Arguments Against Apostolic Authorship
Arguments Against Apostolic Authorship
Despite this internal evidence, the majority of contemporary scholars deny that John the apostle wrote Revelation. Their reasons for doing so are essentially the same as those of Dionysius.
Lack of apostolic claims. First, it is claimed that the author cannot be an apostle. The author never claims to be such, never alludes to gospel events, and never claims a special relationship with Christ. Furthermore, passages such as Rev. 18:20 and 21:14, with their allusions to the significant role of the apostles, show that the author was not numbered among the Twelve. 10
This argument carries little weight. The author’s failure to mention his apostolic status may well be because he knows so well those to whom he writes that such an identification is not needed. Reference to the events of Jesus’ life or to any personal relationship between the author and Jesus would be out of place in a book like Revelation. And the significance accorded to the apostles is no greater than that found in passages such as Ephesians 2:20 (and see Matt. 16:17-19).
Theological differences. Both other key arguments against John the apostle being the author of Revelation depend for their validity on the assumption that the apostle wrote
the fourth gospel and the epistles of John. These arguments will, therefore, not be convincing to the many contemporary critics who deny that John the apostle wrote the fourth gospel or the epistles. But we have argued in this book that John the apostle did write these books, and we must, then, reckon with the problems that confront any attempt to establish unity of authorship for all the Johannine books.
The first of the problems is that the theology of Revelation appears to be quite distinct from the theology of the fourth gospel and of 1 John. This emerges particularly in three doctrines: theology proper, Christology, and eschatology. The God of Revelation, it is argued, is a God of majesty and judgment, while the God of the gospel and epistles is a God of love. A similar contrast is found in Christology: while the gospel focuses on Christ as revealer and redeemer, Revelation pictures Christ as conquering warrior and ruler. The fourth gospel is frequently said to exhibit what is called a "realized eschatology,” a view of history and eternity in which "the last things” are viewed as completely realized in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Revelation, on the other hand, focuses almost exclusively on a coming of Christ at the end of history. The same author, it is then concluded, cannot be responsible for both books; the theological perspective is too different. 11 But the contrasts are both overdrawn and incapable of proving much. Both the gospel and Revelation teach that God is both loving and judging, that Christ is both redeemer and sovereign Lord, and that "the last things” have both been realized in Jesus’ death and resurrection (at least in principle) and await the end of history for their consummation. Differences between the gospel and Revelation on these points have been magnified by a narrow and one-sided interpretation of the fourth gospel. That the theological emphases of the fourth gospel and of Revelation are different, no one can deny. But the different settings and purposes for the two books adequately explain these differences in emphasis. There is no reason on such grounds to think the same person could not have written both. Indeed, there is much evidence suggesting commonality of authorship: the description in both books of Jesus as "Word” (John 1:1; Rev. 19:13), "lamb” (John 1:29; Rev. 5:6 and elsewhere—although different Greek words are used) and shepherd; a "replacement of the temple” theme (John 4:21; Rev. 21:22); and a love of antithesis (darkness-light, truth-falsehood); and many others. 12Stylistic differences. Dionysius’s third argument against unity of authorship between the gospel and Revelation is the most telling: the differences in the Greek. The Greek of Revelation, as R. H. Charles has commented, is "unlike any Greek that was ever penned by mortal man.” 13 Particularly striking are the many grammatical solecisms, or irregularities. One example is the neglect of the proper case after a preposition, as in Rev. 1:4: άπο 0 ών και 0 ην και 0 ερχόμενος (apo ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos, NIV "from him who is, and who was, and who is to come”). Charles concluded that it was the Greek of one who was thinking in Hebrew while writing in Greek. 14 Stephen Thompson has shown further that it was biblical Hebrew or Aramaic, rather than postbiblical Hebrew or Aramaic, that has influenced the author, and that Revelation is almost certainly not a translation of an original Hebrew or Aramaic work. 15 In contrast, the Greek of the fourth gospel, while simple and having its share of Semitisms, 16 is accurate and clear. 17 Most contemporary scholars agree with Dionysius: the same person could not have written both books. 18
Nevertheless, many scholars have attempted to explain the difference in a way that would be compatible with common authorship. Hort and Westcott suggested that a great amount of time intervened between the two books, John having written Revelation in the late sixties and the gospel in the nineties. 19 But it is doubtful that the books can be dated so far apart; nor does the passage of time in itself explain the difference. Others argue that the difference is due to the fact that John, exiled in Patmos, is writing without the aid of an amanuensis that he was able to use for the gospel and the epistles. 20 There may be some truth to this, but it is doubtful that the Greek of Revelation can be set down to inadequate knowledge of the language, for the author is not at all consistent in his breaking of grammatical rules. In the example cited above, for instance, the author goes on in the very same verse to use the correct case after the same preposition (από των έπτα πνβυματων [apo ton hepta pneumaton], NIV "from the seven spirits”). As Charles made clear in his magisterial treatment of the grammar of Revelation, the author follows certain rules of his own, and his solecisms appear to be deliberate. Many scholars therefore think that the author has deliberately chosen to write Greek as he has perhaps because of the immediacy of the visionary experience, 21 or as a protest against the upper classes.22 Whatever his reason, if the author of Revelation has written as he has deliberately, then it is not clear that the person who wrote the fourth gospel could not also have written Revelation. As G. B. Caird says, "Because a man writes in Hebraic Greek, it does not inevitably follow that this is the only Greek he is capable of writing.” 23 And, before leaving this matter of the language, we must point out that, as in the case of the theology of the two books, the Greek style of the two shows many similarities. 24