Untitled Sermon

Revelation Notes TIC LITERATURE, INTRODUCTION TO (Ἀποκάλυψις, Apokalypsis, “revelation, unveiling”). A genre of biblical writing that reveals God’s actions and coming judgment in symbolic language. The transition from prophecy and apocalyptic is characterized by an increased use of symbolism and an increased use of heavenly mediators explaining the vision. The latter half of the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation are representative of the apocalyptic genre. Development Apocalyptic literature deals with eschatology (ἔσχατος, eschatos, “last things”). This type of writing was especially prevalent from approximately 200 bc to ad 200, starting with Jewish writings and eventually including the work of Christians. Apocalyptic literature reflected its origins in a time of great unrest and oppression. While Jews were in the midst of resisting forceful Hellenization, Christians were being persecuted by the Roman Empire (Collins, “Cosmos and Salvation,” 121–42). The apocalyptic genre contains a revelation within a narrative framework. The revelation is given to a human being by an otherworldly mediator who unveils a supernatural reality, along with the means by which humanity can become a part of it (Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 9). Whereas it had earlier been assumed that Persian dualism had great influence over the genre, support for this supposition has been marginalized because of dating problems (Collins, McGinn, and Stein, eds. The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism; Rudolph, Gnosis, 283). Gerhard von Rad has argued for the Wisdom tradition giving birth to apocalyptic (von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 114–25). Biblical prophecy is also believed to be at the root of apocalyptic literature, as many prophetic writings are considered “proto-apocalyptic” (e.g., Amos 7:1–9; 8:1–13; Isa 24–27; 33; 55–56; Jer 1:11–16; Ezek 37–38; Zech 9–14; Joel), inhabiting a place between historical prophecy and revelatory writings (Jindo, “On Myth,” 412–15). Another link between prophecy and apocalyptic is the role of the vision in the narrative; see 1 Kgs 22:19–23; Isa 6:1–13; Jer 23:18–22. After the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bc and the Babylonian exile, Jewish writing developed beyond prophetic writing (Uffenheimer, “From Prophetic to Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 200–17). The desire for the defeat of evil and the rewarding of the just became more desperate, and apocalyptic writings became more prevalent (Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 24; Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 2–9). The latter half of the book of Daniel (Dan 7–13) describes the persecution of the Jews at the hands of Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the early to mid second century bc in apocalyptic—or coded—language (Dan 2:32–45; Collins, Flint, and Van Epps, eds. The Book of Daniel, 98). By this time, apocalyptic literature relied heavily on earlier biblical material. It had also taken on a highly mythological tone, becoming vested with angelology, e.g. describing Michael as warrior and Gabriel as messenger (Dan 9:21; 10:13; Collins, Flint, and Van Epps, eds. The Book of Daniel, 122–23). During the intertestamental period, the Dead Sea Scrolls described the Day of Judgment and other apocalyptically oriented themes. The War Scroll (1QM) is particularly eschatological (Yadin, The War Scroll). The primarily apocalyptic work of 1 Enoch appeared during the intertestamental period as well (Lumpkin, The Books of Enoch). Before Jesus and the birth of the Christian Church, apocalyptic literature waited for the Day of Yahweh. After Christ, apocalyptic literature (predominantly Christian by this time) waited for the Second Coming (Gray, “The Day of Yahweh”; Hoffman, “The Day of the Lord”). While some Jewish apocalyptic literature continued to be written into the second century, it died out as a major genre sometime after the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70 (Leppakari, Apocalyptic Representations). Biblical Relevance Although “this is a field in which terminology has been disputed, and scholars have had very divergent interpretations of the evidence” (Collins, “Eschatology and Apocalypticism,” 1360), apocalyptic literature typically follows a certain formula. While not every work will have every element, the most common ones are: • A revelation or unveiling of a divine plan through a series of visions or dreams by a heavenly messenger concerning the end times. • A detailed description of past and present events, typically in coded—or apocalyptic—language. • A detailed description of the end times, including a chronology of surreal events. • A sharp