The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 66

Arethas said they did. Even the author of ' Supernatural Religion I considers this it Ya lid proof of the opinions of Papfas, Though Irena::us (' Hrer.,' v. 33, 34) refers to Papias as" a hearer of John," together- with Polycnrp, Eusebius, in his comment on the pa.ssag P, considers thnt ho only received bis intelligence concerning John the apostle thruugh the medium of John the presbyter. Critics have subsequently made this shadowy individual to be the· 1:<ource of all the information on which Papias prided himself. Some have arguon, more- o,er, that. ,John the presbyter was the author of the Apocalypse (Lucke), whilo Keim has boldly en_,le,woured to li\ther upon the same personage the authorship of the Gospel. But Euscbrns, as ~·e have seen (see p. xxxii., note), has elsewhere quoted testimonies (' Chron.,' i.) from Iren:cus thnt Papias was a hearer of the Apostlo John, as well as of Polycarp, and also that Polycarp and himself suffered martyrdom in the same perse- cution. This can be made closely to approximate the year A.D. 155; and uro,•es that this man, who livl'd to a great age, must have been during many years a contemporary of John, who is said repeatedly by Irenreus to have lived to the days of Tmjan (A.n-. 96-117). Therefore, whether John the presbyter be or be not identical with John the apostle, Papias must be allowed to ha\'e been the hearer of the latter, and a positive admission on his part that the Apocalypse was a.&.,,.vO"Tos and ltf,&1r10-'l'os, is highly sig- nificant. This is more impressive when it is remembered that he was Bishop of Hiera• polis, in the close neighbourhood of Laodicea. Melito of Sardis (about A.D. 169), another of the seven Churches of Asia, is reported by Euscbius (' Hist. Eccl.,' iv. 26) and by Jerome (' De Viris Ill.,' c. 24) to have written •• one book concerning the devil, and o:ie concerning the Apocalypse of John." Justin Martyr's testimony is remarkably explicit. In the 'Dial. cum Trypho,' c. 81, written about A.D. 146, Justin expressly mentions by name the Apocalypse as cc written by a certain man named John, one of the apostles of Christ." The quotation he gives ' is unmistakable reference to the millennium of the Revelation. 'l'his is the more weighty, because Justin never elsewhere alludes by name to any writer of the New Testament. "We conclude," says Dr. Davidson, cc that before the middle of the second centc:ry, the opinion that John the presbyter was the writer hacl not originated." .Apollonius, Bishop or Presbyter of Ephesus (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' v. 18), who wrote between A.D. 170 and 180, not only affirms John's residence in Ephesus, but that John wus the author of the .Apocalypse. The Letter of the Ohwrcha of Lyons and Vienne, as preserved by Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' ,. 1), quotes from the Apocalypse as ;, -ypritf'~, giving it consequently a character- of the highest authority and value. Theophilus of ..A.1,tioch (A.D. 168), in •Ad Autol.,' ii. 28, refers to the Apocalypse of' John as a book recognized in .Antioch, and quotes Rev. xii. 3. lrenams of Lyons (who wrote his great work A.D. 177-199), whose testimony to· John's Gospel, and whose letter to Florinus, wherein he declares that he remembered· Polycarp, have been already cited (p. xx.)-Irenreus was the successor of the aged martyr Pothinus, and was thus, by another link, related to the group of followers who knew the .Apostle John, and was himself not only acquainted with the Apocalypse, but compared different copies of it, and commented on the difference of readings as to cc the number of the beast," preferring 666 to 616, because it had in its favour the testimony (-rcii11 ,.,..,, ll,i,111 """ 'lco&.,,111111 '"'P""&-rco11) "of those who had seen John face to face." This is preserved in the Greek of Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' v. 8) and in the Latin translation (' .Adv. Hier.,' v. ::10. 1). The very numerous quotations and references by Irenreus to the book as the work of the Apostle John, the beloved disciple, leave no doubt as to hitr impression of the authorship. In • Adv. Hair.,' iv. 20. 11 he introduces a long ;passage from Rev. L 12, etc., with "Johannes Dom.ini diseipulus in Apocalypsi . . . rnquit," and in lib. v. 26. 1 this phrase is repeated when he quotes Rev. xvii. 12, etc. (cf. also lib. v. 30. 1). The Muratorian Canon does without doubt admit its apostolic authorship : 11 J oannes enim in .Apocalypsi licet septem ecclesils scribat, tamen omnil)Us dicit." "Apocalypses etiam Joannis, et Petri, tantum recipimus, quam quidem ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt." Here the author of the fragment discriminates between the two Apocalypses. The canon of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament r,ontaincd the .Apocalypse~ and Tertullian, who used it, quotes almost every chapter of the book (see especially  Tlll~ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. lxxiii