APOCALISSE

APOCALYPSE. - A prophetic book that closes the New Testament.

The title consists of the first Greek word of the text (*Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ*), which does not recur later. The usual form in the manuscripts is *Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου* [νου], with various additions in minuscule manuscripts and versions (Clementine Vulgate: *Apocalypsis sancti Ioannis apostoli*). The term *ἀποκάλυψις* (occurring 17 times elsewhere in the New Testament: *Lk.* 2, 32, and 13 times in St. Paul, 3 times in 1 Pt.), *ἀποκαλύπτειν*: 26 times in the New Testament) means “revelation” of a hidden reality (a mystery) and often has an eschatological sense; here it signifies: “manifestation of Jesus Christ as sovereign and judge” (cf. *1 Cor.* 1, 7; *2 Thess.* 1, 7; *1 Pt.* 1, 7, 13; the same sense of the verb: *Lk.* 17, 30).

**Summary:**

1. Theme and analysis

2. Authenticity and canonicity

3. Literary nature, language, text

4. Place and time of composition; intended audience

5. Interpretation

6. The author in art.

1. THEME AND ANALYSIS. - The general theme is formulated at the sound of the seventh trumpet (11, 15-18): “The kingdom of the world has passed to our Lord and to his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever”; and in vv. 17-18 this “mystery of God” (10, 7) is explained, equivalent to that revealed by St. Paul, *1 Cor.* 15, 24-28. This thematic proclamation, around which the entire complex symbolic narrative unfolds, echoes throughout the book (1, 5-8; 4, 8-11; 5, 9-13; 7, 9-12; 12, 10; 14, 3-5; 15, 3-4; 17, 14; 19, 6-8. 12-16; 21, 22-27). The central idea is an antithesis between the two kingdoms (Church and world), between Christ and the Antichrist (q.v.), between the elect and the reprobate; and this antithesis is periodically highlighted (B. Allo, p. LXXVI sqq.). The synthesis resolving this antithesis is the *Judgment* (understood in the biblical double sense of dominion and the restoration of order through just retribution) which God exercises through Jesus, Lord and Judge.

The formal structure of the book is quite clear. Apart from the prologue (1, 1-8) and the epilogue (22, 6-21), the work is divided into three parts: the first concerning the present, the second prophetic-eschatological, and the third synthetic-anagogical.

**First Part:** Letters to the seven churches of Asia. In an introductory vision to the entire book, the “Son of Man” appears in glory among seven golden lampstands (1, 9-20). He sends letters to the seven churches (of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea), urging them to fervor and spiritual repentance (2-3).

**Second Part** (4, 1-21, 8): Symbolic visions concerning the struggles and triumph of the Church in the world. It is divided into two sections, the second of which resumes and develops the first, both concluding with the general judgment.

The **first section** (4-11) begins with the main vision that serves as the supreme backdrop until the conclusion (21, 8). In heaven, the triumph of God is seen, carried by four living creatures (the Cherubim) and surrounded by twenty-four elders seated in calm; on the throne appears the Lamb (Jesus Christ), to whom God delivers the scroll sealed with seven seals (4-5). The Lamb opens the first six seals (6): the inequalities reveal the salient lines of the divine decrees; at the first seal opened, a crowned horseman on a white horse rides forth to victory (Jesus Christ shall be victorious); at the second, third, and fourth, horsemen emerge representing calamities (war, famine, pestilence) that will be instruments of Christ’s justice, destroying a fourth part of the living; at the fifth, the martyrs invoke divine justice, which shall be fulfilled at the end; at the sixth, universal upheaval breaks forth, which must precede the end. Meanwhile, four angels mark on the forehead the 144,000 elect from the twelve tribes of Israel, then a countless multitude of every nation is acclaimed, clothed in white robes and holding palms: having overcome tribulations, they shall be rewarded (7). When the seventh seal is opened, silence falls in heaven for half an hour (8, 1). The seven trumpets (8-11) mark the execution of the secrets of the book of the seven seals. As an angel ministers incense at the heavenly altar, from which he pours fire upon the earth, seven angels receive seven trumpets. At the sound of the first four trumpets, cataclysms destroy a third part of creation on earth, sea, and springs, and the stars. An eagle cries three “woes.” At the sound of the fifth trumpet (ten “woes”), a star, falling to earth, opens the abyss, from which emerge countless monstrous locusts, led by Abaddon (q.v.), who torment men for five months. At the sixth trumpet, vast armies of horsemen kill a third of mankind; yet the survivors remain impenitent (twenty “woes”).

**Consoling interlude** (10-11). A radiant angel, after seven thunders, swears that the mystery of God shall be fulfilled at the sound of the seventh trumpet and makes the seer eat a little scroll open, containing many prophecies he must proclaim (10). John is ordered to measure the temple and the altar, but not the outer court, which the Gentiles trample for forty-two months (three and a half years) during the great persecution, in which two witnesses prophesy, are killed in “Sodom” by the Beast from the abyss, and after three and a half days rise and ascend to heaven, while a tenth part of “Sodom” is destroyed by an earthquake in which 7,000 men perish; the survivors glorify God (11, 1-13). At the seventh trumpet, the proclamation of the eternal kingdom of God and of his Christ erupts (11, 14-18). This third “woe” is not described: it shall be in the second section. The final victory of God (11, 18) includes the parousia and the final judgment.

