(2) The Period of the Reformation. At the period of the Reformation, Flacius strenuously upheld the authority of the Apocalypse, and since his day able defenders of it have not been want ing. Twells, C. F. Schmid. J. F. Reuss, Knittel, Storr, Liiderwald, Hartwig, Kleuker, Herder, Donker, Curtius, Hanlein, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, Feilmoser, Kolthoff, Olshausen, J. P. Lange (Tholuck's Lit. Anceig. 1838), Dannemann, Ha vernick (Evangel. Kirchcizzcit, 1834, and Lucnb. Critics'), Guerike, Schnitzer (Allgenz. Literatur zcit, 1841), Zeller (Deutsche Jahrb., 1841), and others. Most of these writers seem to rest all the credit and authority of the book on the fact of its being written by John the Apostle, while one or two of the later critics attribute it to the apos tle, for the sake of invalidating and ruining the fourth Gospel. The external evidence in favor of its authenticity and genuineness is overwhelming. This is particularly the case in regard to the Latin church. In the Greek doubts were more preva lent, until they were lost in the dark night of the middle ages. Montanism first aroused and drew attention to the question, for the adherents of that false system based their tenets almost exclusively on the Revelation. Hence we may account in some degree for the sentiments of Dionysius of Alexandria, who contended against the millen narian Nepos.
Thus tile general tenor of the external evidence is clearly in favor of the canonical authority, while internal circumstances amply confirm it. The style, language, and manner of the book, cannot be mistaken. In dignity and sublimity it is equal to any of the New Testament writings. if not su perior to them all. The variety and force of the images impress the mind of every reader with conceptions of a divine origin. Surely no unin spired man could have written in such a strain.
9. Time and Place of Writing. In ascer taining these points there is considerable diffi culty.
(1) Varied Opinions. The prevalent opinion is that the book was written A. D. 96 or 97, at Patmos or Ephesus, after Domitian's death, i. c., under Nerva. So Mill, Le Clerc, Basnage, Lard ner, Woodhouse, and others. This is supposed to be in accordance with the tradition that John was sent into Patmos towards the end of Domi tian's reign, and that he there received the Reve lation, agreeably to the statement in chap. i:9. The fact that John was banished to Patmos is at tested by antiquity, and seems to be hinted at in verse 9, in which we must believe, in opposition to Neander, that there is a necessary reference to sufferings on account of the Gospel. It is men tioned by Irenirus, Clement of Alexandria, Ter tullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.
The time, however, is very differently stated. Eusebius and Jerome attribute the exile to Domi tian ; the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, Theo phylact, and the younger Hippolytus, assign it to Nero; Epiphanius to Claudius; while Tertullian, Clement, and Origen give it no name. It has beenconjectured that Domitius (Nero) and Domi tian were early interchangcd, and that even the testimony of Irenxus refers rather to Domitius (Nero) than to Domitian.
But whatever plausibility there be in this con jecture (and there seems to be none), the lan guage of Tertullian, Clement, and Origen is more appropriate to Nero than to Domitian. Besides, if Peter and Paul suffered from the cruel tyrant, it is difficult to conceive how John could have eluded notice or persecution. Indeed, early eccle
siastical tradition is as favorable to the assumption that John was sent into banishment by Nero, as it is to the opinion that he was exiled by Domi tian. Thus Eusebius, who in his Chronicon and Ecclesiastical History follows Irenwus, in his Demon. Evangel., associates the Patmos-exile with the death of Peter and Paul who suffered under Nero. But we are not left to external grounds on the question before us, else the deci sion might be uncertain, for the tradition of the early church in regard to the banishment of John is neither consistent nor valuable; it will not stand the test of modern criticism. Hence the view of those who think that it was manufactured solely from chap. i:9 is exceedingly prohable. Taken from such an origin, it was shaped in various ways. The passage in question certainly implies that John had been a sufferer for the Gos pel's sake, and that lie either withdrew to Patmos before the fury of persecution burst upon him, or that he was compelled to betake himself to that lonely island in consequence of positive opposi tion.
The language of the fathers in recording this tradition also shows that they did not carefully distinguish between the time of writing the visions and the time when they were received. Some times it is said that the Apocalypse was written in Patmos, but much more frequently it is simply stated that revelations were there made to the seer.
(2) Internal Evidence. In the absence of definite external evidence, internal circumstances come to our aid. These show that Jerusalem had not been destroyed. Had such a catastrophe al ready happened, it would scarcely have been left unnoticed. An event pregnant with momentous consequences to the cause of truth and the for tunes of the early church, would most probably have been mentioned or referred to. But there arc distinct references to the impending destruc tion of the city. In chap. xi :t it is commanded to measure the temple, obviously presupposing that it still stood. In verse 2 the holy city is about to be trodden by the Gentiles forty-two months; and in the 13th verse of the same chapter the same event is also noticed. Besides, the sixth emperor was still sitting on the throne when the writer was favored with the visions (xvii:to). Five kings or emperors had already fallen; one was then reigning, and the other had not come. The most natural interpretation of the sixth king is that which, beginning the series with Julius Caesar, fixes upon Ncro; so Bertholdt and Koeh ler. Galba is, of course. the seventh, and agree ably to the prophecy he reigned but seven months. That such was the usual mode of computation, Koehler has attempted successfully to show from the fourth book of Ezra and Josephus's Antiqui ties, which is confirmed by Suetonius's Twelve Ccesars, and by the Sibyilline oracles, fifth book. We are aware that Eichhorn reckons from Au gustus, and makes the sixth Vespasian—Otho, Galba, and Vitellius being passed over; and that Ewald, Lucke, and others, beginning also with Augustus, make Galba the sixth, the emperor that is;' but it was contrary to the usual method of reckoning among the Jews and Romans to commence with that emperor.