Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/519

Rh R E V R E W 501 John ? Certainly the external testimony is very good, 1 the doubts entertained by the Alexandrians, by Eusebius, and by Byzantine theologians as to the apostolic authorship of the book have not much weight, the book being little to their mind, and the substance of the Revelation would in many respects suit John Boanerges. But the following considerations speak against the apostle John as author : (1) the so-called "Alogi" (Epiph., Jfger., li.) denied that the work was by the apostle, and declared that it came from Corinth and hence was a forgery ; but the Alogi were in Asia Minor about 160 and their negative, if not their positive, evidence has therefore great weight ; 2 (2) the author of the Apocalypse does not style himself an apostle, and nowhere does he designate himself as a per- sonal disciple of Jesus or as an eye-witness ; (3) the author speaks (xxi. 14) in such an objective way of the twelve apostles of the Lamb that it is scarcely credible that he himself belonged to them; (4) the descriptions of Christ in the Apocalypse are psychologically scarcely intel- ligible on the assumption that they were written by a per- sonal disciple of the Lord. On these grounds we must say that, though not quite impossible, it is very improbable that the apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse. But not less improbable is the supposition that the real author wished to pass for the apostle John and fathered the work on him. It is true that amongst the Jews apocalypses were fathered by their authors on famous men ; but the fraud is always very patent. But in this case the name of John occurs only four times (i. 1, 4, 9 ; xxii. 8), and in the whole book there is nothing that reveals the author's intention to pass for the apostle John. And we have further to remember that, according to trustworthy evi- dence, the apostle John was still living at the time in Asia Minor. It is at least improbable that another dweller in Asia Minor should have fathered a book on him under his very eyes. In these circumstances only one hypothesis seems left that started by the Alexandrians in order to get rid of the inconvenient authority of the Apocalypse that the book is from the pen of another John in Asia Minor, namely, the presbyter. But, though this hypothesis has had much acceptance in our time, it is far from probable ; for and here Zahn and Renan are right the existence of a conspicuous presbyter John in distinction from the apostle is very uncertain. The Apocalypse, as the tradi- tional text of the first chapter now runs, is certainly not the work of any ordinary person of the name of John : it is by a John who enjoyed the highest consideration in the churches (see i. 1, 4). If besides the apostle John there was no second John who possessed such authority in Asia Minor in the 1st century, and if it is impossible that the Apocalypse can be the work either of the apostle John or of a literary forger, the only supposition left is that the name of John was interpolated in the last revision (after the death of the apostle John). Observe once more that this name occurs only in the first verses of the first chapter, and in a verse of the last. No hypothesis solves the pro- blem so well as this. Whether originally a different name appeared in i. 9, and how ch. i. gradually arose, are ques- tions into which we cannot enter here. In this difficult sub- ject absolute certainty is unattainable, but the supposition that the Revelation was written by an unknown Christian of Asia Minor, and that the name of John is a later addition 1 Appeal, however, must not be made to the fact that according to tradition the apostle John was banished to Patmos, and that the author of the Apocalypse says of himself (i. 9), " I was in the isle that is called Patmos for the word of God," for the tradition is based on the Apocalypse, and, what is more, on a misunderstanding of it. 2 From Eusebius, //. E., iii. 28, 1 many have assumed that the Roman presbyter Caius (about 200 A.D.) was of the same opinion as the Alogi, but this is improbable. in order to ascribe the Revelation to the apostle John, labours under fewer difficulties than any other that has hitherto been started. That, thus introduced, John is not expressly designated as apostle need not surprise us, for at the beginning of the 2d century every one in Asia Minor knew who " John the servant of God " was. The epistles also with the heading " the elder " are meant to be regarded as written by the apostle John, although they do not contain the title apostle. 3 Authority in the Church. The Apocalypse, which as early as the time of Justin and Papias enjoyed a high re- putation as the work of the apostle John, was admitted into the canon of the New Testament (see Murat. fragm., Irenaeus, Tertullian). In the West it has always been retained in the canon, but in the East it was discredited through Montanism, and the spiritualistic Alexandrians who gave the tone threw more and more doubts upon it, so that towards the end of the 3d century it began to be omitted from the New Testament. For nearly a thousand years the Apocalypse was not recognized by the majority of the Greek Church as a canonical book (and hence it is that we possess so few ancient Greek MSS. of the Apocalypse), but, as no formal condemnation was pronounced against it, the book was never suppressed, and regained its footing towards the end of the Middle Ages, the Greek Church following the example of the Latin. At present the Apocalypse forms part of the New Testament all over Christendom, and rightly so, for it is one of the most instructive documents of early Christianity. Narrow or dogmatic spirits, it is true, will never be able to value it aright, and will therefore either reject it or seek to correct it by false interpretations. Literature. Liicke, Versucli ciner vollsttindigen Einleitung in die Offenb. Joh., 2d ed., 1852 ; comp. the introductions to the New Testament by Reuss, Credner, Bleek-Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Davidson, &c. ; Gebhardt, Der Lchrbegriff der Apok., 1873 ; Renan, L' Antcchrisi, 1873 ; Mommsen, Rom. Geschichtc, v. p. 520 sq. Commentaries by Ewald, 1828, 1862 ; De Wette, 1848, 1862 ; Hengstenberg, 1861, 1863 ; Ebrard, 1859 ; Diisterdieck, 1865 ; Volckmar, 1862 ; Bleek, 1862 ; Lange, 1871 ; Fuller, 1874 ; Kliefoth, 1874-75 ; Bisping, 1876. Schneckenburger, De Falsa Neronis Fama, 1846; Weiss, "Apokal. Studien," in Studien und Kritikcn, 1869, i. ; Bruston, Le chiffre 666 et Vhypothese du rctour de Neron, 1880 ; Boehmer, Verfasscr u. Abfassungszcit der joh. Apoc., 1855; Hilgenfeld, "Nero der Antichrist," in Zeit- schrift f. wisscnsch. Theol., 1869, iv. ; Hildebrandt, "Das rom. Antichristenthnm zur Zeit der Offenb. Joh.," in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1874, i. ; Ronsch, " Gematrisches zu Apoc. xiii. 18," in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1873, p. 258 sq. ; Tubing. Theol. Quartalschr., 1872, i. ; Hausrath in Schenkel's Bibellexicon, i. p. 153 sq. (A. HA.) REVERSION. See REMAINDER. REVIVAL OF LEARNING. See RENAISSANCE". REWAH, the principal native state in Baghelkhand, under the political superintendence of the Baghelkhand and Central India Agencies. It has an area of about 10,000 square miles, and lies between 22 39' and 25 12' N. lat., and between 80 46' and 82 51' E. long.; it is bounded on the N. by the British districts of Banda, Allahabad, and Mirzapur in the North- Western Provinces ; on the E. by Mirzapur district and by native states in Chutia-Nagpur ; on the S. by the districts of Chhatisgarh, Mandla, and Jabalpur in the Central Provinces ; and on the W. by other native states of Bhagelkhand. Rewah state is divided into two well-defined portions. The northern and smaller division is the plateau lying between the Kaimur range of hills and that portion of the Vindhyas 3 The view here put forward as to the author of the Apocalypse is further recommended by its agreement with the general history of early Christian literature in the church. Originally writings derived their authority from the nature of their contents, afterwards from their author. When writings by obscure persons were intended to attract attention, it was necessary to pass them off under the names of celebri- ties ; see Harnack, Die Lehre der 12 Apostel, p. 106 sq.