The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle’s without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their “brother, and partaker in tribulation,” and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;(14) (b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John’s Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent “tragic tone” found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John’s writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.
The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of “The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:(15) (3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John’s Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;(16) (b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John’s long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.(17) On the other hand it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought‐forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.(18) In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle’s earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.(19) And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it.