contrasting of the forces of light with the forces of darkness. • Pessimism regarding the present, and optimism regarding the future victory of the divine and the transformation of the cosmos (e.g., Rev 21:1). • Mythic, chaotic imagery, often hearkening back to ancient Near Eastern traditions and described again in apocalyptic language. At the end of the great battle, God is truly triumphant, as He was in the beginning of the universe. • Surreal and meta-realistic imagery (Coogan, The Old Testament, 436). The latter half of the book of Daniel (Dan 7–13) is recognized as the most developed apocalyptic writing in the Old Testament (Doran, “Additions to Daniel,” 300). Pseudepigraphal examples of Jewish apocalyptic literature include 1 and 2 Enoch, Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, and the Apocalypses of Abraham, Baruch, Elijah, Shadrach, and Zephaniah. Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all have apocalyptic elements. The writers of the New Testament believed that Christ’s resurrection was the beginning of a series of events that would lead to the resurrection of all and the kingdom of God on earth (Beker, Paul the Apostle). Noncanonical Christian apocalypses include the Apocalypses of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Stephen, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The most well-known example of apocalyptic literature is the book of Revelation—or the Revelation of John—the last book in the canonical New Testament. According to Irenaeus, Revelation was written at the end of the reign of Domitian—in approximately ad 95–96 (Adversus Haereses 5.30.3)—by a man referring to himself as John. It is unknown whether this John is the same as the “Beloved Disciple” John (Yarbro Collins, “The Political Perspective”). In the book of Revelation, apocalyptic language takes on a new viewpoint, with the focus on the figure of the resurrected Jesus Christ. The imagery hearkens back to the Old Testament and to Graeco-Roman and Ugaritic myth (Collins, The Combat Myth, 57–89). The book opens with a blessing—unusual for an apocalyptic work—and consists of one segmented visionary experience. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has detected a pattern of symmetry within the book (Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation, 170–75), and David Hellholm has detected six levels of communication within it (Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic”). While many apocalypses were written and circulated in the early Church, only the book of Revelation was included in the biblical canon.

D. A. Neal, “Apocalyptic Literature, Introduction to,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

The name Apocalyptics, in its peculiar signification, first took its place in Theology with the perception that the New Testament Apocalypse belongs to an entire group of writings, partly canonical, partly uncanonical, all of which, by peculiar marks in respect of purport and form, are recognizable as a separate species of prophetic or pseudo-prophetic literature, being distinct from every other species of sacred writings, even though they do not all appear under the name of Apocalypses. The name Apocalypse (ἀποκάλυψις) disclosure, revelation, has primarily a more general meaning. The verb, like the noun, denotes in general every new revelation of God, coming from Heaven, through the Spirit of God, either to the individual man or to the human race,—and that in respect both of the purport and form of such revelation; pre-eminently, however, in respect of its purport. But now a two-fold distinction comes into view. In regard to purport, we have to distinguish the Apocalypse, as the primary form of revelation, communicated by God to the beholding or believing human spirit, or appearing in and by it (Rom. 2:5; 8:19; Gal. 1:12), from its secondary form, the revealing or publishing of the revelation (φανέρωσις, John 2:11; 1 Cor. 12:7). This material distinction, again, is connected with the formal distinction, in accordance with which the Apocalypse, in its primary forms of ideal manifestation or vision, is consummated, supplemented, by real manifestations or miraculous facts, whilst the secondary form as, in the first place, a development of principial points of revelation, finds its continuation in prophetic inspirations. Every Prophet is called to be a Prophet by a fundamental Apocalypse which “rends” the heavens above him, developing itself subsequently in most manifold inspirations. These inspirations are, in the Prophet’s own bosom, already revelations, (φανερώσεις); it is his province in his preaching to convert them into prophetic announcements for his cotemporaries, for the world. But, once more, we have to distinguish the Apocalypse as a Divine