I. Canonical Authority and Authorship. — These two points are intimately connected with each other. If it can be proved that a book, claiming so distinctly as this does the authority of divine inspiration, was actu- ally written by John, then no doubt will bo entertained as to its title to a place in the canon of Scripture. Was, then, John the apostle and evangelist the writer of the Revelation V This question was first mooted by Dionysius of Alexandria ( Eusebius, //. E. vii, 25). The doubt which he modestly suggested has been confident- ly proclaimed in modern times by Luther ( Vorrede auf ,n, Offenbarung, L522 and loot), and widely diffused through his influence. Locke {EinleUung, p. 802), the most learned and diligent of modern critics of tie Re\ - elation, agrees with a majority of the eminent scholars of Germany in denying that John was the author. But the general belief of the mass of Christians in all ages has been in favor of John's authorship.
1. Evidence in Favor of the ipostolic Authorship.— 'Ibis consists of the assertions of the author and histor- ical tradition.
(1.) The author's description of himself in the first and twenty-second chapters is certainly equivalent to an assertion that he is the apostle, (a) He names him- self simply John, without prefix or .addition — a name which at that period, and in Asia, must have been taken by every Christian as tie- designation, in the first in- stance, of the great apostle who dwelt .at Ephesus.
Doubtless there were other Johns an g the Christians
at that time, but only arrogance or an intention to de- ceive could account for Hie assumption of this simple Btyle by any other writer, lie is also described as (>>) a servant of ( ihrist, (c) one who had borne testimony as an eye-witness of the word of God and of the testimony of Christ term- which were surely designed to identi- fy him with the writer of the verses John xix,35; i, 14;
and I John 1,2. lie i, (d) in l'atmos for the word of
God and the testimony oi .iesu> ( Ihrisl : it may be easy to suppose that other Christians of the same name were banished thither, but the apostle is the only John who is distinctly named in early history as an exile al l'at- mos. lie is alsoii }a fellow-sufferer with those whom In- addresses, and (/) the authorized channel of the most direct and important communication thai was ever made to the Beven churches of Asia, of which church-
es John the apostle was at that time tlte spiritual gov- ernor and teacher. Lastly ( .71. the writer was a fellow- servant of angels and a brother of prophets — titles which are far more suitable to one of the chief apostles, and far more likely to have been assigned to him than to any other man of less distinction. All these marks are found united together in the apostle John, and in him alone of all historical persons. We must go out of the region of fact into the region of conjecture to find such another person, A candid reader of the Rev- elation, if previously acquainted with . I. din's other writ- ings and life, must inevitably conclude that the writer intended to be identified with John. Ii i- strange to see so able a critic as Liicke | /•//»/. itung, p. oil. meet tag this conclusion with the conjecture thai some Asiatic disciple and namesake of the apostle may have written the book in the course of some missionary labors or some time of sacred retirement in l'atmos. Equally unavailing against this conclusion is the objection brought by Ewald, Credner, and others, from the fact that a promise, of the future blessedness of the apostles is implied in xviii. 20 and xxi, 11: as if it were incon- sistent with the true modesty and humility of an apos- tle to record— as Daniel of old did in much plainer terms (Dan. xii. 13) — a divine promise of salvation to himself personally. Lather those passages may be taken as in-
i stances of the writer quietly accepting as his just due such honorable mention as belongs to all the apostolic company. Unless we are prepared to give up the ve- racity and divine origin of the whole book, and .0 treat the writer's account of himself as a mere fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignificance with an honored name, we must accept that description as a plain statement of fact, equally credible with the rest
! of the book, and in harmony with the simple, honest, truthful character which is stamped on the face of the whole narrative.
Besides this direct assertion of John's authorship, there is also an implication of it running through the book. Generally, the instinct of single-minded, patient. faithful students has led them to discern a connection between the Revelation and John's gospel and epistles. and to recognise, not merely the same Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy Scripture, but also the same peculiarly formed human instrument em- ployed both in producing this book and the fourth gos- pel, and in speaking the characteristic words and per- forming the characteristic .actions recorded of John. This evidence is set forth at great length and with much force and eloquence by J. P. Lange in bis essay on the connection between the individuality of the apostle John and that id' the Apocalypse, 1838 (Ver- mischte Schriflen, ii. 17:1 231 1. After investigating the peculiar features of the apostle's character and position, and (in reply to Liicke) the personal traits shown by the writer of the Revelation, he concludes that the book is a mysterious but genuine effusion of prophecy under the New Test., imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, the product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great and no- ble, that it can be ascribed to the apostle John alone. The Revelation requires for its writer John, just as his peculiar genius requires lor it ^ utterance a revelation. This special character of the Apocalypse as an inspired production under remarkably vivid circumstances is the true key to its diction, which ecrtainh exhibits many striking differences as compared with John's oth- er well-accredited writings. At the same time, there an- not a few marked coincidences iii the phraseology. Both of these points have been developed at great length by the writers above named and by others in their commentaries and introductions, low hich we must refer the reader lor details. Arguments of this nature are always inconclusive as to authorship, and we there- fore rest the conclusion upon evidence of a more palpa- ble character. (See i iii below.)