Translated
from the original by Costas Balomenos
The book of
“Apocalypse of John” is the last book
of the New Testament canon. It belongs to the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic secretariat a literary genre
that emerged in the
Second Century BC until the second
century AD and contains the hidden revelations secretly in holy
persons by God and refers
to the end of time. Thus we have
the Apocalypse (Revelation) of
Enoch, of Baruch,
the Ascension of Moses,
etc...
Precisely because of this special style, knew enough controversy
as to the genuineness in the first
Christian centuries until finally become acceptable toward the end of fourth century AD by the Church as authentic book of the
Bible because other ecclesiastical
writers was considered as illegitimate and other as genuine, even quoting
verses (pieces) than this.
The controversy
surrounding the authenticity or
not to "Apocalypse"
we make known the
father of Ecclesiastical History Eusebius
of Caesarea (280 -340
AD), when quotes the list
of books of the New Testament, noted that
he had not further
consolidated. He writes:
Genuine: “First
of course must
to be argued the Holy Tetraktys of the Gospel,
which follows the book of Acts of the Apostles. The Epistles of Paul, which
further must be approved
the so-called First Epistle of John
and likewise this of Peter. At the end should be fixed, if it appears liked the Revelation
of John on which
we will report as appropriate in due course.
Illegitimate: Among the illegitimate let be ranked the book of the Acts of
Paul, the so-called Shepherd,
and the Apocalypse of Peter and to the allegedly Epistle of Barnabas, the
so-called Teachings of the
Apostles, as well as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if you look liked,
the which some - as I said - reject it, while others approve it in the genuine”. (Eusebius of Caesarea,
Ecclesiastical History book C 25, 1 - 5)
From the oldest ecclesiastical writers using verses from the Revelation
of John, using her in fact as evidence in dialogue with the Jews is Justin the
Martyr (? - 165 AD). Facing the Jew Tryphon says: «Then one of the men in our
array, named John, one of the apostles of Christ prophesied in Revelation being
made to him, that those who believed in our Christ will remain one thousand
years in Jerusalem then will be the universal and, in a nutshell, eternal team
resurrection and crisis for all, thing for which our Lord said, that “will neither wed nor be married, but will be equal
angels, being children of God of the resurrection”» Justin , Dialogue with Tryphon 81, 4.
From the
great Father and one of the leading enemies of heresy, Irenaeus of
Lyons (140 to 202 AD) we learn
not only the time of writing of "Revelation"
- in the era Emperor Domitian (81 to 96 AD) - but also how the famous number (in Greek χξς΄ or 666) that represents
the name of the Antichrist employed
the Christians and at that time. So Irenaeus writes:
“After the way things are and this number there is on all great and ancient copies, and those who have seen John personally testify in this
and the logic tells us that the number of the beast's name appears in the Greek
numbering through letters that contain it”. Irenaeus, Control and overthrow of knowledge alias 5, 30, 1. And a little further on: “We therefore risking not pronounce positively
on the name of the Antichrist. Because if
I had to be declared openly
his name in the present
circumstances will were called it from
one who has seen the revelation, which has not even seen a long time
ago, but almost in our own
generation, at the end of the reign
of Domitian”.
Irenaeus, Control and overthrow of knowledge alias 5,30,3.
The authenticity of the "Apocalypse" accept and the "much" Origen who uses it in his writings: «What you need to say
about John, which fell on the chest of Jesus, who left a gospel and confesses that
he could draw up so
many books that it was not
possible to fit the whole world? And wrote the Apocalypse, which
was ordered to remain silent and not to write the
voices of seven thundering» Eusebius of Caesarea,
Ecclesiastical History book F 25, 9.
The man of
course that dealt in detail in
the book of "Revelation"
was Dionysius of Alexandria (?
