The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

III. The Revelation and the New Testament Canon

In order to discuss the book of Revelation in relation to the canon, it will be necessary first to outline the formation of the New Testament canon—the story of the writing of the New Testament, its assemblage or compilation, and its acceptance by the church at large as a canon of inspired writings. PFF1 96.1

1. THREE PERIODS IN DEVELOPMENT OF CANON

The formation and acceptance of the New Testament canon may be divided, for convenience, into three approximate periods, as given by Westcott: (1) the period of writing, then circulating, and early collecting (c. A.D. 70-170); (2) the period of separation from other ecclesiastical writings (c. 170-303); (3) the period of general acceptance (303-397). ²⁷ PFF1 96.2

The history of the canon, then, covers a gradual process of forming an authoritative and then a closed collection. It required time, for the Bible of the first century was still the Old Testament. And at first there was evidently no thought of a complete New Testament, as such, to be placed along beside the Old. But as the Judaic system was superseded by the revelation of redemption in Christ, one thing was lacking to give permanence to this revelation of truth—that was a body of inspired writings, such as the Jews possessed. The Christians obviously needed a similar body of writings to give authority and weight to their mission and message. PFF1 96.3

2. APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY TRANSFERRED TO WRITINGS

Jesus did not write; He taught orally. The apostles were His authorized representatives, whose oral messages, when later written, became the authoritative sources for the life and teachings of Jesus. This transference of authority from the apostles to their writings finally placed these books alongside the Old Testament as a part of the Scriptures. PFF1 97.1

The authority of the New Testament is discovered, then, externally, or objectively, by apostolic authorship, and acceptance and transmission by the oldest apostolic churches; but it is also attested internally, or subjectively, through the inherent power by the which the several books authenticate themselves as inspired—the moral credential, which constitutes proof to the individual receiving it, and can scarcely be made evidence to another. Further, the moral power of the Scriptures in changing the lives of men constitutes visible evidence to others as well as to the individual himself. PFF1 97.2

Picture 1: CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS IN COMTEMPORARY SETTING (CHART ON PAGES 98, 99)
Panoramic view of first century, showing sequence of new testament writings. The natural groupings, the sequence of new testament writings. The natural groupings, the sequence, and the surrounding events make significant the timing of second Thessalonians and the revelation, the principal sources or prophetic interpretation.
There are three general periods of writing; first, in the beginning period, appear six Pauline Epistles, Missionary and Doctrinal; second, in the central period, are included the three Synoptic Gospels, another group of Paul’s letters, the acts; and third, in the closing period, come the farewell writings of John.
There is progression from the earlier Epistles in the infancy of the church, dealing with the simpler, foundational things of faith. Then, as questions press for solution, faith needs buttressing, as gnosticism and discussions of the person of Christ come in. Maturity must wrestle with the philosophy of its faith. Hence, the pastoral and instructional aspect of this central group.
For the allocation of the books in the accompanying chart, the works of fifty of the most learned of the conservative scholars have been consulted and the preponderant evidence tabulated on disputed points as to dating-such as that of James, Galatians, the Synoptics, Jude, and Peter. Absolute certainty cannot be claimed, but the key books are securely anchored, and the essential outline may be considered dependable.
Page 97

As the New Testament was gradually assembled by the acceptance of individual books in various churches, the test of what writings were to be read publicly in church helped to determine the canon. The principle of selection was apostolic authorship; works of apostles, or companions of the apostles (as Mark and Luke), came to be authoritative. From the second century onward, the rise of various heresies and the challenge of spurious writings claiming apostolic authority increased the incentive to Fay emphasis on the true apostolic writings. This test was rational, Scriptural, and harmonious, for an apostle is one sent to teach with authority. (Matthew 28:18-20.) PFF1 100.1

3. RISE OF VARIOUS PARTS TO—AUTHORITY

The formation of the completed canon is not the same as the rise of its several parts to authority. The distinction is fundamental between the initial acceptance of individual books, the general recognition (the real canonization), and the later formal inclusion in full official lists and catalogues. It was a process of centuries, which ended when the church at large became satisfied that the apostolic books, which had been individually accepted in this first period, constituted the full New Testament canon to the exclusion of apocryphal writings. The hesitation over a few disputed books, which were finally received, marks the carefulness of the church, and indicates that their ultimate acceptance was based on sufficient and convincing evidence. PFF1 100.2

The materials of the canon, in the sense of being received by scattered churches, may be regarded as complete within approximately the latter half of the first century, but they were not yet collected and accepted by the church at large. Numerous small collections grew up, of which the larger churches had sets more or less complete. The four Gospels and Paul’s epistles—indeed the bulk of the New Testament—were regarded as authoritative from the first. Soon after the middle of the fourth century, says Schaff, the doubts regarding the “Antilegomena,” or disputed books, of the New Testament had largely disappeared, and in time the full canon was recognized by the churches of Christendom at large as the writings bearing the message of God. The complete New Testament canon represents the decision of the universal church in the sense of the authoritative acceptance by Christian consciousness, carefully tested for three centuries, It is thereby given a value and a recognition that transcends any and all particular ecclesiastical councils which came to take formal action. ²⁸ PFF1 100.3

