(f) But who he was is uncertain; for he has not said, as in the Gospel often, that he is "the disciple whom the Lord loved ;" nor that he is he ''who leaned on his breast ;" nor the brother of James; nor that he is one of them who saw and heard the Lord; whereas he would have mentioned some of these things if he had intended plainly to discover himself. Of these things he says not a word; but he calls himself our "brother and companion, and witness of Jesus," and "blessed," because he saw and heard those revelations.
(g) And I suppose there were many of the same name with John the Apostle, who for the love they bore to him, and because they admired and emulated him, and were ambitious of being beloved of the Lord like him, were desirous of having the same name; even as many also of the children of the faithful are called by the names of Paul and Peter.
(h) There is another John in the Acts of the Apostles, surnamed Mark, whom Paul and Bar nabas took for their companion ; concerning whom it is again said, "and they had John for their minister" (Acts xiii :5). But that he is the per son who wrote this book, I would not affirm. But I think that he is another, one of them that belong to Asia, since it is said that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of them called John's tomb. And from the sentiments and words, and disposition of them, it is likely that he is (different from him that wrote the Gospel and Epistle). For the Gospel and Epistle have a mutual agreement, and begin alike. The one says, "In the beginning was the word :" the other, "That which was from the beginning." The former says, "And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father." The latter has the same with a slight variation: "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life. For the life was manifested." He is uniform throughout, and wanders not in the least from the points he proposed to himself, but prosecutes them in the same chapters and words, some of which we shall briefly observe; for whoever reads with attention will often find in both "life ;" fre quently "light," the "avoiding of darkness ;" of tentimes "truth, grace, joy, the flesh and the blood of the Lord ; judgment, forgiveness of sins, the love of God toward us, the commandment of love one toward another ; the judgment of this world, of the devil, of antichrist ; the promise of the Holy Spirit, the adoption of the sons of God, the faith constantly required of us, the Father and the Son," everywhere. And, in short, throughout the
Gospel and Epistle it is easy to observe one and the same character.
(i) But the Revelation is quite different and foreign from these, without any affinity or re semblance, not having so much as a syllable in common with them. Nor does the Epistle (for I do not here insist on the Gospel) mention or give any hint of the Revelation, nor the Revela tion of the Epistle. And yet Paul, in his Epistles, has made some mention of his Revelations, though lie never wrote them in a separate book. Besides, it is easy to observe the difference of the style of the Gospel and the Epistle from that of the Revelation ; for they are not only written correctly, according to the propriety of the Greek tongue, but with great elegance of phrase and argument, and the whole contexture of the discourse. So far are they from all bar barism or solecism, or idiotism of language, that nothing of the kind is to be found in them ; for he, as it seems, had each of those gifts, the Lord having bestowed upon him both these, knowledge and eloquence. As to the other, I will not deny that he saw the Revelation, or that he had re ceived the gift of knowledge and prophecy. But I do not perceive in him an accurate acquaintance with the Greek language; on the contrary, he uses barbarous idioms, and some solecisms, which it is necessary that I should now show particu larly, for I do not write by way of ridicule ; let none think so. I simply intend to represent in a critical manner the difference of these pieces.
Here are critical arguments which the moderns have not failed to adduce and enlarge. Eusebius expresses himself in an undecided way respect ing the Apocalypse (Hist. Eccles. iii:24, 25), for which it is difficult to account, on the supposition that prevalent tradition attributed it to the Apos tle John.