We shall deal here only with the linguistic evidence on this question, which is in itself decisive. We shall, however, discover later that the two writers were related to each other, either as master and pupil, or as pupils of the same master, or as members of the same school.

§ 1. The grammatical differences. -- These make the assumption of a common authorship of J and J^ap absolutely impossible, unless a very long interval intervenes between the dates of J^ap and J. But such an assumption is made impracticable by the best modern research. Furthermore, our author's style shows no essential change in the interval of from 10 to 20 or more years, which elapsed between the writings of the Letters to the Seven Churches and the Apocalypse as a whole (see vol. i. 43-47). The reader will find the grammatical differences between J^ap and J dealt with in the grammar. The main evidence is given under the heading "The Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse"; but throughout the rest of the grammar (see particularly "The Order of the Words") the evidence is more than adequate to prove diversity of authorship. Observe amongst a host of other differences that, whereas J uses mh, with the participles 11 times and the genitive absolute frequently, our author uses neither. Also that whereas in our author the attracted relative never occurs, it often occurs in J: see 4¹⁴ 7³⁹ 15²⁰ 17^{5. 11-12} 21¹⁰ and I J 3²⁴. Again, in J^apa;xioj is followed by inf.; in J by i[na.

§ 2. Differences in diction. -- Lists of words found in J^ap but not in J could be given here, or vice versa, but such divergence in the use of words might in the main be due to difference of subject. But it is instructive to touch upon a few phenomena of this nature. Thus our author has pi,stij 4 times and pi,stoj 8, whereas J has not pi,stij at all, pi,stojonce, but pisteu,ein nearly 100 times. Our author uses u`pomonh, 7 times and sofi,a 4, but J, neither. On the other hand, J uses avgapa/|n 36 times and avga,ph 7 (1. 2. 3. J 31 and 21 respectively), but our author has avgapa/|n only 4 and avga,ph only 2 times. Again, avlh,qeia( avlhqh,j( and cara, found so frequently in J, are wholly absent from our author. J has me,n ) ) ) de, 6 or more {xxx.}times, our author not once: avlla, 100 and ga,r 65, and our author 13 and 16 respectively. Again our author has evnw,pion 34 times and i[na 45 times, whereas J has these once and 150 times respectively. 

§ 3. Different words or forms used by these writers to express the same idea. -- Our author uses avrni,on (= Lamb of God) 29 times where J uses avmno,j2: mouor evmou⁽²⁾ (= "mine") where J uses evmo,j 36 times: auvtoj as an emphatic pronoun 3²⁰ 14¹⁰ 19¹², whereas J uses evkei/noj in this sense while he uses auvto,j as an unemphatic pronoun: see Abbott, Gr. 236. Again our author says evn me,sw| or avna. me,sonwhere J uses me,soj: VIerousalh,m where J has VIeroso,luma.⁽³⁾ Our author uses ivdou, (26), but J ivde,⁽⁴⁾; VIdoudai/oj, 2⁹ 3⁹ (= a member of the Chosen People of God, nearly so in Ro 2^17.28), where J has VIsrahli,thj, 1⁴⁷. Again, whereas our author defines the historic city Jerusalem as th/j po,lewj ) ) ) h[tij kalei/tai pneumatikw/j So,doma, 11⁸, J names it as VIero,suluma, 1¹⁹ 2¹³ etc.

A very interesting divergence is to be observed where the Greek equivalent of "called" or "named" occurs. Here our authors has kalei/n and J le,gein. Thus we have 1⁹ th/| nh,sw| t) kaloume,nh| Pa,tmw|, 12⁹ o` kalou,menoj Dia,boloj, while J writes 4<sup>5</sup> po,lin ) ) ) legome,nhn Suca,r, 4<sup>25</sup> Messi,aj ) ) ) o` lego,menoj Cristo,j, 11¹⁶ qwma/j o` lego,menoj Di,dumoj (cf. 1³⁸ 5² 9¹¹ 11⁵⁴ 20²⁴ 21²): and just as our author says, 11⁸ h[tij kalei/tai ) ) ) So,doma, so J 19¹⁷ says o[ le,getai ) ) ) Tolgoqa,. The divergence comes still more into relief when we compare J^ap 16¹⁶to,pon t). kalou,menon ) ) ) :Ar Magedw,n and J 19¹³to,pon lego,menon Liqo,strwton. On this as well as on other grounds 8^11a kai. to. o;noma tou/ avste,roj le,getai ~O :Ayinqoj is to be excised as a gloss.

