Writers of commentaries and New Testament introductions uniformly report that the authorship of Revelation is a controversial issue. Although the authorship of John the apostle is still defended in conservative circles, scholars outside of these circles commonly reject it and reject the idea that one author is responsible for the Gospel of John, the three Johannine Epistles, and Revelation. These scholars sometimes see Revelation as a product of a Johannine school, but they do not agree on how closely its author might be related to that school.[1]
A survey of the external evidence from the Church Fathers reveals strong support for the authorship of John the apostle. Issues related to Greek style provide the most difficult internal evidence against John’s authorship of the five books traditionally attributed to him. The style of Revelation is distinct in many ways from the style of John’s other writings, but is it impossible for the same author to have written Revelation? A brief review of external and internal evidence will demonstrate that it is possible to make a plausible case for John the apostle as the author of Revelation.
External Evidence
The external evidence from Church Fathers is significant. Justin Martyr’s famous debate with Trypho occurred in Ephesus around A.D. 135. In his work Dialogue with Trypho (81.4), he writes, “There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem.” Justin is undoubtedly referring here to the book of Revelation and associating it with John the apostle.[2]
Irenaeus introduces a series of quotations from Revelation with an introductory formula. In this formula, he claims that “John, the Lord’s disciple” wrote the following words in “the Apocalypse.”[3] Irenaeus spent time as a young man in Smyrna with Polycarp, whom he claims knew John the apostle.[4] The agreement between Justin Martyr and Irenaeus on the authorship of Revelation is significant. It finds additional support from the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen.[5] Beckwith concludes, “So much external testimony to the personality of the author, traceable back to almost contemporaneous sources, is found in the case of almost no other book of the New Testament.”[6]
The most significant early opposition to John the apostle’s authorship comes from Dionysius of Alexandria in the middle of the third century.[7] He denies that John the apostle wrote Revelation. He attributes it to another John from Asia and cites the evidence of two tombs in Ephesus with the name of John.[8] Dionysius’s assessment of Revelation appears to be theologically motivated. His opposition to the apostle John’s authorship occurs in the midst of a theological debate. He writes to oppose the teaching of Nepos, who was apparently appealing to Revelation 20 as evidence for a millennial reign of the saints upon the earth.[9] It is in the context of that debate that he rejects John the apostle’s authorship of Revelation and proposes another John instead.
In the fourth century, his assessment is picked up and transmitted by the well-known church historian Eusebius. Eusebius, like Dionysius, wants to deny John the apostle’s authorship in order to deny that an apostle was responsible for Revelation’s teaching about the millennium.[10] The views of Dionysius and Eusebius wind up exercising considerable influence upon the Greek-speaking churches of the East for quite some time.[11]
Eusebius tries to support his view of Revelation’s authorship by providing historical evidence for another John at Ephesus, John the elder, who could have written Revelation. He finds it in a famous quotation from Papias. Like Polycarp, Papias was also from Asia Minor and knew John the apostle while he was alive.[12] According to Eusebius’s reading of the quotation, Papias refers to two respected teachers of Asia Minor with the name John, namely, John the apostle and John the elder.[13] Eusebius points to John the elder as the likely author of Revelation for those who cannot accept that John the apostle wrote it.[14]
It is important to notice that Eusebius is not able to produce a claim from Papias, or anyone else, that John the elder wrote Revelation. All he can suggest from Papias is that another significant John was a teacher in Asia Minor around the same time as John the apostle. As a result, the existence of John the elder is based on the slimmest of evidence, namely, Eusebius’s interpretation of Papias’s words. As Maier notes, Irenaeus and other Church Fathers of Asia Minor never speak about a second John in Ephesus or Asia Minor. They are also unanimous in attributing Revelation to John the apostle.[15] As a result, Eusebius’s interpretation of Papias’s words would appear to be mistaken, as well as his claim that John the elder, not John the apostle, wrote Revelation.
Internal Evidence
Even if Dionysius and Eusebius do not manage to provide substantial testimonies in favor of a different John’s authorship, Eusebius provides a long quotation from Dionysius that is nevertheless important for discussions of Revelation’s authorship. Dionysius directs attention to internal evidence that the same author could not have written Revelation, the Gospel of John, and 1 John. Dionysius points out what many others after him have pointed out. The theological themes, vocabulary, and Greek style of Revelation differ from the Gospel of John and 1 John.[16] Dionysius anticipates the discussions that one finds in modern scholarship regarding the authorship of Revelation. According to such discussions, if John the apostle did not write the five works attributed to John in the New Testament, then one or more of them must be the work of another John or of a Johannine school. They commonly conclude that Revelation was among those written by someone else or in some association with a Johannine school.[17]
It is not my intention here to tackle the authorship of all five of the books attributed to John in the New Testament. However, I do want to provide some support for the claim that the differences between John’s works are not sufficient to argue that Revelation must have been written by a different author. The differences with respect to theology are the easiest to address, because they often rely on a rigid typecasting of the author of the Johannine books.
The most often cited example is the realized eschatology of the Gospel of John and 1 John, which focuses so much attention on the already versus the not yet. In comparison, the book of Revelation has a much greater focus on the not yet, that is, on consummated eschatology. As George Ladd has shown, the eschatology of the New Testament writings contains both of these eschatological emphases.[18] It is true that the Gospel of John and 1 John emphasize realized eschatology in their teaching. However, they also contain some measure of consummated eschatology in the form of promises from Jesus about a future with him in glory.[19] Similarly, the focus of Revelation may fall upon the future and what is to come, but it does not neglect significant statements about the effects of the cross upon the here and now.[20]
In my commentary, I trace both realized and consummated elements. Indeed, a careful examination of John’s works would appear to support the idea that their different eschatological emphases are complementary. Furthermore, even with respect to realized eschatology, it is possible for the two books to complement one another. For example, John 12:31 says, “The ruler of this world will be cast out.” His casting out is related to the lifting up of Jesus (12:32), that is, his death on the cross, resurrection, and exaltation. In Revelation 12, the cross and exaltation of Jesus are related to the casting of Satan from heaven to earth (12:5, 11). Revelation 12:7-9 describes the casting out to which John 12:31 refers.[21]
The theological differences among John’s works could be countered with a list of their theological similarities or affinities.[22] Christology is obviously a central element for the Gospel of John and Revelation. The Christology of the two works shares similarities that set them apart from other books of the New Testament. First, in both works, Jesus is the Lamb who suffers a sacrificial death. His sacrificial death fulfills the Passover and delivers the people of God from sin, slavery to sin, and the Devil.[23] The Johannine parallels here are strong and distinctive. Second, Jesus receives the name logos (“the Word”) only in the Gospel of John and Revelation (John 1:1-18; Rev. 19:13). Third, in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7, Jesus is the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10, which says, “They will look on him whom they pierced.” Fourth, in John’s works, Jesus is the first witness who leaves behind his “testimony.” After him, his followers will take up this mantle. They will be witnesses who will proclaim the testimony that they received from Jesus.[24]
The theological affinities among John’s writings support the idea that they are related works, but how closely are they related? Could they be works of the same author? It is the vocabulary and style of the works that scholars generally point to as decisive evidence against common authorship. On this point, Dionysius encourages a sharp dichotomy among John’s works by emphasizing the quality of the Greek in the Gospel of John and 1 John and the poor Greek of Revelation. Revelation’s Greek is “not accurate,” but is plagued by “barbarous idioms” and “solecisms” (grammatical problems).[25] Zahn contends that such a judgment is both too complimentary of the quality of John’s Greek outside of Revelation and too harsh with respect to Revelation itself.[26] The differences in style, including vocabulary, are consistent with the significant differences between a Gospel, an epistle, and a work that is both apocalyptic and prophetic.
In terms of genre, Revelation has some significant similarities to certain revelatory works of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. These works are often referred to as apocalypses or apocalyptic literature. At the same time, Revelation’s models are really the prophets of the Old Testament. This makes sense, because John sees himself as a prophet (Rev. 1:3). John’s prophetic influences include prophets, like Daniel and Zechariah, whose visionary elements suggest that they are precursors to the Pseudepigrapha’s apocalyptic works and for the Revelation of John.[27]
Revelation’s frequent allusions to the Old Testament have a significant effect upon its vocabulary and even its syntax. It is not always possible to decide whether certain oddities of John’s Greek reflect his use or imitation of the language of the Septuagint, of the Hebrew Old Testament, or of Aramaic (written and spoken). In any case, the impact of the language of the Old Testament, including its translation into Greek, is apparent in passage after passage.[28] The language of the Old Testament does influence the language of the other Johannine works, but not to the same extent. Therefore, John’s prophetic models and his frequent use of Old Testament language could account for many of the distinctive elements of Revelation’s style.[29] Caird points to the analogy of Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus (Luke 1-2), where Luke’s style differs from his style elsewhere. In this case, “Luke appears to have imitated the style of the Septuagint.”[30]
