“Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse,—that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression,—as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the difference between the writings.”

Hort, as we have seen, with Lightfoot and Westcott, believed that it was possible to hold that the Apocalypse and the remaining books came from the same pen only if they were not written at the same time. The Apocalypse, they contended, came from the late 60s, while the gospel and epistles must be assigned to the last decade of the first century 'and even to the close of it'. They thus thought it possible to explain the great difference in their Greek styles, though this was not, as Hort insisted, a reason for the early dating of Revelation, which rested for him on independent grounds. Baur indeed argued for the early dating, and apostolicity, of the Apocalypse in the clear understanding that it had nothing whatever to do with the gospel, which he and his Tubingen disciples dated up to a hundred years later. If one thing has become clear in the century since Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort, it is that common authorship of the Apocalypse and the gospel cannot credibly be argued on the interval of time needed for John to master the Greek language.

The Greek of the Apocalypse is not that of a beginner whose grammar and vocabulary might improve and mature into those of the evangelist. It is the pidgin Greek of someone who appears to know exactly what he is about with his strange instrument and whose cast of mind and vocabulary is conspicuously different from, and more colourful than, that of the correct, simple but rather flat style of the gospel and the epistles.

Indeed what is astonishing is the number and the diversity of scholars who have clung to the tradition of common authorship - whoever that author may be. They include not only the more conservative Roman Catholics and English-speaking Evangelicals but such names as Harnack, Zahn, Lohmeyer, Preisker, Schlatter and Stauffer, and one is bound to weigh the final footnote which Beckwith appends to his long and balanced discussion of the issue:

The present commentator ventures to say that his earlier conviction of the impossibility of a unity of authorship has been much weakened by a study of the two books prolonged through many years. [Apocalypse, 362. Similarly C. F. Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist, 1925, ch.8, confesses that he still could not get away from seeing all the Johannine books as coming from the same mind over the same period.]

For all that one wonders, if it were not for the strong testimony to common authorship in the external tradition (which yet is no stronger than that for apostolic authorship, which many even of those who accept common authorship agree in rejecting), whether critics would ever have thought of ascribing such superficially (and not so superficially) diverse writings to the same hand. Nevertheless some association between them is ultimately undeniable. Even if they are not the product of the same 'school', the Apocalypse seems to presuppose at the very least some familiarity with Christianity in the Johannine idiom.

Certainly it should not be considered a Johannine writing in the sense in which that designation is applied to John and I-II-III John. Yet there are interesting parallels to elements in the Johannine literature, especially the Gospel, that suggest a relationship, e.g.: Christ as the Lamb (but different vocabulary); Christ as the source of living water (John 7:37-39; Rev 22:1); Christ as light (John 8:12; Rev 21:23-24); looking on Christ as one pierced (John 19:37; Rev 1:7); the Word (of God) as a name or title for Jesus (John 1:1,14; Rev 19:13); the importance of "the beginning" (John 1:1; 8:25; Rev 3:14; 21:6); "I am" statements of Jesus (John passim; Rev 1:8,17-18; 2:23; etc.); the image of the spouse of Christ for the people of God (John 3:29; Rev 21:2,9; 22:17); reference to the mother of Jesus and the mother of the Messiah as "woman" (John 2:4; 19:26; Rev 12:1,4,13; etc); a stress on witnessing/testifying (both passim); an end to the role of the Jerusalem Temple (John 2:19-21; 4:21; Rev 21:22); a hostile attitude toward "Jews" (John passim; Rev 2:9; 3:9); a major conflict with the devil/Satan (John 6:70; 8:44; 13:2,27; Rev 2:9,13,24; etc.). There are also parallels to the Epistles: the theme of God as light (I John 1:5; Rev 21:23; 22:5); the coming of the antichrist(s) (I John 2:18,22; Rev 13:11); false prophets (I John 4:1; Rev 2:20; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10); a female figure and her children represent a/the church (II John 1,13; Rev 12:17); and there are evil children as well, of the devil or of an evil woman (I John 3:10; Rev 2:20,23).

Nevertheless, such similarities are far less than those between the Gospel and Epistles of John. Moreover, there are many significant differences between Rev and the Johannine works. Consequently, in the view of the majority of scholars one does not have justification for speaking of the author of Rev as a member of the Johannine School of writers who wrote the body of the Gospel, the Epistles, and redacted the Gospel. To do justice to all the factors, however, one should probably posit some contact between the seer and the Johannine tradition or writings.

