Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

“As it is not improbable that this cautious method of proceeding will give offense to some of my readers, I must plead in my behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precisely in the same manner. His sentiments on this subject are delivered, not in an occasional dissertation on the Apocalypse, but in the preface to his German translation of it, a translation designed not merely for the learned, but for the illiterate, and even for children. In the preface prefixed to that edition, which was printed in 1522, he expressed himself in very strong terms. In this preface he says: ‘In this book of the Revelation of St. John, I leave it to every person to judge for himself: I will bind no man to my opinion; I say only what I feel. Not one thing only fails in this book; so that I hold it neither for apostolical, nor prophetical. First and chiefly, the apostles do not prophesy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St. Peter, St. Paul, and Christ in the gospel do. It is moreover the apostle’s duty to speak of Christ and his actions in a simple way, not in figures and visions. Also no prophet of the Old Testament, much less of the New, has so treated throughout his whole book of nothing but visions: so that I put it almost in the same rank with the fourth book of Esdras, and cannot any way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost. Lastly, let every one think of it what his own spirit suggests. My spirit can make nothing out of this book; and I have reason enough not to esteem it highly, since Christ is not taught in it, which an apostle is above all things bound to do, as he says, (Acts i.) Ye are my witnesses. Therefore I abide by the books which teach Christ clearly and purely.’

“But in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less decisive expressions. In the preface to this later edition, he divides prophecies into three classes, the third of which contains visions, without explanations of them; and of these he says: ‘As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy, and is destitute of the advantages which it ought to afford to Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day, has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made incoherent stuff out of their own brain. On account of these uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers believed that it was not written by the apostle, as is related in Lib. III. Church History. In this uncertainty we, for our part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking it to be the work of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And because I should be glad to see a certain interpretation of it, I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.’

“Still however, he declared he was not convinced that the Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther’s preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church, which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out, by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa, Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of Luther.

“I admit that Luther uses too harsh expressions, where he speaks of the epistle of St. James, though in a preface not designed for Christians of every denomination: but his opinion of the Apocalypse is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence, which are well worthy of imitation. And this is so much the more laudable, as the Apocalypse is a book, which Luther’s opposition to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable to him, unless he had thought impartially, and had refused to sacrifice his own doubts to polemical considerations.”

To pretend to decide with certainty on a point, which Martin Luther boldly denied, and which John David Michaelis modestly doubted, implies neither superior knowledge of the truth, nor a more holy reverence for it; but rather marks a mere presumptuous self-confidence, and an ignorant bigotry, arising from the prejudices of education. Yet from the deep researches of the latter of these writers, and of other exegetical theologians since, much may be drawn to support the view taken in the text of this Life of John, which is accordant with the common notion of its authorship. The quotation just given, however, is valuable as inculcating the propriety of hesitation and moderation in pronouncing upon results.

The testimony of the Fathers, on the authenticity of the Apocalypse as a work of John, the apostle, may be very briefly alluded to here. The full details of this important evidence may be found by the scholar in J. D. Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament (Vol. IV. c. xxxiii. § 2.) Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament (Vol. II. § 176.) Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel History (Supplement, chapter 22.) Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca. (Harles’s 4to. edition with Keil’s, Kuinoel’s, Gurlitt’s, and Heyne’s notes, vol. IV. pp. 786–795, corresponding to vol. III. pp. 146–149, of the first edition.) Lampe, Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology.

Justin Martyr (A. D. 140,) is the first who mentions this book. He says, “A man among us, named John, one of the apostles of Christ, has, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied,” &c. Melito (A. D. 177.) is quoted by Eusebius and by Jerome, as having written a treatise on the Revelation. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches, and his testimony would be therefore highly valuable, if it were certain whether he wrote for or against the authenticity of the work. Probably he was for it, since he calls it “the Apocalypse of John,” in the title of his treatise, and the silence of Eusebius about the opinion of Melito may fairly be construed as showing that he did not write against it. Irenaeus, (A. D. 178,) who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple and personal friend of John, often quotes this book as “the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” And in another place, he says, “It was seen not long ago, almost in our own age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” This is the most direct and valuable kind of testimony which the writings of the Fathers can furnish on any point in apostolic history; for Irenaeus here speaks from personal knowledge, and, as will be hereafter shown, throws great light on the darkest passage in the Apocalypse, by what he had heard from those persons who had seen John himself, face to face, and who heard these things from his own lips. Theophilus of Antioch, (A. D. 181,)——Clemens of Alexandria, (A. D. 194,——Tertullian of Carthage, (A. D. 200,)——Apollonius of Ephesus, (A. D. 211,)——Hippolytus of Italy, (A. D. 220,)——Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, (A. D. 230,)——all received and quoted it as a work of John the apostle, and some testify very fully as to the character of the evidence of its authenticity, received from their predecessors and from the contemporaries of John.

