REVELATION, BOOK OF The following topics in relation to this book demand examination : The person by whom it was written; its ca nonical authority, genuineness, and authenticity; the time and place at which it was written ; its unity ; the class of writings to which it belongs ; the object for which it was originally written ; its contents; some errors into which the interpreters of it have fallen.
1. Name of Author. The author styles him self John, but not an apostle 0:4, 9; xxii Hence some have attributed the book to another John, usually designated the presbyter. Formerly, indeed, the existence of such a person was un known or doubted, the historic grounds ad duced in proof of his separate individuality being impugned or otherwise explained. (So Guerike in his Beitroge cur Historisch-kritischen Einlcit., 1831, 8vo.) But this writer has recently revoked his doubts, contented with affirming that the his toric basis on which the existence of the Ephesian presbyter rests, is assuredly feeble.
(1) John the Presbyter. The chief argument for believing that there was another John besides the apostle, exists in a passage from Papias of Ilierapolis, preserved in Eusebius (Hist. 'Eccles. iii. 39). In this fragment, several of the apostles, among whom is John, are mentioned; while, im mediately after, the presbyter John is specified along with Aristion.
(2) John the Apostle. Thus the presbyter is clearly distinguished from the apostle (see \Vis eler, in the Theo!. ilitarbeiten, iii. 4, 113, sq.). In addition to Papias, Dionysius of Alexandria (Enseb. Hist. Eccles. vii :25), Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39) and Jerome (Catal Scriptor. Ecclesiast.). allude to the presbyter. We must therefore believe with Lucke, Bleek, Credner, Neander, Ilitzig, and, indeed, all the ablest critics who have had occasion to speak of this point, that there were two Johns; one the apostle, the other the presbyter.
It has been much debated which of the two wrote the book before us. On the continent the prevailing current of opinion, if not in favor of the presbyter, is at least against the apostle. In England the latter is still regarded as the writer, more perhaps by a kind of traditional belief than as the result of enlightened examination.
2. Arguments Against the Authorship of John the Apostle. The arguments against as signing the authorship to the apostle John are the following: (1) In Giving the Name John. The Apoca lyptic writer calls himself John, while the Evan gelist never does so. So Dionysius of Alexandria, as related by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vii. 25). De Wette repeats the observation as deserving at least of attention. In addition to this circum stance, it has been affirmed by Ewald, Credner and Hitzig, that in chapters xviii:2o, and xxi:t4, the apostle expressly excludes himself from the number of the apostles.
(2) Different from Fourth Gospel in Lan guage. The language of the book is entii ely different from that of the fourth Gospel and the three epistles of John the Apostle. It is charac terized by strong Ilebraisms and ruggedness, by negligences of expression and grammatical inac curacies ; while it exhibits the absence of pure Greek words, and of the apostle's favorite ex pressions. So De \Vette.
(3) Different in Style. The style is unlike that which appears in the Gospel and Epistles. In the latter, there is calm, deep feeling ; in the Apocalypse, a lively, creative power of fancy. In connection with this it has been asserted, that the mode of representing objects and images is artificial and Jewish. On the contrary, John the son of Zebedee was an illiterate man in the Jew ish sense of that epithet ; a man whose mental habits and education were Greek rather than Jewish, and who, in consequence of this character, makes little or no use of the Old Testament or of Hebrew learning. So De \Vette.
(4) Doctrinal Aspect. It is alleged that the doctrinal aspect of the Apocalypse is different from that of the apostle's acknowledged writings. In the latter we find nothing of the sensuous expectations of the Messiah and the establishment of his kingdom on earth, which are so prominent in the former. Besides, the views inculcated or implied respecting spirits, demons, and angels, are foreign to John. A certain spirit of revenge, too, flows and burns throughout the Apocalypse, a spirit inconsistent with the mild and amiable disposition of the beloved disciple.