  The right of the Book of Revelation to a place in the New Testament Canon is well attested both historically and by internal evidence. The historical evidence is especially complete, and is regarded by some as stronger than that of any other book in the New Testament:40 the objections have all arisen from the internal evidence, which has been differently estimated by different minds. The Historical Evidence covers the question both of authorship and of canonicity,—for these cannot well be separated, since the apostolic authorship carried with it for the early church the canonicity also—and it may be briefly stated as follows, viz:— (1) Papias (circ. A. D. 130). Bishop of Hierapolis, “the hearer of John”, and “the companion of Polycarp”, regarded it as authoritative, and is the first to attest it, though he does not affirm its apostolicity. We are indebted for his testimony to Andreas of Cappadocia (about the end of the fifth century), who refers to Papias along with IrenÆus and others, and quotes from a work by Papias his comment on Rev. 12:7-9. In this early witness of its canonicity we can scarcely conceive of [pg 034] (2) Justin Martyr (circ. A. D. 140) says it was written by “a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ”. This testimony is within fifty years of the later date assigned to the book, and seventy-five years of the earlier one, and is therefore of special importance; and there is no hesitancy in affirming that the author was “one of the apostles of Christ”. (3) According to Eusebius, Melito, Bp. of Sardis (circ. A. D. 170), wrote a lost work on “the Revelation of John”; also two other bishops, Theophilus of Antioch, and Appolonius of Ephesus (both before the close of the second century), cited from it in their writings. (4) In a letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne (circ. A. D. 177) the Revelation is cited, and is described as “sacred Scripture”. (5) IrenÆus (circ. A. D. 180) defends its apostolic authority, and asserts frequently and positively that the Apocalypse was written by “John, a disciple of the Lord”. (6) Clement of Alexandria (circ. A. D. 200) refers to the four and twenty elders with an explanatory clause, “as John says in the Apocalypse”. (7) Tertullian (circ. A. D. 200) cites it frequently, ascribing it to John the Apostle, and attests its recognition in Africa. (8) The Canon of Muratori (circ. 200) includes it without question, and says, “John in the Apocalypse, though he writes to the Seven Churches, yet says to all, &c,” and the context shows that the reference is to the Apostle. (9) Hippolytus (circ. A. D. 210) wrote on “the Gospel and Apocalypse of John”; and he also cites the Apocalypse as a Scripture authority against Caius. After this time its canonicity was regarded as established by the Western Church. (10) Origen (circ. A. D. 250), the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and the first textual critic of the New Testament, whose knowledge of the opinion and usage in different parts of the church was very wide, knows of no doubts concerning the Apocalypse, but quotes it as the recognized composition of the Apostle and Evangelist. [pg 035]The authority of the Apocalypse was not, however, destined to remain unquestioned, though its apostolic authorship and canonical right were practically unchallenged until toward the end of the second century—and in fact it was generally received by the church until the middle of the third century—but subsequently both of these were questioned, viz:— (1) Marcion, the so-called “Heretic” (circ. A. D. 150), rejected it in forming his Canon because of its apparently Jewish character, and not because he did not regard it as genuine. This, however, did not represent a church view, and had little influence on opinion outside of his own sect. (2) Dionysius of Alexandria (circ. A. D. 247) argues that it is not by the Apostle, though he does not reject the book. With him the question is mainly one of authorship, and not of canonicity. (3) Eusebius (circ. A. D. 270) follows the opinion of Dionysius and may be regarded as “wavering”, for he cites much in its favor. After Eusebius, however, opposition to it became general in the Syro-Palestinian Church, and it does not appear in the Peshito Version, though St Ephraim Syrus, the chief father of the Syrian Church, cites it and ascribes it to the Apostle John. (4) Cyril of Jerusalem (circ. A. D. 386) omits the Apocalypse from his list of the canonical books of the New Testament. (5) In the Eastern Church the book was questioned on dogmatic grounds connected with the Millenarian controversy, and it was omitted from the Canon by the Council of Laodicea (circ. A. D. 360). (6) Finally, however, in deference to the strong testimony of the Western Church, and influenced somewhat, no doubt, by the internal evidence of the book itself, it was authoritatively accepted and universally recognized by the church at large. The Internal Evidence for the canonicity of the book, apart from the difficulties discussed under the head of Unity, is quite clear and satisfying and is practically irrefutable, for the disputed questions of authorship and date are not of such character as to affect its canonicity. This evidence may be briefly stated as follows, viz:— (1) The historical situation and references correspond to the time in which the book claims to have been [pg 036] (2) The literary form and diction are each suitable to the period and authorship to which the book is ascribed. (3) The doctrinal teachings are fully and distinctively Christian, and are such as we would expect in a work of the period, written by inspiration for the whole church, viz:—(a) the Christianity it bears witness to has escaped from the particularism of Jewish thought into the broad catholicity of the Pauline Epistles; (b) Christ is presented as the divine atoning Lamb seated in the midst of the throne, co-equal with the Father; (c) the personality of the Holy Spirit is recognized, and his illuminative work illustrated; (d) the chief duties of the Christian life are those presented in the Gospels, faith, witness, and purity, while the reward of overcoming is set forth in terms of apostolic hope; and (e) the entire contents of the book, so widely different from the non-canonical literature, appeal to the instincts of the Christian heart now as in the first generation, and verify themselves afresh to the Christian consciousness in such a forceful and convincing way that this goes far to overcome any apparent objections to its canonical authority based upon subjective judgments of another class. In fact the impartial verdict of careful investigation serves to confirm the opinion that the Apocalypse is rightfully received on ample and concurrent testimony both of Historical and Internal Evidence as a part of sacred Scripture by the whole church throughout the world. |
|