But from about the middle of the third century, it fell under great suspicion of being the production of some person different from the apostle John. Having been quoted by Cerinthus and his disciples, (a set of Gnostical heretics, in the first century,) in support of their views, it was, by some of their opponents, pronounced to be a fabrication of Cerinthus himself. At this later period, however, it suffered a much more general condemnation; but though denied by some to be an apostolic work, it was still almost universally granted to be inspired. Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. D. 250,) in a book against the Millenarians, who rested their notions upon the millenial passages of this revelation, has endeavored to make the Apocalypse useless to them in support of their heresy. This he has done by referring to the authority of some of his predecessors, who rejected it on account of its maintaining Cerinthian doctrines. This objection however, has been ably refuted by modern writers, especially by Michaelis and Hug, both of whom, distinctly show that there are many passages in the Revelation, so perfectly opposite to the doctrines of Cerinthus, that he could never have written the book, although he may have been willing to quote from it such passages as accorded with his notions about a sensual millenium,——as he could in this way meet those, who did take the book for an inspired writing.

Dionysius himself, however, does not pretend to adopt this view of the authorship of it, but rather thinks that it was the work of John the presbyter, who lived in Ephesus in the age of John the apostle, and had probably been confounded with him by the early Fathers. This John is certainly spoken of by Papias, (A. D. 120,) who knew personally both him and the apostle; but Papias has left nothing on the Apocalypse, as the work of either of them. (The substance of the whole argument of Dionysius is very elaborately given and reviewed, by both Michaelis and Hug.) After this bold attack, the apostolic character of the work seems to have received much injury among most of the eastern Fathers, and was generally rejected by both the Syrian and Greek churches, having no place in their New Testament canon. Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) who gives the first list of the writings of the New Testament, that is known, divides all books which had ever been offered as apostolical, into three classes,——the universally acknowledged, (ὁμολογουμενα homologoumena,)——the disputed, (αντιλεγομενα antilegomena,)——and the spurious, (νοθα notha.) In the first class, he puts all now received into the New Testament, except the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Revelation. These exceptions he puts into the second, or disputed class, along with sundry writings now universally considered apocryphal. Eusebius says also, “It is likely that the Revelation was seen by John the presbyter, if not by John the apostle.”——Cyril of Jerusalem, (A. D. 348,) in his catalogue of the Scriptures, does not allow this a place. Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus, (A. D. 368,) though himself receiving it as of apostolic origin, acknowledged that others in his time rejected it. The council of Laodicea, (A. D. 363,) sitting in the seat of one of the seven churches, did not give the Revelation a place among the sacred writings of the New Testament, though their list includes all others now received. Gregory, of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, (A. D. 370,) gives a catalogue of the canonical scriptures, but excludes the Revelation. Amphilochius, of Iconium, in Lycaonia, (A. D. 370,) in mentioning the canonical scriptures, says, “The Revelation of John is approved by some; but many say it is spurious.” The scriptural canon of the Syrian churches rejects it, even as given by Ebed Jesu, in 1285; nor was it in the ancient Syriac version completed during the first century; but the reason for this may be, that the Revelation was not then promulgated.——Jerome of Rome, (A. D. 396,) receives it, as do all the Latin Fathers; but he says, “the Greek churches reject it.”——Chrysostom (A. D. 398,) never quotes it, and is not supposed to have received it. Augustin, of Africa, (A. D. 395,) receives it, but says that it was not received by all in his time. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) of Syria, and all the ecclesiastics of that country, reject it also.

The result of all this evidence is, as will be observed by glancing over the dates of the Fathers quoted, that, until the year 250, no writer can be found who scrupled to receive the Apocalypse as the genuine work of John the apostle,——that the further back the Fathers are, the more explicit and satisfactory is their testimony in its favor,——and that the fullest of all, is that of Irenaeus, who had his information from Polycarp, the most intimate and beloved disciple of John himself. Now, where the evidence is not of the ordinary cumulative character, growing weighty, like a snowball, the farther it travels from its original starting-place, but as here, is strongest at the source,——it may justly be pronounced highly valuable, and an eminent exception to the usual character of such historical proofs, which, as has been plentifully shown already in this book, are too apt to come “but-end first,” as the investigator travels from the last to the first. It will be observed also, by a glance at the places where these Fathers flourished, that all those who rejected the Apocalypse belonged to the EASTERN section of the churches, including both the Greeks and the Syrians, while the WESTERN churches, both the Europeans and Latino-Africans, adopted the Apocalypse as an apostolic writing. This is not so fortunate a concurrence as that of the dates, since the easterns certainly had better means of investigating such a point than the westerns. A reason may be suggested for this, in the circumstance, that the Cerinthians and other heretics, who were the occasion of the first rejection of the Apocalypse, annoyed only the eastern churches, and thus originated the mischief only among them. Lampe, Michaelis and others, indeed, quote Caius of Rome, as a solitary exception to this geographical distribution of the difficulty, but Paulus and Hug have shown that the passage in Caius, to which they refer, has been misapprehended, as the scholar may see by a reference to Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. II. pp. 647–650, [Wait’s translation,] pp. 593–596, [original.] There is something in Jerome too, which implies that some of the Latins, in his time, were beginning to follow the Greek fashion of rejecting this book, but he scouts this new notion, and says he shall stick to the old standard canon.