in the progress of events ever new illustrations of the working of the great principles which are revealed. And . . . it will gladly accept all that research and discovery can yield for the better understanding of the conditions under which the book was written.” The chief value of this very scholarly book is to be found in its textual side.
The greater number of the methods discussed above have made no permanent contribution to the exegesis of Revelation; the method among them that has done most in this direction is the contemporary-historical. But, though this method has been applied in its fullness, and that by the keenest exegetes, there remains a consciousness that it has failed to solve 'many of the problems of the book. In many important points, however, its upholders are agreed, i.e. that the book is directed against Rome, that Nero redivivus is to be recognized in the wounded head, that the number 666 denotes Nero Caesar, and that in chap. xi. the preservation of the temple is foretold. Consequently the date of the composition of the' book is placed before A.D. 70. Against the date assigned to the opening verses of this chapter modern scholars can make no objection, but, if this be the date of the entire work, then many passages in it are hopelessly inexplicable; for the latter just as certainly demand a date subsequent to A.D. 70 as xi. 1–2, a date prior to it. If, therefore, the possibilities of exegesis were exhausted in the list of methods already enumerated, science would have to put the New Testament Apocalypse aside as a hopeless enigma. But there is no such impasse. For in the New Testament Apocalypse there is not that rigid consistency and unity in detail that the past presupposed. The critical studies of recent years have shown that most of the Old Testament prophetical books are composite. And this holds true in no less a degree of most of the Jewish apocalypses. Such works are to be explained on what might be called the “fragmentary hypothesis.” Other books, like the Ethiopic Enoch, exhibit a series of independent sources connected more or less loosely together. Such are to be explained on the “sources hypothesis.” Others, like the Ascension of Isaiah, betray the handiwork of successive editors, and are accordingly to be explained on the “redaction hypothesis.” Now modern scholars have with varying success used in turn these three hypotheses with a view to the solution of the problems of the New Testament Apocalypse. To these we shall now address ourselves.
II. Methods—Literary-Critical—presupposing some Degree of Compositeness in the Book.
i. Reduction Hypothesis.—Suggestions, as we have already observed, had been made in this direction, but it was not till Weizsacker (Theol. Litteraturzeitung, 1882, p. 78 seq.) reopened the question that the problem was seriously undertaken. In the same year his pupil Völter (Die Entstehung der A pak., 1882, 1885) put forward the bold theory that the original Apocalypse consisted of i. 4–6, iv. 1–v. 10, vi. 1–17, vii. 1–8, viii. 1–13, ix. 1–21, xi. 14–19, xiv. 1–3, 6, 7, xiv. 14–20, xviii. 1–24, xix. 1–4, xix. 5–roa, which he assigned to the year A.D. 66 (so the second edition). To this the original author added as an appendix x. 1–xi. 13, xiv. 8, xvii. 1–18, in A.D. 68–70. The work underwent three later red actions at. the hands of successive editors in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Instead of the above complex theory this writer now offers another (Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1904),[1] in which he distinguishes an apocalypse of John, A.D. 65, i. 4–6, iv. I–V. 10, vi. 1–vii. 8, viii.–ix., xi. 14–19, xiv. 1–3, 6–7, xiv. 14–20, xviii. 1–xix. 4, xix. 5–10 (pp. 3–56), 1–18, xi. 1–13, an apocalypse of Cerinthus A.D. 70, x. 1–11, xvii. xii. 1–16, xv. 5–6, 8, xvi. 1–21, xix. II–XXI. 8, xxi. 9–xxii. 6 (pp. 56–129), a redaction of the work in A.D. 114–15, i. 7–8, v. 6b, 11–14, vii. 9–17, xii. 11, 18–xiii. 18, xiv. 4–5, 9–12, xv. 1–4, 7, xvi. 19b, xvii. 14, 16, 17, xxi. 14, 22–27, xxii. 1–2, 8–9 (pp. 129–48), and certain additions, i. 1–3, 9–iii. 22, xiv. 13, xvi. 15, xxii. 7, 10–20, made in the time of Hadrian (pp. 148–I7I). First of all it should be observed that Völter was the first to call attention to the radical difference in outlook between vii. 1–8 and vii. 9–17—a difference now generally recognized. Next it is noteworthy that in the second scheme here given Völter has abandoned his theory of a redaction hypothesis in favour of a sources hypothesis–I–a redactor. The earlier view of Völter was rejected on every side: the later will not* prove more acceptable, though individual suggestions of this scholar will be occasionally helpful. The problem was next dealt with by Vischer (Die Offenbarung Johannis, eine Jüdische Apokalypse in Christlicher Bearbeitung, 1886, 2nd ed., 1895), who took iv. 1–xxii. 5 to be a Jewish apocalypse revised and edited by a Christian, to whom he assigned i.