introduces it as a thing then generally known and acknowledged. This is evident from the circumstance of his contenting himself with only a brief indication, and his being quite silent regarding the persecution of Domitian, and the apostle's exile to Patmos, the occasion which gave rise to the composition of the Apocalypse in the existing circumstances of the period-confident that his first readers would readily supply all this themselves.

Clement of Alexandria (in the work Quis dives § 42, and in Eusebius III. 23) says: "For since he (John) after the death of the tyrant returned to Ephesus from the isle Patmos," &c. The manner in which he speaks of the matter shews that there is implied a generally known tradition: the tyrant, the Roman emperor of the first century, Domitian, who, as is well known, pre-eminently deserves that name. It cannot be alleged that Clemens spoke of the tyrant, and not of Domitian, because he was ignorant of the name. He would in that case have chosen a general designation, not such an one as pre-supposes that he had in view a definite person.

Origen on Matth. xx. 22, 23, says: "But the sons of Zebedee have drunk the cup and been baptized with the baptism, since Herod killed James the brother of John with the sword; and the king of the Romans, as tradition testifies, condemned the witnessing John on account of the word of truth to the isle Patmos. But John himself instructs us regarding his martyrdom, not saying indeed who had adjudged him to it, yet declaring in the Apocalypse as follows: I, John, your brother and companion in tribulation,' &c., and seems to have beheld the Revelation on the island." Here the king of the Romans forms the contrast to Herod the king of the Jews. Origen is silent respecting the name, because he was generally known, and the blank was easily supplied from the tradition, to which he refers. That the omission of the name is not, with Lücke p. 410, to be accounted for

112

1 Επειδὴ γὰρ τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν εἰς τὴν Ἔφεσον.

2 Πεπώκασι δὲ τὸ ποτήριον καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ἐβαπτίσθησαν οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου υἱοὶ, ἐπείπερ Ηρώδης μὲν ἀπέκτεινεν Ἰάκωβον τὸν Ἰωάννον μαχαίρᾳ: ὁ δὲ Ρωμαίων βασιλεὺς, ὡς ἡ παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε τὸν Ιωάννην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον· διδασκει δε τα περι του, μαρτυρίου εαυτού Ιωάννης, μὴ λέγων τίς αὐτὸν κατεδίκασε, φάσκων ἐν τῆ ἀποκαλύψει ταῦτα· ἐγὼ Ιωαννης ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει κ. τ. λ., καὶ ἔοικε τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεθεωρηκέναι.

by his not knowing it, is evident from the analogy in Clemens, where more definitely, though still without the application of any proper name, the term "tyrant" is used; it is evident also, from the analogy in Eusebius III. 20, where "the isle" is the wellknown traditional island Patmos; and, finally, from a comparison of the other preservers of the tradition, in particular Irenæus, who expressly names Domitian. Had Origen not been well assured regarding the name connected with the tradition-for which not the semblance of a reason can be given, and which is a mere refuge invented for the occasion-he would not have pointed so unconditionally to tradition, without at least intimating that he ascribed to it only a partial credibility.

The assertion, proceeding only from interested considerations, that what the ancients knew of John's exile to Patmos was inferred simply from the statement in ch. i. 9, is contradicted by Origen as distinctly as he well could. He remarks expressly, that he derived the fact of John's banishment to Patmos primarily from a substantial tradition, of whose credibility he, the critic, suggests no doubt. He introduces the testimony of John himself only as a confirmation, and remarks that it is less complete than the tradition, since the latter alone, besides what was common to the tradition and the Apocalypse, mentions who condemned the apostle. The tradition could not simply have been drawn by Origen from Irenæus. For, he refers to this far more than is to be found in the merely indicative statement of Irenæus, who says nothing, indeed, of the condemnation of John and his banishment to Patmos. We have no right, with Lücke, to lay the emphasis on, "he appears to have seen the Apocalypse on the island," and thence conclude, that the composition of the Apocalypse was only regarded by Origen as having probably taken place in Patmos. It is only a modest expression, which refers not so much to the execution of the particular work, as to human knowledge in general, according to the adage, airiŋv dè ἀτρεκέα μὲν ἴσασι μοῦνοι θεοὶ, ἐοικυῖαν δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωποι (the certain cause is known only to the gods, and the probable to men). More cannot justly be attributed to the "he appears," since the tradition, to which Origen refers, on the part of its other vouchers connects the composition of the Apocalypse with the banishment to Patmos as an undoubted fact.

