The Canonicity and Authenticity of the Apocalypse

Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., "The Apocalypse: Two Fundamental Questions." American Ecclesiastical Review, Volume LIX. (1918) pp. 378-389.

Of all the "disputed" books, it must be said that the Apocalypse is the best authenticated both as regards its place in the Canon and its Johannine authorship. Thus St. Clement of Rome quotes the words: "Behold the Lord, and His reward is with Him, to render to everyone according to his work."¹ It might well seem incredible that Clement (d. c. 98 A.D.) should quote Apocalypse 22:12, and it is true that these words may be a reminiscence of Isaias 40:10 or 42:11, but the fact remains that Clement's Greek text is much more akin to Apocalypse 22:12 than to either of the above passages of Isaias. Papias (c. 140 [?] A.D.) must certainly have derived his millenarian doctrine for which Eusebius blames him² from the Apocalypse 20:1-6. St. Justin, another Chiliast, expressly defends this doctrine from the Apocalypse, of which he says: "A man amongst us, by name John, one of Christ's Apostles, in the Revelation made to him, foretold that those who should believe in our Christ should spend a thousand years in Jerusalem."³ The Shepherd of Hermas may contain possible references to the Apocalypse in two places,⁴ though these are doubtful at the best. St. Irenaeus explicitly terms the Apocalypse the work of "John the disciple of the Lord";⁵ and Eusebius has preserved for us the valuable passage where Irenaeus states that the Apocalypse was "seen not long ago, but practically in our generation, at the close of Domitian's reign."⁶ Clement of Alexandria is familiar with the Apocalypse: he quotes it as the work of "John the Apostle"⁷ or simply as "the Apostle."⁸ It is the same with Tertullian, who on at least three occasions speaks of the Apocalypse and the First Epistle as being by St. John.⁹ Similarly Origen tells us of John's exile to Patmos, where he wrote his Apocalypse.¹⁰ Victorinus of Petau (close of the third century) wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse which is preserved for us.¹¹

Eusebius is often spoken of as though he doubted the authenticity of the Apocalypse, but this is due to a misunderstanding of Eusebius's method. Eusebius writes as an historian and as such it was his duty to tell us of the doubts which some expressed about the book. Hence he tells us now of those who rejected it, now of those who acknowledged its canonicity and authenticity. At the same time Eusebius sometimes allows his historical sense to be swayed by the arguments adduced against the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse; this will be clear from the following points: he tells us that some reject it;¹² but elsewhere that Justin called it the work of the Apostle John;¹³ that Theophilus, in his work against Hermogenes, quotes it;¹⁴ that Origen says that "John wrote the Apocalypse";¹⁵ he gives the contemporary account of the martyrdoms at Vienne, A.D. 177, and in this narrative the Apocalypse is twice quoted and, in one of these passages, with the formula "that the Scripture might be fulfilled";¹⁶ so, too, he tells us how Irenaeus used and acknowledged the Apocalypse,¹⁷ at other times he is content to speak of the "so-called Apocalypse of John."¹⁸

Eusebius's apparent wavering is due to the arguments set forth by Denis of Alexandria touching the authorship of the Apocalypse, for these weighed much with him; thus he quotes Denis as saying:

"Some before us have set aside and rejected the Book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it to be 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 since it is thickly covered with a veil of obscurity."¹⁹ After remarking that some referred the Apocalypse to Cerinthus, who — so they supposed — prefixed the named of John to it with a view to ensuring its circulation, Denis continues: "Still I could not venture to reject the Book, since many of the brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension and that there is a certain hidden and wonderful meaning in every part. For when I do not understand, then I suspect that a more profound meaning 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 profound for me to grasp. I do not reject what I cannot comprehend; rather do I wonder since I do not understand it."¹⁹

Denis then proceeds to state his reasons for holding that the Apocalypse is not the work of the author of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. He points out that the author of the Apocalypse names himself "John" (1:3, 4, 9; 22:7- 8); and he therefore argues: "that he was called John, and that this Book is the work of a certain John, I do not deny. 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 (viz., the Gospel and the Epistles on the one hand, and the Apocalypse on the other), from the forms of expression too, as well as from the whole execution of the Book, that it is not his. For the Evangelist nowhere gives his name nor proclaims himself, neither in the Gospel nor in the Epistle."²¹

