6. COMMENTARIES -- St. Mark. -- Swete (Prof. H. B.), *Greek Text with Notes, 15s. (Macmillan.) St. Luke. -- Plummer (Dr. A.), *Commentary, 12s. St. John. -- Godet (F.), Commentary, 3 vols., 31s.6d. (T. and T. Clark.) Acts. -- Knowling (Dr. R. J.), in *Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. ii., 28s. (Hodder and Stoughton.) Romans. -- Sanday (Dr. W.) and Headlam (A. C.), {295} 1 Corinthians. -- Goudge (H. L.), in Westminster 2 Corinthians. -- Meyer's *Critical Commentary on the New Testament, 1 and 2 Cor., in 2 vols., 10s.6d. each. (T. and T. Clark.) Galatians. -- Lightfoot (Bishop), *Text with Introduction, 12s. (Macmillan.) Ephesians. -- Abbott (T. K.), *Commentary on Ephesians and Colossians, 10s.6d. (T. and T. Clark.) Philippians. -- Lightfoot (Bishop), Text with Introduction, 12s. (Macmillan.) Colossians and Philemon. -- Lightfoot (Bishop), *Text with Introduction, 12s. (Macmillan.) 1 and 2 Thessalonians. -- Milligan (Dr. G.), *Commentary, 12s. (Macmillan.) 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. -- Bernard (Dr. J. H.), *Cambridge Greek Testament, 3s.6d. (Cambridge University Press.) Hebrews. -- Westcott (Bishop), *Greek Text with Notes.14s. (Macmillan.) St. James. -- Mayor (Dr. J. B.), *Greek Text with Notes., 12s. (Macmillan.) 1 and 2 St. Peter, St. Jude. -- Bigg (Dr. C.), *Commentary, 10s.6d. (T. and T. Clark.) 1, 2, 3 St. John. -- Westcott (Bishop), *Greek Text with Notes, 12s.6d. (Macmillan.) {296} Revelation. -- Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), Letters to the Seven Churches, 12s. (Hodder and Stoughton.) {297} INDEX Acts, Book of, 102 "Babylon" in N. T., 242, 279 Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, not Pauline, 166 Canon, formation of, 2, 220 Date of N. T. books, p. x.; of Christ's nativity, 78 Date of Christ's death, 28; St. John supported by St. Luke as to, 30; and by St. Paul, 142 Ebionites, their Gospel, 34; St. Luke not influenced by, 72 Enoch, Book of, 249, 268, 276 Faith, St. Paul's doctrine of, 154, 164; in Hebrews, 211; in St. James, 231; in St. Jude, 266 Galatia, North or South (?), 151 Harnack, A., on St. John, 93, Appendix A; on the apostles' doctrine, 111; on Revelation, 272 Idols, eating meat offered to, 139 James, St., Ep. of, 223 Keim, Th., on St. John's writings, Appendix A Laodiceans, Ep. to, identical with "Ephesians," 176, 182 Latinisms in St. Mark, 54 Magi and the star, 78 Nazarenes, Gospel of, 34 Onesimus of Colossae, 177 Papias, on the "Oracles," 13; on the Logia of St. Matt., 24, 34; on St. Mark, 51; on John the Presbyter, Appendix B Quirinius, P. Sulpicius, governor of Syria, 79 Ramsay, W. M., on authenticity of Acts, 105 Sabatier, A., on ministry in Acts, 111 Tatian, Diatessaron of, 11 Versions of the Bible, 5 "We sections" in Acts, 65, 102 Zechariah, quoted by St. Matt., 41; by St. John, 88 Zeller, E., on Revelation, 272 |
    |