apend a thousand years in Jerusalem" ('Dial. cum Trypbo,' o. hm. P- ' 308). Irenmus, in the latter half of the second century, knew the book well, quoted it largely, ~nd plainly attributed it to the John who leaned on Jesu' breast (' Adv. Hrer.,' iv. 20. 11, etc.); he also appeals to genuine and ancient oopies, as well as to others in which tb,e text had already become corrnpt (ibid., v. 30. 1). Explicit statements that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse are also found in Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and many Ja.tar Fath1;1rs. f 3. D.1.n. There are two principal theories· regarding the da.t,e of tbe Apocalypse-- the one a.scribing it to about the year 69, or even earlier; and the other to about the year 96, or later. The reversed figures a.re easy to remember. The advocates of the earlier date refer St. John's banishment to the Neronian persecution, and believe the Apocalypse to have preceded the Fonrth Gospel by a period of nearly or quite thirty years. Those who support the later date hold that the author WM banished under Domitia.n, and tha.t the Gospel was written before the Apocalypse, or, at latest, very soon after it. We believe that the eatlier date is the right one, for the following reasons. 1. The internal evidence in Bt1ppo?'t of it is very st?'Ong. The Jingaistio phenomena., the doctrinal expressions, and the methods of conveying Christian truth, m the two books are such as irresistibly lead the student to the conviction that the Apocalypse is much earlier than the Gospel This argument has been ably drawn out by Canon Westcott (Introduction to St. John's Gospel in the ' Speaker's Commentary,' pp. lxxxiv.-lxxxvii.). (1) Regarding the linguistic phenomena, he says, "Nor is it difficult t.o see that, in any case, intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time na.tuially reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is, howenr, very difficult to Bllppose that the language of the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time, in a Greek-spea,king country, into the language of the Apocaiypse. 0 (2) Regard.in~ the doctrinal expressions: "The Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the synoptists and the Fourth Gospel. It offers the oharacteristio thoughts of the Fourth Gospel in that form of develop- ment which belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It belongs to diffe'l'8nt historical circumstances, to a different phase of intellectual pregress, to • different theological stage, from that of St. John's Gospel; and yet it is not; only harmonious with it in teac-hing, but in the order of theught it is the necessary germ out of whieb the Gospel proceeded by a process of life.'' (S) Regarding the methods of conveying Christian truth: '' Of th~ two books the Apocalypse is the earlier. It is less developed, both in thought and style. The material imagery in which it is composed includes the idea of progress in interpretation. The symbols are living. On the othe?' hand, to go back from the teachin_g of the Gospel to that of the Apocalypse, to INTRODUCTION TO
elothe clear thought in fignres, to reduce the full expression of truth to its rudimentary beginnings, seems to_ involve • _moral miracle, which would introduce confusion into life." 2. The clear and positive external testimony against :rt :i's not strong, being reducible (as it seems to us) to the solitary statement of Irenmus, near the end of the second century, that the Apocalypse was seen towards the close of Domitia.n's ;wign. Dom_itian was emperor from A,D. 81 to 96. lrenreus, writing a. century after the fact, may easily have made the mistake of pntting the name of one famous persecuting emperor instead of the other, and it is remarkable that his statement is supported by no other writer earlier than Victorinus of Pettau, after a seconr! interval of a century. Eusebius and Jerome, in_ the fourth century, do not strengthen what they merely repeat. 3. The remaining early evidence as to the time when the Apocalypse was written is certainly reconcilable with, and seems rather in favour of, the earlier date. We refer particnle.rly to the oft-quoted passages of Clement 'of Alexa.ndria, 'l'ertullian, and Origen. (1) Olemep.t (' Quis Salvus Dives?' § 42, quoted· in Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' iii. ~3) says that St. John went from the island of Patmos to Ephesus " after tki! tyrant was dead ( Toii TVpa.wov TE;\.wn,aaVTo~); " that from Ephesus, as his head-quarters, he used to go when -required to the neighbouring Gentile districts to ,appoint bishops in one place, to regulate whole Churches in another, to ordain clergy in a third; that in one of thes!" journeys be entrusted a. youth to the bishop's care, with a special charge;' that the youth was nurtured ai;id brought up by the ecclesiastic, and at last {To TE;\.wnmv) ba.ptized; that afterwards (p,E;a ToiiTo) the guardian's care relaxed, and the youth fell into bad company, who at first (7rpwTov µ.w) enticed him to love their society, then led him o:n step by step ( ElTa • • ., El-ra • • ., Ka-r' t,;\.lyov ,rp_ouE..Ol{ETo), until' at length (TeAloos) he renou-µced his religion, and became a ~:ng criminal and a chieftain of banditti; that after a lapse of time (xp6v~ lv p,luie Kai) an occasion arose when the apostle's presence was again z:.~dllSI 11,j th~ 11ame place, the people sent for him, and he came ; that after settling the matter for which they had requested his visit, St. John inq aired of the biahop respecting that which be had entrusted to his ea.re; that the bishop did not at first understand what was meant, but, when St. John e:x.plained hiµiself, told the youth's sad history; that the apostle, exhibiting most poignant grief, demanded a horse and guide, and rode off at once (~'11'€f> ,lxEV) to seek the lost youth, and that he succeeded in reclaiming him. Clement's language leaves no doubt tl1at he believed the whole of these events of St. John's stay in Asia, with J<Jphesus as his centre of operations, to have been posterior to "the tyrant's" death; and so Eusebius understood him. Clement does not give the name of " the tyrant" to whom he refers: but Eusebius, influenced .(as '!6 may reasonably suppose) by the e~press sta.t.ement of Irenrous, with whose writings he was very familiar, takes it • for gmnt.ed that. Dolllitian is meant ; and ma.r,y modern writers agree with _. •' . "" • •- •. • • ~ t ., -~ I • ,'. THE REVELA. TION '01!' ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.