Domitian as a forerunner and type of the true Antichrift. Such is Knittel's opinion: and this at least must be admitted, that his conftruction of swgan with ovoμa is fupported by the authority of the old Latin tranflator of Irenæus's works, who has rendered the paffage in question in the following manner. Si oporteret manifefte præfenti tempore præconari nomen ejus, per ipfum utique edictum fuiffet, qui et Apocalypfin viderat. Neque enim ante multum temporis vifum eft, fed pene fub noftro feculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii, Further, Knittel appeals to the context of the Latin tranflation, and fupports his opinion by very plausible arguments. If he is in the right, the Apocalypfe was not only written before the reign of Domitian, but contains prophecies, which relate to him.

5. In a Latin work, containing the lives of the Apof thes, afcribed to Dorotheus, who lived at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, and who is faid to have been bishop of Tyre, the banishment of St. John to the island of Patmos is placed in the reign of Trajan: but at the fame time it is obferved, that in the opinion of others he was banished in the reign of Domitian. Of thefe Latin lives there exists a Greek tranflation, made by a perfon perfon unknown: and this Greek translation, as published by Cave, mentions like wife Trajan.

6. On the other hand, according to another copy, which Knittel found in a Wolfenbüttel manufcript of the Apocalypfe, St. John was banished to Patmos by the Emperor Hadrian.' Thefe two laft dates are fupported by only one evidence, and it is moreover uncertain whether he meant Trajan or Hadrian. For this reason I barely mention these dates, without inquiring into their probability.

Among these different opinions. relative to the time when the Apocalypse was written, our choice must in a great measure depend on the opinion which we entertain

4 Biblotheca Patrum maxima, Tom. VII. p. 122.

See Knittel, p. 88, 89..

of

of the work itself, whether we confider it as an inspired book, or regard it only as a human compofition.

If we confider the Apocalypfe as a divine work, I think we must confine our choice to thofe dates which precede the commencement of the Jewish war: for thus only fhall we be enabled to thew that its first prophecies were fulfilled in a short time. And I grant that if it is referred to the reign of Claudius, the explanation of it is ftill eafter, than when it is referred to the reign of Nero : for the fcarcity predicted, ch. vi. 6. is defcriptive of that which took place in the time of Claudius.

If it be confidered as a mere human invention, it may be either afcribed to Cerinthus, or attributed to fome. unknown writer, who lived between the time of Papias, and that of Juftin Martyr': in the latter cafe it might have been written in the reign of Hadrian. But if it be really a forgery, if it contains prophecies of the Jewish war made after the events themselves had taken place, we have reafon to wonder, that the author did not prophefy more circumftantially, and that he appears fo little acquainted with the events of that war.

IN

Of the Greek ftyle of the Apocalypfe.

N examining the queftion, whether St. John the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypfe, its Greek ftyle, which differs from that of every other book in the New Teftament, deferves particular attention. But the application of the remarks to be made on this fubject will depend on the queftion examined in the preceding fection,

See what was faid of Papias and Juftin Martyr in the second fection of this chapter.

* See the latter part of the seventh section.

fection, namely, at what time the Apocalypfe was written for it cannot be denied, that the fame author may at one period of his life make use of a style, which is very different from that, which he had ufed at another. That the ftyle of the Apocalypfe is very unlike that of any other book of the New Teftament, is a fact, which no man, who understands Greek, and is capable of judging impartially, will deny. Nor is this difference of fuch a kind only, that we might afcribe it to the peculiarity of the fubject, and fay, that the fame author, when he wrote in the character of a prophet, would use different modes of expreffion from thofe, which he had adopted as an hiftorian: whence might be explained the contrast between the fimple unadorned ftyle of St. John's Gofpel, and the rich figurative language of the Apocalypfe. But when the rules of the Greek grammar are accurately obferved in St. John's Gofpel, and are fre quently violated in the Apocalypfe, we have a difference, which cannot be afcribed to the diffimilitude of the fubject for the fame author, who wrote correctly as an hiftorian, would not be guilty of folecisms even in writ ing prophecies.

Dionyfius of Alexandria, whofe modesty and gentle, nefs of temper I commended in the fecond fection of this chapter, was well aware of the difference between the ftyle of the Apocalypfe, and that of St. John's genuine writings; and for this very reason, though he did not venture to deny that the Apocalypfe was a facred book, yet he afferted that St. John the Apostle was not the author of it. The difference in question may be reduced to the following heads.

