Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

by Albert Barnes

3. He did not ascribe it, as it has been supposed by some that Caius did, to Cerinthus.

4. All the objections that he urges to its being the work of the apostleJohn are derived from the book itself, and from the difficulty of supposing that the Gospel of John, and the First Epistle of John, should have been written by the same author. He refers to no historical proof on that point; and does not even intimate that its genuineness had been called in question by the early writers. It is clear, therefore, that the objections of Dionysius should not be allowed to set aside the strong and clear proofs of a historical nature already adduced from the early Christian writers. See the opinion of Dionysius examined more at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 344–354. Comp. Hug, Intro. pp. 654–656.

(c) It may be added, in regard to the historical testimony from the ancients, that the book is not found in many of the early catalogues of the books of the New Testament, and that this has been made an objection to its authenticity. Thus Gregory of Nazianzen, in a piece composed in verse, containing a catalogue of the canonical Scriptures, omits the book of Revelation; in the catalogue of sacred writings annexed to the canons of the council of Laodicea, A.D. 363, it is also omitted; in the so-called Canons of the Apostles, a supposititious work of the latter part of the fourth century, it is also omitted; it is also omitted in a catalogue of sacred books published by Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 360; and it is mentioned by Amphilocus, bishop of Iconium, A.D. 380, as among the books that were doubtful. “Some,” says he, “admit the Apocalypse of John, but most persons say it is spurious.” See Michaelis, Intro. New Test. iv. 489; Prof. Stuart, i. 357, seq.

In regard to these omissions, and the doubts entertained by later writers on the subject, it may be remarked in general, (1) That it is well known that in the latter part of the fourth century and onward many doubts were entertained as to the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, and that, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John, it was reckoned among the books called Antilegomena; that is, books spoken against, or books whose canonical authority was not admitted by all. (2) This fact shows, as has been often remarked, the great vigilance of the church in the early ages, in settling the canon of Scripture, and in determining what books were to be admitted, and what were to be rejected. (3) These doubts, entertained in a later age, cannot affect the clear historical testimony of the early writers, as we now have it; for the question of the origin of the Apocalypse, so far as the historical testimony is concerned, must be determined by the testimony of the writers who lived near the time when it is alleged to have been written. (4) The objections alleged against the Apocalypse in later times were wholly on internal grounds, and were mainly derived from the fact that it was supposed to countenance the doctrine of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ and the saints, for a thousand years, in Jerusalem; and from the fact that the followers of Cerinthus appealed to this book in support of their pernicious errors. The book seemed (see [chap. xx.]) to countenance the views early entertained by many on the subject of the millennium, and, in accordance with a common method of controversy, its canonical authority was therefore called in question. Thus Hug (Intro. p. 654) says, “It was amidst the disputes concerning the millennium that the first explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apocalypse occurred.” Nepos, bishop of the Arsinoitic præfecture in Egypt, had maintained that the doctrine of the millennium could be defended from the book of Revelation by a literal exposition.Dionysius opposed this view, and, in the violence of the dispute on the subject, the authority of the Apocalypse itself was called in question by Dionysius, on the grounds referred to above. “He did this, however,” says Hug, “with such moderation, that he might not offend those who had so readily agreed to a compromise;” that is, a compromise by which, as bishop, he had endeavoured to reconcile the contending parties. Hug has shown conclusively (pp. 654–656) that this constitutes no objection to the genuineness of the book. It was on such internal grounds entirely that the authenticity of the book was called in question, and that it was ever placed among the disputed books. That objection is, of course, of no importance now. (5) It is well known that, mainly by the influence of Jerome and Augustine (see Prof. Stuart, i. 334), all these doubts were removed, and that the Apocalypse after their time was all but universally received, until Luther, for reasons derived from the book itself, in the early part of his life, again called it in question.

Such is a summary of the historical argument in favour of the genuineness of the book of Revelation; and such is the nature of the evidence which has satisfied the Christian world at large that it is the work of the apostle John, and is, therefore, entitled to a place as an inspired book in the canon of Scripture. In ancient times there were no objections to it on historical grounds, and it is unnecessary to say that there can be none on these grounds now.

(2) The objections to its genuineness and authenticity in modern times are wholly derived from the contents of the book itself. These objections, as stated by De Wette, and as expressing the substance of all that is urged by Ewald, Lücke, Credner, and others, are the following:—

1. That the Apocalyptical writer calls himself John, which the evangelist never does. It is added, also, by Ewald, Credner, and Hitzig, that in chap. xviii. 20 and xxi. 14 the writer expressly excludes himself from the number of the apostles.

2. That the language of the book is entirely different from that of the fourth Gospel, and the three Epistles of John the apostle. It is said to be characterized by strong Hebraisms, and by ruggedness; by negligence of expression, and by grammatical inaccuracies; and that it exhibits the absence of pure Greek words, and of the apostle’s favourite expressions.

3. That the style is unlike that which appears in the Gospel and the Epistles. In the latter it is said there is calm, deep feeling; in the Apocalypse a lively creative power of fancy.

4. That the doctrinal aspect of the book is different from that of the apostle’s acknowledged writings. It is said that we find in the latter nothing of the “sensuous expectations of the Messiah and of his kingdom,” which are prominent in the Apocalypse; that the views inculcated respecting spirits, demons, and angels are foreign to John; and that there is a certain spirit of revenge flowing throughout the Apocalypse quite inconsistent with the mild and amiable disposition of the beloved disciple.