**Second section** (11, 19-21, 8). The ark of the covenant appears (11, 19), then a series of visions that more precisely illustrate the destinies (promulgated in 10, 15-18) of the kingdom of God (the Church) until the end of the world. A radiant woman (the heavenly Jerusalem of chs. 21-22, but in its earthly state) appears in heaven; a red Dragon (or Serpent) with seven crowned heads and ten horns (= Satan) seeks to devour her child (the Messiah) who shall rule all nations; but the Dragon is defeated and cast down to earth by Michael with his angels. The child is taken up to God’s throne, and the woman flees into the wilderness for three and a half years, escaping the Dragon’s persecution, which turns to wage war against “the rest of her offspring.”

The alignment of forces ready for battle is described in a diptych vision (13, 1-14, 5). The Dragon raises up two instruments: a) the sea beast (which rises “from the sea”) with seven heads and ten crowned horns (the political Antichrist: pagan Rome and subsequent powers), whose head wounded to death is healed, and all the earth worships the Dragon; he gives his power to the Beast, which dominates the peoples for forty-two months, blaspheming and persecuting the saints; b) the land beast (which rises “from the earth” of Asia), with a less fierce appearance, having two horns like a lamb but speaking like the Dragon (the doctrinal Antichrist), seducing with prodigies and inducing all to worship the sea beast and its image, whose mark or number (= name) all must bear, which is 666 (probably Heb. *Nron Qsar*, Nero Caesar). But on Mount Zion the Lamb stands with his retinue of 14,000 virgin men marked with his name and the Father’s, who sing the new song.

**Preparatory vision of the battle** (analogous to the “seals” of ch. 6): three angels announce God’s triple judgment (14, 6-20). The first, bearing the “eternal Gospel,” proclaims the judgment at hand; the second foretells the fall of Babylon (pagan Rome); the third denounces eternal fire for the worshipers of the Beast. An anticipatory vision of the judgment that crowns the struggle: the Son of Man on the cloud presides over the harvest of the elect and the vintage of the reprobate.

Divine victory over the beasts and Babylon (15–19). After the thematic proclamation (15:1–4), seven angels emerge from the heavenly temple to pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath (analogous to the seven trumpets) and the seven final plagues upon the empire of the Beast (15:5–16:21): when the first bowl is poured, an ulcer strikes the worshipers of the Beast; at the second and third, the waters of the sea and the rivers turn to blood; at the fourth, the sun scorches men; and at the fifth, darkness invades the realm of the Beast, yet men remain impenitent. At the sixth, three demons gather all the kings of the earth to Armageddon (q.v.), where they will be defeated (the Judge Christ is announced: 16:15); at the seventh, terrible earthquake and hailstorms devastate the earth, but men remain impenitent. God then decrees the destruction of Babylon.

This destruction is described in 17:1–19:10. One of the seven bowl-angels shows the great Babylon as a drunken harlot seated upon the sea-Beast; all the kings fornicate with her, and she is intoxicated with the blood of the saints. The angel explains her “mystery”: the Beast is Rome (seven hills)

with its seven emperors (from Nero to Domitian, it seems), and the Beast itself is one of the seven and will be the eighth (a continuation of the series, reproducing Nero). The ten horns are ten dependent kingdoms that will war against the Lamb but be vanquished by him and destroy the harlot Babylon. Another angel announces Babylon’s fall for her abominations; another describes the lament of kings, merchants, and sailors (18:9–20; cf. Ezek 26–27), answered by the heavenly song of hallelujah! (19:1–8). Epilogue: the revealing angel forbids the seer to worship him (19:9–10).

The two Beasts are then defeated (19:11–21): the white horse reappears, ridden by the Word of God, his robe dipped in blood, followed by the heavenly armies; the kings gathered with their armies (cf. the sixth bowl) are slaughtered by the sword that issues from the Word’s mouth, and the two Beasts are cast into the “lake of fire.”

Satan is finally vanquished (20:1–10): he is first bound for a thousand years (a long, indeterminate span) while Christ reigns with his martyrs and saints (14:1–5)—the “first resurrection” (spiritual). Then, released, Satan leads Gog and Magog (Ezek 38) against the city of the saints, but “fire from heaven” devours these last enemies, and Satan is cast into the “lake of fire” forever.

After the resurrection of the dead, the universal judgment takes place (“the books,” 20:12–15) before God’s throne: the wicked are cast into the “lake of fire” (“second death”), and the saints exult with God in the new Jerusalem (20:11–21:8).

Third part (21:9–22:5): The holy Jerusalem is described (shown by one of the seven bowl-angels), the city of God and the Bride of the Lamb, set against the harlot Babylon; it is a transcendent image of the Church in her glorious aspect, whereas in chapter 12 she appears in her militant phase. She descends from heaven, resplendent and vast; God and the Lamb are her temple and her light; on earth men find the means of grace (the river and trees of life), and in the life to come full beatitude in the vision of God.

In the epilogue (22:6–21) Jesus promises his imminent coming (22:12, 20).

