"his predecessors" shows that he refers merely to the opponents of the Millenarians, such as the Alogi and Marcion. The argument, as will not escape notice, is not that the contemporaries of the apostle gave the information that John did not compose the Apocalypse, or that well-informed men ascribed it to others than John, but that some persons had endeavored to "make it suspicious on the score of its contents," and were not able to bring the slightest historical evidence against it. It is plain, as Stuart says, that Dionysius had no knowledge of more weighty objections to the Apocalypse among his predecessors. For if he had, most surely "would he have produced them. Could he but have appealed to ancient tradition, i.e. to historical testimony, in favor of his position, it was impossible that he should have failed to perceive its superior importance and cogency; and of course he would have placed it in the front. of all his arguments."

Dionysius himself, it is plain, did not place much confi dence in those whose opinions he quoted, but still, from the character of the book, conjectures that John the apostle was not the author. He goes through with the contents of the book, showing that it cannot be interpreted literally. It has, he supposes, some hidden and mysterious meaning that he cannot understand. "Not measuring or judging these things by our own reason, but assigning more to faith, I attribute to it things higher than can be comprehended by me. I do not reject those things which I cannot comprehend; but they are more the objects of my wonder because I can not fathom them." 2 "That the author was called John, and that this composition is John's, I do not deny. I agree that it belongs to some holy and inspired man. I could not indeed concede that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, to whom belongs the Gospel according to John and the catholic epistle." My belief is, that another John, among those who lived in Asia, was the

'See Hug's Introd., p. 656.

2 Quoted by Stuart, Commentary, Introduction, § 17.

66

author; inasmuch as the report is, that there are two sepulchral monuments in Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John." This belief in another John as author is, as is plain, the merest conjecture. He pretends to no tradition to that effect, and offers no proof that there was any other John whose character, station, or attainments rendered it probable that he was the author. The writer claimed the name John, and the style and language and some of the thoughts (though he does not dwell much upon these) are different from those of the Gospel and Epistle of John; therefore some other John, of whom there were probably several, was the author. The evangelist nowhere in the Gospel and Epistle gives his name, or speaks of himself in the first person, but the author of the Apocalypse at the outset (i. 1) says: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ.... to his servant John;" and in verse 4 : "John to the seven churches," etc. and again, verse 9: "I John, who also am your brothers" and then at the close, xxii. 8: "I John, who saw and heard these things." But the evangelist designates himself as, "The disciple whom Jesus loved" (John xxi. 7, 20), the brother of James, an eye and ear witness of Jesus. The Gospel and Epistle harmonize well together, and they commence in the same manner. The one: "In the beginning was the word;" the other: "that which was from the beginning." The Gospel: "The word became flesh," etc.; the Epistle exhibits the same thing with slight variations: "What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes," etc. Dionysius gives some varieties in thought in the Apocalypse and the Gospel and Epistle, and likewise avers that the language is different: They (the Gospel and Epistle) are written not only without offence against the Greek idiom, but are most eloquent in diction, modes of reasoning, and arrangement of expression." "But I perceive that his (the author of the Apocalypse) diction and idiom is not accurate Greek, and that he uses barbarous expressions and solecisms."

These methods of proof will be canvassed when we speak

of the internal proofs of the authorship of John; they are only referred to here, to show what arguments Dionysius used against the Johannean authorship of the Apocalypse. It will be perceived that they are such, and such only, as are used in modern times; and in the historical argument his opinion is worth no more than that of any one candid scholar of the present day. Indeed it is worth far less, for he had not the facilities for interpreting the book that we now have, and was pressed upon and annoyed by those who wished to give it a literal interpretation, and substantiate sentiments in opposition to the whole tenor of the rest of the scriptures, and subversive of piety and good morals. Besides, as Hengstenberg says: "He comes direct from the classical literature of Greece, and is still destitute of any taste properly cultivated and formed of a sacred kind. Greek spirit is not to be found in the book, which, more than any other, has deeply impressed on it the Old Testament, Israelitish character. For him it has something of a foreign, strange aspect."

