('_'.) The historical testimonies in favor of John's authorship arc singularly distinct and numerous, and
REVELATION
1063
REVELATION
there is very little to weigh against them, (o.) Justin Martyr (cir. A.D. 150) says: "A man among us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, in a rev- elation which was made to him, prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem" {Tryph. § 81, p. 179, ed. Ben.), (b.) The au- thor of the Muratorian Fragment (cir. A.D. 170) speaks of John as the writer of the Apocalypse, and describes him as a predecessor of Paul, i. e. as Credner and Liicke candidly interpret it, his predecessor in the office of apostle, (e.) Melito of Sardis (cir. A.D. 170) wrote a treatise on the Revelation of John. Eusebius (//. E. iv, 26) mentions this among the books of Melito which had come to his knowledge; and as he carefully re- cords objections against the apostle's authorship, it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the doubts of Klen- ker and Liicke (Einleitiing, p. 51-1), that Eusebius found no doubt as to John's authorship in the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop. (c7.) Theophilus, bishop of An- tioch (cir. 180), in a controversy with Hermogenes, quotes passages out of the Revelation of John (Eusebius, H. E. iv, 24). (e.) Irenajus (cir. 195), apparently never having heard a suggestion of any other author than the apos- tle, often quotes the Revelation as the work of John. In iv, 20, § 11, he describes John the writer of the Rev- elation as the same who was leaning on Jesus' bosom at supper, and asked him who should betray him. The testimony of Irenseus as to the authorship of Revelation is, perhaps, more important than that of any other writ- er: it mounts up into the preceding generation, and is virtually that of a contemporary of the apostle. For in v, 30, § 1, where he vindicates the true reading (666) of the number of the Beast, he cites in support of it, not only the old correct copies of the book, but also the oral testimony of the very persons who themselves had seen John face to face. It is obvious that Irenreus's reference for information on such a point to those con- temporaries of John implies bis undoubting belief that they, in common with himself, viewed John as the writ- er of the book. Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possibly groundless because it was entertained be- fore the learned fathers of Alexandria had set the ex- ample of historical criticism; but his suggestion scarce- ly weakens the force of the fact that such was the be- lief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion when we remember that the critical discernment of the Alex- andrians, to whom he refers, led them to coincide with Irenasus in his view. (/.) Apollonius (cir. 200) of Eph- esus (?), in controversy with the Montanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of the Revelation of John, and nar- rated a miracle wrought by John at Ephesus (Euseb. //. E. v, 18). (g.) Clement of Alexandria (cir. 200) quotes the book as the Revelation of John (Stromata, vi, 13, p. 667), and as the work of an apostle (Peed, ii, 12, p. 207). (k.) Tertullian (A.D. 207), in at least one place, quotes by name "the apostle John in the Apocalypse" (.1 ilr. Marcbon. iii, 14). (/.) Hippolytus (cir. 230) is said, in the inscription on his statue at Rome, to have com- posed an apology for the Apocalypse and Gosple of St. John the apostle. He quotes it as the work of John (De Antiehristo, § 36, p. 756, ed. Migne). (j.) Origen (cir. 233), in his commentary on John, quoted by Euse- bius (//. A', vi, 25), says of the apostle, "he wrote also the Revelation." The testimonies of later writers, in the 3d and 4th centuries, in favor of John's authorship of the Revelation are equally distinct and far more nu- merous. They may be seen quoted at length in Liicke. p. 628-638, or in dean Alford's Prolegomena (A'. T. vol. iv, pt. ii). It may suffice here to say that they include the names of Victorinus, Methodius. Ephrem Syrus, Epi- phanius, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory, Didymus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome.
All the foregoing writers, testifying that the book came from an apostle, believed that it was a part of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant works can- not be quoted for testimony to the authorship of the book refer to it as possessing canonical authority. Thus
(n) Papias, who is described by Irenaeus as a hearer of John .and friend of Polycarp, is cited, together with other writers, by Andreas of Cappadocia, in his com- mentary on the Revelation, as a guarantee to later ages of the divine inspiration of the book (Routh, Eel. Sacr. i, 15 ; Cramer, Catena [Oxford, 1840], p. 176). The value of this testimony has not been impaired by the controversy to which it has given rise, in which Liicke, Bleek, Hengstenberg, and Rettig have taken dif- ferent parts. (6) In the epistle from the churches of Lyons and Vienne, A.D. 177, inserted in Eusebius, II. E. v, 1-3, several passages (e. g. i, 5; xiv, 4; xxii, 11) are quoted or referred to in the same way as passages of books whose canonical authority is unquestioned, (c) Cyprian (Epp. 10, 12, 14, 19, ed. Fell) repeatedly quotes it as a part of canonical Scripture. Chrysostom makes no distinct allusion to it in any extant writing; but we are informed by Suidas that he received it as canonical. Although omitted (perhaps as not adapted for public reading in church) from the list of canonical books in the Council of Laodicea, it was admitted into the list of the third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397.