67-'. 



REVELATION 



were the little prominence it gave to Christ, and 

 the peculiar manner of its teaching, so unlike the 

 rest of the apostolic teaching or that of < 'lui-t him 

 elf. In 1530 he somewhat modified the language 

 he had used, but he never withdrew his unfavour- 

 able opinion. The prevailing view of the Lutheran 

 divines of the 16th ami 17th centuries (CarUtadt, 

 Flacius, anil others) was that the Apocalv|>xe can 

 claim at best only the third and lowest degree of 

 canonical authority. Zwingli in 1528 refused to 

 regard it as Scripture or to admit the validity 

 of doctrinal proofs derived from it Calvin abstained 

 from commenting on it . IU ' deutero-canonical ' 

 character, however, was never made prominent in 

 Britain, and was gradually lost sight of even in 



Mention may perhaps be made of the 

 English work of Ahauzit on the Revelation (1730), 

 which called forth some controversy at the time of 

 i - - appearance ; bnt, strictly speaking, the dis- 

 cussion of the critical problems of the book did not 

 enter upon its modern phase until the time of 

 Semler, 'the father of modern biblical criticism,' 

 who in 1769 and following years, f rorn a comparison 

 of the fourth gospel with the Apocalypse, argued 

 that an apostolic authorship could not possibly be 

 claimed for both, and, starting from this canon, 

 denied it to the latter. The same view was taken 

 up by Schleiemiacher and his immediate disciples, 

 the most brilliant of whom De Wette ultimately 

 gave out this ' disjunctive canon ' as one of the 

 most (irmly established conclusions of modern 

 criticism ( 1826 ) ; so also Ewald ( 1828 ). To obviate 

 the force of some at least of Sender's arguments, 

 those who wished to maintain the a|>ostolic origin 

 of iMitli works found it important to make out an 

 earlier date for the Apocalypse than the currently 

 accepted tradition, following Irenieus, had assigned 

 to it. In their efforts to do so they were powerfully 

 supported from 1845 onwards by the Tubingen 

 school, which had also accepted the 'disjunctive 

 canon,' though choosing the op|>osito alternative 

 to that adopted by Schleiermacher, and main- 

 tained the apostolic character of the Apocalypse, 

 ranking it indeed as one of the five undoubtedly 

 genuine remains of the apostolic age ( Batir, followed 

 by Schwegler, Zeller, 8. Davidson, &c. ). Various 

 opponents of the Tubingen school followed Kemler 

 and De Wette in arguing for the non-apostolic 

 authorship of the Apocalypse at least. Thus, 

 Lucke and Neander attributed it to some unknown 

 John ; Ewald, Hleek, Diistenlieck to the presbyter 

 John ; Hitzig to John Mark. Meanwhile all 

 sections of the historical school of exegesis were at 

 one in the effort to see and if possible understand 

 the Ixxik in the light of the actual circumstances 

 of it* writer. Among the detail* that came into 

 greater clearness were the historical references in 

 the I K'gi lining of chapter vi., the indication of date 

 Hiipplieii by xi. 1, 2, and a very prolmble explana- 

 tion of the number of the l*east ('Nero Ciesar') 

 which was first given by Kritxsche in 1831 and after- 

 wards rediscovered, independently il is said, by 

 Itenary, Hit/.ig, and Keuss in Is:i7. Much of the 

 evidence jminting to an early date for the book 

 was, as already indicated, specially welcome to 

 those who Ktill maintained the a|H>stolic author- 

 ship alike of the ( lospd and of the Revelation, for 

 it was becoming increasingly plain that the dill'er- 

 ences of language and conception l>etween the two 

 works were peculiarly inexplicable if 1nit.li wen- 

 MBnmed to In-long practically to the same period 

 in the life of their common author. 



