Such are the arguments advanced by De \Vette. They are chiefly based on the investigations of Ewald and Lucke, Credner, who speaks with the same confidence respecting the non-apostolic ori gin of the book, has repeated, enlarged, and con firmed them. It will be observed, however, that they arc all internal, and do no more than prepare the way for proving that John the Presbyter was the writer. Let us glance at the external evi dence adduced for the same purpose.
3. Ascribed to John the Presbyter. In the third century, Dionysius of Alexandria ascribed the book to John the Presbyter, not to John the Apostle (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 25). The tes timony of this writer has been so often and so much insisted on that it is necessary to adduce it at length.
(a) Some who were before us have utterly rejected and confuted this book criticising every chapter, showing it to be throughout unintelligible and inconsistent; adding, moreover, that the in scription is false, forasmuch as it is not John's; nor is it a revelation which is hidden under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorancel' and that not only no apostle, but not so much as any holy or ecclesiiMital man was the author of this writ ing; but that Cerinthus, founder of the heresy called after him Carinthian, the better to recom mend his own forgery, prefixed to it an honorable name. For this (they say) was one of his par ticular notions, that the kingdom of Christ should be earthly; consisting of those things which he himself, a carnal and sensual man, most admired —the pleasures of the belly and of concupiscence; that is, eating and drinking and marriage- ' and for the more decent procurement of these, feast ings and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims.
(b) But for my part, I dare not reject the book, since many of the brethren have it in high esteem; but allowing it to be above my under standing, I suppose it to contain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning; for though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some profound sense in the words; not measuring and judging these things by my own reason, but ascribing more to faith, I esteem them too sub lime to be comprehended by me. Nor do I con demn what I have not been able to understand ; but i admire the more, because they are above my reach And having finished in a manner his prophecy, the prophet pronounceth those blessed that keep it, and also himself. For "blessed is every one, says he, "that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book; and I John, who saw and heard these things" (Rev. xxii:
7, 8).
(e) I do not deny then that his name is John. and that this is John's book, for I acknowledge it to be the work of some holy and divinely inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him to be the apostle the son of Zebedee, brother of James, whose is the Gospel inscribed according to John and the Catholic epistle; for I conclude, from the manner of each, and the turn of expres sion, and from the conduct (or disposition) of the book, as we call it, that he is not the same person. For the Evangelist nowhere puts down his name, nor does he speak of himself either in the Gospel or in the epistle. Then a little after he says again, John nowhere speaks as concerning himself nor as concerning another.
But he who wrote the Revelation, immediately at the very beginning prefixeth his name: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare record of the word of God, and his testimony, the things which he saw" (Rev. i 2).
(d) And then he writes an epistle, "John unto the seven churches in Asia. Grace be unto you and peace" (verse 4). But the Evangelist has not prefixed his name, no, not to his Catholic epistle; but without any circumlocution begins with the mystery itself of the divine revelation, "that which was from the beginning, which we have 'heard, which we have seen with our eyes" (i John i:1). And for the like revelation the Lord pro nounced Peter blessed, saying, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. xvi:17).
(e) Nor yet in the second or third epistle ascribed to John, though, indeed, they are but short epistles, is the name of John prefixed ; for without any name he is called the elder. But this other person thought it not sufficient to name himself once and then proceed, but he repeats it again, "I, John, who am your brother and com panion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle called Patmos for the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. i :9). And at the end he says "Blessed is he that keep eth the sayings of the prophecy of this book; and I, John, who saw and heard these things" (ch. xxii:7, 8). Therefore, that it was John who wrote these things, ought to be believed because he says so.