4. TESTIMONY FOR THE CANONICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE

It is essential for us to have a comprehensive grasp of me testimony of the leading churchmen of the early centuries relative to the Apocalypse. We heed first to sense the commonly assigned place of the Apocalypse in the New Testament canon during the first three hundred years of the era. We must also understand the occasion of its temporary omission from certain fourth-century New Testament lists and its reinstatement later. PFF1 101.1

It was usage that prepared the way for recognition of the authority of the various books of the New Testament. The reading of the writings of the apostles formed part of the weekly services of the early churches, and that reading was based on the conviction of the apostolicity of the various books, including the Apocalypse. The array of names we shall cite on this subject may at first seem a bit dry and formidable, like an assemblage of dry bones, but these names are destined to be clothed with flesh, as it were, in later chapters, for these are the very men we must bring forward as witnesses in our quest for the early interpretation of Bible prophecy, principally in the books of Daniel and the Revelation. ²⁹ So these men will soon take on a very real meaning and acquaintance. We now turn to the record of their convictions on the question of the New Testament canon. PFF1 101.2

In the survey of the witness of the leading writers of the early church concerning the standing of the Apocalypse here given, the evidence will be seen to sustain Westcott’s impressive statement on the canonicity of the Revelation: “From every quarter the testimony of the early Latin Fathers to the Apostolic authority of the Apocalypse is thus decided and unanimous.” ³⁰ PFF1 101.3

Westcott begins his comprehensive survey of the Apocalypse with PAPIAS (probably early second century) in Phrygia, who maintained the” ‘divine inspiration’ of the Apocalypse.” ³¹ Then follows Justin Martyr (2nd century), first Ante-Nicene church father, who was born in the Roman colony of Flavia Neapolis, but of whose actual race little is known. He cites the fulfillment of the prophecies of Holy Writ as the unique proof of Christianity. In addition to the Gospels, the Apocalypse is the only other New Testament book Justin cites by name, and this he definitely ascribes to John the apostle; PFF1 102.1

“And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem.” ³² PFF1 102.2

The fragmentary Latin manuscript on the canon (from c. 170) published by Muratori in 1740 lists the Apocalypse of John. The Vetus Latina (Old Latin Version of the Bible, c. 170) contains, says Westcott, the same books as those listed by the Muratorian Fragment. ³³ A similar fragment from MELITO, bishop of Sardis (fl. c. 170?), who speaks of the “Old Testament” so as to imply the New Testament books as a collection, wrote a treatise on the Apocalypse. ³⁴ THEOPHILUS of Syrian Antioch series, vol. 1, pp. 206, 204 (see also Westcott, op. cit., pp. 218, 219). (c. 180) quoted the Apocalypse, ³⁵ and IRENAEUS, bishop of Lyons (d. c. 202), uses it as the work of “John the Lord’s disciple.” ³⁶ PFF1 102.3

At the close of the second century, according to Westcott, the Apocalypse was acknowledged as aposto1ic and authoritative throughout the church except for its omission in the Syriac version. ³⁷ PFF1 103.1

Coming now to clearer and fuller evidence, TERTULLIAN of Carthage (d. c. 240?), continually quotes from the Revelation, which he ascribes to, the Apostle John,” ³⁸ and which he dates about the end of the reign of Domitian. It is quoted often, and referred to as an unquestioned work of John, by CLEMENT of Alexandria (d. c. 220). ³⁹ And ORIGEN, also of Alexandria (d. c. 254), similarly declares that it was John the apostle, evangelist, and prophet, who wrote the Apocalypse. ⁴⁰ CYPRIAN, bishop of Carthage (d, 258), also receives the book as Holy Scripture, but does not mention authorship. ⁴¹ PFF1 103.2

HIPPOLYTUS, called bishop of Porto (d. c. 236), and VICTORINUS of Pettau (d.c. 303) both ascribed it to John the apostle, ⁴² and each wrote a commentary on it. PFF1 103.3

But after Origen the Apocalypse became the subject of controversy on purely subjective and internal grounds. DIONYSIUS, bishop of Alexandria (c. 247-265), a successor of Origen as head of the famous catechetical school there, entered upon an extended discussion of the canonical authority of the book of Revelation. It is felt by some that, after having been almost universally received by the fathers, the Apocalypse fell temporarily into discredit, largely because of the position taken thereon by Dionysius in opposition to the chiliasts, or millenarians, who held that the saints would reign with Christ visibly on earth for a thousand years, Some of their extreme views, based on other sources, but connected with the thousand years of Revelation 20, were so repugnant to some in the third century that they were led to doubt the authority of the Apocalypse and to disparage its value. Dionysius says that before his time some had rejected the Apocalypse, and ascribed it to Cerinthus, but that he himself believes it was written by an inspired man, not, however, the apostle John. ⁴³ PFF1 103.4