In terms of vocabulary and syntax, some scholars point to subtle differences between Revelation and John’s other writings.[31] Some of these variations are probably not significant. Morris has observed that variations in vocabulary, word order, and sentence structure are characteristic of the style of the Gospel of John.[32] These variations include the frequent use of synonyms. Therefore, it would not be surprising to notice variations in vocabulary and style between the Gospel, the Epistles of John, and the book of Revelation. John apparently likes variations and is capable of producing them. For instance, in Revelation, hypomonē (“perseverance”) communicates essentially the same thing that one associates with certain uses of menō (“remain” or “abide”) in the other Johannine writings. In these parallel cases, both words relate to the theme of perseverance, especially to perseverance in obedience.[33] Similarly, pisteuō (“believe”) is a common verb in the Gospel and Epistles of John, while pistis (“faith”) occurs four times in Revelation, and the verb never does. Even so, faith is prominent in Revelation due to its placement in significant statements, just as believing is important in the other Johannine works.[34]
At the end of the day, different scholars provide different assessments of the importance of the stylistic differences.[35] Swete finds sufficient stylistic evidence to suggest “a strong presumption of affinity between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.”[36] Mussies concludes that the stylistic differences prove “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the same author could not be the author of the Johannine works.[37] Regarding the Gospel of John, 1 John, and Revelation, Stauffer claims,
But these three main Johannine writings are not just related in style, they are related in theology, too, and they form with II and III John an individual group of writings which stand out very clearly from the other literature of the primitive Church. In view of all this we have sufficient ground to ascribe these five writings to a common author of remarkable individuality and great significance, and to identify him as the apostle John.[38]
Conclusion
In conclusion, Revelation 1:1 says that Jesus Christ communicated this revelation to John, who presents his work as a work of prophecy (1:3). In biblical scholarship, debates over who this John is and how much to relate Revelation’s authorship to the work of a Johannine school will continue.
The most prominent John of the New Testament is John the apostle of Jesus. He seems like the most plausible candidate for the John of Revelation. Significant evidence from the Church Fathers places him in Ephesus of Asia Minor and points to him as the author of Revelation. According to the portrait of the New Testament and the Church Fathers, John was a figure worthy of the three titles of Revelation 18:20, that is, saint, apostle, and prophet. Revelation is his major work of prophecy. The internal evidence from the book of Revelation has been read in various ways, but it does not appear to be decisively in favor of a different John.
It seems plausible, then, to attribute the book of Revelation to John the apostle and to see this book as his challenging and authoritative message to the churches of Asia Minor, and to the church of Jesus Christ generally.
This post is adapted with permission from Paul M. Hoskins, The Book of Revelation: A Theological and Exegetical Commentary (2017).
Notes
[1] Aune, Revelation, lv.
[2] Aune dates Justin’s work to A.D. 155 (Revelation, li). See also Caird, Revelation, 3. For the translation above, see ANF, vol. 1, 240.
[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.11 (translation from ANF, vol. 1, 491).
[4] See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (or Hist. eccl.) 5.20.6; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4; Maier, Offenbarung 1-11, 24. Maier says that Irenaeus was born around A.D. 115.
[5] Maier dates all of these around the end of the 2nd century and beginning of the 3rd (Offenbarung, 25). See also Aune, Revelation, li; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 338-9.
[6] Beckwith, Apocalypse, 351. This quote is also cited by Maier, Offenbarung 1-11, 18.
[7] Less significant opposition to John’s authorship came from Marcion and the Alogoi. Marcion rejected much of the NT. The Alogoi rejected John’s Gospel and Revelation, because of their opposition to the millennial teaching of the Montanists. See Smalley, Thunder and Love, 36; Swete, Apocalypse, cxi-cxii.
[8] Dionysius’s words are handed down by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (7.25.16).
[9] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24.1-2. Nepos supports a “millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth” (from 7.24.1; translation from NPNF2, vol. 1, 308). See Swete, Apocalypse, cxv; also, Beckwith, Apocalypse, 341.
[10] Beckwith, Apocalypse, 341. On Eusebius’s opposition to the millennial views of Church Fathers like Papias and Irenaeus, see Ecclesiastical History 3.39.12-13 (and footnotes located there in NPNF2, vol. 1, 172).
[11] Swete, Apocalypse, cxvi-cxvii.
[12] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4.
[13] Here is Eusebius’s quotation of Papias: “If, then, anyone came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, —what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter [or elder] John, the disciple of the Lord, say” (Ecclesiastical History 3.29.4; translation from NPNF2, vol. 1, 171). On Eusebius’s reading of the quotation of Papias, see Beckwith, Apocalypse, 362-6, esp. 363.
[14] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.29.6.
[15] Maier, Offenbarung 1-11, 24-25. In the early 600’s, Andreas of Caesarea claims Papias to be among those (like Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus) who regard Revelation to be an inspired and trustworthy work. He writes this in the prologue to his commentary on Revelation. Some regard this as evidence that Papias would have shared Irenaeus’s view of the book’s authorship (Beckwith, Apocalypse, 349; Maier, Offenbarung 1-11, 23; Swete, Apocalypse, cviii).