Denis insists at great length on this argument, and he applies it to reject the Johannine authorship of the "reputed second and third Epistle of John," in which, as Denis remarks, "though they are very short, the name of John does not appear, but we have instead the anonymous phrase 'the Elder.'" In the Apocalypse, on the contrary, the name of John is found at the beginning and at the close. Denis then adds: "I am of opinion that there were many of the same name with John the Apostle," and he gives instances from the New Testament, amongst others, "John Mark," whom, however, Denis hesitates to identify with the "John" of the Apocalypse. "But I think," he concludes, "that he was some other one of those that were in Asia. For men say that there are two tombs in Ephesus, and that both of them are said to be the tomb of John." Denis then proceeds to support his view that the Apocalypse on the one hand and the Fourth Gospel with the Epistle of John on the other could not have emanated from the same hand; his arguments have remained to this day the staple ones for all those who call the Johannine authorship of all these writings in question:

The ideas, the vocabulary, and the syntax of these writings give good grounds for holding that their authors are distinct. For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with another, and they begin in the same fashion, for the former opens: "In the beginning was the Word," while the latter opens: "That which was from the beginning." The former says: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father"; while the latter has the same, with the very slight change: "that 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 made manifest"... Thus he [the author of the Gospel and the Epistle] is self-consistent and departs not from his theme, but handles all under the same headings and names.

Denis then instances certain expressions which are common to the Gospel and the Epistle, e.g., life, light, fleeing, darkness, truth, grace, joy, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, judgment, remission of sins, God's love for us, the commandment of mutual love, that we must keep all the commandments, the conviction of the world, of the devil, of Antichrist, the promise of the Holy Spirit, our sonship of God, the faith that is everywhere demanded of us; the Father, too, and the Son are repeatedly named.

In fine, to those who rightly examine them it is clear that the Gospel and the Epistle have throughout one and the same character. But the Apocalypse is quite different in tone from them, indeed alien to them; it hardly touches them, nor has it any resemblance to them. In fact, it has, so to say, no syllable in common with them. Neither does the Epistle (I say nothing of the Gospel) show any recollection of or idea of the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle. Whereas Paul in his Epistles makes certain references to his revelations, those namely of which he did not write expressly in the said Epistles.

Further, the very structure of the phrases shows to what extent the Gospel and the Epistle differ from the Apocalypse. For the former are not only not written in halting Greek, but they show a real elegance in words, in arguments, and in the structure of the composition; indeed it is far from being the case that barbarisms or solecisms or peculiarities of speech are to be discovered therein. For the author possessed the two gifts of speech, as was only fitting, since the Lord had bestowed upon him both, viz., those of knowledge and of its expression.²² But that the author of the latter (i.e., the Apocalypse) saw the Revelation and received knowledge and prophecy, I do not question; yet I notice that his language is not precisely that of a Greek, and that he makes use of barbaric idioms, not to say solecisms. These it is not needful to set forth, for I do not say this to bring him into contempt but simply in order to bring out the unlikeness of the two writings.²³

That Eusebius is tremendously impressed by this reasoning is clear from his commentary on Irenaeus's statement that Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp."²⁴ Apropos of this statement Eusebius quotes the famous words of Papias:

I shall not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, whatsoever things I have at any time learnt carefully from the Elders and have carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith and springing from the truth itself. But if it chanced that any came who had been a follower of the Elders, I used to inquire the words of the Elders (what they related Andrew or Peter to have said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord), and the things which Aristion and the 'Patriarch' John, disciples of the Lord, were saying.²⁵

On these words Eusebius comments thus: "It is worth while observing here that the name 'John' is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connexion with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly meaning the Evangelist; but the other 'John' he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a 'Presbyter.'" "This shows," continues Eusebius, "that the statement of those is true who say that in Asia there were two persons that bore the same name, also that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which to this present day bears the name of 'John.' It is necessary to pay attention to this. For it is probable that it was the second of these — unless any one prefers the first — who saw the Revelation which is circulated under the name of 'John.' And the Papias of whom we are here treating acknowledges that he received the words of the Apostles from those who were their followers; he says that he himself was a hearer of Aristion and of 'John the Presbyter.'"²⁶