- 265 AD). Unfortunately
the main bulk of the huge ecclesiastic his writing works have been lost. But that he has written about the Apocalypse fortunately rescued by
Eusebius of Caesarea. He makes a great literary and structural analysis
in this, giving us simultaneously the climate of the time for the acceptance or not
of this. Although is a bit lengthy to mention, we quote the whole
and we believe that deserves to be read by the reader for the wealth of his information:
«Some people then who were
before us completely
have refuted and rejected
the book. They checked it
chapter by chapter, declared unknown and absurd,
and claimed that the inscription is
false. They say it is not
in fact of John and is neither
revelation as it is completely covered with the thick curtain
of ignorance and that
the author of the text is not one of the
apostles nor even by the saints in general or of ecclesiastical men,
but Kirinthos, who has recommended by him the named Kirinthiaki heresy and wanted to give a trusted name to his forgery. Indeed, the doctrine
of his teaching is that the kingdom of Christ will be earthly, as it was body’s friend and very carnal, he was dreaming that will
be located in what he longing for the pleasures of the belly i.e. in food, in beverages, in love and in those with which he thought he would
procure these things more honestly, in festivals,
in sacrifices and to the
slaughter of animals for bid.
But I would
not dare reject the book, since many brethren have it in great esteem, but
because I think its assessment is superior to my mind, I suppose that the concept of individual verses is somewhat hidden and
wonderful. Because, although I do not
understand, I suspect that contains a deeper meaning
in his words, which I do not count
and I do not think
with logic, but I confront
them with faith, which is why I consider superior to my perception. And does not disapprove them do not understand, but rather I admire because I did not see them.
After finishing almost the whole prophecy
the prophet calls
blessed and those who keep her and himself.
Because it says “blissful let is one who keeps the words of the prophecy of
this book, and I, John, who
I saw them and I heard them.” That is called John,
and that the text is of
John I will not say the opposite,
because I agree that it is someone holy man
and holy inspired man. But however I would not easily agree that this
is the apostle, the son of
Zebedee and brother of James, in which belongs the Gospel of John and the Catholic letter. From the character of
both, from the literary
style and the so-called structure
of the book, I deduce that is
not the same. And this is because the evangelist does not write nowhere his name and does not declare
himself or with the
gospel nor with the
letter.
John nowhere
speaks about himself either in the first
or to a third person while he wrote the
Apocalypse puts forward its name from the outset “Revelation Jesus Christ, who
gave to him to
show to his servants quickly and which
revealed that sending by
his angel to his
servant John, who martyred
to God's word and his testimony about what he saw”. After writing
a letter “John
to the seven churches which are in Asia , grace
to you and peace”. But the evangelist did not write his name on the letter catholic,
but it started without unnecessary words from the same, the mystery of divine revelation,
“that was from the beginning, that we have heard, that we have seen with our eyes”. For this
revelation precisely and the Lord
blessed Peter, saying, “blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, why
do not you reveal the flesh and blood,
but my Father which
is in heaven”. But also nor in the alleged as second and third
letter of John, even
if they are short, appears nominally John, but
is noted anonymously
as the eldest”. But here he thought even that was
not enough, when once called himself, to continue the narrative, but again repeats “I, John, your brother and participant in sorrow and in the kingdom as well as in patience of Jesus I was on the island called
Patmos, for the
reason of God and the testimony of Jesus”. And in fact at
the end say these "blessed
let be who keep the words of the
prophecy of this book, and I,
John, who I saw them
and I heard them.”
So that the person who writes these
is John, you have to believe the same man who says it. Who is it this is unknown. Because he did not say, as in many parts of the gospel, that is the beloved disciple
of the Lord or who
has fallen in his chest or James’ brother or that he became and self-hearing of the Lord. After he wants to show clearly himself, he would say anything of the above. He said nothing of them, but he said the brother and partner with us, a witness of Jesus and blessed for
the view and hearing of the
revelations.
And I
think there are many homonymous
with the apostle John, who out of love, admiration and zeal towards
him, and by the desire to be loved equally to
him by Jesus, took the same name
as Paul and Peter,
name that is common
to the children of believers. There is
also the other John in Acts of the Apostles,
the invoking Mark, whom they took with them Barnabas and Paul, which he says
again, “I had John as servant.” If it is this who wrote, I can not say that. So far as moreover
is not written how is arrived together with those in Asia, but says, “sailed from Paphos those who were with Paul came to Perge
in Pamphylia, and John withdrawal from the escorting them returned to Jerusalem Ephesus
The fact that this is different from him
is deduced in a natural
manner also by the meanings,
the reasons and the syntax.