Again, our author always uses katoikei/n of living in a certain locality; J sometimes uses me,nein in this sense, but never katoikei/n: also ovli,gon, 17¹⁰ (= "a little while"), whereas J says mikro,nin the same sense 9 times; and ou=j 8 times while J uses wvti,on once.

A very delicate distinction calls for attention in their equivalents of the English "no longer." Thus our author⁽⁵⁾ says ouvk ) ) ) e;ti (14, including chap. xviii.), but J always ouvke,ti (12), and w`j with finite verb by way of illustration (2²⁷), while J uses kaqw,j with finite verb (13¹⁵ 15¹² 17²³ etc.).

Finally, whereas J frequently uses kaqw,j(31, and 1. 2. 3. J 13 {xxxi.} times), our author uses always w`j in the same sense. Where J says kaqw.j evgw, (15<sup>10</sup>), our author says w`j kavgw, (2²⁷).⁽⁶⁾ Where J^ap uses a;cri (11 times), J uses e[wj. Neither J nor 1. 2. 3 J use a[cri. Where J^ap uses sfo,dra, 2. 3 J, uses li,an. In this last contrast, I assume that 2. 3. J and J are from the same author.

§ 4. Words and phrases with one meaning in our author and a different one in J: 
 

Apocalypse

Fourth Gospel

avlhqino,j = true in word as opposed to false (= avlhqh,j).	= "genuine" as opposed to u nreal. See vol. i. 85 sq.
avkou,ein fwnh/j vvavkou,ein fwnh,n.	Different meanings in J. See Gram., vol. i. p. cxl.
auvto,j used as emphatic pronoun	.Used as unemphatic pronoun, evkei/noj being used as emphatic.
oi` dou/loi tou/ qeou/(7) -- a title of the highest honour: cf. 11(bis) 73 107 1118 192.	1515 ouvke,ti le,gw u`ma/j dou,louj)
dwrea,n, 216 2217 = "freely."	1525 "without a cause."
e;qnoj or e;qnh (23) = Gentiles, 226 112 154 etc., or all nations, including the Jews (?).	e;qnoj (5) only used of Jewish nation.
VIoudai/oj, 29 39 -- used in a good sense.	Used over 70 times, and generally in a bad sense.
ko,smoj = the created world, 1115 138 178.	ko,smoj = the world of man (frequently and often in a bad sense).
lao,j = Gentiles generally, but = Christian believers twice.	Jewish nation (2, excluding 82).
~O Lo,goj tou/ qeou/, 1913 -- a conception developed in Jewish thought.	~O Lo,goj, J 11sqq.. This conception is quite different and presupposes, while opposing, Philonic speculations.
ou=n (6), always illative(8), a particle of logical appeal.	195 times, and generally a narrative particle, i.e. of historical transition.
poimai,nein, 227 125 1915 = "to destroy" (though in 717 = "to feed").	2116 "to feed".
{xxxii.}proskunei/n, c. dat. = "to worship."               "               ", c. acc. = "to do homage              to." See note on 711: vol. i. 211 sqq.	These constructions have exactly opposite meanings in J. See Gr. p. cxli, see also vol. i. 211-212; Abbott, Voc. 137 sqq.
u[dwr zwh/j, 216 2217 xu,lou zwh/j, 27 222.14	u[dwr zw/n, 410 738, which phrase includes the meanings of the two phrases in Jap. See vol. i. 54 sq.

Again, though 7¹⁵ o` kaqh,menoj evpi. // t)qro,nou // skhnw,sei evpV auvtou,j is similar to J 1<sup>14</sup> o` lo,goj sa,rx evge,neto kai. evskh,nwsen evn h`mi/n, the similarity is only an outward one. The same is true of 2²⁷ei;lhfa para. t) patro,j mou as compared with J 10¹⁸ tau,thn t) evntolh.n e;labon para. t) patro,j mou)

§ 5. The Authors of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel were in some way related to each other:

     (a)  The following phrases point in this direction:
 