On the other hand it was felt to be difficult 

 wholly to net aside the traditions which pointed to 

 a later date, es|>ecially as these best explained 

 some of the doctrinal peculiarities of the book, and 

 many of the phenomena presented by the condition 

 of the ' seven churches ' to whom the book is 



primarily addressed. The two-sided character of 

 the evidence, both external and internal, as to date 

 is indeed obvious when one looks at it with any 

 care; and as early as the middle of the 17th century 

 it had occurred to Grotius ( 1644 ) that the problem 

 raised by it might perhaps be solved by the assiimp- 

 lion that tin- liook was written by its one author 

 at different times, partly in I'atnios and partly 

 at Ephesus. Vogel in the beginning of the 19th 

 century (1811-16) offered adiflerent solution that 

 it was written partly by the apostle John and 

 partly by the presbyter John, a theory which seems 

 to have had some attraction for Schleiemiacher, 

 and, temporarily at least, for Bleek. The them;. 

 of a composite origin of the work has in a 

 variety of forms come into very great prominence 

 quite recently. Thus, according to the acute 

 analysis of Volter in his singularly able and 

 instructive work On tin Origin of the Apocalypse 

 ( 1882 ; new ed. 1885 ; compare the appendix to 

 Simcox's Commentary), the original Apocalypse as 

 written by the apostle in 65-66 A.D. consists of i. 

 4-6; iv. 1-v. 10; vi. 1-vii. 8; viii. ; ix. ; xi. 14-19; 

 xiv. 1-7 ; xviiL 1-xix. 14 ; xiv. 14-20 ; xix. 6-10. 

 To this the apostle himself three years later 

 (68-69 A.D.) added x. 1-xi. 13; xiv. 8; xvii. It 

 received subsequent additions by other hands in 

 the time of Trajan (xi. 15, 18; xii. ; \ix. 11, 12; 

 xx.; xxi. 1-8), of Hadrian (v. 11-14; vii. 9-17; 

 xiii. ; xiv. 4, 5, 9-12 ; xv. 1-xvii. 1 ), and of 

 Antoninus Pius (prologue, the epistles to the 

 churches, &c.). A new line of investigation in the 

 same direction was opened by Vischer, who ( The 

 Revelation of John a Jemsh Apocalypse, 1886) 

 sought to show that the groundwork of the com- 

 posite book was primarily not Christian but Jewish, 

 written in Hebrew, but translated and freely 

 adapted by a Christian redactor. This view was 

 accepted by Harnack (1886), and substantially, 

 though with large modifications, by Pfleiderer 

 (1887) and Weyland (1888). Schon also (1887) 

 and Sabatier (1888) maintained the composite 

 character of the work, holding it, however, to be 

 essentially of Christian origin (end of 1st century), 

 but with incorporation of Jewish fragments. The 

 most powerful and suggestive of recent works 

 based on the theory of composite origin is that of 

 X\i'Mn. (The Revelation of John, 1889), who distin- 

 guishes a Christian Apocalypse, dating from about 

 60 A.D., which he attribute's to John Mark (i. 4-6, 

 9-19; ii. 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-25; iii. 1-4, 7-11, 

 14-20 ; iv. 1-4, 5a, 6a, 7-14 ; v. ; vi. ; viii. 1 ; 

 vii. 9-17 ; xix. 96, lOa; xxii. 8, 10-13, 16-18a, 20n, 

 21 ) and two Jewish Apocalyjises dating respectively 

 from Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. 

 (x. Mi, 2, 8-11 ; xi. 1-13 ; xiv. 14-20; xv. 2-4, 6, 

 8 ; xvi. 1-12, 17, 21 ; xvii. 1-6 ; xviii. 1-xix. 8 ; 

 xxi. 9-27; xx. 1, 2, 3n, 15) and from Caligula's 

 time, about 40 A.D. (viL 1-8; viii. 2-13; ix. ; 

 x. la, 26-7; xi. 15, 19; xii. 1-14; xiii. ; xvi. 13- 

 16, 176-20; xix. 12-21; xx. 1-15; xxi. 1, 6, 6). 

 These three sections of the work correspond 

 roughly, it will be seen, to the visions of the 

 seals, the trumpet*, and the vials. The. work of 

 redaction, Spit ta holds, was done towards the end 

 of the 1st century. He finds the original number 

 of the beast (616) in the name of Caligula (Gains 

 ir), and considers that it was only afterwards 

 adapted to that of Nero (666). The treatises on 

 the Revelation by Krl.cs ( ISill ) and Schmidt ( 1891 ) 

 are in tendency similar to that of Hpitta. The 

 subject they deal with is still under active dis- 

 cussion ; but it is already felt, by all competent 

 indues that the investigation thus inaugurate,! i* 

 likely to lead to valuable results, and ultimately 

 perhaps may be found to afford an approximate 

 solution of most of the still unsolved problems 

 connected with the Apocalypse, and so make it. 