After the parenthetical introduction of chapters 2–3, the author paints in allegorical form the future or eschatological history, yet in close connection with the present (a “synthetic” eschatology), in keeping with the canon of true prophecy. He teaches that the kingdom of God and of Christ is already in being and that now are “the last times,” when God and Christ overcome the Beast’s final violent resistances and assaults. Already the judgment of the perverse world is underway, prelude to the final judgment; and even now the faithful are spiritually raised to the “holy Jerusalem,” awaiting eternal reign, free from every temptation and sorrow, with God and the Lamb. He depicts the messianic age, in which persecutions and tribulations provide occasion for faithful “testimony” on the pattern of Jesus (1:5), until human tribunals give way to God’s judgment (cf. John 3:14–21; 5:20–29; 8:34–36; 15:18–27; 16:16–33; 17:9–23).

The theology of the Apocalypse resolves into a Christological-soteriological poem. The arduous and contested redemption of humanity is outlined in seven salient aspects or scenes: God on the throne with his ministering angels, the Lamb (Jesus) and his followers, Satan with his dead, the earthly powers with their splendor, the struggle, the judgment, and glory. The Lamb (q.v.), slain yet glorious, is the hinge of the drama; to him heaven and earth look (cf. O. Kuss, *Die Theologie des N. T.*, 2nd ed., Regensburg 1937, pp. 361–81). Transposing onto the eternal plane the symbolism and prophecy of the Old Testament, the Apocalypse is the concluding synthesis of New Testament ideas and hopes, and at the same time the new prophecy of the new and final age.

6. Authenticity and canonicity

The author calls himself John (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), presenting himself with the prestige of a teacher; universally acknowledged in the churches of Asia, his language reveals him as a Hebrew. Already in the second century writers and Fathers identify him, without hesitation, with the apostle John. Justin (C. Tryph. 81.4) is explicit, and the importance of his testimony is underscored by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. IV, 18) and St. Jerome (De viris ill. 9). The Muratorian Canon (line 57) sanctions Johannine authorship, which it cites 22 times, often naming John as the author. This is attested also by Clement of Alexandria and especially Origen; by St. Hippolytus (De Antichristo), St. Cyprian. Except for the priest Gaius (q.V. Alogi), who dared attribute it to Cerinthus in order to oppose Montanism by rejecting all Johannine writings, the Latins never entertained doubts: Jerome affirms it, adding with some exaggeration, “The churches of the Greeks… do not accept the Apocalypse of John” (Ep. 129 ad Dardanum 3).

In the East doubts first arose with Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265), who, to counter the millenarianism of Bishop Nepos of Arsinoë, sought to attribute the book, on the basis of internal criticism (divergences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel), not to the apostle but to another John. In the fourth and fifth centuries it seems the Antiochene school questioned its authenticity and canonicity: St. Cyril of Jerusalem omits the Apocalypse from his canon; St. John Chrysostom, Theodore, St. Ephrem, and the Peshitta appear to ignore II. Hence Eusebius’s curious conclusion (Hist. eccl. III, 25) that the Apocalypse is to be placed either among the undisputed canonical books (homologoimenoi) or among the spurious (since the debate hinged on authorship), “according to opinion,” and he opines that the author of the Apocalypse might be “John the Presbyter.”

By contrast, the Alexandrians—St. Athanasius, Didymus, St. Cyril, with St. Methodius of Olympus and St. Epiphanius—affirm its authenticity and canonicity. Among the Cappadocians, St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Amphilochius hesitate to include it in the canon, but St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, without hesitation, side with the Alexandrians (N. B. Stonehouse, *The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church*, Goes 1929).

The uncertainties in the East lasted barely a century, and long before the Quinisext Council (692) the apostolicity and canonicity of John’s Apocalypse were accepted by all Greeks and Syrians, so that today the Apocalypse stands in the canon of all Eastern churches, whether heretical or dissident.

In the 16th century, Erasmus renewed the doubts; Luther rejected the *A.*, though the other Protestants accepted II. But in the 18th century, liberal Protestants rejected the traditional thesis, denying the apostle and evangelist John the authorship of the *A.* After the Tübingen critics (O. Pfleiderer), many defined the *A.* as a Judeo-Christian work written around 50 or 60 by an unknown author or by the apostle John (distinct from the evangelist): thus J. Weiss, O. Holtzmann, A. Jülicher; R. H. Charles differentiates John “the seer” from both “the elder” and the apostle. But A. Harnack upholds the “critical heresy” that assigns the Fourth Gospel and the *A.* to the same author, identifying this person with John “the elder.” More categorical still, J. Behm (in his commentary, as in the 8th ed. of P. Feine, *Einleitung in das N. T.*, Leipzig 1936) maintains that the author of the entire *A.*, like the Fourth Gospel, is “the apostle John, son of Zebedee.”

Not a few “critics” assert that the *A.* arose from the fusion of various writings, resulting from the compilation by one or more redactors. Already H. Grotius (1644) discerned ten fragments in the *A.* E. Vischer distinguished (1886 and 1895) various overlays upon an earlier Jewish source; F. Spitta (1889) discovered three *A.*s, two Jewish and one Christian; and C. A. Briggs (1895) six *A.*s and four redactions. D. Völter (1904 and 1911) found two *A.*s: one by John Mark and one by Cerinthus. The fragmentary tendency, however, is now in decline among critics. W. Bousset, R. H. Charles, A. Loisy, E. Lohmeyer, along with the Catholics Th. Calmes and A. Lemonnyer, rise up against the advocates of fragmentation (E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des foh.*, pp. 181–91), while admitting that the author of the *A.* inserted fragments of earlier writings.