This passage in Eusebius, as well as the passage given above from Denis of Alexandria, has been the fertile source of much misunderstanding, and owing to it the shadowy figure of 'John the Presbyter' has haunted the pages of modern criticism of the Fourth Gospel.²⁷

It must be conceded that St. Denis has drawn a somewhat exaggerated picture; nor must it be forgotten that he had a controversial axe to grind. For Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the Millennium, was held to be the plain teaching of such passages as Apocalypse 5:10, 20:4-14. That the style of the Apocalypse differs from that of the Gospel and I-III John, is clear; but the difference is one demanded by the subject matter. The Gospel is narrative; the Epistle is doctrine based directly on that narrative. The Apocalypse, on the contrary, is pure prophecy — compare the allusions to prophecy and prophesying, 10:11; 11:3, 6; 19:10; to the Old Testament prophets, 10:7; 11:10, 18; 16:3; 18:20, 24; 22:6, 9; to false prophets, 2:20; note, too, the explicit declaration that the book itself is a "prophecy," 1:3; 22:7, 9, 18.

But while this difference of subject matter demands a difference of vocabulary, it remains true that the vocabulary and style of the Gospel and of the three Epistles are only to be paralleled in the Apocalypse; thus note such peculiarly Johannine words as alethinós which occurs eight times in the Gospel, four in I John, nine in the Apocalypse; and "testimony", marturía, fourteen times in Gospel, seven in the Epistles, and nine in the Apocalypse; also haîma, of Christ's redeeming Blood, five times in the Gospel, four in I John, and five in the Apocalypse; more than all, the use of Lógos as denoting the Second Person of the Trinity, is confined to the Johannine writings, John 1:1, 14; I John 1:1, and (?) 5:7; Apoc 19:13. Similarly we should note the use of the Johannine phileîn in Apoc 3:19; 22:15; it does not occur in I-III John, but is found twelve times in the Gospel. So, too, doûlos in the sense of John 15:13-15, 20; cf. Apoc 1:1, and eleven other places. The same must be said of the Johannine agápe and agapáo; cf. Apoc 1:5; 2:4, 19; 3:9; 12:11; 20:9. In 2:28, I have received of My Father, and 3:14, where the Son is described as the beginning of the creation of God, we have two distinctly Johannine phrases. On the other hand it must be acknowledged that such distinctively Johannine words as alethés, alétheia, chará and pístis are entirely wanting in the Apocalypse; while, conversely, whereas the "Lamb of God" in the Gospel is always amnós, 1:29, 36, in the Apocalypse the word arníon is always used; cf. John 21:15, "feed My lambs." The word mártus in the expression faithful witness is peculiar to the Apocalypse, cf. 1:5; 3:14, etc.²⁸

Moreover, despite the unquestionable Johannine tone of the Apocalypse, it is undeniable that the Greek style of the book is very different indeed from that of the Gospel and the Epistles; if any one will read aloud consecutively a chapter of each he will find that, while the reading from the Epistle is but an echo of the Gospel, the transition to the Apocalypse is like passing from one author to another. Hence there have not been wanting critics who argue that this difference in style is such that we can only hold to the Johannine authorship of both by supposing that they were written at periods widely apart. But, they continue, extrinsic testimony is in favor of the view that all three, the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, were written at a very late period in St. John's life. Consequently, they urge, we are faced with the dilemma of either rejecting this extrinsic testimony or of rejecting the Johannine authorship either of the Gospel and the Epistles on the one hand or of the Apocalypse on the other. But, they conclude, the Johannine authorship of the Gospel and Epistles is certain; therefore that of the Apocalypse must be rejected. This was practically the position of St. Denis of Alexandria. Still the dilemma does not leave us without a loophole. For we may either dispute the unanimity and clearness of the extrinsic testimony (see below), or we may maintain that since the Apocalypse is prophecy and written in ecstasy (1:10), its style is not to be compared with that of the meditative Gospel and Epistle. This latter suggestion is hardly likely to gain adherence, and it certainly conflicts with the tradition embodied in the Muratorian Fragment, that John wrote even the Gospel in a species of ecstasy. If, however, we can assign the Apocalypse to an earlier period of St. John's life, then we can suppose that when the Apostle came to write the Gospel at the close of his life he had profited by his long sojourn in Greek-speaking Ephesus.