But even until the fourth century the book of Revelation was almost universally received, no writers of credit calling it in question, and most of them ascribing it to John the apostle. METHODIUS, sometimes referred to as bishop of Tyre (d. 309), received the Apocalypse as of “the blessed John” and as possessing undoubted authority; and PAMPHILUS (d. 309), presbyter of Caesarea and friend of Eusebius, in the commencement of a work which bears his name, indicates his belief that the Apocalypse is the work of John. ⁴⁴ PFF1 104.1

Westcott summarizes the status of the Apocalypse at the end of the third century: PFF1 104.2

“But one of the disputed books was still received generally without distinction of East and West [the Greek and Latin churches]. With the single exception of Dionysius all direct testimony from Alexandria, Africa, Rome, and Carthage, witnesses to the Apostolic authority of the Apocalypse.” ⁴⁵ PFF1 104.3

Then, beginning with the fourth century, we find doubts mentioned for a time, partly because of its mysterious content and partly because of the encouragement it was supposed to give to the chiliasts. In the East there was difference of opinion. Some of the fathers either omitted the Apocalypse from their catalogues of the books of the New Testament or nowhere quoted it. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) and Gregory of Nazianzus (d* 389) exclude it; their contemporary, Amphilochius of Iconium, rejects it but mentions difference of opinion; and Chrysostom of Constantinople (d. 407) nowhere quotes it (although he must have been acquainted with it), and Suidas credits him with accepting it as apostolic. ⁴⁶ PFF1 104.4

The fourth-century council of Laodicea, in Phrygia (some times dated variously as A.D. 336, 364, or 365, although the exact date is unknown), ⁴⁷ was the first synod in which the books of the Bible were the subject of “special ordinance.” There were “xxxii fathers” in attendance, according to Gratian. The catalogue of books as it appears in the printed editions of the councils omits the Revelation, although the authenticity of this catalogue has been challenged by such authorities as Spittler and Bickell. Tw6 Greek manuscript copies omit the catalogue entirely, and other manuscripts have marks on them that may indicate, says Westcott, that the list was not a part of the original text but was incorporated gradually. The complete Latin versions are nearly balanced, the earlier form (6th century) omitting the catalogue, and the later (9th century) containing it, except in two copies. The Syriac manuscripts (6th or 7th century), says Westcott, turn the scale. All three contain the fifty-ninth canon without the catalogue; and there were other collections and synopses which omit reference to the catalogue, ⁴⁸ Westcott therefore concludes: PFF1 105.1

“On the whole then it cannot be doubted that external evidence is decidedly against the authenticity of the Catalogue as an integral part of the text of the Canons of Laodicea, nor can any internal evidence be brought forward sufficient to explain its omission in Syria, Italy, and Portugal, in the sixth century, if it had been so.” ⁴⁹ PFF1 105.2

So, the evidence of the catalogue of Laodicea is materially neutralized because of the cloud on the authenticity of the final paragraph of its last canon. ⁵⁰ Too much must not be made of it. PFF1 105.3

EUSEBIUS of Caesarea (d. c. 340), sometimes called “the Father of Church History,” after listing the acknowledged New Testament books, names “if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John” at the close of the “accepted writings but says that opinion is somewhat divided concerning it; some question it but others reckon it among the “accepted books.” ⁵¹ Constantine’s personal reading of the Scriptures led him to charge Eusebius with preparing fifty copies of the divine Scriptures. These were written on prepared skins, by skilled artisans, for use in the new capital. Constantine’s zeal exerted a powerful influence upon the Greek church. The distinction between the controverted and the acknowledged epistles had largely ended; only on the Apocalypse did doubts remain with some. But ATHANASIUS soon gave a clear judgment; otherwise the canon of Eusebius and that of Athanasius are the same. Thence forth the question was practically decided. ⁵² PFF1 106.1

ATHANASIUS’ Easter epistle of 367 enumerates the books of the New Testament and includes the Revelation. ⁵³ In 393 the North African council of Hippo included the Apocalypse in the New Testament; likewise the third council of Carthage, in 397, at which Augustine was present, re-enacts the canons of Hippo, listing the books of Holy Scripture, closing the list with “the Apocalypse of ‘John,’” and declaring this to be the catalogue of books “received from our fathers,” to be “read in the Church.” ⁵⁴ The same canon listing the Scriptures was renewed in canon 24 of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae by the sixth (sometimes numbered seventeenth) council of Carthage in 419. ⁵⁵ This, be it noted, is the voice of a general African synod on the content of the canon. In Rome, INNOCENT I listed the New Testament (405) as we have it. A canonical list appears in three different forms, bearing the names of DAMASUS (366-384), GELASIUS I (492-496), and HORMISDAS (514-523), all including the Apocalypse. ⁵⁶ PFF1 106.2

