diction of the return of Nero. The interpretation of the numbei tU'iCi as Nero Vifxar seems to have been made independently by several scholars (Frilzsche, Benary, Hitzig, Reuss, Ewald COX With this understanding and dating of Rev,, Baur athrmed iti apostolicity, and made it a monument of the original Jewish Christianity.
Against this method conservative theologians still attempted either new interpretations of the book as a summarj- of Church history (the ' Church- historical' or 'continuously historical' method, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, etc.), or a reference of ita predictions to events still future, the end of the world (the endgeschichtliche, 'fnturist ' method, Kliefoth, Zahn). A method which is in some sense intermediate between these is one that sees in Rev. not definite events in Church history, but symbolic representations of good and evil prin- ciples, their conflict and the coming victory of the good (Auberlen's reic/isgeschichtlichi Methode).
A similar standpoint is occupied by Milligan {Commentary/ on the Apocalypge ; Th£ Rev. oj St. John, Baird Lectures, 18S6 ; DiscitSifions on the Apocalypse, 1893; The Bk. of Rev. [Ex- positor's Bible], 1S99. The Apoc. embraces the whole period from the First to the Second Coming of the Lord. It sets before us within this period the action of ^eat principles and not special incidents. We must interpret in a spiritual and universal sense that language of the Apoc. which appears at first sight to be material and locals So also Benson {The Apocalifpse, 1900) maintains that Rev. unveils Jesus Christ as present in this world, and His enemies, Satan and his agents, who are ali principles not persons or historical characters, ' the principles which maintain the self-deceiving half of human nature in its death strugi.'le8 with a Divine Wisdom wilicb slowly vanquishes it' (p. 176).
It is, of course, true that beneath every book there are certain fundamental beliefs and hopes capable of being generalized and taken out of all historical relations. It is true also, as we shall see, that the allusions, for example, to Nero are not so clear as we should expect of one who set out to describe him in sjmbol. But the principles which these writers look for are still less clearly symbolized, and it is a fundamental mistake to pro- ceed upon the assumption that such principles are everywhere intended, and also that the teachings of Rev. must agree with all other teachings of the NT and with the judgment of the Christian con- sciousness. The history of the book in the Canon might well have kept others from the bondage of this assumption, as it kept Luther and the early Reformers. But the assumption is no longer possible for those who approach Biblical study in a historical spirit. For such, the efl'ort to find in the book allusions to events of its author's time is natural, and this method is destined to general acceptance. Of late, however, a growiu" convic- tion has arisen that this contemporary-liisturiral method is not sufficient by itself to solve all the proltlems of the book.
The first question to arise concerned the unity of the book. As prophetic books like Isaiah and Zechariah and apocal3'pse3 such as Enoch are composite, it was natural to raise the question with reference to Rev., and to remove by literary analysis the unevenness in structure and the :vant of harmony, both in historical references and in doctrinal views, that had troubled interpreters. Theories of composite origin have been advanced in two general forms: (1) The book is in its present form a unity, but its author made use of various documentary or traditional sources, of Jewish or Christian origin, incorporating them in his work. (2) The present book is the result of one or more revisions of an older Jewish or Christian apocalypse, or more than one.
Weizsacker, who gave the impulse to this effort at literary criticism, held the former of these two views : * ' We have in
• The historj' of these efforts has been told by Holtzmann, Jahrb. /. Prot. Theol. 1891 : Barton, AJTh, 1898 ; A, Meyer in Theol. liundechau, 1897 ; and in fuller detail by Ranch, Dx4 O^enbarunff det Johannee, 1894, and Bousset, Komm. p. 127 fl.
KEVELATIOX, BOOK OF
REVELATION, BOOK OF 243
Uiis writing, which is as certainly pseudonrmous as are all apocalypses, a compilation, which in its origin is already a compilation ; and in its various strata, which certainly reach for back, it testifies in itself alone to an extensive practice of (Christian) prophecy' (Theol. Lit.-ZHtung, 18S2). The first efforts aiter detail were, however, made on the basis ot the •econd theory. — Volter, a pupil of Weizsacker, in a series of works (Du Knlsteliung der Apuk. 1882, ISsS ; Dot Problem der Apok. 1893), attempted to construct a primitive apocal^'pse of a.D. 66-66, which tne author revised after Nero's death. Three or four other revisers added to the work, to the last of whom the letters are due. Volter argues on the basis of (1) want of formal and material conne.\iou, (2) reference to different his- torical situations, (3) doctrinal differences, especially as to Ohristolog>*. Some of his observations are just, but his solu- tioo of the ditticulties is arbitrary* and unconvincing.— Vischer (Die Oj^ettOarumj JohannU, eine juduiche Apokalyp^e in c/tri^t- licher BeurbeitutujtlSbti) put forth a simpler and more attractive hypothesis, which, appearing with Harnack's hearty approval, won nianv adherents. He believed Rev 4*-225 to be a Jewish apocal^-pse set in a Christian framework (1-3. 22'*^^) with a •light Christian revision (o^->* 79-" 12" 139- '» 14' 6- '2- 13 15-' 161' ]7n 19!) 10. 13b sow 211»>J and all references to the Lamb). His •tarting-point is Biblico-theological, the presence in tlie book of Jewish by the side of Christian ideas. Hamack (Sachwort) admits that this does not in itself involve Jewish authorship, but regards that hypothesis as necessary in this case.