Apocalypse

Fourth Gospel

22 ouv du,nh| basta,sai)	162 ouv du,nasqe basta,zein)
206 o` e;cwn me,roj evn)	138 e;ceij me,roj meta,)
2215 poiw/n yeu/doj)	321 poi/wn t) avlh,qeian(1 J 38 poiw/n t) a`marti,an).
2217 o` diyw/n evrce,sqw)	737 eva,n tij diya/| evrce,sqw pro.j me. kai. pine,tw)

     (b) The spiritual significance attached to such terms as zwh,( qa,natoj( diya/|n( do,xa( peina/|n( nika/|n (16 times in J (1), in 1 J (6)), o`dhgei/n)

     (c) The occurrence of the following words and phrases exclusively in these two writers in the N.T. lalei/n meta, (elsewhere in N. T. the dative or rpo,j cum. acc. follows lalei/n): o;yij (1¹⁶ - J 11⁴⁴) = pro,swpon: th,rei/n t) lo,gon or lo,gouj (4 times -- J 8: see note vol. i. 369): o;noma auvtw/| o` qa,natoj( 6⁸ -- o'noma auvtw/| VIwa,nnhj( J 1⁶ 3¹: cro,non mikro,n, 6¹¹ - J 7³³: mikro.n cro,non, 20³ - J 12³⁵: kukleu,ein once -- J once: porfu,reoj 2 times -- J 2 times: skhnou/n, 4 -- J once: foi/nix, once -- J once.

     (d) The agreement of both authors ( in 1⁷ - J 19³⁷) in the rendering evxeke,nthsan against the LXX. See, however, vol. i. 18 sq. The use of the suspensive o[ti; see Gram. p. cxxxvii.

     (e) The use by both authors of the following phrases and words -- found occasionally in the rest of the N.T. poiei/n shmei/on, 4 - J 14 (only 4 times in the rest of the N.T.): threi/n t) evntola,j, 2 - J 4 (1 J 5 times): deiknu,nai (of revelation), 8 - J 7: e`braisti,, 2 - J 5: marturi,a, 9 - J 14 (1 J 6 times, 3 J once): pia,zein, 1 - J 8: shmai,nein, 1 - J 3: filei/n, 2 - J 13: sfa,zein, 8 - 1 J 2 times.

     {xxxiii.}(f) There is to be no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem -- the Capital of the Messianic Kingdom, 21²². According to J 4²¹ the temple will cease to exist as the centre of worship.

     (g) The same Jewish and Christian ideas underlie the phrase o` avmno.j tou/ qeou/, J 1^29.36, and the equivalent phrase to. avrni,on in J^ap.

     (h) The number "seven" occurs more frequently in our author than in all the rest of the N.T. Though it does not occur at all in J, yet J is "permeated structurally with the idea of 'seven.' . . . John records only seven 'signs.' . . . The Gospel begins and closes with a sacred week . . . the witness to Christ is . . . of a sevenfold character" (see Abbott, Gr. 463).

The above facts, when taken together with other resemblances, to which attention is drawn in the Grammar, point decidedly to some connection between the two authors. The Evangelist was apparently at one time a disciple of the Seer, or they were members of the same religious circle in Ephesus. We find perfect parallels to the latter relationship in earlier days. The authors of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs and of the Book of Jubilees, who wrote at the close of the 2nd century before the Christian era, studied clearly in the same school; for the text of the one has constantly to be interpreted by that of the other. Yet these two writers are poles asunder on some of the greatest questions of their day. The former hopes for the salvation of the Gentiles and sets forth a system of ethics without parallel before the N.T. The autor of Jubilees is a legalist of the narrowest type: is mainly concerned with the Mosaic law and the deductions to be drawn from it, and declares categorically that no Gentile can be saved. The second parallel is to be found between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The materials of these two works are in certain respects complementary. The former is all but hopeless as to the future alike of Judaism and the Gentiles, whereas the latter is a thoroughgoing optimistic Jew, who looks to Judaism for the conversion of the Gentiles, so far as these can be saved.

In the Seer and the Evangelist we have got just such another literary connection. But the literary connection is much less close than in the case of the Jewish authors just mentioned, while the theological affinities between the Seer and the Evangelist are much closer than those existing between the Jewish writers. The greater unity in spiritual outlook and theological concept is explicable, however, from the fact that the variations within Christianity of the 1st century are infinitesimal as {xxxiv.}compared with those that prevailed in contemporary and earlier Judaism.

