had taken up his residence at Ephesus. He had hitherto spoken Aramean, and Greek was comparatively unfamiliar to him. The gospel was written thirty years after, probably about 97, when Greek had become to him like a mother tongue. See Lightfoot on Galatians, 343, 347; per contra, see Milligan, Revelation of St. John. Phrases and ideas, which indicate a common authorship of the Revelation and the gospel, are the following: ?the Lamb of God.? ?the Word of God,? ?the True? as an epithet applied to Christ, ?the Jews? as enemies of God, ?manna,? ?him whom they pierced? see Elliott, Hore Apocalyptice, 1:4,5. In the fourth gospel we have ajmno>v , in Apoc. ajrni>on , perhaps better to distinguish ?the Lamb? from the diminutive to< qhri>on , ?the best.? Common to both Gospel and Revelations are poiei~n , ?to do? [the truth]; peripatei~n , of moral conduct; ajlhqino>v , ?genuine?; diya~|n peina~|n , of the higher wants of the soul; skhnou~n ejn poimai>nein oJdhgei~n ; also ?overcome,? ?testimony,? ?Bridegroom,? ?Shepherd,? ?Water of Life.? In the Revelation there are grammatical solecisms: nominative for genitive, 1:4 ? ajpo<wn ; nominative for accusative, 7:9 ? ei=don o[clov polu>v ; accusative for nominative, 20:2 ? to<n dra>konta oJ o]fiv . Similarly, we have in

<451205> Romans 12:5 ? to< de< kaq ei]v instead of to< de< kaq e]na , where kata< has lost its regimen ? a frequent solecism in later Greek writers; see Godet on John, 1:269, 270. Emerson reminded Jones Very that the Holy Ghost surely writes good grammar. The Apocalypse seems to show that Emerson was wrong.

The author of the fourth gospel speaks of John in the third person, ?and scorned to blot it with a name.? But so does Caesar speak of himself in his Commentaries.

Harnack regards both the fourth gospel and the Revelation as the work of John the Presbyter or Elder, the former written not later than about 110 AD; the latter from 93 to 96, but being a revision of one or more underlying Jewish apocalypses. Vischer has expounded this view of the Revelation; and Porter holds substantially the same, in his article on the Book of Revelation in Hastings? Bible Dictionary, 4:239-266. ?It is the obvious advantage of the Vischer ? Harnack hypothesis that it places the original work under Nero and its revised and Christianized edition under Dalmatian.? (Sanday, Inspiration, 371, 372, nevertheless dismisses this hypothesis as raising worse difficulties than it removes. He dates the Apocalypse between the death of Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.) Martineau, Seat of Authority, 227, presents the moral objections to the apostolic authorship, and regards the Revelation, from chapter 4:1 to 22:5, as a purely Jewish document of the date 66-70,

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment