2. Evidence against John's A uthorship. — Marcion, who regarded all the apostles except Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the Apocalypse and all other books of the New Test, which were not written by Paul. The Alogi, an obscure sect (cir. A.D. 180), in their zeal against Montanism, denied the existence of spiritual gifts in the Church, and rejected the Revelation, saying it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus (Epiphanius, Adv. Hcer. Ii). The Roman presbyter Caius (cir. A.D. 196), who also wrote against Montanism, is quoted by Euse- bius (II. E. iii, 28) as ascribing certain revelations to Ce- rinthus; but it is doubted (see Routh. Rel. Sacr. ii, 138) whether the Revelation of John is the book to which Caius refers. But the testimony which is considered the most important of all in ancient times against the Revelation is contained in a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria (cir. A.D. 240), the most influential, and perhaps the ablest, bishop in that age. The passage, taken from a book On the Pi-omises, written in reply to Nepos, a learned Judaizing Chiliast, is quoted by Euse- bius (//. E. vii, 25). The principal points in it are these : Dionysius testifies that some writers before him alto- gether repudiated the Revelation as a forgery of Cerin- thus ; many brethren, however, prized it very highly, and Dionysius would not venture to reject it, but re- ceived it in faith as containing things too deep and too sublime for his understanding. (In his Epistle to Her- mammon [Euseb. H. E. vii, 10] he quotes it as he would quote Holy Scripture.) He accepts as true what is stated in the book itself, that it was written by John, but he argues that the way in which that name is men- tioned, and the general character of the language, are unlike what we should expect from John the evangelist and apostle; that there were many Johns in that age. He would not say that John Mark was the writer, since it is not known that he was in Asia. He supposes that it must be the work of some John who lived in Asia; and he observes that there are said to be two tombs in Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John. He then points out at length the superiority of the style of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John to the style of the Apocalypse, and says, in conclusion, that whatever he may think of the language, he does not deny that the writer of the Apocalypse actually saw what he de- scribes, and was endowed with the divine gifts of knowl- edge and prophecy. To this extent, and no further, Di- onysius is a witness against John's authorship. It is obvious that he keenly felt the difficulty arising from the use made of the contents of this book by certain un- sound Christians under his jurisdiction ; that he was acquainted with the doubt as to its canonical authority which some of his predecessors entertained as an infer- ence from the nature of its contents; that he deliberate- ly rejected their doubt and accepted the contents of the book as given by the inspiration of God; that, although
REVELATION
1064
REVELATION
he did not und< rstand how John could write in the stylo in which the Revelation is written, be yel knew of no authority for attributing it, as he desired to attribute it, to some other of the numerous persons who bore the name of John.
A weightier difficulty arises from the fact that the
Revelation is i of the books which arc absent from
the ancient Peshito version, and the only trustworthy evidence in favor of its reception by the ancienl Syrian Church is a single quotation which is adduced from the Syriac works (ii, 332 c) ofEphrem Syrus. Eusebius is remarkably sparing in his quotations from the " Revela- tion of John," and the uncertainty of his opinion about ii ig besl shown by his statement in //. E. iii, 39, that '•ii is likely that the Revelation was seen by the second John (the Ephesian presbyter), if any one is unwilling to believe thai it was seen by the apostle." See Joh> mii Presbyter. Jerome states (Ep.ad Dardanum, etc) that the Crock churches felt, with respect to the Revelation, a similar doubt to that of the Latins respect- ing the Epistle to the Hebrews. Neither he nor his equally influential contemporary Augustine shared such doubts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cbrysostom, Theodore of ia. ami Theodoret abstained from making use of the book, sharing, it is possible, the doubts to which Jerome refers. But they have not gone so far as to ex- press a distinct opinion against it. The silence of these writers is the latest evidence of any importance thai has been adduced against the overwhelming weight of the testimony in favor of the canonical authority and au- thorship of thi- hook. See Canon OF SCRIPT CRE.
11. Time and /'fur, of Writing.— The date of the Revelation is given by the great majority of critics as A. 1 1. 95 '.'7. The weighty testimony of Irenaeus is al- most sufficient to prevent any other conclusion. He says (Adv. //"/-. v. 30, ^ 3), "It [i.e. the Revelation] was seen no very long time ago. but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." Stuart's attempt to interpret this of Nero's reign (Comment, ad loc.) is evidently forced. Eusebius also records as a tra- dition which he does not question, that in tin- persecu- tion under Domitian, John the apostle and evangelist, being yet alive, was banished to the island of Patmos for his testimony of the divine word. Allusions in Clem- ent of Alexandria and Origen point in the same direc- tion. There is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or plat e. Epiphanius di. 12), obviously by mistake, says that John prophesied in the reign of Claudius. Two or three obscure and la- ter authorities say that John was banished under Nero.