REVELATION, BOOK OF, I, Authorship. — The prevailing opinion has always been that John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the book before us. In favour of this view both external and internal evidence unite to speak. In relation to the former, some begin the series of witnesses with Polycarp, the apostle's disciple ; as Hengsten berg does. In the Epistle to the Philippians he writes, Let us therefore so serve him with fear and all reverence, as he himself bath commanded, and as the apostles who have preached the gospel unto ns, and the prophets who have foretold the cominc of our Lord ; being zealous of what is good,' etc. The Berlin critic supposes that the prophets are not personally different from the apostles ; and that the apostle John in the Apocalypse is their representative. But we believe that the O. T. prophets are spoken of.
The most ancient testimony in favour of the authenticity of the Apocalypse conies to us indi rectly. Two Cappadocian bishops, belonging to the latter part of the 5th century, Andreas and Arethas, relate, that Papias knew the Apocalypse and looked upon it as an inspired book: which in their day was tantamount to the belief of its apo stolic origin. It is true that Papias does not speak of it as the work of John the apostle in express terms ; but it is a fair inference that his regarding it as of divine authority and credible, comports best with the idea of its being written by none other. We may admit with Eusebius, that Papias was not the hearer of John the apostle, but of John the presbyter ; especially as he himself intimates thus much ; and at the same time cite him as a good witness for the apostolic authorship of the Apo calypse. It has seemed singular that Eusebius should have omitted the testimony of this early writer. But his silence is capable of an easy expla nation. The historian was unfavourable to Papias because of the latter's millennarian views ; calling him weak-minded on that account. The extrava gant expectations of John the presbyter's hearer, and of his day, were probably derived from oral tradition, in the view of Eusebius ; if not, Dionysius of Alexandria had influenced the mind of the historian, leading it to doubt the authenticity of the book. One thing is clear, that Eusebius would not have omitted all mention of Papias in relation to the point, if the latter had expressed himself hesitatingly on it. This he did not, for he belonged to a country where he had good oppor tunities of knowing the origin of the Apocalypse, and the presbyter John himself to whom Diony sius ascribes it. The testimony of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is on the same side with Papiaes. Eusebius states that be wrote a book about the devil and the Apocalypse of John.' The fact of the bishop of Sardis, one of the cities to which an epistle is addressed in the introductory part of Re velation, writing upon the book, proves its aposto licity.
Justin Martyr is the earliest writer who attributes the book expressly to John the apostle, at Ephesus. It is true that Rettig tried to impugn the authen ticity of the passage in Justin, but without effect ; as Lucke and Schott have ably proved. And Eusebius states, that Justin wrote his Dialogue or Disputation with Trypho, in which the place alluding to the Apocalypse occurs, at Ephesus ; the first city of the seven to which an epistle was ad dressed by the author (Rev. i. ii. 1). Surely the worthy father must have known the authorship well by historical tradition. In the circle within which he lived and acted, Justin knew of none other than the apostle as the author. We conclude, therefore, that before the middle of the zd century the opinion that John the presbyter was the writer had not originated. There is no reason for think ing that Justin rested on exegetical grounds. Neither the time nor the place agrees with such hypothesis. The earliest Christian period relied more upon persons than writings, for the support of their faith. Not long after, Justin, and in the same century, Apollonius, presbyter at Ephesus, drew proofs from the Apocalypse, even against the Montanists, as Eusebius states. The context of the passage in which the historian speaks of him, leaves no room for doubt tha,t Apollonius used the book as the production of John the apostle. Irenwus is also a witness in favour of the apostolic origin of the Apo calypse. He appeals, besides, to ancient MSS. for the genuineness of the number 666, as well as to persons who had seen the apostle John. Great weight belongs to this testimony, because Tremens must have learned the truth about the writer in proconsular Asia before he went to Gaul. The seven churches would carefully preserve the docu ment addressed to themselves. We do not see that the witness of Iremetts is weakened because he was mistaken in the date of the hook ; or because he received superstitious and absurd ac counts of John from the presbyters who professed to have seen him. It is probable that the Father drew the late date he assigns to the Apocalypse from a false interpretation of itself; or from vague report. And as to the superstitious opinions of John, received from the elders, they have nothing to do with the composition of a work like the present, because they were deduced from the interpretation of places in the O. T. The epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, given by Eusebius, also pre supposes the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse— so that from Asia Minor to Gaul the book is well attested as St. John's in the 2d century.