Towards a new
spatio-temporal
macrostructure for Revelation - who was John?

Does it matter who was the author of Revelation? Consider the choices: the Apostle John (the son of Zebedee and one of the original twelve disciples) or the ‘Beloved Disciple’ (‘the one whom Jesus loved’ Jn. 13:23, Jn. 19:26-27, Jn. 20:2, Jn. 21:7, Jn. 21:20), both from Galilee (or knew it, because the Beloved Disciple is not mentioned on Peter’s boat until after the Resurrection, Jn. 21:1-25) and both followed Jesus during of his ministry, so memories of those times would underlie the exile to Patmos. Tradition (capitalised to indicate the orthodox view) says the son of Zebedee was the Beloved Disciple, so it’s complicated. There is also the Elder, the author of 2 Jn. and 3 Jn., who was another influential leader in Asia (modern day Turkey) in the first century AD, or John may have been an otherwise unknown prophet. The influence of Revelation is world-changing, and authorship is part of its context.

Traditions were passed down orally and (for modern readers) the chronology is ambiguous for this period. Does it matter when Revelation was written down or circulated – in AD 68-70 or AD 95-97? Yes, this was either just before or a long time after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and a long time before or close to the writing of the Gospels (c. AD 80 (Smalley, 2005: 3; Bauckham 2017: 14) or late 90’s AD (Furlong: 2020: 174)(see 7d.2), so the context of Revelation was very different on those dates.

In this section, the author and date of Revelation are considered from the view points of the text, the early Christian writers and more modern scholars; with probable dates of writing and local traditions. Finally, what the proposed macrostructure adds to these discussions and a probable authorship/ date scenario is suggested.

This is the first draft of this chapter. I began with limited knowledge and I assumed the author of the Johannine literature was John the son of Zebedee and the likely date was the end of the first century AD; in other words the Traditional view. In the search for the identity of John, the author of Revelation, I began with the more general books on Revelation in my Bibliography and discovered the two main choices for the identity of John and the dates for the exile to Patmos. To narrow down the options I chose to investigate the earliest possible documents first because the volume and scope of the modern literature was overwhelming. I realised very quickly that the Early Church Fathers had conflicting views and they made assumptions about authorship, particularly in relation to John the son of Zebedee. Only when I thought I knew the lie of the land did I go to the specific modern literature, both books and academic articles – particularly the books listed in the Mini Bibliography at the end of this section.

At that point, my first draft needed to be refreshed. Rather than simply start the chapter again I decided to add ‘Later’ paragraphs, so that the important points and my literary journey would be clear.

7a) The text

We do not know very much about the author of the Book of Revelation – he gives his name as John and he was on the now-Greek island of Patmos when he experienced a ‘revelation (ἀποκάλυψις, apocalypse) of Jesus Christ’ (1:1). John writes that he was a servant of God, brother-in-persecution to his audience and he was a prophet who was exiled to Patmos for preaching the Gospel:

‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw (…) I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.’ (1:1-10a)

‘I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow-servant with you and your comrades the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!’ (22:9)

Revelation’s John does not write, or even imply, that he was one of the original twelve disciples – not the Apostle (John, the son of Zebedee) nor ‘the Elder’ (the author of 2 Jn. and 3 Jn.). George Caird suggests his audience would have known who the author was and date of Revelation’s first circulation, therefore explanation within the text would be unnecessary (Caird, 1966: 3-5). From external sources, we know that the book was written by the end of the first century AD and the Roman Empire ruled supreme in the area at the time.

7b) Authorship and the Early Church Fathers

It is confusing that not only were there so many people called John in Ephesus at the time, the title ‘apostle’ is ambiguous. Ian Paul defines the term as referring ‘to an ambassador who is commissioned to take the message of the one commissioning to another party’.[1] The title appears to be used for one of Jesus’ chosen twelve disciples (the Twelve) as well as other faithful disciples (including those who may not have been with Jesus during his ministry). In the early writings, only references to ‘the evangelist’, ‘the holy apostle’ or ‘the son of Zebedee’ are to one of the Twelve, and only the last one is unambiguous because ‘the evangelist’ may be identified with John the Elder, and the Elder with the Beloved Disciple – but the Evangelist was recognised as the author of John’s Gospel. Dean Furlong recognised the problem and capitalised ‘apostle’ for the Twelve and Apostle Paul, and kept it lower case for ‘the wider circle of Jesus’s eyewitness disciples’ (Furlong, 2020: 2); I will do likewise. Unfortunately, the original authors did not do this.

The first direct reference to the authorship of Revelation that still exists today was by Justin Martyr (a teacher and philosopher), writing in Ephesus about AD 155:

‘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; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgement of all men would likewise take place.’ Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, LXXXI.

Justin does not specify that the apostle was the son of Zebedee but this apostle lived in Ephesus (‘with us’, i.e. where Justin was located at the time). John had a vision and he prophesied (as in Revelation) about ‘the Millennium’ and ‘Final Judgement’ for everyone. Justin’s writings were very influential and these quotes were referred to by Eusebius Pamphilius (c. A.D 260-339/340; Bishop of Caesarea):

‘He (Justin) writes also that even down to his time prophetic gifts shone in the Church. And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying distinctly that it was the apostle’s.’ Eusebius, IV.18.8.

