John of Zebedee—the disciple of Jesus—wrote the book of Revelation. We base this on two independent forms of evidence: (1) internal evidence and (2) external evidence.
(1) Internal Evidence
The letter claims to be written by “John” (Rev. 1:1, 4, 9). Because he gives no further explanation other than his name, this carries implicit authority. That is, the churches in Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3) apparently knew who he was. Only “one John was great enough among the Christians to need no description.”[1] This implies an influential and popular figure like an apostle. Moreover, John associates himself with his “brothers the prophets” (Rev. 22:9 NIV), and he considers his writing to be Scripture. He calls it a “revelation” of Jesus (Rev. 1:1), and he warns of anyone who would add or remove from his book (Rev. 22:18-19). This harkens back to the authority of Moses (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). This implies that the author understood himself to be writing on behalf of God as an apostle.
(2) External Evidence
The writing from the early Christians is “unanimous in ascribing this work to John the apostle.”[2] Indeed, Carson and Moo affirm, “No New Testament book… has a stronger or earlier tradition about its authorship than does Revelation.”[3] Consider a few examples:
- Justin Martyr (AD 150): “John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation” (Dialogue with Trypho, 81.4).
- The Muratorian Canon (AD 170) states that the book was canonical.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): “John also, the Lord’s disciple, when beholding the sacerdotal and glorious advent of His kingdom, says in the Apocalypse” (Against Heresies, 4.20.11).
- Tertullian (AD 200): “The Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God” (Against Marcion, 3.14).
- Clement of Alexandria (AD 250): “[Listen to a narrative] handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos” (Who is the Rich Man? 42).
- Hippolytus (AD 250): “The Apostle and Evangelist John was still alive, and was condemned to live in the island of Patmos for his witness to the divine word.”
Critics since the 3rd century AD have challenged that John the apostle wrote this book. Dionysius of Alexandria was the first recorded author to dissent. He affirmed that the book was indeed “inspired,”[4] but he argued that the style was too different from John’s other writings (Eusebius, Church History 7.24-25). Eusebius also hesitated to accept the book (Church History 3.25), as did Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret (4th-5th c. fathers).[5] Let’s consider two of the central arguments surrounding this debate today.
ARGUMENT #1: There is different language between Revelation and the Gospel of John.
Critics argue that the language of Revelation is far too different from the gospel of John to have been written by the same author. For instance, the verb “to believe” appears 98x in John’s gospel, but it appears nowhere in Revelation. One author states the one in eight words in Revelation occur nowhere else in the NT.[6] However, in contrast to this view, a number of observations can be made:
First, the difference in language can be due to the difference in the message and genre of these different books. John wrote his gospel (as well as his three epistles) in a different genre than Revelation (which is apocalyptic and prophetic). In Revelation, John is writing about the future—not the past—as in the gospel. John calls his book a “prophecy” in Revelation 1:3—not a “history.” Moreover, we might point out that our writing style would be much different, if we were seeing the things that John was! Thus, Osborne writes, “Such powerful experiences as the ecstatic visions would naturally affect one’s writing style.”[7]
Second, the language differences between these books could be due to their historical setting. Morris writes, “Revelation was written in exile. The writer had no access to the tools of scholarship and apparently no opportunity for a leisurely scholarly approach.”[8]
Third, the language differences between these books have been exaggerated. Blomberg writes, “The overall vocabulary and level of writing of Revelation are still more like the other writings of John than unlike them (or like any of the other New Testament documents).”[9] Consider a few similarities between these two books:
Similarities between John and Revelation[10] |
|
Gospel of John |
Revelation |
|
(Jn. 1:29) The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” |
(Rev. 5:6) And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain. |
| (Jn. 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Thomas writes, “The gospel and the Apocalypse are the only two NT books to refer to Christ as ho logos (‘the Word’).”[11] |
(Rev. 19:13) He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. |
|
(Jn. 19:37) And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.” [Citation of Zech. 12:10]
Thomas writes, “In Rev. 1:7 the Greek verb ekkenteo renders the Hebrew daqar (“I pierce”) of Zech. 12:10 in agreement with the rendering of the same word in John 19:37. This rendering differs from that of the LXX, making the agreement even more striking. These are the only two occurrences of the verb in the NT.”[12] |
(Rev. 1:7) Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. [Citation of Zech. 12:10] |
|
Thomas writes, “The verb semaino used in Rev. 1:1 is found only five other times in the NT, three of them being in the gospel of John (John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19).”[13] |
(Rev. 1:1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated (Greek semaino) it by His angel to His bond-servant John. |
| (Jn. 16:33) These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. |
(Rev. 1:9) I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. |
|
Nikao (“I conquer, overcome) occurs in John 16:33; 1 John 2:13, 14; 4:4; 5:4.
