The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 68

corresponds with the opening words of the Epistles, and he euumerates terms, themes, n.nd id~as common to them both; but he presses the point thnt the Apocalypse ,HITcre from them both in its syntax, style, and solecisms of expression, addinu that while tho phmsc:o, "light," "life," "grace," "joy," etc., occur in the other works, thoy do not appear in this. Now, Eusebius supplements the speculation of Dionysius, and rosuscitntes from one of "the two tombs" in Ephesus "the Presbyter John," supposed to be referred to by Papia~, and 118 answering to the unknown John whom Dionysius hoped to find. Eusebius lenves the matter in II vague and uncertain condition. He classes the book among the Homologoomena (' Hist. Eccl.,' iii. 25), but shows that his doubts turn largely on purely internal and doctrinal grounds, and that it was open to gmve question whether it wns "-ritten by the presbyter (ibid., iii. 39). The general evidence of anU- q11ity is therefore various and peculiarly strong in its affirmations that the author of the Apocalypse was John the apostle. A few writers, on one subjective ground or another, doubt and hesitate; but, after all, if it were not for the supposed discrepancy between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, not one shadow of doubt would rest upon its authenticit1·. Kirchhofer says,' Qucllensammluug' (see Chnrteris on 'Cnnonioity;' J. J. Taylor 'The Fourth Gospel,' p. 41), "Hardly one book of the New Testament has such a circl~ of historical testimonies marked by name on its behalf.'' Many writers have assumed that the conclusion at which we have arrived touching the authorship of the Apocalypse is a powerful argument against the Johannine origi11 of the Fonrth Gospel, and they have emphasized to the utmost the marks of difference between these two documents. Indeed, there is every kind of hypothesis held ill order to explnin the phenomena of the case. (i.) There are those who refuse, with Keim, to admit the apostolic origin of either the one or the otber, di~puting the residence of St. John in Asia, and laying the blame of the tradition so widely diffused on the shoulders of lre11reus, who confounded, as Keim ~upposes, the two Johns. (ii.) There nre those who, like Liicke, Ewa~d, Liitzelberger, Diisterdieck, De Wette, und Ncandcr, regard the authorship of the Gospel to be certainly established, and partly on that very ground, echoing the early scepticism of Dionysius, assign the Apocalypse to some other John, either "the presbyter," or "John Mark," or some unk11own "John the divine, or theologian." (iii.) Bretscbneider &nd the Tiibingen criticism, represented by Ilaur and Zeller, gravitated to the strong assertion of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, its early date, the residence of its author in Ephesus, and other identifications of" John" with the fiery, impetuous, Jewish-Christian apostle. This apocalyptic form is supposed to reflect the first and earliest form of Christian teaching. Volkmar went further, and pressed the violently anti-Pauline theology of the Apocalypse, and pointed, with Renan, to the supposed proof that the writer, whoever he was, may have been endeavouring to denounce Paul and his work in the Churches of Asia under the pseudonym of "Dalaam." Whether he were John the apostle or not, Volkmar holds that be endeavoured to shelter himself under the name and shadow of one of the original apostles. These conclusions of the most modern reconstructive criticism have called great attention to the internal evidence either of the identity or irreconcilable divergence of the two documents. If the purpose, spirit, ideas, phraseology, and diction arc veritably oppo>ed, then the proof of the apostolic authorship, which we think is more than sufficient, may have the effect of weakening the evidence already accumulated for the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel. If, on the other hand, there are very ~ume- rollil and subtle links of connection and resemblance between these docume11ts; if the use of rare words and forms of expression in both, together wit_b a pra.ctically ide1;1~ical Christology and a corresponding structure, can be clearly es~abhsbe_d; 1f the oppos1hons of style turn out to be balanced by a still larger number of rntercstmg correspondences; if the supposed solecisms can be accounted for on rational ~rounds, ~nd easy parallels found for them in classical Gmek; if there be fundamental conceptions of the Person and kingdom of Christ which are in both actually identical and also peculiar to these writings; if the conviction is forced upon the mind tha~ th~y _must have pro- ceeded from the same pen ;-the.n it i~ 11bvious that the apostolic ongm of the Apoca•  TllE om:PEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. l.u:v