From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 21 1997 - 07:42:28 EDT
. . .I have been looking at these two books and am inclined to agree with the
opinion that the Greek used is pretty convincing evidence that the Revelation
was not written by the Evangelist. Can anybody comment on the pros and cons
of this position?
Yes, the Greek of the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John are quite different in
style. This fact alone does not solve the complicated issue of authorship. The
role of an secretary/scribe needs to be factored into any consideration of the
authorship question. It is possible to argue that the Greek of John's gospel is
too good for the Apostle and that the Greek of the Apocalypse is quite
believable on this score. Then if you give John the help of a secretary/scribe in
the Gospel but remove this help from the Apocalypse, the language problem
goes away. This line of reasoning does not even address the issue of who wrote
the Gospel, a separate and equally controversial issue.
I have had a long and intense interest John's Gospel and the Apocalypse. I have
read the Apocalypse many times in the GNT and I am very impressed by the
similarities in the theology of the two books. If you take a long and hard look at
the christology of the gospel and the christology of the Apocalypse a
fascinating pattern of interdependence begins to appear.
The absence of an apocalyptic section in John's Gospel, like the one found in
each of the synoptics, can be attributed to the existence of the Apocalypse
prior to the writing of the John's Gospel. He simply didn't need to cover what he
had already said elsewhere.
Much of this is off subject for the b_greek list. The simple answer to your
question about language difference is: YES, the two documents are very
different in style.
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT