Iren»u8 (in. xi. 9) describes a certain sect which rejected John's Gospel on account of its doctrine of the Paraclete, and not only contended against false prophets, but would exclude prophecy from the Church altogether. Since this ground for the rejectionof the Gospel would be even more conclusive against Rev., and since Epiph. himself says that the Alo^ji opposed the Spirit and denied its gifts, Zahn (i. 223-227, 237-262, u. na7-973) concluded that this wus the same sect that Epiph. called Alo^, and that it was an anti-Montanist, rather than an anti-Gnostic, movement. Now Ejjiph. probably got his information about the Alogi from Hippolytus (c. 19i;-235 a.i>. at Rome), who knew ft sect which rejected both books because of the support which the Gospel, in its doctrine of the Spirit, and Rev. in its pro- phetic character, gave to ilontanism. Against these Hippolytua wrote in defence of the Gospel and Revelation. He also wrote another book against Caius, a pre-sbrter of Rome, in defence of Revelation. This Caius, in a controversial writing againrt ProcluB the Montanist (Euseb. 11. xxv. 6, in. xxviii. xxxi. 4, VL XX. 3), had evidently rejected Rev., ascribing it, as the Alogi did, to Cerinthus. The citation in Eusebius (111. xxviii. 2) reads : 'Cerinthus, through revelations professing to have been written by a great apostle, brings before us marvels which he falsely claims were shown to him through angels, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that men dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, he said that a period of a thousand years would be spent in nuptial festivities.' The long dispute as to whether thia referred to our Rev. must be regarded as ended by the publica- tion, by J. Gwynn (^Uermafhena, vi, 397-41S), of fragments of the reply of Hippolytus to Oaius, from which it is evident that Caius, who was not one of the Alogi (not a heretic), argued in detail against the harmony of Rev. with the rest of the NT, using some of the arguments of the Alogi, and in all probability ascribing it, and not some other apocal.x-pse, to Cerinthus (so Zahn, Bousset, Holtzmann, et<:., against Gwynn).
Zahn dates the writing of Caius against Proclus about A.D. 210, and the reply of Hippolytus in defence of Rev. about 215. It i» evident that Caius did not question the Gospel of John. After this, no Western Church writer seriously questioned Rev. (though see Jerome's position, below).
In the East, Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 255), a pupil of Origen, wrote a temperate and scholarly criticism (Euseb. vil. xxv.), in which he argues that Rev, is not by John the apostle. He reviews previous criticisms, evidently among others that of Caius, mentioning the hypothesis that Cerinthus was its author. He does not leject the book out and out, since others valued it, but cannot himself understand it ; and proves, by an elaborate com- parison as to literary character, language, and composition, that it is not by the author of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John. It is indeed by some holy and inspired man whose name wa» John. There were many of that name (e.g. John Mark), and it is said, he adds, that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each i)earing the name of John. The ground of the rejection of its aposto- licity by Dionysius was probably in part a sense of its difi'erence from Jolin's Gospel, in part the Hellenist's aversion to sensuous hopes, and to the chiliasm which made room for such ho|ie8.
Eusebius, who gives the argument of Dionysins at some length, evidently sympathized with his view, though his own judgment wavers. He in-
KEVELATION, BOOK OF
EEVELATION, BOOK OF
241
clines to ascribe Rev. to the Presbyter John of whom Papias WTote (Euseb. III. xxxi.\. : 'It is probably the second [John], if one is not willing to admit that it is the lirst, that saw the Apocalypse'). Uis doubt as to the place of the book, wlielher among the Ilomolunoumenn (accepted) or among the ^lotha (rejected), is expressed in III. xxv. 4. He emphasizes the rejection of the book by good churchmen, and does not mention the ahnost certain use of it by Pai)ias, or the elaborate defence of it by Hippolytus. Yet he cites many words in its favour.
After Euseb. the opposition to Rev. was for a time general in the Syro-Palestinian Church. Cyril of Jerusalem [Catech. iv. 33-36) does not name it among canonical books ; nor does it appear in the Canon 60 of the Sj-nod of Laodicea (c^ 560?), nor in Canon 85 of Apost. Const, viii. (Zahn, iL 177 11'., 197 tr., 191 ff.) ; nor is it in the list of Gregory of Nazianzus (ii. 216 f.), nor in the so-called i^'i/nupsis of Chrysostom (ib. 230). Neither Chrysostum nor Theotiore of Mopsuestia mentions the book, and Theodoret does not accept it. It dues not appear in the Chronograpliy of Nicephorus, or in the List of 60 books (|6. L"JS, 290 f.). The Nestorian and Jacobit« Churches did not receive it (Bousset, p. 25).
The question a« to the origin and significance of this attitude of the tj>TO-I'aIestiniun Church leads back to the striltuii,' fact th&t Rev. (Willi 2 and 3 Jn, 2 V, Jude) did not ori;^inally stand In the Syriac NT (Peshitta). It has been supiiosed tliat it was •till wanting in the I^hiloxenian version, but Uwynn argues that the vereion he edited belonged to that translation {Tl'ie Apoca- lupteoj St. Joint inSj/riac,lS3T). Was the book, then, w:inting in tile Canon of the Syrian Churcli from the beginning? An ftlfirmative answer is niade doubtful Ity the apparent references to liev. in I::uhrttem. It is not certain," however, that Eplinieni used Itev., the question being involved in questions of text and of authenticity («ee Bousset, 21-*2a). (Jwynn (pp. c-cv) believes that the book was excluded 'In ignorance rather than of set purpose ' from the Peshitta Canon, anrl remained unknown to 8\ rmc-speaking Christians for perhaps four centuries, except to tlie few who could read it in Greek, among whom he reckons Epliraem. Even after translation into Syriac, the book never became familiarly known in any of the Syrian Churches. Their religious thought and rich liturgical literature remained practi- cally uninlluenced by it. Bousset thinks the dominance of another type of eschatology, the Apocalypse of Anticlirist, helped to effect the exclusion of Revelation.