fact, from its product, the Apocalypse as a human composition. The apocalyptic writing bears its specific name—which distinguishes it from all writings which are prophetic in a more general sense only—in accordance with a distinction which might at first sight be designated as conventional but which, upon closer inspection, is found to rest upon very decided distinctive marks. The first mark respects form. The prophetic writings, in a more general sense, are collections of single prophecies, disposed with more or less order in regard to subject-matter,—in a word, anthologies; and their symbolic expression is transrupted by didactical sermons and exhortations [Paränesen, παραινέσεις]. In them, moreover, the source-points of the vision and the moral applications of the same, together with historical elucidations even, branch out very distinctly. An Apocalypse, on the contrary, is, on the one hand, the presentation of an uninterrupted succession of visions, following one upon another in cyclical divisions; on the other hand, a thoroughly unitous composition, a sacred work of art, whose style is, accordingly, altogether figurative or typical, even though it be based upon historical data; these historical data themselves attain a symbolical significance. The typical forms cease, however, to be purely individual [proper only to the person employing them—E. R. C.]; they assume the character of an historically conventional fixedness, i. e., a theocratic science. The second mark respects the purport. The prophetic anthologies proceed in the main, from the present onward, through a fragmentary series of Messianic pictures, to the Advent of the Messiah, and if they do advance beyond His simple appearance and sketch the fullness of the times in eschatological traits, those traits are nevertheless exceedingly few and far between. For the most part, the second coming of the Messiah coincides for them with His first coming, and the great gulf between the two becomes manifest only from particular features of the suffering Messiah, particular intimations of the “travail of the Messiah.” On the other hand, the Apocalypses are eschatological from beginning to end. Not only the contrast between the suffering and glorified Christ, but also that between His first and second appearing, hence likewise that between Christ and Antichrist, nay, the contrast between the old and the new world, and consequently the end of the world itself, emerge boldly. In fact, the end of the world, or the course of the world, in its gravitation toward the end, forms the object upon which their gaze is concentrated—constitutes their peculiar point of view. This point of view they mediate, however, by a history of the world, eschatological in its modifications. The entire history of the world from the olden times, or from the first appearance of Christ, is in them unfolded in eschatological cycles, in which the entire course of the world is continually presented from different points of view—the cycles meantime progressing steadily toward the end. This type is, at all events, quite distinctly impressed upon the Apocalypse [of John]; and Hilgenfeld’s denial of the fact is based upon a hampered rationalistic view of the narrow scope of this Scripture. It is, on the contrary, remarkable that the idea of a universal history—whose germ was contained in Genesis—here appears in full development, though in Hebrew theocratic form, whilst classical historiography was unable to attain to this universalism. We find later, in the Gnostics, a striving after a universal view of the world which should set at nought the barriers of history and of our earth—but which did not succeed in passing beyond fanciful and heretical forms. With this latter mark, the third mark of the Apocalypses is connected. Originating, as they did, in the Divine pacification and consolation of elect prophetic hearts, whose ardent longing blazes brightly in times of great tribulation in the Kingdom of God, they are in like manner designed to instruct, to comfort, and to pacify, first the servants of God, and through them, the churches in times of future new and similar tribulations; nay, to transmute all signs of terror into signs of hope and promise: whilst the aim of ordinary Prophecies consists pre-eminently in the satisfaction of the needs of the present in regard to enlightenment, discipline, consolation, and exhortation. These latter are writings concerning the future, for the present; the others are writings which, passing over the present, are intended preeminently for the future. This fact is quite one-sidedly presented by Hilgenfeld: “They were meant to fill up the times when there was no revelation with substitutes of prophecy.” The connecting link between Malachi and Christ was formed by