In the 4th century, Eusebius the historian seems undecided about retaining or rejecting the Apoca lypse. His opposition to millennarianism inclined him to the latter course, not less than the critical doubts of Dionysius. On the other hand, a con stant and firm tradition was arrayed on behalf of the apostolicity. The historian conjectures, with Dionysius, that the writer may be John the pres byter; but affirms that he will not refuse to put it among the OttoTo-ya,theva if cause for doing so should appear (geye Oavein). This wavering policy tells unfavourably on behalf of his honesty as a historian ; since it is not improbable that he could have cited older witnesses for the apostolic autho rity of the book, had he been so disposed.
It is scarcely necessary to follow the series of external testimonies farther than Eusebius. Later witnesses belong to the history of the canon, rather than to criticism. Enough has been given to prove that the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse is as well attested as that of any other book in the N. T. How can it be proved that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, on the basis of external evidence, if it be denied that John the apostle wrote the closing book of the canon ? With the limited stock of early ecclesiastical litera ture that survives the wreck of time, we should despair of proving the authenticity of any N. T. book by the help of ancient witnesses, if that of the Apocalypse be rejected as insufficiently attested.
Let it not be urged that the patristic tradition was unanimous but divided in character ; and that little weight should be attached to the testimonies of the Fathers, discordant as they frequently are on topics that came under their notice. The historical tradition relative to the Apocalypse seems to have been interrupted by doctrinal views merely. Had no Montanism or millennarianism appeared in the earliest times, we should not have heard of voices doubting the authorship of John. We do not deny that the ecclesiastical writers of the first three cen turies occasionally adopted vague traditions, with out inquiring whether they rested on a good foun dation ; and that they were generally incapable of critical investigation, if not disinclined to it ; or that they often followed their immediate prede cessors, contented to glide down the ecclesiastical stream without examining the correctness of their belief. There were, however, noble exceptions. It is an undoubted fact that, from the middle of the 2c1 century, several of the most distinguished Fathers connected with the church in Asia Minor, who had excellent opportunities of knowing the truth of the prevailing tradition there, received the work as an authentic document of the apostle John. Even Clement and Origen, whose doctrinal
standpoint hardly agreed with the book, did not doubt its apostolicity. The basis of the tradition cannot be explained away without violence to the principles of historical evidence.
We should not have drawn out the argument to such extent, had not the apostolicity of the book been doubted or denied by some of the ablest scholars in Germany. At the time of the Refor mation, Erasmus intimated his doubts of it ; think ing it strange that one writing revelations should repeat his name so carefully—/7ohn, 7ohn—as if he were drawing up a bond, not a book, which is contrary both to the custom of other apostles, and especially his own ; for in the gospel he speaks more modestly, and never gives his name. When Paul is forced to speak of his visions, he explains the thing in the person of another. Erasmus goes on to say, that in the Greek copies he had seen, the title was, of john the Divine, not john the Evan gelist; and that the language is not a little different from that in the gospel and epistle.* Luther speaks more decidedly against the apo stle's authorship : More than one thing presents itself in this book as a reason why I hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First, and most of all, that the apostles do not concern themselves with visions, but with prophecy in clear, plain words, as Peter, Paul, and Christ in the gospel do ; for it belongs to the apostolic office clearly, and without image or vision, to speak about Christ and his work. Moreover, there is no prophet in the O. T., not to speak of the N. T., who is occu pied with visions throughout ; so that I almost imagine to myself a fourth book of Esdras before me ; and certainly can find no reason for believing that it was set forth by the Holy Spirit. Besides, it seems to me far too arrogant in him to enjoin it upon his readers to regard his own as of more importance than any other sacred book, and to threaten that if any one shall take aught away from it, God will take away from his part in the book of life. Mot eover, even were it a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no man knows what that is. The book is believed in (and is really just the same to us) as though we had it not, and many nobler books exist for us to believe in. . . . But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production ; and this is reason enough for me that I should not highly esteem it, that Christ is neither taught nor perceived in it—which is the great business of an apostle.'* Though he used milder language afterwards, he never retracted his doubts.