The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,[22] has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.
In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.[23] This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,[24] or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,[25] may well be said to have been “thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current [pg 029] at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.[26] This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.[27] The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.
A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,[28] indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or “apocalyptic conventions” as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form [pg 030] being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;[29] and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?
5. The Date.
Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.[30] The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.[31] This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of [pg 031] visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole[32]—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.
The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;[33] (c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.
For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the [pg 032] Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,[34] while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;[35] (d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,[36] which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.