|
Afterward he speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John.
"Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether,
criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or
argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say
that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it
is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm
that none of the apostles, rend none of the saints, nor any one in the
Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which
was called after him the
Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed
the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom
of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to
the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he
dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he
desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion;
that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals
and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he
thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.
"But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold
it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension,
and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in
every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense
lies beneath the words.
I do not measure and judge them by my own reason, but leaving the more
to faith I regard them as too high for me to grasp. And I do not
reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not
understand it."
After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having
proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal
sense, proceeds as follows:
"Having finished all the prophecy, so to speak, the prophet
pronounces those blessed who shall observe it, and also himself. For
he says, 'Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of
this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.'
Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of
one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a
holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the
apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the
Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written.
For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression,
and the entire execution of the book, that it is not his. For the
evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the
Gospel or Epistle." Farther on he adds:
"But John never speaks as if referring to himself, or as if
referring to another person. But the author of the Apocalypse
introduces himself at the very beginning: 'The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, which he gave him to show unto his servants quickly; and he
sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare
witness of the word of God and of his testimony, even of all things
that he saw."
Then he writes also an epistle: 'John to the seven churches which
are in Asia, grace be with you, and peace.' But the evangelist did
not prefix his name even to the Catholic Epistle; but without
introduction he begins with the mystery of the divine revelation
itself: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes.' For because of such a revelation
the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, 'Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my heavenly
Father.' But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of
John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but
there is written the anonymous phrase, 'the eider.' But this author
did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with
his work; but he takes it up again: 'I, John, who also am your
brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the
patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for
the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.' And toward the close
he speaks thus: 'Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy
of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.'
"But that he who wrote these things was called John must be
believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear. For he did
not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of
the Lord, or the one who lay on his breast, or the brother of
James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord. For he would have
spoken of these things if he had wished to show himself plainly. But
he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our brother and
companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen
and heard the revelations. But I am of the opinion that there were
many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their
love for him, and because they admired and emulated him, and desired
to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same
surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or
Peter. For example, there is also another John, surnamed Mark,
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, whom Barnabas and Paul took
with them; of whom also it is said, 'And they had also John as
their attendant.' But that it is he who wrote this, I would not
say. For it not written that he went with them into Asia, but,
'Now when Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, they came to
Perga in Pamphylia and John departing from them returned to
Jerusalem.' But I think that he was some other one of those in
Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each
bearing the name of John.
"And from the ideas, and from the words and their arrangement, it
may be reasonably conjectured that this one is different from that one.
For the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the
same manner. The one says, 'In the beginning was the Word '; the
other, 'That which was from the beginning.' The one: 'And the
Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father'; the other says the same
things slightly altered: 'Which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes; which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of
the Word of life, and the life was manifested.' For he introduces
these things at the beginning, maintaining them, as is evident from
what follows, in opposition to those who said that the Lord had not
come in the flesh. Wherefore also he carefully adds, 'And we have
seen and bear witness, and declare unto you the eternal life which was
with the Father and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen
and heard declare we unto you also.' He holds to this and does not
digress from his subject, but discusses everything under the same heads
and names some of which we will briefly mention. Any one who examines
carefully will find the phrases, 'the life,' 'the light,'
'turning from darkness,' frequently occurring in both; also
continually, 'truth,' 'grace,' 'joy,' 'the flesh and blood of
the Lord,' 'the judgment,' 'the forgiveness of sins,' 'the
love of God toward us,' the 'commandment that we love one
another,' that we should' keep all the commandments'; the
'conviction of the world, of the Devil, of AntiChrist,' the
'promise of the Holy Spirit,' the 'adoption of God,' the
'faith continually required of us,' 'the Father and the Son,'
occur everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that one and the
same character marks the Gospel and the Epistle throughout. But the
Apocalypse is different from these writings and foreign to them; not
touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak,
without even a syllable in common with them. Nay more, the Epistle,
for I pass by the Gospel, does not mention nor does it contain any
intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the
Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his
revelations, though he has not written them out by themselves.
"Moreover, it can also be shown that the, diction of the Gospel and
Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written
not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with
elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire
structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or
solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it
seems, both the requisites of discourse,-that is, the gift of
knowledge and the gift of expression, as the Lord had bestowed them
both upon him. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation
and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his
dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses
barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It is unnecessary
to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I
have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what
I have only with the purpose of showing dearly the difference between
the writings."
|
|