§ 6. J and (1.) 2. 3. J were written by the same Author. --

That J and 1 J are derived from the same author is generally admitted. But from a very early date 2 and 3 J have been ascribed to a different writer.⁽⁹⁾ But a study of the internal evidence leads to the conclusion that all 2. 3. J and most probably 1 J are from one and the same writer, who was also the author of the Gospel. The same evidence shows that, though 2 or 3 J have a few points in common with J^ap, the style of these two Epistles is decidedly that of J (or 1 J) as opposed to that of J^ap. Their failure to study the linguistic relations of 2. 3 J have led Schmiedel, von Soden, and Moffatt into the grievous error of attributing 2. 3. J and J^ap to the same author. The pronouncement of these scholars led me to investigate this subject, and therein I am grateful to them, seeing that the result of this investigation appears to furnish the key to some imporant Johannine problems. No investigation of this nature has, so fas as I am aware, ever been made.

There is one usage in 2 J which it has in common with J^ap and which is  not found in J. In 2 J¹⁰ we have e;i tij (e;rcetai), which occurs occasionally in J^ap but  never in J or 1 J, which have always eva,n tij. But there seems to be a reason for using eiv here and not eva,n. The author assumes that the e;rcesqai is not a mere possibility but a thing likely to happen. w`j with the part. is found in 2 J<sup>5</sup> ouvc w`j gra,fwn, and in J^ap 1¹⁵ 5⁶ 13³ but not in J. But the usage is not really the same in 2 J⁵ and J^ap. In the latter w`j conveys the idea of likeness, whereas in 2 J<sup>5</sup> it implies a purpose. The Hebraism in 2 J<sup>2</sup> dia. th.n avlh,qeian th.n me,nousan evn h`mi/n kai. meqV u`mw/n e;stai (= "which abideth in us and shall be with us") is of frequent occurrence in J^ap. But it occurs probably in J 1³² teqe,amai to. pneu/ma katabai/non ) ) ) kai. e;meinen evpV auvto,n, and in Col. 1²⁶. Hence no real weight can be assigned to these coincedences in style.

On the other hand, the body of evidence in favour of a common authorship of J and (1.) 2. 3 J carries with it absolute conviction.

     i. 2. 3 J are with one exception (2 J²) free from the solecisms and idiosyncrasies of J^ap.
    ii. Constructions common to 2. 3. J and J, but not found in J^ap:

          (a) 2 and 3 J use mh, 3 times with the participle: J 11 times: 1 J 8 times: 3 J has mhde,n once with part.,
               while J has it twice. But J^ap never {xxxv.}uses mh, or mhde,n with the participle. In this respect J^ap
               diverges from J, 1. 2. 3 J, exactly as the Illiad does from the Odyssey.

          (b) In 2 J¹⁰ the writer uses mh, with the present imperative, i.e. mh. lamba,nete (3 J¹¹ mh. mimou/) in
               order to forbid an action not yet begun. Here the author of J^ap would have used mh, with the aor. 
               subj. In this respect  the author of 2. 3 J has the support of J (see below, p. cxxvi)

          (c) In 3 J³ we have the genitive absolute, which occurs often in J but never in J^ap (nor 1 J).

          (d) The unemphatic possessive pronoun auvtou/ (or auvth/j) (i.e. the genitive before its noun) occurs in
               3 J¹⁰ 1 J 2⁵ and frequently in J, never in J^ap (save in a source 18⁵).

          (e) ou-toj is used resumptively in regard to a preceding clause (consisting of o` with part. or o[j with 
               finite verb) in 2 J⁹ and 4 times in J but not in J^ap.

          (f) marturei/n takes the dative 3 times in 3 J and 4 in J, but J^ap always construes it with the acc.
         marturei/n is followed by o[ti in 1 J and by peri, in J, but by neither in J^ap.

          (g) In 3 J⁹ the order of the words, o` filoprwteu,wn auvtw/n Diotre,fhj, has several parallels in J
               but none in J<sup>ap</sup> (or 1 J). The author of J<sup>ap</sup> would have written o` Diotre,fhj o` filoprwteu,wn
         auvtw/n. See Gram. p. clvi. polu,j is a prepositive in 2 J⁷ 1 J 4¹ -- J 6⁵ 10³² 11⁴⁷ etc.; but always 
               post-positive in J^ap, once in 1 J and J 3²³ 6^2.10 7¹².