So the gospel and the letter agree between them and begin similarly.
While this says
“in the beginning was the Word” but
this is saying “this was from the beginning”. While this says “and the Word became flesh and
was installed to us and we saw his glory, glory as though the Only Begotten from the Father”, but the other says the same little changed, “that
we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, we saw that and our hands was groping, concerning the Word of the life,
and the life was manifested”. Because it says that - as he stated subsequently - for those who say that the Lord did not came with flesh. So, he carefully adds, “and what we have seen, we testify and recite to you, the eternal life, which was to the Father and was manifested to us. What we see and what we hear, we recite it to you”. It clung to him and are not removed from his intentions, even negotiate all issues with the same arguments and the same conditions. Some of them we will memorialize too, and the one who is going to read the books will come across and the same in both, often in life, very the light, avoiding the darkness, constant the truth, the grace, the joy, the flesh and the blood of the Lord, the judgment, the remission of sins, the love of God for us, the commandment of love for others, the obligation to guard all commands. The control of the world, of the devil, of the Antichrist, the promise of the Holy Spirit, the adoption of God, the Father and the Son everywhere. And it's generally easy characterizing the texts to ascertain that the color of the gospel and the letter is one and the same.
But the Revelation is very different and foreign to them. Neither touches nor adjacent to any of them, may even tell someone that he has no one syllable in common with them. But neither sense not any remembrance of the Apocalypse has not the letter - let the gospel - or the Apocalypse of
the letter, while Paul recalls something from his revelations, which he recorded on his own. Furthermore it is possible to infer and from the expression, the difference of the gospel and the letter from the Apocalypse. Because not only those are written in fluent Greek, but also they testify scholar in his verbal, in the reasoning, in the composition, the formulation, there is not in them absolutely no barbarism, solecism or vernacularism. Indeed, his author had as shown by the grace of the Lord and the two skills, the knowledge and the expression.
The fact that he has seen revelations and has received knowledge and prophecy, not objection to saying, but I see that the dialect and its language is not exactly Greek, but uses barbaric idioms and solecisms. There is however a need to telling details now on this issue, especially since I did not say these things to be mocked - not to think this one - but only to prove the dissimilarity of the scriptures of these texts”. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History book Z 25, from 1 to 27.
For the reservations
expressed about whether John is the author, the Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Athens Vlassis Fidas writes: “The difference in language and style of the other Ioanneia projects (of Ioanni or John) - gospel, letters - it is reasonable not only by the fact that the book was written under adverse conditions of exile on Patmos, but also by the idiotype (unusual) nature and purpose of the author”.
Besides, we must not forget that one who he wrote that John saw visions and revelations was his student Prohoros.
And the
"adventure" of the authenticity or not of Revelation ends permanently to the East in 367 AD with the 39th celebratory letter of the Great Athanasius, which includes in the original books of the New Testament canon. Around the same time be accepted and in the West the 27 canonical books which are listed in the 39th celebratory letter of Athanasius the Great - between them and the Revelation - after accepting the major forms of Jerome and Augustine. However, final
stations in the configuration of the rule in the West are the Letter of Pope Innocent A’ to the bishop of Toulouse and the Sessions Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage
But nevertheless in the East some doubts about the Apocalypse there are still until the 10th century at least. After that they stop and the last doubts about the authenticity or not. An important role will be played later, after the fall of Byzantium
But time to ask what is it that makes a book of the New Testament be considered «normal», i.e. genuine, so as to include in the list - canon of the New
Testament?
Criterion then of the authenticity of a book of the New Testament is that Origen formulates very nice - who traveled in many churches of his day, such as Greece , Asia Minor, Rome , Egypt , Palestine
Writer Efthimios
Achilas
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου