« הקודםהמשך »
vour to be concise. I shall freely use the arguments of Michaelis, where I can see reason to agree with him; but, where I am obliged to dissent, it will be necessary to take a larger compass.
I. The earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse is in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. This opinion rests on the single testimony of Epiphanius, a credulous and inaccurate writer * who lived about three hundred years later than St. John the Apostle, to whom he ascribes this prophetical book.
This external evidence, weak in itself, is not only unsupported, but contradicted, by erery argument which can be derived from internal evidence t. For, first, it appears from the evidence of the book itself, (chap. Ist. 2d. 3d.) that it was written at a time whien the Asiatie Christians had been suffering persecution, even
* See his character, as given by Dupin and by Jortin.—Rem. Eccl. Hist. iv. 115. And his gross inistakes on ecclesiastical history are recounted by Spanheiin, in his Introduction to Eccl. Hist. Sæc. iv. p. 423.
* The reader may, perhaps, begin to think, that I am already transgressing the rule, so lately proposed, to prevent the intermisture of internal with external evidence. That rule shall be scrupulously observed, when we proceed to examine the eviderces for the authenticity of the book. But we are now engaged in a previous question, which must be delermined before we can judge of the main object of inquiry. And in determining the several steps of this previous question, it is necessary to aduce both kinds of evidence. Still they shall be kept apart, and each come in its order.
unto death; John himself, the writer, was in banishment, “ for the word of God, and the tes“ timony of Jesus, in the Isle of Patmos," when he saw the visions*.' But no traces of such secution can be discovered in the times of Claudius. Nero, says the unanimous voice of history, was the first Emperor who persecuted the Christians, and enacted laws against themt. Claudius, indeed, commanded the Jews to quit Rome, but this command could not affect the Jews in Asia, much less the Christians there.
2dly. There is no appearance or probability that the seven churches, or communities of Christians, addressed by their Saviour in the Apocalypse, had existence so early as in the reign of Claudius; much less that they were in that established and flourishing state, which is described or inferred in this his address to them. For Claudius died in the year 54, some years before the Apostle Paul is supposed, by the best critics, to have written his Epistle to the Ephesians, and his first to Timothy. But, from these Epistles. we collect, that the Church of Ephesus was then in an infantine and unsettled state. Bishops were then first appointed there by St.
Hence St. John is called a Martyr, by Polycrates-Apud Euseb. E. H. lib. iii. c. 31.
+ Tacitus, Annal. lib. xv. C. 44. Suetonius, Vit. Neronis, cap. xvi. Tertulliani Apolog. Sulp. Sev. Hist. lib. ii. 39. P. Oras. vii. c. 7. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 25. Mosheim, H. E. Cent. 1. part 1.
Paul's order*. But, at the time when the Apocalypse was written, Ephesus, and her sister Churches, appear to have been in a settled, and even flourishing state ; which could only be the work of time. There is, in the address of our Lord to them, a reference to their former conduct. Ephesus is represented as having forsaken her former love, or charity ; Sardis as have ing acquired a name, or reputation ; which she had also forfeited; Laodicea as become lukewarin, or indifferent.
Now, changes of this kind, in a whole body of Christians, must be gradual, and the production of many yearst. Colosse and Hierapolis were Churches of note in St. Paul's time I; but they are not mentioned in the Apocalypse, although they were situated in the sanie region of proconsular Asia, to which it was addressed. They were probably become of less importance. All these changes required a lapse of time; and we necessarily infer, that such had taken place between the publication of St. Paul's Epistles, and of the Apocalypse. Add to this, that some expressions, which we meet with in the Apocalypse,
* See this proved by Michaelis, in his Observations on the 3st Epistle to Timothy.
+ See more on this subject, in Vitringa, in Apoc. 1. 2. and L'Enfant and Beausobre's Preface to the A poc. ; also, Lardner's Supplement to the Cred. Gosp. Hist, ch. xxii. where passages from these books are quoted. Acts iv, 13.
are such as seem not to have been used in the early period of the Apostolic times. Sunday is called the Lord's Day*; and we find the same expression used by Ignatius -t, and other writers of later date. In the early books of Scripture, it is called the first day of the week, or the first after the Sabbath, &c, but never the Lord's Day.
This opinion, therefore, that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of Claudius, cannot be received. The single testimony of an inaccurate writer of the fourth century, cannot be opposed to such external evidence as we shall produce in examining the remaining opinions; especially when it appears so strongly refuted by internal evidence S.
II. By the second opinion, the Apocalypse is supposed to have been written in the reign of Nero. 1. Let us examine the erternal evidence by which it is supported; nainely a subscription to the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, which mentions that Revelation, as given “ by God to
John the Evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, “ whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.”
# Rev. i. 10.
§ This first opinion would have deserved little notice, if it had not been maintained by the celebrated Grotius, whose arguments, and the able refutation of them by D. Blondel, may be seen, abstracted by Lardner ; Supplement, ch. ix. sect. 8.
Lardner has observed of this subscription, that it is not only without a name, but without a date. But Michaelis has shewn it to be probable, that the version to which it is attached was made in the sixth century; and he intimates that this subscription might perhaps have been annexed to the more ancient Syriac version. It might perhaps, also, have been added in later times. For of what authority are some of the subscriptions to other books of the New Testament, even those which are printed with the Greek text? They are anonymous, and without date, and, in some cases, are known to give false information*. What credit, then, can be due to this Syriac subscription, whose highest claim to authority is, that the version to which it is attached, was written in the sixth century? If we could admit the evidence, it would indeed be useful; for it would immediately determine the main object of our inquiry. It would determine “ the Revelation to have been inade by “ God to John the Evangelist;" which being determined, no more doubt could remain concerning its authenticity, and divine inspiration.
• In another passage of Michaelis's introduction he has observ. ed, that " no subscription of this kind is entitled to ihenaine of evi“dence ;" Ch. vii. sect. 10. p. 320 : which he has again asserted on good grounds; Ch. xi. sect. 1. p. 14. Archdeacon Paley has shewn by probable arguments, that the subscriptions to six of St. Paul's Epistles contain false information, contrary to evidence fairly deduced from the Epistles themselves. Horp Paulinæ, ch. xv.