Indeed, internal examination of the *A.* leaves no doubt as to its unity. The architectural unity of the book is evident, in which every part, governed by the law of concatenation (Allo, pp. LXXIII–LXXV) and articulated by numerical symbolism (the entire work is divided into septenaries, each of which is distinguished into two series of three and four members: Allo, pp. LXXXI, XXIII), studded with the recurrence of certain dominant symbols (the “Lamb” from ch. 5 to ch. 22, the “Beast” from ch. 11 to ch. 20, etc.), is inseparable from the whole, constructed without any hiatus (despite 3:22; 11:19; 15:1). Unlike the chaotic compilations of apocryphal *A.*s, the *A.* presents a coherent and homogeneous doctrine. The style, with its strange anomalies, is identical from beginning to end; the lexicon everywhere displays the same characteristic terms (e.g., παντοκράτωρ and θρόνος from the first to the last chapter, etc.). Singular thematic expressions link the introduction to the conclusion (1:1 and 22:6; 1:3 and 22:7–10; 1:8 and 22:13; 2:11 and 20:6; 3:12 and 21:2) and the other sections to one another (1:6 and 5:10; 3:3 and 16:15; 12:9 and 20:2; etc.). Cf. Th. Zahn, *Ein letztes Wort über die Einheitlichkeit und Echtheit der johanneischen Apokalypse*, in *Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift*, 37 (1926), pp. 749–68; Ph. Carrington, *The Meaning of the Revelation*, London 1931. Some overly systematic exegetes go so far as to rigidify this literary unity into a constant rhythmic structure, such as A. Olivier, who discovers at the base of the entire composition of the *A.* the numerical devices 888 and 666. Less arithmetical is R. [J.] Loenertz, who, after rightly illustrating how the entire work is divided into seven septenaries, maintains that each septenary is subdivided into eight smaller sections and finds everywhere the literary artifice of intercalation (expression by the formula A–B–A).

The internal difficulties adduced by modern “critics” to deny the identity of author between the Fourth Gospel (with the Johannine epistles) and the *A.* are the same as those produced in the 3rd century by Dionysius of Alexandria: differences in composition, ideas, and style. The diversity is certainly notable, but it is largely explained by the difference in literary genre and subject matter. Instead, there appear between the two works characteristic affinities of thought and form. The doctrine of both culminates in a transcendent eschatology, impressed upon the basic ideas of life (eternal), light, the Lamb and the Shepherd, the Word of God (only *Jn. 1:1–14* and *Jn. 1:1* and *Rev. 19:13*), divine judgment, and two opposing kingdoms (God and Satan, heaven and world). Common to both are the author’s disposition and perspective, the dramatic and spiritual conception, the literary procedure of progressive parallelism and concatenation among the parts, and various “Johannine” terms (ζωή, ἀλήθεια, ἐντολή, μαρτυρία, νικητή, etc.). Hence critics like A. Harnack and W. Bousset acknowledge that the Fourth Gospel and the *A.* come from the same “school of Johannine style.” Historical testimonies and internal indications therefore agree in declaring the author of the *A.* to be the Apostle John.

3. GENRE, LANGUAGE, AND TEXT. — The *A.* is connected, by its allegorical-symbolic form as well as by its general theme (“the future age”: *ha-‘olām hab-bā’*), to apocalyptic literature (v.). Yet within this literature it constitutes a unique case: it is in fact genuine prophecy; hence pseudepigraphy, as well as every deceptive artifice and slavish imitation, is excluded. The *A.* arose from a true vision and from a divine command to narrate that vision (K. Schneider, *Die Erlebnisdichtheit der Apokalypse des Johannes*, Leipzig 1930).

Although it presents itself in the form of a single vision unfolding in multiple acts and many scenes (the only transition is the very frequent formula: “and I saw,” “after this I saw”), it may be considered that John had various visions at different times. According to St. Thomas, the visions of the *A.* are of the imaginative type (*Summa Theologiae*, 2a–2ae, q. 175, a. 3, ad 4), and St. Teresa rightly observes (*Vita*, ch. 28) that imaginative vision and intellectual vision almost always occur together (cf. St. Thomas, *op. cit.*, 2a–2ae, q. 173, a. 2, ad 2). One has the impression that many images are purely intellectual, owing to their considerable complexity; they are “contemplated thoughts” (W. Förster, in *Neutestamentliche Forschungen*, 104 [1932], pp. 279–310). Yet on the whole, the vast symbolic drama lacks neither plastic realism nor coherence. It is a heavenly liturgy (J. Peschek), on the model of the Sunday synaxis of the time (J. C. Hedley, *The Holy Eucharist*, ch. 10), into which is woven the judgment of God upon hostile powers and the triumph of the Lamb with his faithful (B. Brinkmann, *De visione liturgica in Apocalypsi s. Ioannis*, in *Verbum Domini*, 11 [1931], pp. 335–42). John wrote what he saw and heard (22:8): the voice he hears is sometimes that of Jesus (1:10–13; 4:1; 21:5–8; 22:12–16), but more often (and this accords with apocalyptic usage) it is that of an angel (15 times, from 5:2 to 22:6–11). The seer weeps (5:4), is astonished (17:6), or swoons (1:17); above all, he worships and prays (22:8–9, 17, 20).

