Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation. Albert 1798-1870 Barnes
it.
2. The title given by Caius to the book—Revelations instead of Revelation—Ἀποκάλυψις—as we find it in the book itself, chap. i. 1, would seem to indicate a different work from that of John. Eusebius always refers to the Apocalypse by the noun singular (Prof. Stuart, i. 341), and this is the general manner in which the work has been designated. If Caius had designed to refer to this, it is probable that he would have used the common term to designate it.
3. These views receive some confirmation from a passage in Theodoret, “who spoke of Cerinthus in such a way as seems to imply that he had forged an Apocalypse for the promotion of his designs.” That passage is, “Cerinthus forged certain revelations as if he himself had seen them, and added descriptions of certain terrible things, and declares that the kingdom of the Lord will be established on the earth,” &c. See Prof. Stuart, i. 342. On the whole, nothing of material importance can be derived from the testimony of Caius in proof that the Apocalypse was not believed to have been written by John.
(b) Dionysius of Alexandria doubted the genuineness of the Apocalypse as being the production of John, though he did not deny its inspiration. He was made bishop of the see of Alexandria A.D. 247 or 248, and died about A.D. 264 or 265. See Lardner, ii. 643–722. He was a pupil of Origen, and enjoyed a high reputation. The full testimony of Dionysius in regard to this book may be seen in Lardner, ii. 693–697. I will copy all that is material to show his opinion. He says, “Some who were before us have utterly rejected and confuted this book, criticising every chapter; showing it throughout unintelligible and inconsistent; adding, moreover, that the inspiration is false, forasmuch as it is not John’s; nor is a revelation which is hidden under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorance.” [Prof. Stuart (i. 346) translates this, “It contains, moreover, no revelation; for it is covered with a strong and thick veil of ignorance.”] “And this not only no apostle, but not so much as any holy or ecclesiastical man was the author of this writing, but that Cerinthus, founder of the heresy called after him the Cerinthian, the better to recommend his own forgery, prefixed to it an honourable name. For this, they say, was one of his particular notions, that the kingdom of Christ should be earthly; consisting of those things which he himself, a carnal and sensual man, most admired, the pleasures of the belly and its concupiscence; that is, eating, and drinking, and marriage; and for the more decent procurement of these, feastings, and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims. But, for my part, I dare not reject the book, since many of the brethren have it in high esteem; but allowing it to be above my understanding, I suppose it to contain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning; for though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some profound sense in the words; not measuring and judging these things by my own reason, but ascribing more to faith, I esteem them too sublime to be comprehended by me.” Then, having quoted some passages from the book, he adds, speaking of the author, “I do not deny, then, that his name is John, and that this is John’s book; for I believe it to be the work of some holy and inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, brother of James, whose is the Gospel ascribed to John, and the Catholic Epistle; for I conclude from the manner of each, and the term of expression, and the conduct of the book, as we call it, that he is not the same person; for the Evangelist nowhere puts down his name, nor does he speak of himself either in the Gospel or the Epistle. I think, therefore, that he [the author] is another, one of them that dwelleth in Asia; forasmuch as it is said, that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of them called John’s tomb. And from the sentiment, and words, and disposition of them, it is likely that he differed from him [who wrote the Gospel and Epistle].”
This is the sum of all that Dionysius says in regard to the genuineness of the book.
Respecting this the following remarks may be made:—
1. Dionysius, though he did not regard the work as the work of John the apostle, yet received it as an inspired book, though far above his comprehension.
2. He does not agree with those who altogether rejected it, as if it were no revelation, and contained no inspired truth.
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 apostle John 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