The Date of the Apocalypse

The earliest witness to the date at which the Apocalypse was written is St. Irenaeus, who, as we have seen, says that it "was seen not long since, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian."²⁹ Clement of Alexandria, too, relates a story of St. John, "when, after the death of the Tyrant, he had returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus."³⁰ Eusebius clearly understands this "tyrant" to be Domitian.³¹ St. Jerome, presumably on the authority of Irenaeus and Eusebius, always takes it for granted that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian.³² [He will argue below that in one place Jerome acknowledges an alternative tradition, B.D.] Now, Domitian reigned from A.D. 81-96 and was succeeded by Nerva, who recalled those banished by his predecessor.³³ This would assign the Apocalypse to about the year 90 A.D. Despite this evidence, however, it is incorrect to speak of John's exile under Domitian as "unanimous tradition."³⁴ Tertullian, to whom we are indebted for the story of the Apostle being let down into a bath of boiling oil and emerging intact,³⁵ and Origen, who speaks simply of his exile to Patmos,³⁶ name no Emperor. Theophylact declares that it took place under Trajan!³⁷ And Huetius tells us that Aretas Caesariensis refers it to Nero; Baronius supposes that Aretas was misled by Tertullian, who groups together the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, and John; but it is inconceivable that anyone could so understand Tertullian!³⁸

The most interesting testimony, however, is that of St. Epiphanius. It is, of course, usual to belittle Epiphanius;³⁹ but when he makes a positive statement on a historical point we cannot simply reject his testimony. Now Epiphanius says that John in his extreme old age was ordered by the Holy Spirit to write the Gospel — it is clearly question of the Gospel, though it is not named.⁴⁰ This remark he repeats and amplifies later on: "The Holy Spirit impelled John to write the Gospel in his extreme old age, when, namely, he had over-passed his ninetieth year, after his return from the island of Patmos, which same return took place under Claudius Caesar. So then when he had dwelt many years in Asia he was compelled to write the Gospel."⁴¹ Further on, Epiphanius expressly declares that "during the reign of Claudius Caesar he published this prophecy when living in the island of Patmos."⁴² It must be remembered that Epiphanius is writing against those heretics whom he himself nicknamed "Alogi," because they repudiated the doctrine of the Logos,⁴³ and consequently rejected all the Johannine writings as well: "They appear to reject the writings of the holy Apostle, I mean the Gospel and the Apocalypse as well as John's Epistles, for these latter harmonize with the Gospel and the Apocalypse."⁴⁴ Epiphanius could hardly afford to be careless in making such definite statements when combating a heresy. Yet it is hard to believe that the Evangelist's exile as well as his return from it can have taken place in the reign of Tiberius Claudius Germanicus — to give him his full title, i.e., A.D. 41-54. Still it must be remembered that there was a Claudian persecution, for Claudius, as we know from Acts 18:2, and from Suetonius, "Judaeos impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit."⁴⁵ One is almost tempted to think that by "Claudius Caesar" Epiphanius might have meant Nero, for the latter's full title was Nero Claudius Caesar. But the usage of Eusebius renders this improbable, for he always speaks of either "Claudius" or "Claudius Caesar"⁴⁶ when he means the Emperor Claudius, and Nero he always mentions simply as "Nero."

The really important thing to notice, however, is that Epiphanius says that a long space elapsed between the composition of the Apocalypse and the Gospel: "When he had dwelt many years in Asia," i.e., subsequent to his return from Patmos "he was impelled to write the Gospel."⁴⁷ We remember, too, that Aretas Caesariensis⁴⁸ said that the Apocalypse was written under Nero. But St. Jerome too says the same thing; for, whereas the text [of Against Jovinianus] in Valesius's edition printed in Migne⁴⁹ has "Refert autem Tertullianus quod Romae missus in ferventis olei dolium," Martianay notes that "pro Romae, plures mss. codices legunt a Nerone," and Valesius himself adds: "Mss. omnes et vetus editio quod a Nerone missus." As Jerome gives this on the authority of Tertullian and Tertullian makes the statement about the bath of oil in his De Praescriptionibus, xxxvi., and says no word there about Nero, but merely refers to Rome as the scene of the martyrdoms of SS. Peter, Paul, and John, Valesius has presumably changed the text of St. Jerome from a Nerone to Romae, for he acknowledges that all the MSS. have a Nerone. But there is no proof that Jerome derived his information from Tertullian's De Praescriptionibus rather than from some one of the many lost works of Tertullian to which Jerome himself refers in his De Viris Illustribus.⁵⁰