By the fifth century all doubts concerning the canonicity of the Apocalypse seem to have disappeared not only in the West but also in Asia Minor. ⁵⁷ GREGORY OF NYSSA (late 4th century) refers to the Apocalypse as Saint John’s and as a part of Scripture; and BASIL of Caesarea (d. 379) calls the book a work of John the apostle, ⁵⁸ ANDREW, bishop of Caesarea (5th century), prefaces his commentary on the Apocalypse with the statement that he need not prove the inspiration of the book, which had already been attested by Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, Hippolytus, and others. ⁵⁹ PFF1 107.1

EPIPHANUS (d. 403), bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in his work against heresies, gives a canon of the New Testament that contains our complete list; although he mentions the doubts of others concerning the Revelation, he includes it without hesitation, accepting it as the “spiritual gift” of the holy apostle. ⁶⁰ And the noted JEROME (d. 420), taking cognizance of the contrary view, nevertheless accepts the Revelation, “following the authority of the ancient writers,” ⁶¹ This was also the considered judgment of the church at Rome, for Jerome under took his work on the Scriptures at the request of the bishop of Rome, his canon being republished by later popes. And this judgment was confirmed by AMBROSE at Milan, RUFINUS at Aquileia, and PHILASTRIUS at Brescia. ⁶² And finally the famous AUGUSTINE, bishop of Hippo (d. 430), similarly received the book of Revelation and quoted it frequently. His list of the New Testament books agrees exactly with ours. From this time on the canon of the New Testament in the West was no longer a problem. ⁶³ PFF1 107.2

The Syrian, Abyssinian, Armenian, and Georgian church records are more fragmentary and unsatisfactory. ⁶⁴ Naturally the Syriac-speaking churches of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Pales tine tended to follow the canon of the Peshitta version of the Bible. This did not contain Revelation and several epistles. Junilius, a sixth-century bishop of Africa, tells us that the schools of Nisibis in Syria taught the Bible, and in enumerating the books, he says that there was much doubt among Eastern Christians about the Apocalypse. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN (d. 373), of Edessa, quotes the Apocalypse only once in his extant Syriac works, although the Greek text of his works, if authentic, shows him using all the books of our New Testament canon. ⁶⁵ About 750 we find COS’MAS of Jerusalem omitting the Revelation, but his contemporary and friend, JOHN OF DAMASCUS, lists our complete canon. ⁶⁶ PFF1 108.1

There were two revisions of the Peshitta in the sixth and seventh centuries, the Philoxenian and Harkleian. Source in formation has been so scanty that authorities disagree, but one of these later revisions added the four minor epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude) and the Apocalypse. The first of these was made by Polycarp under the authorization of Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug, in eastern Syria, in 508. Of this the four minor general epistles were edited in Europe in 1630, but the Apocalypse of this version was not published until 1897. ⁶⁷ PFF1 108.2

To continue the list of names in the West after Augustine, we find the Apocalypse attested by Eucherius of Lyons (5th century), Cassiodorus of Italy (6th century), Bede of England (7th century), Sedulius of Ireland (8th or 9th century), and so on. ⁶⁸ But such multiplication of names is unnecessary; late witnesses are less important than early ones. It is noticeable that the African bishops in the fourth century, as well as Jerome, decided the question on the basis of what had been handed down to them from their fathers. ⁶⁹ Westcott notices that “the Apocalypse was recognized from the first as a work of the Apostle in the districts most immediately interested in its contents,” ⁷⁰ that is, Asia Minor, and indeed, that the disputed epistles generally were accepted exactly in those places where they were most likely to be known. ⁷¹ PFF1 108.3

Thus we see the book of Revelation—first accepted, then doubted for a while—is recognized in the canon of the church. The very fact of varying opinions, rather than universal acceptance of any list arbitrarily imposed by a general council, shows that the general acceptance of the contents of the New’ Testament was the result both of the inescapable voice of divine authority, and of human attestation. The New Testament is different from all other books. It is not the product of the writers’ literary genius, or of the selective instincts of the ecclesiastical councils, but springs from the inspired and inherent truth of the writings themselves-God’s message to man. PFF1 109.1

Now that we have examined the historical backgrounds and the canonicity of the two major books of the Bible dealing with eschatological prophecy, the brief consideration of the content of Biblical prophecy is next in order. A survey of the prophetic source material, which forms the basis for the later prophetic interpretations will serve to introduce the starting point of the long development which we are to trace through the centuries in these four volumes. PFF1 109.2