Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

CXX THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
ingg^ for no one can by any means attribute the Eevelation to an
intentional deceiver, for this reason, that it would have been one
object with such a man to denote with precision the person of the
Evangelist, so as to cause the work to be regarded as his. This,
however, has not been done, and thus we are not permitted to take
any view in opposition to it, except it be that another John, and
not the Evangelist, composed it. This opinion was first stated
and defended in a formal manner by the learned Dionysius, bishop
of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen. But, as this " man lived at so
late a period that authentic oral tradition was no longer within his
reach, no more stress is to be laid upon his doubts than upon the
learned objections of more modern days. We come therefore to
this result : All historical tradition is unanimous in behalf of John's
composition of the Revelation.
Now, in order to invalidate this decided testimony of antiquity,
but observe what are
very striking arguments ought to be adduced ;
the reasons which prevail upon modern investigators to deny that
the Evangelist John was the author of the Eevelation, and then
judge whether they are strong enough to countervail such testimony.
In enumerating these reasons, I follow a distinguished scholar of the
present day, whom I very much esteem and love as my former in-
structor, although I differ entirely from his views. I do indeed believe
him to be in general very impartial and unprejudiced ; but
nevertheless I think him to be influenced in his judgment of the
Eevelation by the force of prejudices which were largely imbibed by
the church, and have been widely diffused.*
In the first place, it is urged by this learned man that John
never mentions himself in the Gospel and Epistles as the author of
these writings ; would he act differently then in the Apocalypse ?
It is true, he says only that this circumstance isworthy of attention;
but as it stands as one of his arguments, it seems to have been regarded
as of considerable importance. Of what consequence, how-
ever, is such a difference in practice, since all we can say is, simply,
that the author chose in this case to employ a different form from
his usual one ? What writer is there who does not act as he pleases
in regard to such points ?
In the second place, the variation from his other writings in
point of laiijj,aage is adduced as an argument. The fact is indispu-
table. The language of the Gospel is pure Greek, smooth and ac-
curate ; that of the Eevelation, on the contrary, is harsh, rugged,
full of inaccuracies of expression, and real grammatical mistakes.
But it is not true that all difference in phraseology indicates differ-
ent writers. Compare, e. g., the earliest writings of Goethe, Schil-
• T mean Prof. Do "Wette, in his " Einleit. ins neue Testament" (Introd. to the N
Testament).