Eusebius, in B. III. ch. xviii. of his Church History, says, "Under him (Domitian) tradition relates, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, on account of his testimony for the divine word, was condemned to reside in the isle Patmos.1 In B. III. ch. xx. : "Then also that the apostle John returned from his banishment on the island, and took up his dwelling again at Ephesus, the tradition of our older men has delivered to us."2 Again, in B. III. ch. xxiii., “John governed there (in Asia) the churches, after his return from exile on the island, subsequent to the death of Domitian." Also in the Chronicon under the fourteenth year of Domitian, "The apostle John, the theologian, he banished to the isle Patmos, where he saw the Apocalypse, as Irenæus says."

3

Eusebius is quite consistent with himself in the several passages, and always speaks with the same confidence (comp. besides Demonstr. III. 5). When in the Chronicon he refers to Irenæus as a sure voucher, it is so far of importance as it shews him to have had no suspicion that that Father had formed it by merely combining notices together. But it does not at all prove that Irenæus was the only source of the tradition to Eusebius. The contrary is manifest from the circumstance, that what Eusebius gives as the testimony of tradition, contains more than what is stated by Irenæus, and also, because in one of the passages he refers to several depositaries of the tradition. Never once does Eusebius point, by so much as a single syllable, to any other view regarding the author of John's exile, and the time of the composition of the Apocalypse. So that there must then in this respect have been perfect unanimity in the church. Finally, under the name of Victorinus of Petabio, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian in the year 303, we have a writing on the Apocalypse, which is printed in the third volume of the Bibl. Patr. Lugd., and

1 Ἐν τούτῳ κατέχει λόγος τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἐυαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα, τῆς εἰς τὸν θεῖον λόγον ἕνεκεν μαρτυρίας, Πάτμον οἰκεῖν καταδικασ θῆναι τὴν νῆσον. See in reference to the κατέχει λόγος, which by no means marks an unauthorised, loose report, but commonly tradition, Rothe's Aufange der Christ. Kirche, p. 359.

2 Τότε δὴ οὖν καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον Ἰωάννην ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον φυγῆς τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἐφέσου διατριβὴν ἀπειληφέναι ὁ τῶν παρ' ἡμίν ἀρχαίων παραδίδωσι λόγος.

8 Ιωάννης τὰς αὐτόθι διεῖπεν ἐκκλησίας ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον μετὰ τὴν Δομα τιανοῦ τελευτὴν ἐπανελθὼν φυγῆς.

which as to its substance is undoubtedly genuine, for it bears too exactly the character of the style which Jerome ascribes to Victorinus (see the collection of his expressions in the Bibl. Patr., and other reasons for its substantial genuineness, may be seen in Lücke, p. 494). But in this work the composition of the Apocalypse under Domitian, during the exile in Patmos, is spoken of as a matter of undoubted certainty.1

These are all the testimonies on the time of the composition of the Apocalypse belonging to the age of living tradition. They declare with perfect unanimity that John was banished by Domitian to Patmos, and there wrote the Apocalypse. Variations begin only to appear in the age of theology and learning. Epiphanius is the first, who puts forth another view. But even there the tradition still has such sway, that all persons of any critical acumen, all who know how to distinguish between historically accredited facts and conjectures and combinations, declare themselves on its side. At the head of these is Jerome, who did not reckon it worth while even to notice the existence of a different account, which must therefore be held to be every way improbable. The matter stands precisely similar with the question regarding the genuineness.

