The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 67

• Do Prrescrip. I-Irer.,' 83, where ho cites Rev. ii. 20; 'Arlv. Marc.,' iii. 14-, where be cites Ucv. i. 16, ns the word of the Apostle John in the A pocalypsc). For our presont purpose it is not necessary to proceed further than to say that Clemens Alex. (' Strom.,' iii.; 'Pred.,' ii. 12; vi. 13) and Origcn (' Comm. on Matthew nnd John'), notwithstanding the latter's opposition to millenarianism, admitted its nntlicnticity; 1hat Hippolytus (A.D. 200) quoted it by name(' Ref. Omn. Ilrer.,' vii. 24), and is said, in tho inscription on his statue, to have written a work upon it; thnt Metho- dius and Cyril of Alcxnn<lrin use it, and Ephrem E',yrus (though the Peschito Syriac trnnslntion did not contain the bouk) quotes from it as from any other part of the New 'l'c~tament, nncl from a later Syrinc trnmlntion existing in his day. \Ve are not, however, without adverse or negative testimonies from very hic.:h antiquity to its apostolic authorship. These are, however, of such a kind a.a to resemble, and did in fact initiate, the subjective criticism to which the book has been submitted in modern times. (i.) Thus Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' iii. 28) informs us that Caius, a. presbyter of Rome, who lived about the time of Ircnreus, seems to refer the book to "Cerinthus, who, through apocalypses written as if by a great apostle speaking falsely, brings in tales of marvels shown to him as if by angels, affirming that after the resurrection comes an earthly kingdom of Christ," etc. But it may be reasonably argued that Caius does not neces,arily refer to John's Apocalypse at a.II, a.nd we learn from other sources (Theod., 'De Hror. Fabulis,' ii. 3) that Ccrinthus did produce supposed revelations of the future carnal pleasures of a coming millennium. It is by no means probable that Caius did rnnke this charge against the book. AJford, Davidson, and many others accept this early blunder. Hug, Westcott, a.nd Dr. Lee think that on close inquiry the supposed innuendo of Caius (a strong ante-Montanist) is non-existent. (ii.) '!'he sect of the .Alogi were the strenuous opponents of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse, together with the doctrine of the AOrOl, and were opposed to the Mon- tanism and chiliasm which prevailed at the close of the century. The re~sons they urged were purely doctrinal, or based upon proved historical blunders. The Marcionites in the same way, from doctrinal prepossessions, refused to recognize either the Gospels of Mark or Matthew or any of the writings of John. There is no value in such negative evidence to the existence of the Apocalypse. The non-appearance of the Apocalypse in the 'Ca.non of Marcion' is no argument at all agai:c.st its apostolicity; but there is one writer of far more formidable character, who, in a long argument, endeavours to disprove its authenticity, though he does not go so far as to discard the book. (iii.) Dionysius qf Alexandria, a pupil of Origen, and a firm believer in the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, was a. vehement opponent of B literal millennium, a.nd, to strengthen his antagonism, endeavoured to show that no apostle could have written the Apocalypse. His arguments have been preserved, nnd a.re cited at great length by Eusebins (' Hist. Eccl.,' vii. 24, 25). They cover much of the ground which modem criticism occupies in endeavouring to separate from the Apocalypse the Fourth Gospel, in whose apostolic authority he entirely believed. He disagreed with those who set it aside; he deduced no arguments from antiquity; he did not refer to the deficiency of external evidence; he did not reject it as the work of Ccrinthus; nor did he object to it on the ground taken by the Alogi, because it might have deep meaning,; which he cannot fathom, and because it probably is the work of some holy and inspired writer; but ho argued with acuteness that it could not be John the apostle aud the son of Zehedee, because (a) the author of the Apocalypse gh·es his nawe, whereas thtt author of the Gospel and the First Epistle is silent about his name, and in the Second and 'rhird Epistles simply calls himself "the elder." (b) He argued that there wero- many "Johns," but that this writer does not make manifest which; he does not call him- self either" the brothor of James" or" the disciple whom Jesus loved." He urged that "John Mnrk" could not have been the author, because he refused to join in the Asian ministry of Paul (that, by the way, is n very poor argument); bnt he added very doubt- fully," I think there wns another of these Johns in Asi1\; and they say that there are two tombs in Ephesus, and that each of them is said to be that of a John." This is tho solitary rrnson he gives for some unknown John being the author. Dionyfius, comparing the Gospel of John with the Epistles, shows how the prologue lxxiv INTRODUCTION TO