1. The Apocalypfe abounds with harsh conftructions, in which a nominative is placed, where another cafe ought to have been used. Of this fort the following inftances have been alleged by Bengel": ch. i. 5. Ιησε Χρισε, ὁ μαρτυς ὁ πισος : 11. 20. την γυναίκα, ἡ λεγεσα: iii. 12. της καινης Ιερεσαλήμ, ἡ καταβαινεσα: viii. 9. το τρίτον των κτισμάτων τα έχοντα ψυχας: ix. 14. τω αγγελων ο

* Apparatus Criticus: Fundam. crif. Apoc. § 5. LL

VOL. IV.

спо

έχων την σαλπιγγα: xiv. 12. των άγιων οἱ τηρεντες: xviii. 11, 12. του γόμον αυτών εδεις αγοραζει ουκέτι, γομος χρυσε ΧΧ. 2. του δρακοντα, ὁ οφις ὁ αρχαιος: xxi. 10. 12. την πολιν έχυσα. -x. He further adds: nec longe abeunt illa, xiv. 5. τῳ θηρίῳ, και την εικονα αυτό: xvii. 4. βδελυγμάτων, και τα ακάθαρτα : vel etiam iv. 4. vii. 9. xiii. 3.

To thefe examples felected by Bengel may be added the following. In ch. i. 6. the reading of moft manufcripts is εποίησεν ήμας βασιλειαν ἱέρεις, which is taken from the Hebrew text of Exod. xix. 6. a kingdom of priests,' though the feventy have rendered it in a different manner, namely, βασίλειον ἱερατευμα : but the author of the Apocalypfe follows not the Greek, but the Hebrew, and lets leges remain with its termination unaltered to denote a genitive. In ch. ii. 13. according to the common printed text, mention is made of a martyr Antipas, a perfon unknown in ecclefiaftical hiftory: but four manufcripts, instead of a proper name Arias, have the verb avras, and with the following strange conftruction, εν αις αντείπας ὁ μαρτυς με ὁ πισος, “ in which though haft fpoken against my faithful witness.' The reading avrelTas is fupported alfo by the authority of the Syriac verfion, and of the Arabic verfion published by Erpenius, which in other places of the Apocalypfe does not ufually follow the Syriac. Both of thefe verfions exprefs in quibus contendifti cum tefte, &c.

αντείπας,

Conftructions of this kind were probably not unufual among the Greek Jews: at leaft I have found several examples in those books of the Septuagint, which are not fo well tranflated as the Pentateuch"; for instance, 2 Sam. xv. 31. και απηγγέλη Δαυιδ λεγοντες, and Ifaiah xxiv. 16. και τοις ἀθετεσιν οἱ αθετευτες τον νομον. But we find no fuch examples in the Gospel and Epiftles of St. John and this extraordinary use of the nominative for another cafe will hardly be confounded with the nominative abfolute of Attic writers.

But

*w Even in the Pentateuch, according to the text of the Codex Alexandrinus we meet with fome examples of this kind: Gen. xiv. 13. E τη δρυς τη Μαμβρῃ ὁ Αμορεις. *1. 5. όρασις το ενυπνια αυτό, ὁ ἀρχινία μάχους, και ο αρχισιτοποιος,

But before I proceed, I must acknowledge, that the examples of harsh conftruction above-quoted from the Apocalypfe, if we except that which was taken from ch. i. 5. though they are found in good manufcripts are not contained in all, and that they have been adopted in very few printed editions, in most of which the nominative is converted into a cafe more fuitable to the context. Here then it may be objected, that when we have the choice of two readings, one of which is grammatically correct, while the other contains falfe grammar, we ought to afcribe the latter, not to the incorrectness of the author, but to the inaccuracy of a tranfcriber. Now if a grammatical error was found in a manufcript of Cicero's works, no doubt could be entertained that the ungrammatical reading did not proceed from the pen of the author: but that the ungrammatical conftructions in the manufcripts of the Apocalypfe cannot be afcribed. wholly to the copyifts, will appear from the following arguments.

Firft, though an illiterate tranfcriber may fometimes copy falfely and convert an accurate expreffion into a folecifin, yet it is incredible that feveral transcribers fhould agree not only in copying falfely in the very fame places, but likewife in fubftituting the fame mistaken readings, and in converting the true cafe into a nominative without any affignable reafon.

Secondly, these unufual conftructions occur too frequently in the Apocalypfe to be imputed wholly to tranfcribers: for, if they arofe merely from the inaccuracy of transcribers, we fhould as frequently meet with fuch examples in the other books of the New Teftament, as in the Apocalypfe, many of the tranfcribers of which have not copied this book alone. Since then these ungrammatical conftructions occur fo frequently in the Apocalypfe, but not in other books of the New Testament written by the fame transcribers, the only inference to be drawn is, that they proceeded from the author himself.

Thirdly,

* Bengel fays of the examples above-quoted, Singulatim hæc exfibi lare facile eft: univerfa nemo convellet.