Thomas writes, “Only four instances of [nikao] are outside Johannine writings (Luke 11:22; Rom. 3:4; 12:21 [twice]).”[14] |
Nikao (“I conquer, overcome) occurs in Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21. |
|
Planao (“I deceive”) occurs in 1 John 1:8; 2:26; 3:7.
Thomas writes that this word “occurs with greater frequency in Revelation… and 1 John… than anywhere else in the NT.”[15] |
Planao (“I deceive”) occurs in Revelation 2:20; 12:9; 13:14; 18:23; 19:20; 20:3, 8, 10. |
|
Arnion (“lamb”) occurs only once in John 21:15. |
Arnion (“lamb”) occurs 30 times in Revelation. It is only used in Revelation and John.[16] |
Thomas[17] lists a number of internal arguments that support the traditional authorship of John, including the use of similar vocabulary, syntax, style, and concepts.
ARGUMENT #2: John never identifies himself as an apostle.
Critics also argue that the author of the book of Revelation doesn’t identify himself as an apostle. While the author calls himself John (Rev. 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), he never claims to be “John the apostle.” However, this argument doesn’t invalidate John the apostle’s authorship for a number of reasons:
First, the earliest Christians believed that this was John the apostle. For instance, Justin Martyr (Dialogue 81.15), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.14.1, 5.26.1), Tertullian (Against Marcion 3.14.24), and Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies 6.106-7) all believed that John the apostle wrote this book.[18] Melito—bishop of Sardis—also believed in John’s authorship of Revelation (Eusebius H.E. 4.26.2).[19] All of these men were early authors.[20] Walvoord writes, “Clement of Alexandria refers to the Apostle John as returning from the Isle of Patmos. Eusebius not only affirms John’s return from the isle but dates it immediately following the death of Domitian, which occurred in a.d. 96. Irenaeus adds his confirming word when he states that John lived in Ephesus after returning from Patmos until the reign of Trajan.”[21] Pliny tells us that Patmos was used by the Roman authorities as a place of exile.[22]
Second, John may not have included the title of being an apostle, because it went without saying. Perhaps the author was so popular that he didn’t need to add a title to his name. For instance, if a modern political pundit said, “Obama has changed our healthcare system,” it would certainly go without saying to whom he was referring. He wouldn’t need to add the obvious words “…the President of the United States.” Indeed, “the authority with which he writes reveals an implicit assumption of apostolicity.”[23]
Third, the author of Revelation never calls himself an apostle—but neither does the author of John. In fact, the author of the gospel of John never includes his name at all, remaining anonymous. Furthermore, the author refers to himself as a “bond-servant” (doulos) of Christ (Rev. 1:1). Far from being a non-apostolic title, this was precisely the same term used by Peter, Paul, and James in their letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1; Jas. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). For these reasons, we hold to the traditional authorship of John the apostle for this book.
ARGUMENT #3. Papias refers to a separate John
See comments in our “Introduction to 1 John.”
Conclusion
Dionysius of Alexandria simply didn’t offer strong arguments against Johannine authorship of the book of Revelation. Since Dionysius was an allegorist under the tutelage of Origen, Thomas[24] wonders if he objected to the book—not on historical grounds—but theological ones. After all, Dionysius strongly objected to the premillennial interpretation of the book, as did Eusebius. Regardless of their motives or motivation, their arguments were unsound, and we should reject them on face value. Furthermore, the external evidence is overwhelming in favor of Johannine authorship. Indeed, Thomas notes, “The fact remains that the external evidence for authorship by John the apostle is earlier, clearer, more definite, and more positive for Revelation than for the traditional authorship of any other NT book.”[25]
[1] Leon Morris, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 28.
[2] Leon Morris, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 29.
[3] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), p.701.
[4] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 23.
[5] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 24.
[6] Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), cxxi.
[7] Grant Osborne, Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2000), p.4.
[8] Leon Morris, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 33.
[9] Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 510.
[10] For more vocabulary and grammatical arguments, see Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 11-17.
[11] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 13.
[12] Emphasis mine. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 11.
[13] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 11.
[14] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 12.
[15] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 12.
[16] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 13.
[17] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1992), 11-17.
[18] Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 509.
[19] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 700.
[20] While Dionysius didn’t believe in Johannine authorship in the third century, he was not relating tradition or history like these authors; instead, he was speculating and critically challenging the authorship of this book, as modern critics do. Therefore, Dionysius’ disagreement of authorship is in a different category than these early Church Fathers.
[21] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Galaxie Software, 2008), 13.
[22] Pliny, Natural History 4.23.
[23] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 12.
[24] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1992), 9.
[25] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1992), 9–10.