The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 65

etntoments of Ironmus ond others, which bring the Fourth Gospel into the reign of 'l'rnjrm, holds thnt tho John who wroto hoth it and the Apocalypse was not the son rJf Zebcdoo, but tho prcshyter. Ho charges the mistalrn on Ircnrous, from whom, as he thinlts, other writers clorirnd it, His position is that John never was at Ephesus at all; thnt l'apias cnnnot be mode to say that he hnd any knowledge of the apostles; and that tho John of whom he ond Polycarp were the" hearers" was the" presbyter;" that the low position in which John, os o.n apostle, is placed in Papias' list of disciples shows that he had no more to do with Asia Minor than Matthew, and that Papia.s derived hi3 information second-hand. Now, there is a distinct contrast in Papias's langnage between what the "elders," includinp; John, said, o.nd what the elder John and Aristion say, It does not positively declare that he had personal intercourse with either the fir,t or the second group, and the most probable interpretation is that the two last mentioned were still living when he wrote. It docs not follow, because a young man has seen and conversed on certain occasions with an eminent living statesman or prelate, that he should not also have taken the opportunity of making further inquiries about them. See Bishop LigMfoot's (Contemporary Review, vol. x.xv., xxvi.) explanation of the order in which the apostles are mentioned in the fragment of Papias (a remark in which Dr. A. Roberts had anticipated him, 'Discussions of the Gospels ')-an order which curiously corresponds with the order in which they occur in John's Gospel. 'l'hc statement~ of Irenreus are too clear, detailed, and vivid to justify the supposition that Polycarp had so ntterly blundered and misled him (see Oharteris,' Canooicity,' § vi. p. xlvi.). (fJ) The external evidence for the apostolic authorship is abundant and irresistible. •••,This evidence is important to our general argument, for the authenticity of the Apocalypse is, in our opinion, a powerful corroboration of the apostoiicity of the Fourth Gospel. The 'Shepherd' of Hermas, written probably about A.D. 142, during the occupation of the bishopric of Rome by his brother Pins, does not cite the Apocalypse by name, but the numberless similarities of expression lead competent critics to believe that he must have been familiar with it. Thus 'Vis.,' ii. 2. 7, "Blessed are ye as many as patiently endure the great affliction that is coming upon you" (cf. Uev. vii. 14). 'l'he reference to "the book of life," in which some names are written and others blotted out (' Vis.,' i. 3. 2; 'Sim.,' ix. 24. 4), may be explained by familiarity with Exod. mii. 32; Dan. xii. 1; but more probably by o.cquaintance with Rev. iii. 5; xiii. 8; :u.. 12; and Hermas speaks of an altar before God's throne where prayers are presented (' Mand.,' x. 3. 2; cf. Rev. viii. 3). The Church is a woman(' Vis.,' ii. 4. 1; cf. Rev. xii. 1); and many other more obscure allusions. The earliest testimony that we possess comes to us in a second-hand and roundabout fashion. Towards the close of the fifth century, Andreas, Bishop of C:.esarea, in Cap- padocia, wrote a commentary on the Revelation; and in the prolegomenn, which Aretbas, his successor in the episcopate, wrote (one based on the work of his predecessor), he claims in favour of its inspired character (0,o,rv,Ja--rou) the authority of Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril, and to these he adds the opinion of sti!l earlier witnesses, Papias, lrenreus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, who testified to its being cl~,o,r/a--rou, i.e. worthy or confi- dence. If this was really the opinion of Papias, it is a very powerful confirmation of its authenticity. The reason which gives it so much weight is that Andreas and Aretha:. both appear to have had Papias's entire work before them, ond to have reforred to Papias',, quotation of Rev. xii. 7, with the remark of P.ipias, Eis ob6~v 1TVv<fJ11 -r•A•'";j""-' -r'l,v nl{,v au-row, introduced thus : "This also is the tradition of the Fathers, aud of Papfos, the successor (6u£6oxos) of the Evangelist John, whose Apocalypae is lying before me." Now, the fragments of Papias that have been preserved by Eusebius do not mention the Apocalypse. This is remarkable, because Eusebius does not cite testimonies as a rule to books that have been universally receil·ed, but rather the opinions of the ancient writers concerning those which were doubtful; and he was, moreover, himself disposed to undervalue the Apocalypse. His strong objection to chiliasm,, or millenarian notions, gave him o prejudice against Papias as well as the Apocalypse; yet he does charge Papias with retailing the hope of a corpore.-u reign of L':, ·ist on eorth, which is to last a thousand yeo.rs after the resurrection, without referring tu the origin of the hope. There is no reason to doubt that the "narratives Qf the Lord's oracles" did coubin what;  Ju.ii INTRODUCTION 'l'O