[16] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.25.17-27. See also the lengthy quote of Dionysius in Morris, Revelation, 29.
[17] The same thing can be said for the Gospel of John and his epistles. See Carson and Moo, Introduction to the NT, 235, 246, 675. On the Johannine school, see ibid., 246-53.
[18] See Ladd, Theology of the NT, esp. ch. 4. On realized and consummated eschatology in the Gospel of John, see ch. 23.
[19] John 14:3; 17:24.
[20] Rev. 1:5; 5:9-10; 12:10-12. See Prigent for further consideration of the eschatology of Revelation and its relationship to the Gospel of John (Apocalypse, 46-49).
[21] Some interpreters point to more vague theological, or ideological, differences between Revelation and John’s other writings that are harder to counter. For instance, the author of Revelation cannot be the same as the author of the Gospel of John, because he is so clearly not a person who writes with the same “gracious and gentle love” (Düsterdieck, Revelation, 62).
[22] I provide numerous examples of theological similarities in the commentary. The commentary shows that John’s other works provide valuable assistance for the interpretation of Revelation.
[23] For evidence, see my comments on Rev. 5:9.
[24] See, for example, John 8:18; 14:26-27; 18:37; Rev. 1:2; 11:3; 12:12. For further discussion of theological connections, see Beckwith, Apocalypse, 357-9; Prigent, Apocalypse, 41-45; Smalley, Thunder and Love, 58-63.
[25] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.25.24-27 (translation from NPNF2, vol. 1, 311).
[26] Zahn, Introduction to the NT, vol. 3, 432, 435 (n. 7).
[27] On the relationship between apocalyptic literature and OT prophecy, see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 19-20. It is easy to demonstrate Rev.’s relationship to the OT prophets, but Rev. does not appear to contain any clear allusions to extra-biblical Jewish apocalyptic works (see Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, 13). In other words, there are general parallels to these works, but no evidence of direct borrowing from them.
[28] See, for example, Rev. 13:10, which is quite difficult Greek, but appears to be closely related to OT language (see commentary). See also Schmidt, “Semitisms and Septuagintalisms”; Thompson, Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (for 2 examples, see pp. 109-112).
[29] See Zahn, Introduction to the NT, vol. 3, 432. See also Charles (Revelation, xliv, cxlii-cxliv) who argues for the influence of Hebrew upon John’s Greek.
[30] Caird, Revelation, 5. He also provides this reminder, “But because a man writes in Hebraic Greek, it does not inevitably follow that this is the only Greek that he is capable of writing” (ibid.). Frey makes an observation that appears to support Caird’s claim. He notes that the style of the seven letters of Rev. 2-3 (as well as Rev.’s introduction and conclusion) is different from the style of other portions of Rev. and closer to the style of the Gospel and Epistles of John (in an appendix to Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, 358). Note how much genre matters. The seven letters are more similar to John other’s writings in terms of genre.
[31] See Whale’s critique of R. H. Charles (“Lamb of John: Myths about Vocabulary of Johannine Literature”).
[32] Some are quite minor, while others are more significant. See Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ch. 5 (e.g., p. 312 on John 21:15-17 and p. 315). Mussies (“Greek of Revelation,” 175-6) and Bauckham (Climax of Prophecy, 22-29) make comparable observations about variations in the word order of Revelation. For example, tribe, tongue, people, and nation occur together 5 times (5:9; 7:9; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6) and no two lists are alike.
[33] See John 15:9-10; 1 John 3:24; Rev. 14:12. These two Greek words are related. Hypomonē, a noun, is related to the verb hypomenō (note prefix + menō).
[34] See Rev. 13:10; 14:12. Pistis occurs once in 1 John (5:4). John also uses different titles for the Devil and the Beast in his various writings, but it is clear that he means the same thing by them. Devil occurs in all of his writings. Satan occurs in the Gospel and Revelation. “Ruler of this world” is unique to the Gospel. Dragon and Beast are unique to Revelation, while Antichrist is unique to 1 John.
[35] One can also point to similarities in style in John’s works. Swete lists some parallels with respect to “unusual constructions” and “sentence-formation” (Apocalypse, cxxviii-cxxx).
[36] Apocalypse, cxxx.
[37] Morphology of Greek in the Apocalypse, 352; see also Prigent, Apocalypse, 41.
[38] Stauffer, NT Theology, 41 (also quoted by Morris, Revelation, 34). Stauffer does allow for some role of John’s disciples in “the shaping and the publication” of his works (ibid.).
