Jewish sense {e.g. 5» "i^"- 21»*ff. 2'-'- ^ 21«'). Th« absoluteness of its freedom from Judaism, i.e. of its conviction that Christians are the true Jews, is seen in the fact that it can adopt without change such thoroughly Jewish pictures as 7 * 11'"'*, taking for granted their figurative application to the Christian community. Its conception of faith and of works is neither St. Paul's nor is it aimed against St. Paul's conception.
We may agree with Jiilicher that the Christi- anity of Rev. is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline ; and that, as far as one can speak of the religious conceptions of the book outside of the eschato- logical circle, they can be understood as a simple development of the primitive form in which the gospel came through Jewish believers to Jews. It must, however, be a late, not an early development.
2. The Synoptic Goxpda. — The traditional de- fence of the apostolicity and truth of Rev. bv the claim that it is only an elaboration of the escliato- logical teachings ot Jesus, especially in Mt 24 [-25] = Mk 13 = Lk 2I-l-17^"-"-(-12»-«, must now be reconsidered and tested in view of a growing inclination on the part of scholars to regard these chapters as due to an elaboration of the simpler teachings of Jesus regarding the future, under tlie influence of the eschatological conceptions, in- herited from Judaism, of which Rev. is a product and record. The parallels are, of course, unmis- takable ; but for the historical interpretation of them we must wait for further studies in the Gospels, and in the history of those traditions of the life and teachings of Jesus out of which the Gospels came.
Holtzmann (Einl. 422) adduces the foUowing parallels : Mk 13'-8 = Rev 6-1-8- '2, Mk 13I»=Rev H6, Mk 13'3 = Rev 226, Jlk 1319 = Rev 1018, esp. Mk 13=J.-»=Rev 6''in »i »\ Mk 132ii(still more closelv Mt 273") = Rev 1', Mk 132^ = Rev 7', Mk 1331 = Rev 6U 1717 ^\\ and apparent contracts between Rev 111 and Mk 131*. Rev 105 e 1415 and Mk 1332.
Von Soden {At/hamiluw/en^ p. 132), on the basis of various parallels (Rev 1310 Lk 2li', Rev 61» Lk 187, Rev e'e Lk 233", Rev 33 1615 Lk 1239 [ = Mt 24«J, Rev S™ Lk 1236 14I6M, Rev l" Lk 2136, Rev 33 147- 16 Lk 1239'- «, Rev 11 226 Lk 183, Rev IS 2216 Lk 218, Rev 199 Lk 1415, Rev 227 Lk 1128, Rev li)i5 Lk 1237), regards it as probable that the Christian editor of Rev. waa familiar with Luke's Gospel. He thinks (p. 158 f.), on the other hand, that Matthew used Rev. in ita present fonn because of the parallel use of words and phrases in manv passages (cf, e.Q. Mt 612 Rev 19?, Mt S2« Rev 218, Mt 2016 231-1 Rev ir", Mt 161« Rev 118 37 91 20', Mt 2753 Rev 112 21-' 2219, su 26 Rev 1", Mt 19'' 233 2820 [to keep, T,i«r., commands of Christ] 2818 Rev 13 221', Mt 1619 1818 [i«,.) Rev 15, Jit 2652 Rev 131», Mt 2430 Rev 17 Mt 2412 Rev 2*- 19 316f., Mt 22 Rev 121, Mt 2" Rev 212J, Mt 216-18 Rev 12-'- 17). Such parallels as Holtzmann adduces between Rev. and Mk 13 are referred by von Soden and luanj others to common or related Jewish apocalyptical sources.
3. r/te Go.fpel and Epistles of St. J'oAn.— The relation between Rev. and the other Johaiiiiine writings has been obscured by critical attacks and apologetic defence. Zahn's extravagant statement, that the common use of the name Logos (Jn 1'- '*, 1 Jn 1', Rev iy'3) outweighs all the irreconcilable contradictions which have been found between the ideas of Rev. and those of the other Johannine writings, is anything but conclusive, although the importance of this point of connexion is to be recognized. Even Zalin admits the difficulty of the problem presented by the difference of style, but thinks that both John and Rev. betisy a Hebrew author, and that the same man mi,ght write difl'ereutly as a prophet and as a historian and teacher. It is really by appeal to a super- natural agency that Zaim reconciles the books. In the Bk. of Revelation St. John is in ecstasy and receives everything in vision, the form as well as the material (p. 614 f.). So the books are not by the same real author, after all ; and how would Zahn estimate the relative value of the work of John and that of the Spirit? In regard to the peculiar style of Rev., with its departures from grammatical rules, certainly in part intentional,
REVELATION, BOOK OF
REVELATION, BOOK OF 265
ferliaps in the otlbrt to give the ellect of the liliruw proplu-tic style, see especially Bousset, Kuinin. pp. l!)S-JuS.
'I'littt Kev. is not by the author of the Gospel and the I'irst Ep. of Jolin appears to the present writer little less tlian a curtaiuty. There are, indeed, ideas common to these books. We have already noticed the common use of all the Johan- nine writings by the Montanists because John promises the projihctic spirit, and Rev. is a pro- duct of it ; and llie common rejection of all by the so-called Alogi, tliouyh later opponents of Montanism were contented to reject Kevtlation. There are also Johanniue forms of expression in Rev. (see, e.ff., 3-■"^ Jn 11'', Rev 2-«- " 3=', Jn IS"- 17" 20^''). But so there are here I'auline forms of expression. Indeed the tliought - world of our author is related to one side of St. Paul's, wliile John and 1 John are related to another ; and while it is not impossible that both Rev. and John pre- suppose St. Paul, between these books themselves little but contrast can be discovered, both in thought and in expression.