I. Introduction.— 1. Title.— The first word of the Book of Revelation gives the current title not only to this book, but to the class of literature to winch it belongs. The word * apocalypse* does not occur again in Rev., and does not here sicnifr a literary product. The title which the lK)ot • Unless wa read Cholubai In 1 Cb A^.
240 REVELATIOJS, BOOK OF
REVELATION, BOOK OF
suggests is rather ' the words {or the book) of the prophecy of John' ( l* 22'- 1"- "*'»). Certainly the title 'Apocalypse of John' (xC etc.) implies a dillerent use of the word ' Apocalypse ' from tliat which tlie NT attests. The book is introduced not as the Apocalypse of John, but as ' an apoca- lypse of Jesus Christ.' God is the ultimate autlior of the revelation. He gave it to Christ, and Christ, through His angel, to His servant John, w ho therefore testifies to tliat which is ultimately ' the word of God,' and more immediately ' the testimony of Jesus Clirist,' though it can also be called 'whatsoever things he saw' (I-, cf. "■'"). The phrase 'apocalypse of Jesus Christ' here means, not a revelation of Him (i.e. the Parousia, as in 1 Co 1', 2 Th V, 1 P !'• " 413), nor a revela- tion concerning Him, but a revelation by Him concerning the future (cf. Gal P^- ", where the revelation is by Christ, but also concerning Him — a self-revelation).
2. Canonicity. — There is probably no trace of Kev. in the Apostolic Fathers (Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kanons, L 954 f.). Ign. ad Eph. xv. 3 does not necessarily imply Rev 21' ; still less does ad Phil. vi. 1 require Rev 3'-"-. Papias is the first to attest, not the apostolicity, but the credibility of Rev., according to Andreas, bishop of Caesarca (Cappa- docia), \vho in his commentary cites two remarks of Papias on Rev 12'. Their source, however, is unknowTi, and Euseb. does not directly mention any reference to Rev. by Papias (HE m. xxxix.). He does, however, say that Papias based his chiliasm on apostolic statements, which he took literally, instead of figuratively as he should have done. It is true that when Irenseus appeals in favour of the reading 666 (13'*) to presbyters who had seen John (Hcer. V. xxx. I ; Euseb. HE V. viii. 5), we naturally think of Polycarp or Papias as his authority. But this is not a matter about which Iren. would naturally remember what, as a boy, he had heard the aged Polycarp say ; and if lie had been able to appeal to Polycarp, he would have done so by name. It is probably tradition rather than recollection on which lie rests.
Justin (Dial. Ixxxi. 15) is the first to declare that Rev. is by ' John, one of the apostles of Christ ' (cf. Euseb. IV. xviii. 8). Melito, bishop of Sardis (170), wrote a lost work on the 'Rev. of John' (Euseb. IV. xxvi. 2). This is important, since Sardis is one of the seven Churches. Theophilus cited Rev. (Euseb. IV. xxiv. 1), and so did Apollonius (Euseb. V. xviii.). Irenaeus was a defender of the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, Epistles, and Rev. of John (for Rev. see^trr. IV. xx. 11, V. xxxv. 2, ' John the Lord's disciple,' elsewhere simply ' John,' I. xxvi. 3, IV. xiv. 2, etc., or without name). Iren. took his high estimation of the book with him to the Vt'^est. It was regarded aa ' sacred Scripture ' by the Churches in Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177 (Euseb. V. i. 10, 58 ; Zahn i. 201, 203 f.). Tertullian cites Rev. frequently, and attests its recognition in Africa, as by ' the Apostle John ' (c. Marcion. iii. 14. 25). Clement of Alex, cites it and other apoca- lypses also, and puts value upon them. So also does Origen, in spite of his opposition to chiliasm, •.vhicli he escapes by allegorical interpretation.
For the Roman Church, the eschatology of Hernias is significant for its independence of Revelation. The book stands, however, in the Muratorian Canon without suspicion ('Jolm, too, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven Chuiches, yet addresses all ') ; and after the elaborate defence of it by Hippolytus against Caius, its canonicity remained established for the Western Church.
But though hardly any other book in the NT is 80 well attested in tlie2na cent., there were already those who denied its authority, and its place in the
Canon of the Eastern Church was long uncertain. The objections appear to have rested on dogmatia grounds, though they required to be maintained by a denial of the apostolic authorship of the book. Marcion, as was mevitable, rejected the book because of its strongly Jewish character (Tert. c. Marcion. iv. 5). On the other hand, the Mon- tanists, with their high appreciation of the new Christian prophecy and the strongly eschatological type of their Christianity, held the book in liigh esteem ; and it was in opposition to them that the well-known, long-remaining antipathy of tho Eastern Church to Rev. was developed.
Epiphanius (Beer. li. 33) tells of a sect which rejected John'l Gospel and Rev. , and ascribed both to Cerinthus. He caUs them Alogi, which su^j^ests that the reason for their criticism was the Logos Christolo^'y, in which the Gospel, the First Epistle, and Rev. agree. The sect would then be anti-Gnostic, as the choice of Cerinthus for the author would indicate, Epiph, says they supported their view by the fact that there was no Christian Church at Thyatira [Rev 21h], where this sect had ita seat. They are further described as being averse to the sensuous and ex- travagant form of the apocal^'ptical language, the significanc* of angels, etc.