Everything is seen under the aspect of eternity. The vast allegorical drama of the victorious Kingdom of God is presented by the Author in a transcendent degree of unity of action, time, and place. In the rapid succession of scene-visions on the two-tiered stage (heaven and earth), the plot unfolds in lightning-like and total contrasts, culminating in the catastrophe and final triumph, foreseen from the very beginning. Earthly, sluggish time, when conjoined with heavenly eternity, is concentrated in the "last times" (1:19; 22:6, 10, 20). Amid the shifting scenery, there remains an unchanging focal center: the heavenly City-Sanctuary with the throne of God, and in its midst the Redeemer Lamb, who is the temple and the torch of heaven (21:22-23). The drama is almost entirely visual, consisting in the succession of tableaux with few but powerful lines: the Ghent Altarpiece by Van Eyck (the Mystic Lamb) in Saint-Bavon corresponds to the pictorial character of the work. Dialogue is absent, replaced by frequent choruses and arcane music (5:9-11; 14:2-3).

Symbolic images, compensating for the inadequacy of human language, highlight the spirituality of the "revelation." The seer derives them not from apocalyptic writings, which are alien to him in tone, spirit, and doctrine, but from the sacred books of the Old Testament (J. Freundorfer and J. Michl, against R. H. Charles). In 405 verses, the Author makes 219 references to the Old Testament; only in about twenty passages can any connection with apocryphal writings be found. His principal models are the later prophets: Ezekiel (the background vision is in Ezek. 1:4-28; cf. Isa. 6:1-4; 24:23) and Daniel (Dan. 7-12), followed by Zechariah and Joel; he also frequently refers to the Mosaic books and the Psalms.

From the New Testament, he uses the "synoptic apocalypse" (Matt. 24; Mark 13; A. Wikenhauser, *Der Sinn der Apok.*, pp. 5-15), and in his Christology he recalls St. Paul (1:5; Col. 1:18). Yet while continuing the line of the prophets and the Gospel, the Author displays genuine originality in the overall structure and in adapting earlier symbols to his lofty Christian theme, completing and transforming prophetic symbols into a new and higher prophecy. A. Wikenhauser exaggerates in calling the Author the "Daniel of the New Testament."

The biblical coloring and originality must be asserted above all against those who make the work a derivative of Hellenistic syncretism through cosmogonic influences (H. Gunkel, *Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit*, Göttingen 1895, reprint 1921) or astrological ones (F. Boll, *Aus der Offenbarung Johannis*, Leipzig-Berlin 1914; id., *Sternglaube und Sterndeutung*, ibid. 1918, 2nd ed. 1926): J. Freundorfer has refuted these theories learnedly.

The style is unmistakable. Extremely simple, it is solemn and majestic, often even pathetic; monotony alternates with emphasis, as the soul oscillates between adoration and terror; the song periodically shifts from invocation to paean. The sentences are juxtaposed (parataxis); the period is based on parallelism, which often gives it a rhythmic appearance. Yet unfounded is the theory of R. H. Charles that the work is largely a poetic composition arranged in strophes. In the succession of symbolic scenes, parallelism gives way to a characteristic "spiral" progression (Allo): the description, first sketched, is taken up again to be expanded. There is a constant use, as in the Fourth Gospel, of *syncresis*, the antithesis of "contrapasso," though natural where divine judgment is described.

Grammatically, the language is the most singular known among Greek literary works. It is disconcerting for its frequent lack of case agreement (e.g., 1:4, 5, 15; 2:20) and for its strange constructions. The solecisms of the Author pose a problem that is today generally resolved by attributing them to the Semitic character of the seer, inexperienced in Greek, whose grammatical schemes failed to convey the thought he mentally expressed in formal Aramaic. The Author, for example, ignores the absolute genitive and the *ov̓* narrative frequent in the Fourth Gospel (cf. G. Sacco, *La koinè del Nuovo Testamento e la trasmissione del sacro Testo*, Rome 1928, pp. 100-14). Yet the language of the Author has been much exaggerated in condemnation. The discrepancies in cases are explained by the frequent parentheses that break up the period, giving rise to "hanging nominatives." Anacolutha abound, but they are always explained by a Semitic conceptual substratum.

The Author’s vocabulary presents no difficulties: out of 913 words (108 of which are foreign to the other New Testament books), only six are not found in other Greek texts (hapax legomena). Singular is only the almost total absence of the most common particles and the semantic modification of various terms under the influence of Semitic vocabulary. Attempts to reconstruct a Hebrew original have been in vain (M. Mises, *Hebräische Fragmente aus dem jüdischen Urtext der Apok. des hl. Johannes*, in *Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums*, 74 [1930], pp. 345-62).