2

For the more correct appreciation of the other and differing accounts we submit the following remarks.

1. It is only in writers of inferior rank that these accounts are to be found. Epiphanius, who is the first in point of time, is also by far the most important. But the judgment which Vitringa expressed regarding him, "that he was an extremely incredulous person, and in the mention of traditions or sayings of the ancients much less exact than he seems to be," is now gene

1 The main passage is at p. 419: Oportet te iterum prophetare, inquit, populis et linguis: hoc est, quoniam quando hoc vidit Johannes, erat in insula Patmos, in metallum damnatus a Domitiano Cæsare. Ibi ergo vidit Apocalypsin: et cum senior jam putaret, se per passionem accepturum receptionem, interfecto Domitiano omnia judicia ejus soluta sunt, et Joannes de metallo dimissus sic postea tradidit hanc eandem quam acceperat a Domino Apocalypsin, hoc est, oportet te iterum prophetare. See also p. 420.

2 E. g. de viris illust. 9; Johannes quarto decimo anno secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano in Patmos insulam relegatus scripsit Apocalypsin. Also ad Jovin ii. 14, and in the Chronicon. The ancient and right account is found also in Sophorinus (about 629), in the life of John, and in Theophylact's Commentary on the four Gospels: Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτω ἔτει, δεύτερον μετὰ Νέρωνα διωγμὸν κινοῦντος Δομετιανοῦ εἰς Πάτμον νῆσον περιορισθεὶς συνέταξεν ἀποκάλυψιν, &c.

rally received. To pitch him against Irenæus, and treat with discredit the testimony of the latter, on the ground of what he has said, would betray a palpable want of critical acumen. The late Syriac translator and Pseudodorotheus carry still less weight. And Theophylact furnishes a test for the measurement of his sagacity, in announcing, instead of the Apocalypse, that the Gospel was composed at Patmos, without probably a single authority to support the statement."

2. None of those who deviate from the tradition venture to refer to it, while this is quite common with those who place the exile of John to the writing of the Apocalypse under Domitian.

3. "Only those (remarks Lücke) who place the exile under Domitian, indicate the continuance in a definite way." All the others speak in a vague manner, and do not venture to go into more exact specifications: precisely as we should have expected, on the supposition of the one class resting on historical tradition, and the other following uncertain conjectures.

4. The deviators are quite at variance among themselves, while the statement which places the composition under Domitian has the fixed impress, that is the mark of truth. The Syriac translation makes the exile of John and the composition of the Apocalypse to have taken place under Nero, Epiphanius under Claudius, and according to Pseudodorotheus he was banished to Patmos by Trajan.

5. The deviators shew also by their vacillation and wavering

1 Vitringa, however, does him an injustice, when, following Huetius, he would discover a confusion of such a nature (in one important passage, adv. haer. T. i. p. 434, also in another, p. 456) as would entirely destroy his title to be heard. Vitringa makes him say there, that John was already upwards of ninety years old when he returned from the island under Claudius. In that case, Epiphanius had preserved unchanged the age which John had attained at the time when, according to the tradition, he returned from the island. Epiphanius relates that John "composed his Gospel at a great age, after the ninetieth year of his life, after his return from Patmos, which took place under the emperor Claudius." But Lampe had already shewn, on John vol. i. p. 61, that Epiphanius meant to say that John was "ninety years old and upwards when, after his return from Patmos, and a considerable period more which he spent in Asia, he composed his Gos. pel." By expressing himself, however, in so careless and loose a manner, Epiphanius has certainly laid himself open to misunderstanding.

2 Ρ. 554 : Διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου εὐαγγελίου, ὃ καὶ συνέγραψεν ἐν Πάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ ἐξόριστ τος διατελών, μετὰ τριακονταδύο ἔτη τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως. The deviation from the tradition here attaches merely to the number. Is this to be regarded as quite certain?