–iii., v. 9–14, vii. 9–17, xi. 8b, xii. 11, xiii. 9, 10, xiv. 1–5, 12, 13, xvi. 15, xvii. 14, xix. 9, 10, 13b, xx. 4b–5a, 6, xxi. 5b–8, 14b, xxii. 6–21, together with some isolated expressions and all references to the Lamb. This scheme met with a better reception than that of Vtilter, but it also has failed to solve the problem. In 1891 Erbes (Offenbarung Johannis, 1891) maintained that the book was entirely of Christian origin. The groundwork was written about A.D. 62. In this an editor incorporated a Caligula apocalypse, and a subsequent editor revised the existing work in many passages and made considerable additions, especially in the later chapters. Another attempt, mainly from this standpoint, has recently been made by J. Weiss of Marburg (Offenbarung des Johannis, 1904). This writer seeks to establish the existence of an original Christian apocalypse written before A.D. 60. This included (see p. 111) i. 4–6 (7, 8), 9–19, ii.–vii., ix., xii. 7–12, xiii. 11–18, xiv. 1–5, 14–20, xx. 1–15, xxi. 1–4, xxii. 3–5, 8 sqq. With this a Jewish apocalypse (x.–xi. 13, xii. 1–6, 14–17, xiii. I*7, xv.–xix., xxi. 9–27–see p. 115), written A.D. 70, was incorporated by the redactor. This latter apocalypse consisted of a series of independent prophecies which appeared to have the same crisis in view. This redactor, moreover, was the first who gave to the Apocalypse the character of an attack on the Roman Empire and the imperial cult by means of a series of small additions. In the above work we have a combination of the redaction and sources hypotheses.
ii. Sources Hypothesis.—The same year Weyland (Theol. Tijdsch., 1886, 454–70; Omwerkings en Compilatie-Hypothesen toegepast op de Apoc. van Johannis, 1888) advanced the theory of two Jewish sources (א and ב), which were subsequently worked over by a Christian redactor. Such a theory as that just mentioned hopelessly fails to account for the linguistic unity of the book.
A very elaborate form of this theory was issued in 1884 (Offenbarung Johannis) by Spitta, who found three main sources in the Apocalypse. First, there was the primitive Christian apocalypse embracing the letters and the seals written by John Mark soon after A.D. 60,—i. 4–6, 9–19, ii. 1–iii. 22, iv.–vi., viii. 1, vii. 9–17, xix. 9b, 10, xxii. 8, 10–13, 16a, 17, 18a, 20b–21. Secondly, the trumpet source of the time of Caligula (circa 40),—vii. 1–8, viii. 2–ix., x. 1–7, xi. 15, 19, xii.–xiii. 18, xiv. 1–11, xvi. I3–20, xix. 11–21, xx. 1–3, 8–15, xxi. 1, 5a, 6a. Thirdly, the vials source from the time of Pompey (circa 63),—x. 1b, 2a, 8a, 9b, 10–II, xi. 1–13, 15b, 17, 18, xiv. 14–20, xv. 2–6, 8, xvi. 1–12, 17a, 21, xvii. 1–6a, xviii. 1–23, xix. 1–8, xxi. 9–xxii. 3a, 15. The rest of the book is from the hands of the redactor.
In 1891 Schmidt resolved the book into three independent sources which were put together by a redactor (Anmerkungen über d. Komposition der Offenb. Johannis).
In 1895 Briggs (Messiah of the Apostles, 1895) developed this theory to a still more extreme degree.
iii. Fragment Hypothesis.—The previous theories have brought to light and emphasized the fact that within the Apocalypse there are passages inconsistent with the tone and character of the whole. But, notwithstanding this fact, the Apocalypse gives a strong impression of its unity. Thus apparently the only remaining theory which can account for both these phenomena is that at which we have now arrived, i.e. the fragment hypothesis. To Weizsacker we owe the first statement of this theory. In 1882 (Theol. Litteraturz. pp. 78–9) he suggested
- ↑ Besides the works mentioned here Völter wrote two other works on the Apocalypse: Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1886; Das Problem der Apokalypse, 1893.