The text has come down to us in 252 Greek manuscripts, of which only eight uncials (several of them defective) and a dozen cursives date from before the 11th century; among the complete ones, the oldest is the Sinaitic (4th century), but the most faithful (least altered) is the Alexandrian (codex A, 5th century). The Chester Beatty Papyrus (edited by F. G. Kenyon, London 1934) of the 3rd century contains Rev. 9:10-17; 2:1, and confirms the primacy of codex A (M.-J. Lagrange, in *Revue Biblique*, 43 [1934], pp. 488-92). Textual criticism of the work is today the most precise available for any biblical book, thanks to the monumental labors of H. C. Hoskier, *Concerning the text of the Apocalypse*, 2 vols., London 1929. Cf. H. A. Sanders, *The Beatty Papyrus of Revelation and Hoskier’s Edition*, in *Journal of Biblical Literature*, 53 (1934), pp. 371-80.

4. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION; DESTINARIES

John declares that he received his vision at Patmos, an Aegean island where he was exiled for preaching Christ (1:9), and this indication (which directly refers to the vision, not to the composition of the work) provides the orientation for establishing the date.

Many "critics," following F. C. Baur, place the persecution alluded to (1:9) and thus the composition of the work at the end of Nero’s reign (between 65 and 68), basing this on three indications: Jerusalem and the Temple are still depicted as standing (11:1-2), the Beast certainly alludes to Nero (13:18 and 17:10), and the language of the work presupposes several decades of distance from that, which was already highly developed, of the Fourth Gospel (so A. Hilgenfeld, J. B. Lightfoot, F. J. A. Hort, J. J. Scott).

But historical tradition places the composition of the work at the end of Domitian’s reign, around 95, and if, unusually, the "critics" strive to date it earlier, it is only to detach the work from the Fourth Gospel. No proof can be established regarding the symbols of the Temple (Church) and Nero (Antichrist). Instead, St. Irenaeus clearly attests (Adv. Haer., V, 30, 3): "The vision (of the work) occurred not long ago, but almost in our own time, at the end of Domitian’s empire," and so do Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus of Pettau (In Ap., 10, 11; 13, 10), Eusebius (who in the *Chronicon* places the work in the 14th year of Domitian: A.D. 95), and St. Jerome (De viris ill., 9: A.D. 95). Some late conjectures advanced by St. Epiphanius and by Aprionius (under Claudius) or by the apocryphal Acts of John and by Theophylact (under Nero) do not weaken the ancient and constant tradition (cf. R. Schütz, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes und Kaiser Domitian*, Göttingen 1933).

The letters to the seven churches (chs. 2-3) presuppose the conditions prevailing at the end of the 1st century: the Asian churches appear organized and flourishing, having survived the persecutions and in part having lost their initial fervor; a generation seems to have passed since the time of the Pauline epistles.

Since the author precedes the Fourth Gospel by only five years, it is necessary to explain the difference in language between the two works, for if John had not sufficiently mastered Greek in his old age, it does not seem that he could have become a good master of the language four or five years later. Some seek the solution in the harsh conditions of exile on Patmos, where the Apostle lacked the time and leisure to supervise his style, whereas later in Ephesus he wrote the Gospel calmly, carefully crafting its diction. Most scholars (H. B. Swete, J. H. Moulton, E. Jacquier, L. Radermacher, M. Meinertz, P. Gächter) believe that the author presents John’s language in a raw state, while the form of the Fourth Gospel was refined or revised by a secretary or editor employed by the Apostle; this can well be reconciled with the first explanation (A. T. Robertson).

The author is a letter to the Christians of proconsular Asia, represented by the seven churches (1:11). John names the seven churches (a symbolic number expressing totality) with which he is most closely connected, omitting some important ones (Miletus, Hierapolis, Magnesia) while including some secondary ones (Thyatira, Philadelphia). The hypothesis that the names of the seven churches were chosen based on their geographical location, as proposed by W. Ramsay in *The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia* (London, 1904), is unlikely.

The prophetic-epistolary message of John aims to strengthen faith and comfort hope; it seeks to warn the faithful, who are inclined to slacken, against the persecution that is ever growing more violent, describing the struggles and triumph of the Kingdom of God. It is an exhortation to perseverance and to “enduring” amid earthly tribulations, a proclamation of certainty and eternity. The seer’s gaze extends beyond the persecution under Domitian and encompasses the immense conflict of all time between the mystical Christ and the world of Satan: *“Persecutio quam sancta Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur, universa scilicet civitas Christi ab universa diaboli civitate”* (Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, XX, 11). One thing alone matters here below: to conquer (2:7, 26; 3:12, 21; 21:7); therefore woe to the lukewarm and the cowardly (3:15–16; 21:8). Yet the trembling vigil, the anguished waiting, the bloody struggle, will be transformed into joy and glory (cf. John 16:16–22); the groaning prayer will give way to the triumphant hymn. The dazzling “revelation” of the Apocalypse remains, today as yesterday, of urgent relevance (E. Ringenbach, *Die Bedeutung der Offenbarung Johannis für die Gegenwart*, Basel, 1926; *Dieu Vivant*, fasc. I [1946], pp. 5–9).

7. INTERPRETATION

The obscurity of the Apocalypse, inseparable from prophecy and even more from its allegorical-symbolic genre, though noted by the seer himself (13:18; 17:9; “the book with seven seals”), creates innumerable difficulties for exegesis (St. Jerome, *Ep.* 53 to Paulinus: *“Apocalypsis Ioannis tot habet sacramenta quot verba”*). The enigmas were fewer for the recipients and first readers, who were familiar with various allusions to contemporary events and situations and accustomed to certain symbolisms. However, no exegetical tradition has survived except in fragmentary form. Already by the second century, systems of interpretation arose that were more influenced by apocalyptic judicial ideas than by an understanding of the guiding lines of prophetic representation and spiritual symbolism.