          (h) evrwtw/ se ) ) )  i[na, 2 J⁵ -- J 4⁴⁷ 17¹⁵ 19³⁸ [* The verb "ask" does not occur in J^ap though
            evrwta/n is found in 2 J and J, and aivtei/n in 1 J and J. J uses also evxeta,zein( evperwta/n(
          punqa,nesqai.] but not in J^ap. au[th evsti.n ) ) ) i[na, 2 J^{6 (bis)} -- J 15¹² 17³ (1 J 3^11.23), but not
              in J^ap. meizote,ran tou,twn ouvc e;cw cara,n( i[na avkou,w, 3 J⁴ -- mei,zona tau,thj avga,phn
        ouvdei.j  e;cei( i[na tij th.n yuch.n auvtou/ qh/| J 15¹³. To this construction I know of no real 
              parallel.

     iii. Words, particles, and phrases common to 2. 3. J and J (1 J), but not found in J^ap.

          (a) Words.  avlhqh,j( avlhqw/j( avlh,qeia( mei,zwn( me,nein( ovfei,lein( cara,)

          (b) Particles and phrases.  avlla. kai,( avllV ouv( kaqw,j( kai. nu/n( peri, (cum gen.), toiou/toj( 
            u`pe,r: kai. h`mei/j de,, 3 J¹² -- J 15²⁶: avpV avrch/j, 2 J^bis -- J 8⁴⁴ 15²⁷ (1 J 1¹ 2^7.13.14 etc.): toi/j
            e;rgoij auvtou/ toi/j ponhroi/j{xxxvi.} 2 J¹¹ -- J 7⁷ ta. e;rga auvtou/ ponhra,: u`pomnh,sw,
               3 J¹⁰ -- J 14²⁶: to. kako,n, 3 J¹¹ -- J 5²⁹.

     iv. Words frequent in 1. 2. 3 J and J, but exceptional in J^ap. evmo,j once in 3 J (in 15 verses), but only once in J^ap in 404 verses; thus 3 J uses it once in 15 verses approximates to J which uses it once in ever 22. J^ap uses no other possessive adjective, but 1 J uses h`me,teroj twice, and J u`me,teroj 3 times and so,j 6. evpi, does not occur in 1. 2. 3 J, but 150 times in J^ap and 35 in J. If J had it relatively as often as J^ap, it would occur 22t times instead of 35. Thus 1. 2. 3 J are strongly marked off here from J^ap but approximate to J.

     v. The following parallel expressions are in themselves strong evidence of identity of authorship:
 
 

2 J9 pa/j o` ) ) )me,nwn evn th/| didach/| tou/ Cristou/)

J 716 (cf. 1819) h` evmh. didach. ouvk e;stin evmh,

The connection of 2. 3. J with 1 J could be shown by such examples as 2 J⁹ qeo.n ouvk e;cei -- 1 J 5¹²o` ) ) ) e;cwn to.n ui`o.n tou/ qeou/: 3 J¹¹ evk tou/ qeou/ evstin -- 1 J 4²: 2 J⁷ o` avnti,cristoj -- 1 J 2^18.22. The conception of the Antichrist in 1. 2. J is quite different from that in J^ap.

     vi. There are no quotations in 1. 2. 3. J. In this respect they show an affinity with J where there are very few, and offer a strong contrast to J^ap where quotations abound. Even in the Epistles to the Seven Churches this feature is prominent.

     vii. The Greek of 2. 3. J is far more idiomatic than that of J^ap. The order of the words exhibits none of the monotonous regularity of J^ap.

From the above evidence I conclude without hesitation that 1. 2. 3. J and J are ultimately from the same author. J has {xxxvii.}undoubtedly undergone revision, and 1. 2. 3 J may have suffered somewhat in this respect.⁽¹⁰⁾

