« הקודםהמשך »
granımar as to express, with equal force, that sublime attribute of God, by which he fills eternity.
The instances of irregularity, in point of gram. mar; produced from the Apocalypse by Bengel, and repeated by our author *, are all of one kind, and of a kind which is found in the Septuagint, and in Greek translated from the Hebrew. In these instances, the original (or nominative) case, is used iinmediately after a word, which, having been expressed in one of the ob: lique cases, seems to require, in purer Greek, the continuation of the same oblique case-t. This might happen, either if the text were translated from St. John's Hebrew, or if St. John had translated into Greek the Hebrew words of Jesus and of the angels I.
The instances produced by Michaelis are taken chiefly from ancient MSS. of the Apocalypse, and are not to be seen in the common and
P. 529. + Instance ch. i. 5. Kto 'Inay-o maplus, which may be rendered strictly grainmatical by supplying • isi, and this ellipsis is so common in our English language, (and, I believe, in inost modern ones,) that the places objected to, pass in literal translation without any apparent offence to grammar. The offence then is not against universal grammar, but against the particular idiomn of the Greeks, and yet not against the idiom of the Oriental Greeks, See the observations of our author on the language
of the New Testament, with the judicious reinarks of his translator ; Introduct. vol. i. ch. iv... As suggested in p. 155.
later editions. And he expresses his suspicions that these violations of grammar were probably yet more abundant in former times, having undergone the correction of transcribers. But if this supposition can be allowed, it may also be surmised, that other books of the New Testament have probably undergone this kind of correction. And why not the Gospel and Epistles of Saint John, even before the Apocalypse was written ? But taking it for granted, that the Apocalypse abounds with Hebraisms, and even with solecisms, more than any other book of the New Testament, —what can we hence infer, but that we probably have the original text of the sacred writer, as preserved in the early ages with scrupulous care? A forger, an impostor, would have written another kind of Greek, more closely resembling that of Saint John's Gospel and Epistles.
And although we cannot shew the Apocalypse to be written in precisely the same Greek, as the Gospel and Epistles of St. John; yet, I trust, we must be convinced that this circumstance is very far from being entitled to any decisive influence in favour of the opinion that it was not written by thật Apostle, to whom the united voice of antiquity has ascribed it. Of all the arguments which have been advanced to support this opinion, there is none, which it will not be presumptuous to oppose to such authority.
Having now advanced what I deem neccessary to say in answer to these objections of Dionysius, repeated by Michaelis, I shall add a few words concerning an objection of later date, to which this learned critic seems inclined to give his sanction, though he has not formally avowed it. He distinguishes between John the Evangelist and John the Divine, as if he believed them to be two separate persons; and the latter
to be the author, or the reputed author of the : Apocalypse. But the title, prefixed to the Apocalypse, in which it is called, “ the Revelation 5. of John the Divine," does not properly belong : to the book. It is not to be found in the most ancient and authentic MSS. and is therefore rejected by Griesbach in his edition. The true title of the book is seen in the first verses of it: it is “ the Revelation of Jesus Christ,” not of John. But as it was communicated to the ..Church by. St. John, and as other Revelations were afterwards written in imitation of this, and ascribed to other Apostles, so by degrees this Revelation was distinguished in the Church by the name of John. The Apocalypse of John was the title by which it was known in the times of Dionysius*. In the following century, when many contests had arisen concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Orthodox had found their firm support in the writings of this Apostle, (who alone of the sacred writers had described * Euseb. E, H, lib. vii. c. 91.
the Son of God as O:noyos *), they began to apply to this Apostle the title of Theologus, à title expressive both of John's doctrine t, and of his eminent knowledge in divine subjects. Athanasius calls St. John ó ©:91070s amp.
In the decrees of the Council held at Ephesus, in 431, that city is mentioned as the burial place of John the Theologus, which agrees with the account of the ancients, that John the Evangelist was buried there. Andreas Cesariensis, com, menting on Rev. xvii. quotes the Evangelist John by the title of Theologus g; and, although the same title was applied by Andreas and others, to Gregory Nazianzen, and to other able defenders of the Theologic doctrine, yet John the Evangelist was é Osoroyos rat' Egoxny, the Divine, and no other John appears to have had this title. So we may be assured, that, at whatever time this title was prefixed to the Apocalypse, he who prefixed it, intended by it John the Evangelists who was
* The Word of God.
+ See the word Osodoris, as used in Euseb. H. E: lib. iii. c. 24, and applied to the beginning of St. John's Gospel, The Christians are described as worshipping Christ, with reference to this name toy xison ivec, tolonyales. Euseb. H. E. lib. v. c. 28. And the Alogi, as we have seen, received that appellation, from deny, ing the Doctrine of St. John, Top sy asxn ovla Boy (One) dogov. Epiph. Hær. 54. Eusebius quoting the beginning of St. John's Gospel says, ade can Srolary. Præp. Evang. lib. xi. c. 19.
| Euseb. H. E. lib. in. c. 1. 20.
§ Commenting on chap. iii. 21, he calls John Ordonyos maus Bgooms yos. And on 1 Job, v. 8. he says, wat& Toy Broderos,
well known, and celebrated in the fourth and succeeding centuries, by this appellation.
Having thus afforded some answer to the ohjections urged from internal evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse, I shall conclude with adding a positive evidence in favour of the notion generally received, that it was written by St. John.
In chap, i. 13, he who is ordered to write the book, beholds in the vision “ one like unto the Son of Man.” Now, who but an eye-witness of our Lord's person upon earth, could pronounce, from the likeness, that it was he? St. John had lived familiarly with Jesus during his abode upon earth; and had scen him likewise in his glorified appearances, at his transfiguration, and after his resurrection, No other John had enjoyed this privilege. No other eye-witness of our Lord's. person appears to have been living in this late period of the Apostolical age, when the visions of the Apocalypse were seen.
We may, therefore, I trust, fairly conclude, that to the impregnable force of external evidence, which has been seen to protect the divine claims of the Apocalypse, a considerable acquisition of internal evidence may be added; or, at least, that this avenue, by which its overthrow has been so often attempted, is not so unguarded as its adversariès imagine. And the future labours of judicious commentators will probably add a continual accession to this weight of evidence; for,