The many systems into which Catholic exegesis of the Apocalypse has divided can be reduced to four, which still have their advocates.

1) The eschatological (endgeschichtlich) system is the oldest and remains the most widespread: the Apocalypse (from chapter 4 to the end) predicts the future events of the end of the world (through executions and calamities, apostasies, the Antichrist, the Last Judgment).

The earliest writers “judged” (Jerome, *In Isaiam*, introduction to chapter XVIII) by falling into literal millenarianism (Papias, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc.), down to the first commentator included (the commentaries of Melito and Hippolytus are lost), namely Victorinus of Pettau, who nonetheless inaugurates the theory of recapitulation. Eschatological, but without millenarianism, are the Greek commentaries of Andrew of Caesarea, Oecumenius (a text discovered in Messina in 1901 by F. Dickamp: cod. S. Salvatore 99, edited by H. C. Hoskier, Ann Arbor, 1928), and Arethas; among the Latin commentators, most from Arpingo, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bede, Alcuin, St. Beatus of Liébana, Haimo (d. 853), down to St. Albert the Great (i.e., Hugh of St. Caro: J.-M. Vosté, in *Angelicum*, 9 [1932], pp. 328–35) and Denis the Carthusian; in the 16th and 17th centuries, F. de Ribera, B. Pereyra, B. Viegas, St. Robert Bellarmine, C. a Lapide, J. Mariana, G. S. Menochio, A. Escobar y Mendoza, J. de Sylveira; in our own day, A. Bisping, F. Kaulen, R. Cornely, J. Corley, L. C. Fillion, M. Sales, J. Sickenberger, S. Rosadini, A. van der Heeren, and among Protestants, J. C. K. von Hofmann and Th. Zahn. Cf. H. Rongy, in *Revue ecclés. de Liège*, 23 (1931), pp. 92–95, 158–65.

2) The ancient historical (zeitgeschichtlich) system is almost the polar opposite of the preceding one: the Apocalypse symbolically describes the struggle of Judaism and paganism against the Church, ending with the triumph of the Church and the fall of pagan Rome; the prophetic cycle of the Apocalypse would have been fulfilled by the 4th and 5th centuries. Proposed by J. Henten (1574), then by A. Salmeron (d. 1585), it was accentuated and popularized by L. de Alcázar (q.v.). Among its adherents were J. B. Bousset, A. Calmet, De Vuillere, M. Aberle, F. Allioli, L. Bacuez, J. Schäfer-M. Meinertz, L. Billot.

Quite different is the modern rationalistic “zeitgeschichtlich” school (to which some Catholics such as P. Touilleux and A. Gelin partly adhere), which sees in the Apocalypse only allusions to contemporary history (Nero): E. Renan (*L’Antéchrist*, Paris, 1871), O. Pfleiderer, F. Spitta, E. Vischer, D. Völter, W. Beyschlag, H. J. Holtzmann, C. Erbes, A. Loisy. On their hypotheses cf. L. Brun, *Die römischen Kaiser in der Apok.*, in *Zeitsch. für neutest. Wissenschaft*, 26 (1927), pp. 128–51.

3) The universal historical (kirchengeschichtlich) system holds that the Apocalypse embraces all times. Berengaudus (9th century), Rupert of Deutz (12th century), and Alexander of Bremen (13th century) find in it the various ages of the world from creation onward. Joachim of Fiore inaugurates the theory of the (seven) ages of the Church, crowned by a spiritual millenarianism (cf. W. Kamlah, *Apokalypsen und Geschichtstheologie: Die mittelalterliche Auslegung der Apok. vor Joachim von Fiore*, Berlin, 1935); many follow him, from the movement of the “Spirituals” to various recent Protestant sects.

Preceded by the Franciscans Alexander of Bremen (d. 1271) and Peter Aureol (d. 1322), Nicholas Lirano (1329) saw in the Apocalypse a chronological exposition (in seven epochs) of the entire history of the Church. This interpretation gained great popularity, having been promoted by Lutheranus (1534) among Protestants and by B. Holzhauser (d. 1658) among Catholics (among the most recent exponents: Lafont de Sentenac, P. Drach, F. Tiefenthal, M. A. Gallois, F. Gutjahr). This superficial system becomes highly arbitrary when it breaks down prophecy into news items, according to a method that still seduces many improvised exegetes today (S. Sansi, *Il Regno di Cristo... secondo l’Apoc.*, 2 vols., Rome 1899; J. Chevalier, *L’Apoc. et les temps présent*, Rome 1907; etc.; P. Clangor, *La grande guerra, massoneria, bolscevismo e l’avvenire del mondo nelle visioni profetiche dell’A.*, Brescia 1937; W. Muller-Jurgens, «Apokalypse», *Die Geheime Offenbarung des Johannes*, Bernal-Leipzig 1938; Fortunato della Valletta, *Apocalypse de St Jean*, Ottawa 1939; J. du Plessis, *Les sens de l’histoire*, II, Paris 1939; L. Moreno Mora, *La Iglesia Católica a través del Apocalipsis*, Quito 1939; etc.).