the popular piety, longing, and hope of the true Israel, and not by pseudo-apocalyptic reveries. In proceeding to distinguish between genuine and spurious Apocalypses, we may put forth the general statement that the former contain a solution of the problem as to how the highest visions may be united to the highest forms of sacred art; the latter are at best poetic imitations, which, for visions, substitute compilations and extravagant fancies, and replace the theocratico-classical and mysterious artistic form with a manufactured and mystical chiar’ oscuro. § 4. classes of apocalyptical writings Particulars concerning the development of Apocalyptics in general may be found in Lücke’s work, the most prominent treatise on the subject: Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, Bonn, 1848–52, p. 9–15. One of the first impulses to the Science of Apocalyptics was given in 1819, by the English Bishop Laurence, with his edition of Apocalyptic writings from the Ethiopian (Anabaticon of Isaiah; 4th Book of Esdras); this, indeed, was after Semler had availed himself of such Apocryphal apocalypses as were known to him in interpretation of the Revelation of St. John, being followed by Conradi, and, shortly after, by Eichhorn and Bleek; see Hilgenfeld, p. 4. Subsequent to Bishop Lawrence’s work, Nitzsch, in the year 1820, sketched the idea of Apocalyptics. Lücke was spurred on in his task by the “report” of Nitzsch (1st edition, 1832). In 1833, A. C. Hofmann published a translation and exegesis of the Book of Enoch, with which he united a treatise upon the Apocalyptists of the olden time amongst the Jews and Christians, assuming the existence of a coherent whole, composed of apocalyptic literature, and commencing with the Book of Daniel. Quite a series of commentaries, from Ewald’s commentary on the Apocalypse, down to the present time, have promoted the general views upon this subject (see Lücke, p. 14). The following work by Hilgenfeld especially belongs here: Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung [Jewish Apocalyptics in their historical development], Jena, 1857. In accordance with the main features of the two main Apocalypses of the Old and New Testaments, Auberlen, with his Daniel and the Apocalypse, Basel, 1857, likewise claims a place here. [English Translation, Edinburgh, 1856, a work of rare merit.—E. B. C] In a more general sense, we mention here the Biblical Theologies, the Introductions to the New Testament, the books upon Eschatology and Chiliasm (particularly Conradi, Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus [Critical History of Chiliasm], II., p. 365; comp. 231, in the same vol.; III., 1, 60, 107). Note especially, however, the more or less comprehensive editions of Apocalyptic writings. Lücke dates the more distinct collections of apocryphal Apocalyptic writings from Gfrörer’s Prophetæ veteres pseudepigraphi, 1840; although this publication did not contain Apocalyptic matter simply (the more ancient collections of Fabricius and Philo were not formed from the point of view which assumed the existence of a general system of Apocalyptics). Subsequently Tischendorf issued: Apocalypses Apocryphæ Mosis, Esdræ, Pauli, Johannis, item Mariæ Dormitio, Leipzig, 1866. Particular Apocalypses were discussed by Lawrence (see above), Nitzsch (De testamentis 12 patriarch., Wittenberg 1810), Gieseler (Vetus translatio latina Visionis Jesaiæ, Göttingen, 1832), Hofmann (Das Buch Henoch, see above), Friedlieb (Die Sibyllinischen Weissagungen [The Sybilline Prophecies], Leipzig, 1852), Dillmann (Das Buck Henoch, 1853), Philippi (Das Buch Henoch, sein Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbriefe [The Book of Enoch, the time of its composition and its relation to the Epistle of Jude], Stuttgart, 1868; a monograph of sterling merit), Volkmar (Das 4 Buch Esra [second division of the Hand-Book of the Introduction to the Apocrypha], Tübingen, 1863), et al. If it is with truth that we have designated the religion of Israel as the religion of the future, we may be permitted to designate Apocalyptics in particular as the vision of the future; partly as the actual prophecy, partly as the popular poetry of the future. Relatively, this applies again to the eschatological longing and hope of the New Testament faith; but particularly to the chiliastic-morbid Jewish-christian expectance of the future, in accordance with a condition of mind which looked for redemption more in the future Appearing of Christ than in the principial base-laying salvation of His first Advent. The apocalyptical writings which have sprung up bearing these signs, are divided into the following classes: a. Old Testament canonical Apocalypses; b. Old Testament apocryphal Apocalypses; c. The New Testament Apocalypse; d. Jewish-Christian