The

One further circumstance must not be passed over here. In a letter to Hermammon 2 upon Valerian and the persecution under him, written some years later than the work previously quoted, he says: "And to John was this likewise revealed. And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy (Apoc. xiii. 5). Both (viz. his speaking great things and blasphemy and the duration of the persecution) can be seen to have wonderfully taken place in Valerian." Hengstenberg thinks "There can be no doubt that the genuineness of the Apocalypse is here acknowledged. The John mentioned can be no other than the apostle. He utters the language not of concession but of conviction." It does not however, seem to us certain that John the apostle is here meant. Still it is not improbable; and "perhaps Dionysius during that persecution

1 Comm., Vol. II. 427.

2 Eusebius, VII. c. 10.

(under Valerian), in which he had many things to suffer,1 obtained an insight into the glory of the book, and had his eyes also opened for apprehending the testimony of the church. We can also suppose that in his work on the promises, Dionysius, carried away by his polemical zeal, had given expression to his views only on one side, and that he here brings out the other side, his previous doubts having at bottom appeared to himself no more than doubts."2

Eusebius, in the first part of the fourth century, half a century later than Dionysius, sometimes speaks hesitatingly of the Apocalypse. "Among the writings of John, besides the Gospel, his first Epistle is acknowledged, without dispute, both by those of the present day, and also by the ancients; the other two Epistles, however, are disputed. But on the Revelation contary views are still maintained. But we will at some convenient time give our judgment. upon it, as it respects the testimony of the ancients." In the following chapter (xxv.), after speaking of the scriptures generally acknowledged as divine (ὁμολογουμένων θείων γραφῶν), he says: "to these may be added, if it seem good (ei pavein), the Revelation of John." He afterwards goes on to enumerate the disputed (vóða or avtiλeyóμeva) books, and adds: "Moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John [may be added], if it seem good (ei pavein), which, as before said, some reject, but others acknowledge as genuine." 3 Eusebius never seems to have redeemed his pledge made in the first of the above quotations. But when he again speaks at length of the Apocalypse in vii. 25, he quotes the passage of Dionysius above commented upon, and seems inclined to adopt substantially his view, attributing it to the presbyter John, plainly from the same reasons, his anti-millenarian belief, and his inability fully to reconcile the Apocalypse

1 Eusebius, VIII. 11.

Hengstenberg's Commentary, Vol. II. 430.

8 ΠΙ. 24. Τῆς δ ̓ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐφ ̓ ἐκάτερον ἔτι νῦν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς περιέλκεται ἡ δόξα· ὅμως γὲ μὴν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων μαρτυρίας ἐν οἰκείῳ καιρῷ τὴν ἐπίκρισιν δέξεται καὶ αὔτη.

with views obtained from other parts of the scriptures. Hengstenberg says of the manner in which Eusebius speaks of the Apocalypse: "Clearly and distinctly he recognizes the fact, that the book had the unanimous approval of antiquity, and the external grounds were entirely on its side. He makes no attempt whatever to invalidate the importance of this testimony, but acknowledges its full value.” In accordance with his knowledge of the historical testimony, in its favor, he at times, when nothing called to mind the difficulties arising from internal characteristics, quotes it, without question, as the work of John the evangelist.2

It has been urged as an objection to the canonical authority of the Apocalypse that it is not found in the Peschito version. Neither are the second and third Epistles of John, the second of Peter, and that of Jude; but we should not on that account reject them. When this version was made is not known, probably not before the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, if indeed as early as that. The first traces of its use are in the Commentaries of Ephrem Syrus, who flourished in the latter part of the fourth century. He speaks of it as "our translation," and it was plainly in use by the churches of his time. This same commentator often refers to the Apocalypse as to other parts of the scriptures, in such a way as to show that he not only unhesitatingly received it as genuine, but that it was so received by the churches for whom he wrote.3 Besides, he quotes in such a manner as to show that he must have had a Syriac translation before him. What this was it is impossible to say. But it is certainly most nat ural to suppose in the circumstances, that the Peschito at this time contained the Apocalypse, and that in some way

1 Comm., Vol. II. 432 seq.

See the references in Stuart's Commentary, Introduction, § 17 (4). 3 Sce Opp. Syr. II. 332. "John, in his Revelation, saw a great, wonderful, divinely written book, sealed with seven seals," etc., Rev. v. 1. Cf. also III. 636. In Opp. Graec. (transl.), I. 39; II. 53, 194, 252: Kadus kal 'Iwdvvns d Debλoyos ¿kýpuže. In Opp. Graec. III. 191, he makes a sort of synopsis of the Apocalypse. Stuart's Commentary, Introduction, § 17 (21).