Now we saw above that Eusebius understood Clement of Alexandria to speak of Domitian when he said that John returned from Patmos "on the death of the tyrant"; but it is clear that Clement too, like Epiphanius, supposes a considerable interval between the composition of the Apocalypse, i.e., John's residence in Patmos, and the composition of the Gospel. For the whole story of the young man whom, as Clement tells us, John commended to the care of the Bishop (? Polycarp), demands a considerable lapse of time; thus the young man persevered for some time, 8, he "little by little" fell away, 10, he then became a bandit, formed a body of dissolute men and became their leader, 11,"some time elapsed," chrónos en míso, 12, then John returned and for the first time it is said that he was "old," 17, 18; neither is the young man any longer spoken of as "young." But if John returned from Patmos only in the reign of Nerva, 96-98, and died, as is supposed, in the seventh year of Trajan, viz., 104 A.D., it is hard to see how sufficient time is allowed for the events herein indicated.⁵¹ If on the other hand we suppose that Eusebius was mistaken and that Clement is really referring to Nero, we shall have an agreement between Clement, Aretas, Jerome probably, and Tertullian probably. The only difficulty will be to explain (a) how Irenaeus could positively state that it was Domitian who sent John into exile; (b) how Epiphanius could refer it to Claudius, and lastly, (c) how Theophylact could refer it to Trajan. As for Theophylact, it may be sufficient to say that he belongs to the eleventh century! Of Epiphanius that, conceivably, he means Nero when talking of Claudius Caesar, though it must be acknowledged that this is an improbable supposition (see above). The case of Irenaeus is different; there is no evading his evidence. The only thing that can perhaps be said is that his cotemporary, Clement of Alexandria, may, as we have seen, refer it to Nero. The outstanding fact, however, is that there is no such unanimity in the tradition that John was exiled under Domitian, as has been supposed.

If, then, it is felt that the Greek of the Apocalypse is irreconcilable with that of the Fourth Gospel on the supposition that they were written at approximately the same time, we may take refuge in the possibility that the Apocalypse dates from the time of Nero, 54-68, while the Gospel dates from that of Nerva, 96-98, or from the early years of Trajan, 98-104 (117).⁵²

Hugh Pope, O.P.

Hawkesyard Priory, England.

[1] 1 Cor. 34.

[2] H. E. III. xxxix. 12. Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. III. 24, P. L. II. 356.

[3] Dial. LXXXI. Cp. H. E. IV. xviii. 8.

[4] Visio I. iii, and IV. i.

[5] Adv. Haer. V. xxvi. 1, P. G. VII. 1192.

[6] Adv. Haer. V. xxx. 3, P. G. VII. 1207.

[7] Strom. VI. 14.

[8] Paed. II. 11, cf. I. 6, and Strom. VI. 16.

[9] Praescr. XXXIII; Adv. Marcion. III. 14; P. L. II. 340, 356, and De Fuga, IX. De Pudic. XIX. P. L. II. 46, 112, 1018.

[10] Tom. XVI. in Matth., P. G. XIII. 1386; Prol. i. in Joan., P. G. XIV. 22; De Princip. I. ii. 10; P. G. XI. 141; De Princip. IV. i. 10.

[11] Ante-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh); Tertullian III.

[12] H. E. III. xiv. 18; xxv. 4.

[13] Ib. IV. xviii. 8.

[14] Ib. IV. xxiv. 1.

[15] Ib. VI. xxv. 9.

[16] Ib. V. i. 10 and 58.

[17] Ib. V. viii., P. G. XX. 450.

[18] Ib. III. xviii. 2, P. G. XX. 251.

[19] H. E. VII. xxv. 1-2; P. G. XX. 695 ff.

[20] Ibid. 4-5.

[21] Ibid. 7-8.