apocryphal Apocalypses. a. Old Testament Canonical Apocalypses We have elsewhere (Comm. on Genesis, p. 36 [Am. Ed.] already stated that for the appearance of the apocalyptic form we go back far beyond Daniel. And this we do in accordance with the two principal marks of an apocalyptic writing; the formal mark—unity of composition; and the material mark—the expectation of an eschatological judgment, passing beyond simple Messianism (first Advent); an expectation in accordance with which we might regard the whole non-Christian Jewish people, in its eschatological expectancy, as a permanent, plastic appearance or embodiment of apocryphal Apocalyptics. With respect to the Old Testament Books—composed, as they are, in accordance with a unitous idea, organically membered, and closing, consequently, with themselves—the phenomenon of the ideal, unitous, organic structure of the Books goes back far behind the first Old Testament apocalypses, to the beginning of Old Testament literature; and when criticism, whose existence is demanded by the very spirit of revelation, shall have outgrown its boyhood, in which, in slavish dependence upon the new, it gives chase, with slackened rein, to the newest, the fact will doubtless be recognized that—with the exception of redactions of original memorabilia—men have done the reverend Scriptures great wrong by this endless untwisting and patching together of the Biblical Books, on the hypothesis of the most spiritless book-making. One composition, at least, it is impossible to misjudge as a whole, even though it may receive damage in particulars—and that is the grand old Book of Job. In the introduction to the Comm. on Genesis (see above) we have given our reasons for distinguishing an entire group of Old Testament Apocalypses, although not until Daniel does the species appear with features fully stamped. The second part of Isaiah [ch. 40–66] is a unitous composition, having its point of gravitation, manifestly, in the eschatological world-consummation—i. e., it has the sign of the Apocalypse. This is true no less of the appendix to the Prophecies of Jeremiah (chap. 45–52). The apocalyptic conclusion of Ezekiel (chap. 37–48), the whole Book of Zechariah in its indissoluble unity, and particularly the Book of Daniel—with the exception of the sections from chap. 10:1–11:45, and 12:5–13, (see Comm. on Genesis, p. 38, Am. Ed.)—present, in form and purport, the Old Testament eschatological elements which in the original visions of the New Testament Apocalypse have arrived at their perfect significancy and configuration. “Among the minor Prophets we regard the Books of Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah as Apocalypses, predominantly depicting, in unitous composition, the judgment upon Antichristianity in its symbolical preludes.” (Genesis, p. 37. [Am. Ed.]). b. Jewish Apocryphal Apocalyptics Hilgenfeld (Vorwort VIII.) is doubtless in error in viewing the whole Apocalyptics of Judaism as a precursory history of Christianity, and in believing that he has found in Essenism an offshoot of Jewish Apocalyptics which conducts us directly to the threshold of Christianity. This idea, which will allow of no distinction whatever between the theocratic and churchly main current and those turbid secondary streams which have their rise in the popular fancy, is based upon the ruling impulse of that school which pseudo-critically jumbles together all things in whose disposition a critical arrangement is to be found;—the same school which regards the Gnostics as presenting a peculiar stage in the development of true Christianity, and zealously labors against the distinction between canonical and apocryphal writings as a hereditary evil of Theology itself. Such confusions, growing out of a special tendency, are rarely to be met with to the same degree in any other department of science. Philology, for instance, is careful to avoid mingling together, without distinction, nay, with a fanatical levelling impulse, ancient classics and obsolete popular literature, to the production of endless trouble and great confusion. Jewish apocryphal Apocalyptics have produced two writings which, in common, have a Jewish character—especially in their imitation of Daniel—and yet stand in decided contrast one to the other. The Jewish stock of the Sibylline books, interpolated and supplemented by Christians, namely the third book of Esdras, has, like the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, an Alexandrian ground-tone; whilst on the other hand, the fourth book of Esdras, in its Hebrew-Pharisaic character, reminds us quite unmistakably of the book of Jesus Sirach. They possess in common the fundamental idea of the future victory of Judaism over the Gentile world-kingdoms. This fundamental