|
''Horae Apocalypticae'' is an eschatological study written by Edward Bishop Elliott. The book is, as its long-title sets out, "A commentary on the apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel illustrated by an apocalyptic chart, and engravings from medals and other extant monuments of antiquity with appendices, containing, besides other matter, a sketch of the history of apocalyptic interpretation, the chief apocalyptic counter-schemes and indices." "Horae Apocalypticae (Hours with the Apocalypse) is doubtless the most elaborate work ever produced on the Apocalypse. Without an equal in exhaustive research in its field, it was occasioned by the futurist attack on the Historical School of interpretation. Begun in 1837, its 2,500 pages are buttressed by some 10,000 invaluable references to ancient and modern works. It ran through five editions (1844, 1846, 1847, 1851 and 1862)."〔Le Roy Froom ''The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers'' Review and Herald, Washington, DC (1946) Vol. 3, p. 716〕 In 1868 he published a ''Postscript'' to comment on the events, or perceived lack of events, marking the prophetically significant years, 1865/7. ==Purpose and method of the book== Charles Spurgeon wrote in 1876, the year after Elliott died, that Horae was "the standard work on the subject."〔Charles Spurgeon''Commentating on Commenataries'' London: Passmore and Alabaster (1876) p. 199〕 It remained the standard until Robert Henry Charles published his commentary on the Book of Revelation〔R. H. Charles ''Commentary on the Revelation of St John'' Edinburgh: T & T Clark (1920) 2 vols. Charles began his book in 1894 for the International Critical Commentary. By that time, the emphasis in exegesis had changed utterly. R H Charles was interested in philology and the archaeology of the text. He was especially concerned with 'who wrote what' as he did not accept there was a single author to Revelation. Thus, 21st century criticism may be nearer to Elliott's concerns (of the unity of the text and its effect on its audience) that to Charles'.〕 in 1920 and is still widely admired. Although Edward Elliott defended a traditionalist position, he was keen to apply new historical techniques to Revelation. He called these ''allusive contrast''.〔''Horae Apocalypticae'' Vol 1 p. x〕 This meant studying the text in its original social context and comparing it with neighbouring social contexts. He tried to understand what the words of Revelation would have meant to their original hearers and readers. Allusions shared between John and his audience ensured each word meant much more than its dictionary definition. In particular, John's audience was attuned to images and emblems in a way modern interpreters find hard to grasp. For example, when John said of the locusts of the fifth trumpet, "and they had hair as the hair of women and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron"〔Revelation 9: 8-9〕 clear and defined metaphors were being used which the audience could pick up upon;〔Horae Apocalypticae Vol 1 p. 436ff gives his interpretation of this passage〕 there was no fanciful or poetic superfluity to the words chosen.〔In this area, Edward Elliott laid lasting foundations. In 1954 Norman Gottwald wrote, "If the past century and a half of critical study teaches us anything, it is that efforts to escape the historical milieu of the Old Testament or to renounce the historical method in Bible study, lead not only to false literary-historical conclusion but also involve the very theology in inevitable perversion." Norman K. Gottwald ''Studies in the Book of Lamentations'' London: SCM Press (1954) p. 47 He is probably issuing his strictures against those, such as Charles Cutler Torrey, who wanted to see the prophets primarily as poets. But Elliott grasped that the prophets, of whom John is one, saw the end-product of an historical theology as being poetry.〕 Elliott wrote to support the supernatural inspiration of scripture against rationalist attacks from within the Protestant faith. He believed that if he could show "the fulfilment of Apocalyptic prophecy in the history of Christendom since St John's time"〔Rev E. B. Elliott ''Horae Apocalypticae'' London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday 5th ed (1862) Vol 1 p. vii. The prefaces to the various editions are materially different and do not merely update his original remarks.〕 then he had gone a long way towards showing how essential the supernatural was to an understanding of all scripture. He was strict as to what proof would be required. It needed distinct events, predicted beforehand, without vagueness and which "could not have been foreseen with human sagacity." Edward Elliott viewed history as "God's education of the world" - a constant struggle between sin and gospel-grace.〔''Horae Apocalypticae'' Vol 1 p. xx〕 People could see God's purpose, he believed, only if they could relate past, present and future. Because God's word was perfect, nothing could be added, nor taken away.〔''Horae Apocalypticae'' Vol 2 p. 47〕 But revelation was designed to reveal and, given adequate attention to detail, he believed a single shining truth would emerge to human understanding.〔Elliott does not seem to have addressed the question whether Revelation could be heard with profit by all, or only by that righteous remnant with "ears to hear".〕 In his own view, prophecy was, "God's declared purpose of making the near approach of the consummation evident at the time of its approaching; yet, till then, so hidden as to allow of Christians always expecting it ... a declaration well agreeing with that with which Daniel's book closes, that the prophecy was to be sealed only till the time of the end."〔''Horae Apocalypticae'' Vol 3 p. 264〕 This leaves unspoken who will have the ears to hear, the eyes to see and the ability to distinguish the true signs from the false and lying ones. He endured numerous attacks on his system〔Elliott wrote ''Vindiciae Horariae'' London: Seeleys (1848) to combat the criticisms of Rev Dr Alexander Keith which he saw (accurately enough) as being malicious. Possibly the best critique was Thomas Kerchever Arnold, ''Remarks on the Rev E. B. Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae'' London: Rivingtons (1845) to which Elliott produced a ''Reply to ...'' London: Rivingtons (1845). At the other extreme Elliott had to contend with numerous unauthorised abridgments of his long work as well as unacknowledged plagiarism in the case of Albert Barnes〕 by those who disagreed either his method or his conclusions.〔Elliott's system defined the relationship between prophecy and world history very tightly - as his standard of proof required. As a result, his fiercest disputes were with those closest to his own point of view. An earlier work ''An Exposition of the Book of Revelation'' by Henry Gauntlett, London: Seeley (1821) p. 54 had suggested the wisdom of a gentler approach, "It is necessary, for obvious reasons, that prophecy should be involved in clouds of obscurity previously to its fulfilment ... But it has this peculiar and astonishing property connected with it: - the fulfilment dissipates the clouds and renders the objects of the predictions distinct and defined ... The Author of prophecy never intended to make us prophets," too. Gauntlett's book is unjustly forgotten for it remains one of the most readable and thought-provoking introductions to Revelation.〕 These attacks intensified as Elliott's timetable began to break down. His original scheme anticipated "the time of the end" as forecast in Daniel 12:12 closing around 1865. He held to the view of a pre-millennial advent of Christ. As the mid-1860s approached undramatically, he was forced to shift his timeframe so that the end was no longer anticipated until 1941.〔''Horae Apocalypticae'' Vol 1 p. xxiv〕 This perceived change of heart caused considerable scoffing in the popular press. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Horae Apocalypticae」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|