*Ishe resplendent vision of the Savior had such an effect upon the seer, that he fell at his feet as dead; and therefore it was quite natural for him to be clothed with profound humility, to designate himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation. Again, in ch. xviii :20, the prophets are said to be represented as already in heaven in their glori tied condition, and therefore the writer could not have belonged to their number. But this passage neither affirms nor necessarily implies that the saints and apostles and prophets were at that time in heaven. Neither is it stated that all the apos tles had then been glorified. Chapter xxi:t4 is alleged to be inconsistent with the modesty and humility of John. This is a questionable assump tion. The official honor inseparable from the person of an apostle was surely compatible with profound humility. It was so with Paul; and we may safely draw the same conclusion in regard to John. In describing the heavenly Jerusalem it was necessary to introduce the twelve apostles. The writer could not exclude himself (See Lucke, p. 389; and Guerike's Beitroge, p. 37, sq.).
(2) Regarding the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. The nature of the Gospel is widely different from that of the Apocalypse. The latter is a prophetic book—a poetical composition—while the former is a simple record in prose, of the dis courses of Jesus in the days of his flesh. It is apparent, too, that John in the Apocalypse imi tates the manner of Ezekiel and Daniel. The New Testament prophet conforms to the diction and symbolic features of the former seers. If the question should be urged, why John chose these models? the obvious answer is, that he conformed to the taste of the times in which he lived.
The numerous apocryphal works of an Apoc alyptic nature, which were composed nearly at the same time with the Apocalypse, such as the book of Enoch, the ascension of Isaiah, the Testa ment of the twelve patriarchs, many of the sibyl line oracles, the fourth book of Ezra, the Pastor of Hermas, and many others which are lost—all testify to the taste and feelings of the times when, or near which, the Apocalypse was written. If this method of writing was more grateful to the time in which John lived, it is a good reason for his preferring it. In consequence of such imita tion, the diction has an Oriental character; and the figures are in the highest style of imagery peculiar to the East.
(3) John's Illiteracy. But it is said that John was an illiterate man. Illiterate, doubtless, lie was as compared with Paul, who was brought up at the feet of Garnaliel : yet he may have been capa ble of reading the Old Testament books; and he was certainly inspired. Rapt in ecstasy, he saw wondrous visions. Ile was in •the Spirit. And when writing the things he beheld, his language was to be conformed to the nature of such marvel ous revelations. It was to be adapted to the mysterious disclosures, the vivid pictures, the moving scenes, the celestial beings and scenery of which he was privileged to tell. Hence it was to be lifted up far above the level of simple prose or biographic history, so as to correspond with the sublime visions of the seer. Nor should it be forgotten that he was not in the circumstances of an ordinary writer. He was inspired. How
often is this fact lost sight of by the German critics! It is therefore needless to inquire into his education in the Hebrew language, or his mental culture while rzsiding in Asia Minor, or the smoothness of the Greek language as current in the place where he lived, before and after he wrote the Apocalypse. The Holy Spirit qualified him beyond and irrespective of ordinary means, for the work of writing. However elevated the theme he undertook, he was assisted in employing diction as elevated as the nature of the subject de manded. We place, therefore, little reliance upon the argument derived from the time of life at which the Apocalypse was composed, though Ols hausen and Guerike insist upon it. Written, as they think, twenty years before the Gospel or epistles, the Apocalypse exhibits marks of inex perience in writing, of youthful fire, and of an ar dent temperament. It exhibits the first essays of one expressing his ideas in a language to which he was unaccustomed. This may be true; but we lay far less stress upon it than these authors seem inclined to do.
(4) The Hebraized Diction. The strong He braized diction of the book we account for on the ground that the writer was a Jew, and as such, expressed his Jewish conceptions in Greek; that he imitated the later Old Testament prophets, especially the manner of Daniel ; and that the only prophetic writing in the New Testament naturally approaches nearer the Old Testament, if not in subject, at least in coloring and linguistic features.
These considerations may serve to throw light upon the language of the book, after all the ex travagances of assertion in regard to anomalies, solecisms, and ruggednesses, have been fairly esti mated. For it cannot be denied that many rash and unwarrantable assumptions have been made by De Wette and others relative to the impure Greek said to be contained in the Apocalypse. Winer has done much to check such bold asser tions, but with little success in the case of those who are resolved to abide by a strong and preva lent current of opinion. We venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that there are books of the New Testament almost as Hebraizing as the Apocalypse; and that the anomalies charged to the account of the Hebrew language may be paralleled in other parts of the New Testament or in classical Greek. What shall be said, for in stance, to the attempt of Hitzig to demonstrate from the language of Mark's Gospel, as compared with that of the Apocalypse, that both proceeded from one author, viz., John Mark? This author has conducted a lengthened investigation with the view of showing that all the peculiarities of lan guage found in the Apocalypse are equally pre sented in the second Gospel, particularly that the Hebraisms of the one correspond with those of the other. Surely this must lead to new investi gations of the Apocalyptic diction, and possibly to a renunciation of those extravagant assertions so often made in regard to the harsh, rugged, Hebraized Greek of the Apocalypse. Who ever dreamed before of the numerous solecisms of Mark's language? and yet Hitzig has demon strated its similarity to the Apocalyptic as plausi bly as Ewald, Lucke, and others have proved the total dissimilarity between the diction of the Apoc alypse and that of John's Gospel.