§ 7. This conclusion of criticism, completing as it does the work of Dionysius the Greak of Alexandria, is one of tremendous  importance. Before his time, from 135 A.D. onward (see p. xxxix sq.), Church writers began uncritically to assign J^ap to the Apostle John. This false conception led necessarily to intolerable confusion. No matter how valid the evidence might be for the martyrdom of this Apostle before 70 A.D., it could only be regarded as purely legendary, seeing that according to the most current view John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse and wrote it in Domitian's reign. If the Apostle were living about 95 A.D. he could not, of course, have been martyred before 70 A.D. This misconception has therefore vitiated the evidence of most Early Church writers on this question,⁽¹¹⁾ and has proved an ignis fatuus to many distinguished scholars of our own day. Hence it is not astonishing that so little evidence of the Apostle John's early martyrdom -- and yet, cumulatively considered, it is not little -- should have survived, but it is astonishing in the extreme that any evidence of any sort as to John's early martyrdom has survived at all, seeing that all but universal beliefs of the Church from the earliest ages worked for its absolute deletion from the pages of history. Happily such evidence has survived in out-of-the-way corners of Church history and Church observance, which, owing to the prevailing opinions on such subjects, must have been a hopeless enigma to those who sought to understand them. One Church writer -- Gregory of Nyssa in his Laudatio s. Stephani and De Basilio magno: see below, p. xlvii -- has attempted to do so, and has explained away the evidence of the Church calendars for the early martyrdom of John in a way that can satisfy only those who share the same groundless hypothesis as himself as to John's joint authorship of J and J^ap.

NOTES
1. For convenience' sake J will designate the Gospel, 1 J the first Epistle, etc,. J^ap the Apocalypse.
2. J uses so,j(6), u`me,teroj (3), i[dioj (15), and 1 J h`me,teroj (2), but our author uses the possessive pronouns always in their stead. He has evmo,j once.
3. In our author VIerousalh,m is used only of the heavenly or the New Jerusalem. It is used by Paul always, and nearly always by Luke, of the historic city, whereas Mark always (and Matt. always save once) uses VIeroso,luma.
4. J uses ivdou, 4 times.
5. Our author has ouvke,ti3 times (2 of these in chap. xviii.).
6. J uses w`j in a temporal sense (= "when") 20 times: our author never. On our author's various uses of w`j, see vol. i. 35 sq.
7. The servant in J 15¹⁵ knows not his Master's will, in J^ap he does. In our author the word dou/loj means (a) a slave as opposed to evleu,qeroj: cf. 6¹⁵ 13¹⁶ 19¹⁸, and (b) a willing servant of God, whether prophet or other faithful worshipper: cf. 1¹ 2²⁰ 7³ 10⁷ etc. Thus our author uses dou/loj as the equivalent of rb,[,. But in J dou/loj follows the Greek usage as denoting a bondman in the literal sense, cf. 15¹⁵, and in the metaphorical sense 8³⁴ dou/loj ) ) ) th/j a`marti,aj) rb,[ is not used in this metaphorical sense. The verb rb;[', however, is used of idolatrous service. See Abbott, Johannine Voc. 212, 227, 289-292, for the use made by the four Evangelists of this word.
8. In Homer ou=n is non-illative, just as in the majority of passages in J. It is noteworthy that in J ou=n occurs nearly always in the narrative portions, and only 8 times in Christ's words out of the 195, whereas in J^ap it occurs only in Christ's words, and never in the narrative portions. In the Synoptists it occurs mostly in Christ's words.
9. Origen (Eus. vi. 25. 10) writes that questions as to the genuineness of these Epistles were rife in certain quarters: Jerome (De Viris Illust. 9) distinctly assigns them to different hands.
10. 2 J⁷ oi` mh. o`mologou/ntej VI) C) evrco,menon evn sarki, presents no difficulty in the face of 1 J 4². The evrco,menon is timeless: "confess not J. Christ as coming in the flesh." Nor does the phrase o` presbu,teroj 2 J<sup>1</sup> 3 J<sup>1</sup> point to any connection with J<sup>ap</sup>. For presbu,teroj there has a different meaning. Even an apostle could designate himself thus: cf. 1 Pet 5<sup>1</sup> o` sumpresbu,teroj. But Peter has already called himself avpo,stoloj VIhsou/ Cristou/ in 1¹. Hence there is no risk of confusion. No weight, moreover, attaches to the use of koinwnei/n for koinwni,an e;cein, or the occurrence of the greeting ca,rij( e;leoj( eivrh,nh)
11. Justin Martyr believes in the Apostolic authorship of J^ap as early as 135 A.D. or thereabouts. A myth can arise in a very few years. Hence it is not strange that such writers as Hegesippus (ob. circ. 180) and subsequent writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, have lost all knowledge of the early martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee.
 
 

Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson