Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 17.djvu/96

f KEVELATION OF SAINT JOHN. 80 of Paul (Koiii. xiii. 1-7, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 1317). Yet an anti-Pauline tendency need not be in- ferred. Ciieunisitanccs had changed, and Rome had become the power of lawlessness, instead of the one who restrained that power (II Thcss. ii. 7), so that Antichrist would inevitably take on a Roman in place of a .Jew ish form. Further- more, over against the Jewish-Christian traits of the book we find a Christology not unrelated to Paul's (cf. i. 5, iii. 14, with Col. i. 18, and Rev. V. 9 sqq. with Phil. ii. 5 sqq.), an esehatol- ogj' at many points in striking agreement with his, and a universalitj" which at least is totall.v dill'erent from the exelusiveness of Paul's .Judaistic opjionents (vii. 9 sqq.). We cannot tlicrcforc with Baur regard Revelation as a sim- ple ])rnduet of the Jewisli Christianit,v which op- posed Paul. It is probabh' best to say that the book represents a late development of primitive t'hristianitv, not much iniluenced either waj- by Paul. VI. Canonicitt and Authobsiiip. The place of Revelation in the canon has been much dis- ])uted. It was accepted in the Western Church after Hippol.vtus wrote in its defense against Caius, a Presbyter of Rome (c.21.5). For a long time the Eastern Church refused to recognize the book as canonical. Eusebius records and sym- pathizes with the objections of its critics. It was not in the original S.vriac New' Testament. The pressui'e of the Western Church finally se- cured its place in the canon. In the West only Jerome show-s some s,yrapathy with Eastern doubts. Its place in the canon was again some- what insecure at the beginning of the Refor- mation — Luther in the first edition of his Kew Testament expressed a strong aversion to it, because of its obscurity, and especially because he did not find in it the Pauljne gospel. Later he expressed a more favorable judgment. Zwingli did not accept it as canonical. Calvin at least did not comment upon it. The writer calls himself John (i. 1, 4, 9; xxii. 8), and sa.vs that he saw his visions on the i.sland of Patmos ( q.v. ) , where he was, it would seem. in banishment. Justin Martyr is the first to identif,v this .John with the Apostle, and from Irenasus and Tertullian onward this view was almost unquestioned. Yet Dionysius of Alexan- dria (c. 2.55) argued on the basis of a compari- son with the fourtli Gospel that the author of Revelation was another .John; and Eusebius suggested the Presbvter .John, of whom Papias .s])caks. The earliest opponents of the canonicity of the book, the Alogi, ascribed it to the Gnostic Cerinthus, an idea adopted by Caius. The au- thor himself does not say that he is an Apostle (see on the contrary, xxi. 14; xviii. 20), and nowhere reveals any personal knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus. It cannot quite be said that he assumes a position of personal or official authority over the seven churches. He is their brother and fellow in trial (i. 9), but the authority that speaks through him is Christ. He claims only to be a true prophet, truly to convey the message of Christ. For his book he makes great claims, but not for himself. Of the three possibilities: that it is by the Apostle; that it is a pseudonymoiis writing, in the Apostle's name ; and that it is by another .John — the second can with some confidence be rejected. For though pseudonymity characterizes all Jewish apoca- REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE. lypscs, we find here none of the familiar signs of it, no references to known events in the life of John such as we should e.xpeet. If the Apostle were the recognized head of the churches of Asia, centring in Ephesus, during the last quarter of the first century, the expression "John to the seven clnirclies" (i. 4) would suggest him. If tliat place was occupied by .John the Presb,vter, he would be the one indicated. The most serious dilfieult.y in the way of accepting the Apostle's authorship is the radical difl'erence in st3'le and in conception that separates the Apocalypse from the Gospel. Though minor points of likeness ex- ist, the difference is so great that it seems almost impossible to ascribe them to one mind. The diffi- culty is greater now that it is no longer probable that they can be separated widely in date b,y put- ting Revelation before A.D. 70. The question of authorship must therefore remain open, but this question does not alTcct our view of the value of the book and the way in which it is to be under- stood. Bibliography. The Church-historical view can be read best in Milligan, Commentary on tlve Apocalypse, Baird Lectures (London, 1886) : id., Discussions on the Apocalypse (ib., 1893) ; id.. The Book of Revelation, Expositor's Bible (New Y'ork. 1899) ; and in Benson, The Apoca- lypse (London, 1900) : the older critical view (contemporarv-historical) , in the commentaries of Liicke (2d ed., Bonn, 1848-52); Bleek (Ber- lin, 18G2) ; and Ewald (Gottingen, 1862). Con- sult also the commentary of Alford (London, 1SC7). The best recent commentaries are those of Bousset (Gottingen, 1896) and Holtzmann (Freiburg, 2d ed., 1893), and in English, Simcox, Cambridge Bible (Cambridge, 1898), and Scott, Century Bible (Edinburgh, 1902), Consult fur- ther the introductions to the New Testament by Weiss (London (1887); Holtzmann (Frei- burg, 3d ed., 1892) ; Zahn (Erhingen, 1807-99) ; Jiilicher (Tubingen, 3d ed., 1901).; and Moffatt, Historical New Testament (New Y'ork, 1901) ; the New Testament theologies bv Weiss (Edin- burgh, 1885); Holtzmann (Freiburg, 1896); Stevens (New Y'ork, 1899) ; Wernle, Beriinnings of Christianity (London, 1903) ; and Histories of the Apostolic Age bv Weizsaeker (London, 1894), McGiffert (New York, 1897), and Bart- let (London, 1900). Consult further Gunkel, SchSpfiing iind Chaos in Vrzeit und Endzeit (Got- tingen, 1895) ; Bousset, The Antichrist Legend (trans, by Keane, London, 1896) ; articles by Bousset, "Apocalypse." in Encyclopcedia Biblica (London, 1899); Porter. "Revelation," in the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (New Y'ork, 1898). EEVENTJE, Public. See Finance; Taxa- tion. REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, United States. A military service, organized by act of Congress in 1790, for the enforcement of naviga- tion and customs laws. It was the first armed maritime force of the Government, having been constituted about eight years before the United States Navy. There being no naval establishment at that time, the service, as a matter of conveni- ence, was attached to the Treasury Department, then presided over bv Alexander Hamilton, where it has since remained. Its first fleet consisted of 10 small, single-masted, light-draught sail-