[22] St. Denis certainly exaggerates when he insists on the purity of the Greek in the Gospel. The truth is that the style adopted is such that it was hardly possible for the writer to make mistakes in syntax. There is no involved construction; clause follows clause in simplest fashion. It seems indubitable that the author was a Hebrew whose thought was characteristically simple and direct. It would not be just to say that he was thinking in Aramaic and translating his thoughts into Greek as he went; but he is certainly a Hebrew thinking in Greek, viz., in a language other than his own. A comparison between any chapter at random and a chapter from the Epistle to the Hebrews will show the difference between a writer thinking and writing in Greek because it is his own tongue, and one who is using a vehicle which is not really natural to him.

[23] H. E. VII. xxv. For the Greek of the Apocalypse, cf. Fresh Light from the East, Engl. tr., p. 124, note 9.

[24] H. E. V. xxxiii. 4.

[25] H. E. III. xxxix, P. G. XX. 297; cf. Chapman, John the Presbyter, p. 40.

[26] H. E. III. xxxix. 5-7; P. G. XX. 297.

[27] For a full discussion, see Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., John the Presbyter, Clarendon Press, 1911; cf. also Swete, J. T. S., July, 1916.

[28] As examples of Greek words almost peculiar to the Apocalypse, note b. blarídion, 10:2, 9, 10. Aristophanes has b. blidárion; gómos, 18:11, 12; cf. Acts 21:3; katáthema, 22:3; cf. katathematízo, Mt 26:74; masáomai, 16:10; mesouránema, 8:13, 14:6, 18:17; opóra, 18:14; órneon, 18:2; pelekízo, 20:4; podéres, 1:13, which the Vulgate simply transcribes poderes; potamophóreton, 12:15; púrinos, 9:17; ruparós, 22:11; talantiaîos, 16:21; phostér, 21:11; chliarós, 3:16, etc.

For distinctively Hebrew constructions, note 3:8, hèn... autén, the Hebrew repetition of the demonstrative as, e.g., in cujus spes ejus. The curious Greek constructions in 8:3; the bad concords in 14:1, 3; 17:4; the lack of prepositions in 8:3, 4; 22:14; the use of ek for diá, 8:13, the use of epí in 20:1, 22:16, and the rare form estáthe in 8:3, 12:18, etc.

[29] Adv. Haer. V. xxx. 3; P. G. VII. 1207. This passage is twice quoted by Eusebius, H. E. III. xviii; V. viii. 6.

[30] Quis Dives? XLII; H. E. III. xxiii.

[31] H. E. III. xx. 11; xxiii. 1.

[32] Vir. Illustr. IX; P. L. XXIII. 625, simply an adaptation of H. E. III. xx. 11. Op. Adv. Jovin. I. 26 where also, as in his Comment on Mt 20, he gives the story of the bath of oil on the authority of Tertullian.

[33] H. E. III. xx. 11 and xxiii. 1.

[34] So McGiffert, notes on H. E. III. xviii. 3; Ante- and Post-Nicene Fathers, Eusebius, ed. Schaff and Wace, Oxford, 1905.

[35] De Praescr. XXXVI; P. L. II. 49.

[36] Tom. XVL in Matth., P. G. XIII. 1386.

[37] Comment. in Matth. 20.

[38] In his notes on Origen, Tom. XVI. in Matth., P. G. XIII. 1386.

[39] Cf. Salmon, Introduction, p. 168, note, 4th ed. 1889.

[40] Haer. LI. ii.; P. G. XLI. 890.

[41] Ibid. xii. 910.

[42] Ibid. xxxiii. 950.

[43] Ibid. iii. and xxviii., 891 and 938.

[44] Ibid. xxxiv. 950.

[45] Claudius, 25.

[46] E.g., H. E. II. viii. 1, ix. 1, "Claudius"; II. x. 9, xiii. 3, "Claudius Caesar."

[47] Ut supra.

[48] Ut supra.

[49] Adv. Jovin. I. 26; P. L. XXIII. 247.

[50] LIII; P. L. XXIII. 663.

[51] Quis Dives? XLII; H. E. III. xxiii. The figures in the text refer to the sections in Eusebius.

[52] It is presumably arguments such as the foregoing that have led Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century, Bampton Lectures for 1913, p. 140, to refer the Apocalypse to about A.D. 70.