Then going on below, he says this concerning the Apocalypse of John: “Some, then, of those before us rejected and altogether repudiated the book, examining it chapter by chapter, and declaring it to be unintelligible and illogical, and the title to be false.
For they say that it is not John’s; nay, that it is not even an apocalypse, being veiled by a thick and dense curtain of ignorance; and that no one of the apostles—nay, not even any of the saints or of those belonging to the Church—was the author of this writing, but that Cerinthus, who also established the heresy named Cerinthian after him, wishing to attach a trustworthy name to his own fabrication, set it down.
For this was the dogma of his teaching, that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly; and being himself a lover of the body and altogether carnal, he dreamed that it would consist in those things which he himself craved—in the gratifications of the belly and of the parts below the belly, that is, in food and drink and marriages, and in those things through which he thought these might be procured under a fairer name, in feasts and sacrifices and slaughterings of victims.
But for my part, I would not dare to reject the book, since many of the brethren hold it in earnest esteem; yet, taking my conception concerning it to be greater than my own understanding, I suppose that the interpretation of each several thing is something hidden and more wonderful. For even if I do not comprehend, yet I suspect that some deeper meaning lies in the words.
For not measuring and judging these things by my own reasoning, but assigning the greater part to faith, I have reckoned them to be too lofty to be apprehended by me; and I do not reject those things which I have not perceived, but rather marvel the more that I did not even see them.
After this, having scrutinized the whole writing of the Apocalypse, and having shown it to be impossible to understand according to the obvious sense, he subjoins, saying: “Having brought to completion, so to speak, the whole prophecy, the prophet pronounces blessed both those who keep it and indeed himself also. For ‘Blessed,’ he says, ‘is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who see and hear these things.’
That he is called John, then, and that this writing is John’s, I will not gainsay; for I agree that it is the work of some holy and inspired man. But I would not readily concede that this is the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose is the Gospel entitled According to John, and the catholic Epistle.
For I conjecture, from the character of each and from the form of the words and from the so-called conduct of the book, that it is not the same person. For the evangelist nowhere subscribes his own name, nor proclaims himself, neither through the Gospel nor through the Epistle.
Then going on below, he says this again: “John nowhere speaks as concerning himself, nor as concerning another; but he who wrote the Apocalypse straightway at the very beginning sets himself forward: ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which He gave to him to show to His servants quickly; and He signified it, sending by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and his testimony, even all that he saw.’
Then he also writes an epistle: ‘John to the seven churches which are in Asia: grace to you and peace.’ But the evangelist did not prefix his own name even to the catholic Epistle, but without superfluity began from the very mystery of the divine revelation: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.’ For upon this revelation the Lord also pronounced Peter blessed, saying: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it, but my Father who is in heaven.’ ”
But neither in the second of John's extant epistles, nor in the third, although they are short letters, is John set forth by name; rather it is written anonymously, “the elder.” This writer, however, did not even think it enough to name himself once and then recount what follows, but takes up his name again: “I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and in the patient endurance of Jesus, was on the island called Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” And indeed toward the close he says these things: “Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book”; and “I John am he that saw and heard these things.”
That John, then, is the one who writes these things, we must believe, since he himself says it; but who this John is, is unclear. For he did not say that he was, as often in the Gospel, the disciple beloved by the Lord, nor the one who leaned upon His breast, nor the brother of James, nor the one who became an eyewitness and ear-witness of the Lord.
For he would have mentioned some one of these aforesaid titles, had he wished to make himself clearly known. But he uses none of them; instead he calls himself our brother and partaker, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed in the seeing and hearing of the revelations.
And I consider that there have been many of the same name as John the apostle, who, on account of their love for him, and from admiration and emulation, and from a wish to be loved by the Lord as he was, gladly took the same name as well—just as among the children of believers Paul too is a common name, and so indeed is Peter.
There is then yet another John in the Acts of the Apostles, surnamed Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul took with them, concerning whom the Scripture again says, “And they had also John as their attendant.” But as to whether he is the one who wrote, I would not affirm it; for it is not written that he came with them into Asia, but rather: “And setting sail from Paphos, Paul and his company came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem.”
And I think there was some other among those who lived in Asia, since it is said that there were two tombs at Ephesus, and that each is said to be John's.
For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with one another, and they begin alike. The one says, “In the beginning was the Word”; the other, “That which was from the beginning.” The one says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father”; the other says the same with slight variation: “That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life—and the life was manifested.”
For he sounds these things as a prelude, contending, as he shows in what follows, against those who were asserting that the Lord had not come in the flesh. Therefore he carefully added also: “And we have seen and bear witness and declare unto you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested unto us; that which we have seen and heard we declare unto you also.”
He holds to himself and does not depart from his purposes, but proceeds throughout under the same heads and the same terms, some of which we have briefly noted.
But the attentive reader will find in each abundantly “life,” much “light,” the turning away from “darkness,” continually “truth,” “grace,” “joy,” the “flesh and blood” of the Lord, “judgment,” the “forgiveness of sins,” the “love of God toward us,” the commandment that “we love one another,” that we must keep all the commandments; the “conviction” of the world, of the devil, of the antichrist; the promise of the Holy Spirit; the adoption as sons of God; the faith demanded of us throughout; “the Father” and “the Son” everywhere. In short, throughout everything it is plain to see that the Gospel and the Epistle present one and the same complexion.
But the Apocalypse is utterly different from and foreign to these, neither touching nor neighbouring upon any of them, having, so to speak, scarcely even a syllable in common with them.
Nay more, the Epistle has no mention or thought of the Apocalypse (I pass over the Gospel), nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle—whereas Paul in his epistles gave some hint also concerning his own revelations, which he did not write down by themselves.
For the former are written not only faultlessly as regards the Greek tongue, but also most elegantly in their wording, their reasonings, and the constructions of their expression. It is far from being the case that any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism at all should be found in them. For each, as it seems, possessed the gift of speech, the Lord having granted him both—that of knowledge and that of expression.
But that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy, I will not deny; yet I observe that his dialect and language are not accurately Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms and in places even commits solecisms.
These it is not necessary now to single out; for I have not said these things in mockery—let no one think so—but only to set straight the dissimilarity of these writings.