that while the book is a unity the author made free use of older
materials. Later, in his Apostolic Age (1886, 2nd ed. 1892), he
specifies these additions as vii. 1-8 (A.b. 64-66), X.-xi. 1-13
(circa A.D. 67), xii. 1-11, I2-I7 (circa 69), xiii. (time of Vespasian),
xvii. (time of Domitian).
Sabatier (Les Origines littéraires . . . de Fapocalypse, 1888) regards the book as a unity into which its author had introduced older Jewish materials not always consistent with their new contexts, such as xi. 1-13, xii.-xiii., xiv. 6-zo, xvi. 13, 14, 16, xvii. 1-xix. 2, xix. 11-xx. ro, xxi. 9-xxii. 5. The author wrote x. with a view to adapting xi. 1-13 to its new context. Schoen (L'Origine de Vapocalypse, 1887) attached himself in the main to the scheme of Sabatier. Both these writers assign the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian.
The labours of these scholars, though to the superficial student they seem to prove that everything is possible and nothing certain, have certainly thrown great light on the literary character of the Apocalypse. Though differing in detail, they tend to show that, while the book is the production of one author, all its parts are not of the same date, nor are they one and all his first-hand creation. For many of the facts, the discovery of which we owe to the literary critics, have made the assumption of an absolute unity in the details pf the Apocalypse a practical impossibility. Incongruities manifest themselves not only between certain sections and the main scheme of the book, but also between these and their immediate contexts. These sections are vii. 1-8a, xi. 1-13, xii., xiii., xvii., xviii., xx., xxi. 9-xxii. 5. Some of these sections (xi., xii., xiii., xvii.) contain elements that cannot be explained from any of the above methods. The symbols and myths in these are not the creation of the writer, but borrowed from the past, and in not a few instances the materials are too foreign to his subject to lend themselves to his purpose without the help of artificial and violent expedients. For the elucidation of these foreign elements a new method the traditional-historical—is necessary, and to the brilliant scholar Gunkel we owe its origination. 1
iv. Traditional-historical M ethod.-Gunkel (Schopfnng und Chaos in U rzeit und Endzeit; eine religionsgeschichtliche U ntersuchnng itber Gen. 1 und Joh. 12, 1895) opened up new lines of investigation. He criticizes sharply (pp. 173 sqq., 233 sqq.) former methods of interpretation, and with the ardour of a discoverer of a new truth seeks to establish its currency throughout the entire field of apocalyptic. To such an extreme does he carry his theory that he denies obvious references to historical personages in the Apocalypse, when these are clothed in apocalyptic language. Thus he refuses to recognize Nero in the beast and its number. But apart from its extravagances, his theory has undoubted elements of truth . It is true that tradition largely nxes the form of figures and symbols in apocalyptic. Yet each new apocalypse is to some extent a reinterpretation of traditional material, which the writer uses not wholly freely but with reverence from the conviction that they contained the key to the mysteries of the present and the past. From this standpoint it may be argued that every apocalypse is in a certain sense pseudonymous; for the materials are not the writer's own, but have come down to him as a sacred deposit -full of meaning for the seeing eye and the understanding heart. On the other hand, since much of the material of an apocalypse is a reinterpretation, it is necessary to distinguish between its original meaning and the new turn given to it in the Apocalypse. At times details in the transmitted material are unintelligible to our author, and these in some cases he omits referring to in his interpretation. The presence of such details is strong evidence of the .writer's use of foreign material. As an illustration of his theory Gunkel seeks at great length to establish the Babylonian origin of chap. xii. of the Apocalypse. His investigation tends to show that in the course of tradition cosmological myths are transformed into eschatological dogmas. The above method was adopted by Bousset in his work Der Antichrist in der Uberlieferung des J u dent hums, des Neuen Testaments, und der alten Kirche (1895), in which he sought to show that a fixed tradition of the Antichrist originating in Iudaism can be traced from New Testament times down to the middle ages, and that this tradition was in the main unaffected by the Apocalypse, though in chap. xi. the Apocalypse shows dependence on it. Next in 1896 he published his commentary Die Ojenbarung Johannis (znd ed. 1906). In this work he availed himself of the results of the past and followed the three approved methods-the contemporary-historical, the fragmentary and the traditional-historical.
Iulicher (Einleitung in das Neue Testarnent4, 1901, pp. 204-29) adopts the same three methods of interpretation. Holtzmann (Einleitung in das N .T.', 1892; H and-C ommentarz, 1893; Lehrbuch der N Tlichen Theol., i. 463-76) holds mainly to the contemporary-historical method in his earlier works, though recognizing signs of a double historical background; but in his last work the importance of tradition as a source of the writer's materials is fully acknowledged.
In 1902 O. Pfrleiderer in the second edition of his Urchristentnm (1902, pp. 281-3 3 5) abandoned his former view on the Apocalypse and followed essentially the lines adopted by Bousset, though the details are differently treated.
In the same year Porter's able article on “ Revelation " appeared in Hastings' Bible Dictionary (iv. 239-66), and in 1905 his still fuller treatment of the same theme in The M essages of the Apocalyptical Writers, 169-294. To these works the present writer is indebted for many a suggestion. A small commentary (no date) by Anderson Scott follows in some measure the lines laid down in Bousset and Porter. Psychological M ethod.-It might be supposed that all possible methods had now been considered, and that a combination of the three methods which have established their validity in relation to the interpretation of the Apocalypse would be adequate to the solution of all the problems of the book, but this is not so; for even when each in turn has vindicated the provinces in the book that rightly belong to it, and brought intelligibility into these areas, there still remain outlying regions which they fail to illumine. It is not indeed that these methods have not claimed to solve the questions at issue, but that their solutions have failed to satisfy the larger body of reasonable criticism. The main problem, which so far has not been satisfactorily solved, may be shortly put as follows: Are the visions in the Apocalypse the genuine results of spiritual experiences, or are they artificial productions, mere literary vehicles of the writer's teaching? Weizsacker unhesitatingly advocates the latter view. But the serious students of later times ind themselves unable to follow in his footsteps. The writer's belief in his prophetic office and his obvious conviction of the inviolable sanctity of his message make it impossible to accept Weizsacker's opinion. Nor is it possible to accept Gunkel's theory in Schapfung und Chaos as an adequate explanation, who explained the author's conviction of the truth of his message as springing always from the fact that he was dealing with traditional material. This theory, which we have already dealt with in other connexions, is undoubtedly helpful, but here we require something more, and Gunkel has in consequence of Weinel's work (Wirkungen des Geisies und der Geisler, 1899) subsequently acknowledged that actual spiritual experiences lie behind some of the visions in apocalyptic (Kautzsch, Psend. des A.T., ii. 341 sqq.). The fact of such visionary experience can hardly be questioned: the only difficulty lies in determining to what extent it underlies the revelations of apocalyptic. For a short discussion of this question we might refer to Bousset's Ojenbarung Johannis”, pp. 8 sqq., and Po1°ter's article on “ Revelation ” in Hastings' Bible Dictionary, iv. 248 sqq. Methods of Interpretation.-As a result of the preceding inquiry we conclude that the student of the Apocalypse must make use of the following methods-the contemporary historical, the literary-critical (fragmentary hypothesis), the traditional»historical and the psychological. Each of these has its legitimate province, and the extent of this province can in most cases be defined with reasonable certainty. Plan and Detailed Criticism of the Book.-Two theories have been advanced to explain the plan and order of the book. The
