« PreviousContinue »
disciples; but the glorified King of Heaven, the Omniscient Visitor of the Churches, the Omnipotent Judge of mankind. And, in the remaining parts of the book, what does the writer present tous ? Not his own ideas and conceptions; but “ the things which shall be “ hereafter," the symbols and figurative resemblances of future events shewn to him in heaven; and when he uses explanatory speech, it is in the words of his heavenly conductors. One of the few passages in which the author of the Apocalypse seems to have written from his own previous conceptions is, perhaps, ch. i. verse 7. The sentiments and images which he employs, before he arrives at this passage, may all be traced to the apocalyptical source: they are derived from the sublime visions which he had so lately seen.' With them his mind was filled ; with them even his salutation to the brethren abounds. But here he seems to speak from his former store of Christian imagery. And, so speaking, it is remarkable that he is led to quote from Zech. xii, 10. and in the very manner which has been observed, by Michaelis and other critics, to be peculiar to Saint John. Michaelis has noted the peculiar circumstances which attend this quotation, and he has allowed to them considerable weight* : but he was not aware that this is one of very few passages which can
• See his note, p. 535.
fairly and properly be compared with the former writings of Saint John, so as to deduce evidence whether that Apostle were the author. In almost every other. part of the book, it will be apparent to an accurate observer, that the writer draws not his sentiments and imagery from his own stores, but from the new and surprising scenes which he had been permitted to behold in heaven.
But although, from the causes now assigned, we may think it improper to look for any nice resemblance in sentiments and ideas, between the Apocalypse and other writings of Saint John; yet some similarity, in the mode and character of narration, may, perhaps, be reasonably expected. And this kind of similarity will be seen and acknowledged in the plain, unadorned simplicity, with which the Apocalypse, and all other productions of St. John, appear to be written. There is, at the same time, a difference, which seems to consist chiefly in that circumstance which Jortin has pointed out* ; that “ the Apo
calypse, like the Septuagint, follows the He“ brew phraseology, using copulatives continu
ally t, whereas the Gospel, instead of nal, uses “ di, or ey, or is written asuvdatus.” Such is, indeed, the principal difference of style to be observed in comparing the Gospel with the Apocalypse: but the attentive reader may perceive
* Disc, on Christian Rel. * Και είπεν ο Οφις και, &c.
some passages in the Gospel, where the copulative xai is used almost as profusely as in the Apocalypse. They are those passages wherein the mind of the writer appears charged with sublime or surprising ideas, following upon each other in a rapid succession. He then pours them forth, one after another, coupled only by the conjunction roul. The same may be observed of the other Evangelists, and more frequently than of St. John. When these sacred writers relate wonderful events, following in quick succession, they continually repeat the copulative hat. But it will be sufficient to produce instances from St. John. In his fifth chapter, this Evangelist describes the situation of a poor cripple, who for thirty-eight years had been expecting a cure from the waters of Bethesda. The circumstances are related calmly, and without any extraordinary use of the copulative xal, till we come to verse ninth; when, the cure having been pronounced by our Lord, the surprizing events immediately follow in rapid succession; and the copulative is incessantly employed. Και ευθεως εγενέλο υγιης και ανθρωπος, και ηρε τον κραζβαλον αυχε, και, περιπαθει. Thus also at the raising of Lazarus, all proceeds calmly, and without the copulatives, until the great event; but this is narrated, (ver. 44,) with Hal, 401, 40*. This copulative style then ap
* Other instances may be seen in ch. i. 8-14-20. ii. 13– 16. xiii. 21. xix. 1, 2, 3, 18. xx. 11, 14.
pears to be used by the Evangelists, and even by St. John, to express events wonderful and surprizing, and rapidly following cach other, But the Apocalypse contains a continual succession of such events; the copulative language therefore, continually used therein, may yet be the language of St. John.
But whatever weight may be allowed to these observations, still there are many reasons which should deter us from forming any basty conclusion, by comparison of style and manner, that the Apocalypse was not written by the writer of the Gospel. The history of its first publication is unknown to us; it may have been written originally in Hebrew, and then the Greek translation would naturally retain much colouring of the Hebrew style; or the language, in which our Lord and his angels addressed Saint John in the visions, might be Hebrew*; and then his Greek, being a direct translation, may be expected to preserve the Eastern idiom, for he would probably translate closely, to preserve (as he is ordered) the words delivered to him. In short, many circumstances may have happened to occasion a difference of style, of which we are now ignorant. But of this at least we are assured, that a considerable lapse of time had taken place, between the writing of the Gospel
* Our Lord, appearing to St. Paul, addressed him in the Hebrew tongue, (Acts xxvi. 14.) probably the Syro-Chaldaic Hebrew then in use with the Jews,
and of the Apocalypse. A period of about thirty years had intervened. Such a circumstance is well known to make a considerable difference in the style of the same writer. Michaelis allows and has forcibly expressed it. (p. 352, 536.) But he alleges, and with good reason, (if we take it is a general observation) that when there is this change in the style of an author, we naturally look for the bold, sublime, and perhaps, incorrect style, in his youth, and the gentler and more finished manner in his later years. And hence he collects that the Apocalypse, displaying bold imagery, with much fire of composition, an oriental form of speech, and an incorrect manner, might indeed be written by St. John some years before he wrote his Gospel ; but that he could not be the author of it late in life, many years after he had resided among the Greeks at Ephesus. The argument is specious; but, I trust, the edge of it has been already taken off, by a consideration of the causes which will account for the sublime imagery and animated manner of writing in the Apocalypse, where it differs from the calmer style of St. John. But I will suggest another cause, which, as it aps pears to me, would not fail to produce a more warm and turbid style in the Apocalypse than in the Gospel, supposing them to be written by the
The Gospel appears to have been written by St. John, after an interval of about thirty years