ἐμός (only once), οὖν of logical appeal’ (not of historical transition), Ἱερουσαλήμ. not “Ἱεροσόλυμα, νικᾶν (never transitive, and in special sense cf. on ii. 7), judgment (outward and dramatic, not inward), the Spirit (wholly prophetic, in contrast to the inward Comforter of the Gos- pel), σηµαίνειν, ὑπάγειν, etc. Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel ignores, often deliberately, a large number of words or phrases used not only by the Apocalypse (once at least) but by the earlier synoptic Gospels ; e.g. ἀναγινώσκω (of Scriptures), ἀποδίδωμι, ἀπόστολοι, ἄρσην, ἀφαιρέω, βασανίζειν, βδέλυγµα, βίβλος, Ὑαστήρ, Ὑρηγορεῖν, γυνή (wife), δαιμόνια, δένδρον, διαθήκη, δίκαιος (Of men), δῶρον, ἔθνη (=Gentiles), εἰκών, ἔλαιον, ἐνδύειν, ἑπτά, ἐσθίω, ἔσχατος, ἔσωθεν (ἔξωθεν), εὐαγγέλιον (cf. on xiv. 6), ἑξήκοντα, ἐχθρός, ἥλιος, θρόνος, ἰσχύς, ἰσχυρός, κληρονομεῖν, κλίνη, κηρύσσει», κόπτω, λιμός, λοιπός, λυχνία, µακρόθεν, μαρτύριον, µάρτυς, µηδείς, µετρέω, µικροί, µυστήριον, νεφέλη, ὀλίγος, ὀμνύειν, ὁδούς, ovat, οὖς (contrast John xviii. 10, 26), πάσχω, πατάσσειν͵ περί (accus.), πέτρα, πίστις, πλοῦτος (-σιος), ποτίζειν, πόλεμος, πρεσβύτεροι, προσευχή, πρόσωπον, ῥάβδος, ῥίζα, σεισμός, σελήνη, σκηνή, σοφία, σταυρόω, σφόδρα, ὑψηλός, φυλακή, ψευδοπροφήτης, and χήρα. The Apocalypse also substitutes ἔρχου for ἐλθέ, and uses phrases like ἄξιος with infin. for ἄξιος with ἵνα. The eschatological differences of conception, which are too patent to require comment or to admit of harmonising, corroborate the impression made by this argument from words. Such features, linguistic and mental (cf. e.g.oni. 4, ii. 7, iii. 21, vii. 15), are not due to literary versatility, nor to an imaginary growth in the same writer’s vocabulary and soul, ‘nor even to a common editorial revision. The argument from solecisms (cf. § 1) and regular irregularities of style, from the special vocabulary, and above all from the realistic type of religious feeling, may be cumula- tive, but it is none the less able to support the contention that whilst the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse must have sprung from the same circle of Asiatic Christianity, they could not have been written by the same person within a few years of each other ; the divergences of eschatology, angelology, and Christology—which represent the crucial points of comparison between the two books—are almost as clearly cut in Apoc. i.-iii., where the Apocalypse is least apocalyptic, as in the later oracles. In general, it would not be irrelevant to apply to the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse the terms used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus to characterise the works of Herodotus and Thucydides respectively ; the one is radiant (ἱλαρόν), the other is awe-inspiring (φοβερόν).
1 This is particularly significant, since, as the Apocalypse “is largely made up of narrative, we might have expected narrative οὖν in abundance if it had been written by the hand that wrote the Fourth Gospel” (Abbott, ok. Grammar, p. 479).