idea can be attributed to the Book of Daniel itself only by a false religious taste; in that prophecy it is not the restoration of the Theocracy, but an entirely new Heavenly Kingdom of the Son of Man which puts an end to the kingdoms of the world. In both writings (3 and 4 Esdras) the dwindling away of the expectation of a personal Messiah is unmistakable (see Hilgenfeld, p. 77, 78, 86, 221 sqq.; Volkmar, Esra, 260). On the other hand, there is a distinction between the two books which accords with the contrast between the Hebrew-Jewish and the Alexandrian-Jewish character; in the fourth book of Esdras, the Pharisaic hatred of the heathen is unmistakably prominent—for instance, in the joy of the blessed at the spectacle of the wicked burning in everlasting flames (Hilgenfeld, p. 201)—; whilst the Sibyl is continually warning the heathen against the service of false gods, and finally anticipates the general instruction of the Gentiles and their conversion to Monotheism (Hilgenfeld, 87, 88). They are distinguished furthermore in that the Hebrew Messiah stands back of the Messianic upliftment of the nation above the Roman world power, appearing only at the end of the world for judgment especially (Hilgenfeld, 220), while the Alexandrian Messiah is endowed with scarcely any distinctness of form. Another distinctive mark is, that the Sibyl is glorified as prophecy come to the heathen from the theocratic source;—prophecy whose final aim, like that of Sophia [or Wisdom personified] in the Wisdom of Solomon, is the eschatological renewal of the world: while the Messianism of the fourth book of Esdras, as also of the book of Jesus Sirach, culminates in a growth of books or writings (Sirach 24:23; 4 Esdras at the close: Esdras’ 94 books [the English Version of the Apocrypha gives 204 (or nine hundred and four Marg.) as the number of the books that were written, 2 (4) Esdr. 14:44 ]; 24 open, 70 secret writings). Neither is the contrast in the form, of the prophecy to be overlooked. The Alexandrian Sibyl prophesies from an irresistible impulse, in pathological ecstasy (Hilgenfeld, 51), whilst the visions vouchsafed to Esdras are mediated by ethical conduct, fasting and praying, and thus their revelations can assume a conversational form. According to Friedlieb, the Jewish Sibylline books came into being from the years 160 to 40 B. C. (according to Bleek, an older portion is cotemporary with the Book of Daniel (?), a later part having been produced, he thinks, about 40 B. C.). The time of the Jewish ground-form of the fourth book of Esdras is differently estimated by different exegetes. This disagreement of exegesis is based upon the interpretation of the exceedingly obscure vision of the eagle (dream-vision of the second night). Lawrence interpreted the twelve wings of the eagle as referring to the ancient history of the line of Roman kings and the more modern additions to it; Gfrörer conceived the wings to refer to twelve Roman emperors and associate-emperors [Nebenkaiser], Lücke interpreted the eagle’s three heads as significant of Sylla, Pompey, and Cæsar, as an arbitrarily conceived, successive triumvirate. Least tenable is the view of Hilgenfeld, who seeks to construe the Apocalypse of Esdras into a continuation of the Sibyl, without recognizing the contrast which it presents to the latter; declaring the eagle’s twelve wings to be Alexander and the Egyptian kings who succeeded him. According to Volkmar (Das vierte Buch Esra, p. 338), the Jewish author wrote his Apocalypse in the autumn of the year 97, after the fall of Domitian. Contrary to this view is the fact that the second destruction of the Temple, in the year 70, is not mentioned in the book; Volkmar conceives it to be, “by way of disguise,” “parallelized” with the first destruction, i. e., represented by, and along with, the first. Since the eagle, i. e., the Roman world-kingdom, comes to its end by a lion, i. e., the Jewish Messianic Theocracy, we can think, in interpreting this vision, of no time save that of the first Jewish insurrection previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, or that of the insurrection under Bar-Cocheba. But since, moreover, the destruction of Jerusalem is itself not mentioned, we are constrained to interpret the vision (whose obscurity is perhaps owing to the circumstances of the period) as referring to the first Jewish war. The first three feathers of the eagle are intelligible enough (Hilgenfeld, 205): Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius. The following nine feathers are very dimly pictured; they denote imperial pretenders rather than actual emperors. The number twelve, consequently, is more a symbolico-ideal number than one to be historically identified and referred. Only a few of the mock