The Pulpit Commentary — Revelation — Section 13

Perhaps we should group with these the very difficult genitive infinitive in eh. xii. 7, 6 Mixa:q;\ Kal a, rJ.yyiAa, a~Tov Tov W"OAEp,~ua, P,ETa. Tov SpaKovTo~. In conformity with the Hebraizing character of the Greek, we find a somewhat frequent use of pure Hebrew words: J.p,-fp,, eh. i. 6, 7, and often; &.M17Mvia, oh. xix. 1, and thrice afterwards ; df3ali8wv, oh, ix. 11 ; ~d 'Apµ,ayr;Mv, eh. xvi. 16. The character, of the Greek of the Apocalypse has been generally discussed in connection with the question of the authorship of the book. Most frequently it has been compared with the language of the Fourth Gospel. But the evidence of grammar, vocabulary, and _style is not con- clusive either for or against the identity of authorship between the two books. In 1851 Davidson wrote that from evidence of this kind "men of learning and acuteness have entertained contrary sentiments respecting the authorship of the Apocalypse. Schulze, Donker-Curtius, Seyfarth, Kolthoff, and Dannemann attribute the book to the apostle on the ground of its remarka,ble agreement with his authentic writings, in ideas, expres- sion, and manner; while Ewald, Lii.cke, Credner, and De W ette believe the diversity to be so great as to justify a denial of John's authorship." We are ourselves much impressed by the many and weighty coincidences, and think that (on the theory of the early date of the Apocalypse) there is sufficient reason to be found in the differences of date, subject-matter, and circumstances, to account for the• numerous diversities in the language of the two books. § 10. AUTHENTICITY. It is often difficult to see what is intended by writers when they use the term "authenticity," and perhaps a distinction should be drawn between the authenticity of a document and the authenticity of a statement. In the former case the term is almost synonymous with tc genuinenesl! ; •• in the latter, with "credibility" or "trustworthiness." By the authenticity of the book entitled, 'The Revelation of St. John the Divine,' therefore, we mean the identity of the present book so called with the manuscript original work so called, of which St. John the Divine was the aMwn,s. Taking it for granted that St. John wrote with his own hand a revelation, when we say that the last book of our New Testa. ment canon is authentic, we aver that it is the same revelation which St. John wrote. If we adhered to the etymological and strictly literal signification of .the epithet, no form of a book could be properly styled "authentic •• except the original autograph and such copies as may have been tmnacribed by the author himself. But for all practical purposes we are justified in calling a book "authentic " when we merely mean that it is substantially and virtually the same as the author originally wrote it; and in this looser sense the epithet is applied to all faithful transcripts and printed copies, and even to translations. Textual criticism proves that onr Authorized Version of Lhe Revelatio~  THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE. xxvii