4) The recapitulative method is hinted at or implied among the best Latin representatives of the 19th century (e.g., Bede, Alcuin); it is the only one, together with the eschatological, that can be called traditional. The Apocalypse does not set forth future events in a continuous progressive series, but describes certain supreme events in the struggle between Christ and Satan, repeating the same realities in different symbols until their maturation and final outcome: it is the militant and finally triumphant Kingdom of God. Outlined by Victorinus of Pettau, the *recapitulatio* is formulated and applied by the Donatist Tyconius (c. 380), accepted and explained by St Augustine (*De Civ. Dei*, XX, 8), who establishes secure exegetical principles: the Apocalypse predicts the main lines of the spiritual history of humanity from the Incarnation to the end of the world, without lingering over particular external contingencies; the economy of the New Testament unfolds in its salient lines of a bitter conflict that will finally be victorious between “the two cities,” as presented in the Gospel (Matt. 10:16–39; Luke 10:1–24; 17:20–37; 18:7–8; cf. John 15–17). Augustine adds: “Thus it repeats the same things in many ways, so that it seems to say one thing after another, when in fact it is saying the same thing in different ways” (*ibid.*, XX, 17).

This theory, represented also by Primasius, Cassiodorus, and Ambrose Autpert, was later given an artificial application by Abbot Joachim, and subsequently exaggerated by the Protestants N. Collado (1581) and J. Cocceius (1668). Today it is restored in its pure and traditional form by B. Allo (1921), who clearly demonstrates how chs. 12–20 are a parallel development of chs. 4–11, and by A. Merk, *Compendium introductionis in S. Scripturae libros* (of Cornely, 9th ed.), Paris 1927, pp. 794–798, and *De compositione A.*, in *Verbum Domini*, 8 (1928), pp. 211–17; cf. H. Höpf–B. Gut, *Introductio specialis in Novum Testamentum*, Rome 1938, pp. 521–22. It is adhered to by conservative Protestants such as E. Lohmeyer and H. E. Hill (*Mystical studies in the A.*, London 1932).

This system, which best safeguards the prophetic (spiritual) and unitary character of the Apocalypse, must acknowledge the kernel of truth in the first three. The Apocalypse is eschatological, not a detailed prediction of universal history; yet the “last times” must be understood in the prophetic and apostolic sense: they are the messianic age, the definitive religious era. Most of the symbols refer first of all to the persecutions of the Roman Empire, and, like every prophecy, the Apocalypse was a topical writing; but the struggle between pagan Rome and the Church portrays and predicts the successive phases of the perpetual struggle between the satanic powers and Christ, who will finally triumph in his Church (Tyconius, *Liber regularum*, IV: “Dum speciem narrat in genus transit”), V. ABADDON; ALPHA AND OMEGA; ANTICHRIST; ARMAGEDDON; DRAGON; NERO; TWO WITNESSES.

Principali commenti acattolici recenti: H. B. Svete, *The A. of st. John*, Londra 1906 (3a ed. 1917); R. H. Charles, *A critical and exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of st. John*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesimo); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesimo); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesimo); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung* des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesimo); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314, (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübing*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung* des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesi); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314, (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübing*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studid del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Edimburgo 1920; id., *Lectures on the A. of St. John*, Londra 1922; A. Loisy, *L'A. de Jean*, Parigi 1923; Th. Zahn, *Die Offenbarung des Johannes*, 2 voll., Lipsia 1924-26; H. L. Strack - P. Billerbeck, *Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud und Midrasch*, III, Monaco 1926, pp. 788-837; E. Lohmeyer, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926; id., *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli studi del quindicesim); J. Behm, *Die Offenbarung des Joh. Tübingen*, 1926, pp. 264-314 (rassenza completa degli stud

The Gothic peoples beyond the Alps also inspired, albeit partially, the exceptional imagery of Dürer, whose enormous influence extended as far as the monasteries of Mount Athos.

In the Middle Ages, while such illustrations initially followed the apocalyptic text in all its fantastic details, in mural decorations the great variety of scenes was reduced to the most common and widespread motifs: for example, Christ between the Alpha and Omega (Palatine Chapel at Aquigrana); the twelve lambs emerging from the two holy cities (Ravenna, S. Apollinare in Classe); this also occurred in more complex cycles, such as those in the abbey of Civate al Monte and the crypt of the cathedral of Anagni.

From the 15th century onward, apocalyptic motifs were interpreted with the greatest freedom, as evidenced by Signorelli’s frescoes in Orvieto, the Adoration of the Lamb by the van Eycks, the Woman of the Apocalypse by Rubens, and certain scenes in Flemish tapestries, among others. For the 18th–20th centuries, we may cite the fresco by Scheffler in the church of San Lino in Trier and the cartoons for a cycle of frescoes by Corinth in the National Gallery in Berlin. Apocalyptic subjects nonetheless became increasingly rare due to the naturalistic approach of Renaissance vision and were generally ignored in the iconography of the Counter-Reformation. Contemporary art includes representations by Dürer, whose imagery was reinterpreted by Giorgio de Chirico, and the large fresco cycle by Ferruccio Ferrazzi. — See Pl. CXXIV.

APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM: see ABRAHAM.