But whatever the relationship, it is difficult to credit that a work so vigorous as the Apocalypse could really be the product of a nonagenarian, as John the son of Zebedee must by then have been, even if he were as much as ten years younger than Jesus. So if Irenaeus' tradition on authorship is strong, his tradition on dating is weakened, and vice versa.

When on the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to go off, when requested, to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles also, to appoint bishops in some places, to organize whole churches in others, in others again to appoint to an order some one of those who were indicated by the Spirit.

To illustrate the last Clement then tells the tale of a young man whom John persuaded the local bishop to sponsor and bring up as his protege. The story covers a number of years, over which this youth went to the bad, and it ends with the apostle going to visit him on horseback and then chasing him 'with all his might'! All this is inconceivable after 96. Clement, however, nowhere mentions the name of 'the tyrant'. He could have been an earlier emperor: it is only Eusebius who identifies him with Domitian.

Yet the identification is by no means solid. Clement's disciple Origen writes in his Commentary on Matthew that 'the emperor of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John to the isle of Patmos', adding that John does not say who condemned him. This does not of course prove that Origen did not know, but the absence of a name is again to be noted, especially since Origen does name Herod as having beheaded John's brother James.

The fact that the condemnation is seen as the direct act of the emperor may link up with the tradition preserved earlier by Tertullian [Praescr. 36.3.] that John's banishment was from Rome, [More vaguely but in the same sense Hippolytus, De Chr. et Antichr. 36, speaks of 'Babylon' having exiled him.] where Peter suffered a death like his Master [i.e., crucifixion], where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist] [i.e., execution],where the apostle John, after being plunged in burning oil and suffering nothing, was banished to an island.

Epiphanius, a contemporary of Jerome's, whom Hort [Apocalypse, xviii.] describes as 'a careless and confused writer but deeply read in early Christian literature', refers to John's banishment and prophecy as having taken place under 'Claudius Caesar' [Haer. 51.12 and 33.] - though he also seems to imply that Claudius was emperor in John's extreme old age! Whatever Epiphanius may have meant, it has been credibly argued that his source may have intended Nero, whose other name was Claudius (just as Claudius' other name was Nero).

It is of course historically worthless but Interesting at this and other points (see below, pp. 2581.) as an alternative and apparently independent tradition.

The evidence does not warrant our attributing to Domitian a persecution in Rome of a ferocity nearly approaching Nero's. It does warrant the likelihood that in his distrust of possibly dangerous deviations Domitian showed hostility to Gentiles who abandoned the state religion for the Oriental cults that advocated the exclusive worship of one aniconic God (Judaism and probably Christianity).

During his reign some "cultists" were executed, especially when their religious stance might be connected to political opposition. Under Nero antiChristian activities do not seem to have extended outside Rome; but under Domitian investigations were more widespread, e.g., to Asia Minor and Palestine. Whether or not by Domitian's personal orders, local authorities may have undertaken their own investigations, especially in areas where Christians had annoyed their Pagan neighbors who judged them antisocial and irreligious. The Christians' refusal to join in the public cult and perhaps honor the divinized Domitian, when reported by those hostile to them, would have resulted in tribunals and sentences and martyrdom. The instances may have been very limited, but the memory of what Nero had done in Rome thirty years before would have colored Christian apprehension of what might be coming. (Notice that in Rev 2:10; 3:10 the persecution is going to come.) The exile of the prophet John to Patmos, the killing of Antipas at Pergamum (2:13), local ostracizing, disparity of wealth, and social discrimination producing alienation would have been added together to shape the overall picture of oppressive Roman rule in Rev.

If the worship arrangement of twenty-four elders around the One seated on the throne in Rev 4:4 suggests the presence of presbyters (elders), the seer may be closer to a period reflected in Titus and I Tim (90s) and Didache 15:1 (slightly later?) where presbyters/bishops and deacons are being/have been installed, but have not yet replaced apostles and prophets. Some addressees tested and some tolerated false prophets (Rev 2:2,20); the latter may reflect an outlook close to that of Didache 11:7 where prophets cannot be tested.