emperors, like Galba and Otho, momentarily attain dominion. The greatest of the three heads of the eagle, which now awakes, makes an end of the feathers, takes the two other heads along with it, and shakes the whole earth; but suddenly disappears. Finally, the head on the right side devours that on the left, and is left alone until the roaring lion makes an end of it. Now, if this head on the right side were Jerusalem’s great enemy, Vespasian, and the head devoured by it, Vitellius, we might go back for an interpretation of the middle head, which suddenly disappeared after shaking the whole earth, to Nero. In consideration of the dim and confused execution of the picture, the effort to interpret all the figures into a harmonious system is less requisite than inquiry into the spirit of the production as a whole; this is thoroughly consonant with the rancorous spirit of the pseudo-Messianic Jewish revolution. Ewald, after Conradi, has already set forth about the same view (see Hilgenfeld, p. 392, note). In regard to the Book of Enoch, received by Hilgenfeld among the Jewish Apocalypses, we hold the argument of Philippi, who vindicates the original Christian character of the book, to be decisive. On the other hand, the Ascension of Moses seems to form a supplement to the fourth book of Esdras, originating after the destruction of Jerusalem, for the uplifting of prostrate Judaism. c. The Apocalypse of John As the Book of Daniel became a pattern for the apocryphal Apocalypses of Judaism, so the Apocalypse of John has been the exemplar for all Christian Apocalypses. But upon the side of Christianity also, nothing but a lack of spiritual taste, i. e., an unspiritual taste, can fail to recognize the distinction between canonical mysteries and apocryphal riddles, between a grandeur of forms in which order prevails, and an extravagance of forms over which confusion reigns. d. The Christian (Jewish-Christian) Apocryphal Apocalypses These arrange themselves primarily into two leading classes: 1. Christianized: 2. Originally Christian Apocalypses. As Christianized Apocalypses we may name the previously mentioned Jewish Apocrypha, the Sibylline books, and the Book of Esdras. Bleek, Ueber die sibyllinischen Orakel. Theol. Zeitschrift von Schleiermacher. De Wette und Lücke, Vol. I. 20; II. 172 sqq. Friedlieb, Die sibyllinischen Weissagungen, and Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik. Amongst the Jewish-Christian Apocrypha which are imitative of the Apocalypse, the principal composition is the Book of Enoch—an Ebionite Jewish-Christian production—for an examination of which the reader is referred to Philippi’s work. As the tissue of apocryphal, and, in many respects, heretical, fable has woven itself about the whole line of the most distinguished Biblical names and writings, so it is in especial with the bungling compositions of apocryphal authors. Most of them have issued forth from obscurity only to become again the prey of obscurity. We follow, in naming them, the Biblical thread: 1. Apocalypse of Adam (Lücke, p. 232). 2. The Book of Enoch, see above. 3. Apocalypse of Abraham. Ophitic. Lücke, 252. 4. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see above. 5. Book of Elias, Hieronym. ad Sammachium, Ep. 101. 6. Book of Esdras, (Christianized, see above). 7. Ascensio Isaiæ Vatic. (see Gfrörer, Prophetæ Veteres Pseudepigraphi, p. 1). 8. Danielis, Tischend., Apocalypses XXX. 9. Apocalypsis Baruch (edidit Ceriani, Monumenta sacra, Mediolani, 1866, see Programm of Dr. Joseph Langen, Bonn, 1867). 10. Apocalypse of Peter (Lücke, p. 240). 11. Two Apocalypses of Paul, see Tischendorf, p. XIV. (Apocalypses Apocryphæ). On one of these, see Tischendorf, p. 34. 12. Apocalypse of a Pseudo-John, Tischend., Apocal. XVIII. 13. Of Bartholomew (Tischendorf, Apocalypses, XXIV.). 14. Of Mary (Tischendorf, XXVII). 15. Of Stephen (Lücke, p. 247). To these may be added some miserable works whose web extends over the post-apostolic period or falls within it. Relatively, The Shepherd of Hermas. The account of an Apocalypse of Cerinthus is dubious (Lücke, 247). Finally, an Apocalypse under the name of Methodius of Constantinople. Later or more modern apocalyptic productions have scarcely any significance bearing upon the characteristics of ancient apocryphal Apocalyptics, which (according to Lücke) became extinct in the fifth century. In Gfrörer’s collection the following are cited: Vita Merlini. Galfridi Liber de Prophetiis Merlini. Fratris Hermanni Monachi Vaticinium. Prophetia Malachiæ de Summis Pontificibus. Apocalyptic traits, however, are also visible in manifold form in the chiliastic writings generally.

John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Revelation (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 4–11.