The strongest apparent coincidence is in the Christology. Here three particulars bear con siderable resemblance to the fourth gospel—viz., Christ's designation as the beginning of the creation of God; the attribution to him of the name and predicates of Jehovah ; and the appellation the Word of God. The first of these denotes the pre existence of Christ. As it has parallels in the Pauline epistles, we deem it hazardous, with Zeller, to regard the phrase as a mere honorary title, rather than a doctrinal predicate to be taken literally. Though the expression be obscure, it seems to us most natural to understand it in the sense of the first-created being, the highest creature. But the fourth gospel makes the Logos or Word, repre senting Messiah, to have created all things. Again, Jesus or the Messiah is expressly termed the Alpha and Omega, which is merely a periphrasis for Yehovah ; and the new name of Messiah, which none knows but himself, is the unutterable name, the Sher Hamphorash. Yet the name does not lead to the conclusion that the nature of Jehovah belongs to the Messiah. It is an old Rabbinic tradition (Eisenmenger, Entrlecktes yirdenthum, Theil i. p. 449) that the name Jehovah belongs to three things—the Messiah, the righteous, and Jerusalem ; which is proved by Jer. xxiii. 6 ; Is. xliii. 7 ; Ezek. xlviii. 35. That the Apocalyptist alludes to this tradition is highly probable, because the faithful are represented as having the name of God and that of the new Jerusalem, and the new name of Messiah, written upon their foreheads— the name being none other than Jehovah. Be sides, the angel .Aletatron, in Jewish doctrine, is also called Jehovah (Gfriirer, This 7ahrhunderl des Hells, vol. i. pp. 31S, 319), showing that it is given to creatures.
The Messiah is called the 6 X6yos (xix. 13), hut in the gospel he is called 6 Xoyor abso lutely. A different theological standpoint is evinced in the two. The former savours of Palestinian, the latter of Alexandrian metaphysics. The one is the well-known N;ivp of the Targums ; the other reminds us of Philo.
It should also be noticed, that while the heavenly name of Messiah is called a new name (Rev. iii. 12), the gospel contains the words of Jesus to the Father, Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world' (xvii. 24).
Similarity of expression has in this case misled some critics to assume greater agreement between the descriptions of Christ's person in the Apoca lypse and gospel than really exists. The heavenly nature and pre-existence of Messiah was a late Jewish doctrine, which was gradually taken into the circle of Christian ideas, and developed there. But in the gospel it has reached a higher stage of unfolding than in the Apocalypse.
The most striking mutual term is licKevrlw, the new representative of the Hebrew 1P1 in Zech, xii. to, applied to the piercing of the Saviour in both works, and different from the Septuagint word. It is precarious, perhaps, to found identity of authorship on the use of a mere word ; yet its connection is a peculiar one. And though we might conjecture, with Ewald, that the Septuagint had the verb 1KKEPTi4) at first in its text ; the as sumption is too hazardous. Nor does it relieve the difficulty felt by those who argue against iden tity of authorship, to say that Aquila, Symma.thu2, and Theodotion translate the Hebrew verb by this very Apocalyptic word ; or that the evangelist refers to the fact of Christ's side being pierced with a spear ; whereas the Apocalyptist alludes to the slaying of him generally, the extreme mani festation of hostile belief.
On the other hand, the characteristic mode in which the writer of the Apocalypse views beings, scenes, and objects, betrays a different person from John the apostle. His intuitional nature
is of another cast, and has a different expression. The view of the one is sensuous; that of the other spiritual and mystic. In the Apocalyptist, fancy is creative and lively ; in the evangelist, calmness prevails. The objective predominates in the one ; speculative depth, gracious trust, a loving free dom of spirit, in the other. The one is intro spective, looking at spiritual things and relations with a finely tender psychological organisation which attracts the reader ; the other is of rougher mould, viewing things in concrete, plastic forms. Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evan gelist ; mildness and love find utterance in affec tionate discourse. But the spirit of the Apoca lyptist is stern and vengeful, with cutting re proofs, calls to repentance, commands and threat enings. Here, indeed, the promises are rich ; but they bear a pregnant form suited to the majesty of the book. According to the writer of the fourth gospel, happiness arises essentially from faith in the Saviour on earth ; and therefore the reader re ceives the impression that blessedness is a present possession; whereas, according to the Apocalyptist, the righteous pray for vengeance and are restored to life in the first resurrection, that they may reign with Christ a thousand years. In short, the gospel presents an idealising, universalist tendency, which breaks away from the Judaic basis, and sets forth the Redeemer's person, his grace and truth, over against that of Moses, proclaiming him as the light and life of the world. In the Apocalypse, Christ is the external conqueror of his enemies, whose power rather than grace is exhibited, His coming to reign outwardly fills the mind of the seer, instead. of his spiritual sway in the heart.
Again, a sharp, definite, decided tone appears in sentences short and unconnected, without in ternal pliancy. But the evangelist's method of writing has a circumstantiality foreign to the Apo calyptist. It is difficult to make this argument palpable to the reader, because it rests in part or. subjective tact and taste. Its reality can be felt more easily than described. Based upon a careful survey of all the literature that passes under the name of John, it forces itself on the mind of him that surrenders himself to the natural effect pro duced. When he perceives the difference of the spiritual element in which the evangelist and Apo calyptist move, their characteristic modes of spiritual apprehension, and the views they take of religious phenomena, creating different casts of style and diction, he will infer that the one cannot be identi fied with the other. Power and majesty, poetic energy and fancy, are scarcely consistent with philosophical idealising, which an emotional ten derness permeates and occasionally conceals. The fervour of the evangelist is not fiery—it is sub dued by love. A charm lies in the writings of the one ; a solemn grandeur in those of the other. The one presents refinement and philosophical cultivation ; the other, mysterious sublimity and sensuous symbolism. We need only institute a comparison between certain phenomena in the Apocalypse and fourth gospel to see how unlike they are. Thus the long series of plagues which precede the coming of the Lord is introduced by demoniacal beings, such as scorpion-like locusts, or lion-headed horses, with fire, smoke, and brim stone issuing out of their mouths, and strange riders, in an objective and artificial imagery unlike the spiritual idiosyncrasy of the evangelist.