In the early fourth century, Eusebius used an extensive library of early Christian writings to copy original texts and comment upon the history of the church (the Ecclesiastical History) from the end of the Book of Acts to the time of Emperor Constantine. He had access to books that are unknown or fragmentary today. Other early sources indicate he did not deviate from the original texts but there are modern reservations, for example: Martin Hengel suggests that Eusebius may have ‘sometimes concealed information which seemed disagreeable to him or omitted it through carelessness’ and Hengel gives examples of this (Hengel, 1989b: 21).

Eusebius copied documents by Papias (c. AD c. 70 – 155, Bishop of Hierapolis), for example, whom he described as being of ‘very limited understanding’ and wrong at times (quoted shortly, see 7b.2) – but he did not copy everything written by Papias; for example, he omitted Papias’ affirmation that the Apostle John was martyred, rather than dying naturally in his old age (Furlong, 2020: 91; see 7f). Nevertheless, Eusebius’ work is unique and worth taking seriously, despite his writing at least two hundred years after Revelation was circulated and the possibility that the original authors may be wrong in places or that Eusebius was selective in his choices and his own assertions were incorrect at times.

When Clement of Alexandria (AD c. 150-215) listed the order of the Gospels, the Apostle John (son of Zebedee) as the author of Revelation was disputed: ‘In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients’ (Clement in Eusebius III.24.18). It is ironic that now Clement is considered to be one of ‘the ancients’, and even more ironic that the words of ‘the ancients’ fuel the debate about John’s identity. The debate was underway when Dionysius was Bishop of Alexandria (c. AD 200-265). Dionysius spent three full days with the church in Arsinoë (Egypt), discussing books for which the local leaders wanted his opinion; one of these was Revelation (Dionysius in Eusebius VII.24.6-7, VII.25.1-27). It is perhaps note-worthy that he had not already read it. Dionysius is quoted as saying:

‘that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle (1 John) were written’ (in Eusebius VII.25.7).

Dionysius defines which John he is writing about, which is very important. Dionysius does not accept Revelation as a work of the son of Zebedee, for two main reasons: firstly, the Apostle did not use his name in the Gospel and first letter, and neither did the author of the second and third epistles (who used the title ‘the Elder’, an ‘anonymous phrase’ which was not used by the Apostle). Only in Revelation did the author use his name:

‘But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, “the elder”. But this author (of Revelation) did not consider it sufficient to give his name once (but four times) and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again.’ (in Eusebius VII.25.11).

Secondly, comparing John’s Gospel and Revelation, Dionysius commented:

‘And from the ideas, and from the words and their arrangement, it may be reasonably conjectured that this one (the Apostle) is different from that one’.

‘Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. (…)

I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy.

I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the difference between the writings.’ (in Eusebius VII.25.17-27)

Dionysius’ comments are endorsed by comparing Revelation with John’s Gospel today but, despite his criticisms, Dionysius did not deny the prophetic value of John’s vision. Were there three men called John in Christian circles at that time: the Apostle (who Dionysius thought was the son of Zebedee), John the Elder and ‘the other writer’ i.e. John of Patmos, the Prophet or Seer of Revelation? There is also the Beloved Disciple to consider (his precise identity is unknown), who was almost certainly in Ephesus at the time (see 7c).

There are other early sources that refer to the authorship of the Gospel, the Johannine letters and Revelation,[2] for example Tertullian (a theologian from Carthage, writing c. AD 197–220) and Hippolytus (a theologian from Rome, c. AD 170–235/ 6) ascribe authorship of each document to ‘The Apostle John’, without clarifying if he was the son of Zebedee. Origen (c. AD 185–254) identifies John the son of Zebedee as the author and the Muratorian Canon (late second century) lists the documents as authoritative Scripture (2 and 3 John are fragmentary).

[1] ‘To be ‘apostolic’ is both to bear the message of Jesus and to take it to those to whom Jesus sends us—it concerns both what is believed and is done with that belief’ whereas the term ‘disciple’ is more flexible’ https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-calling-and-sending-of-the-twelve-apostles-in-matthew-9-and-10/ [Accessed 12 June 2026].

[2] Dean Furlong (2020) gives an overview of the early sources. Copies and translations of the originals are available online: https://en.wikisource.org/ or https://ccel.org/ or https://biblehub.com/.

7b.1) 'Not very accurate Greek'

Largely based on textual ambiguities like those noted by Dionysius (‘not very accurate Greek’, in Eusebius VII.25.26), the authorship of Revelation has taxed modern scholarship, especially in the last 200 years (Paul, 2018: 8). In 1913, RH Charles describes the Greek as not so much ‘abnormal’ (as some scholars in Charles’ time attested), more ‘unique’; and ‘Hebraic in style’ (as earlier scholars had always agreed).[1] Martin Hengel described it as koine Greek (i.e. ‘common speech’) which had been spoken by high status Jews in Jerusalem before the city was destroyed. It was the same type of Greek as John’s Gospel and both works have ‘a marked semitic, even Hebraic, flavour’ (Hengel, 1989b: 110, 113, 126).

David Aune suggests the use of ‘Semitizing Greek’ indicates John was a native Aramaic (‘perhaps even Hebrew’) speaker (Aune, 1997: xlix-l). He suggests Revelation has a modification of the Greek tripartite prophecy formula (Aune, 1997: 112-113) which might mean John had some Greek literary education. However, James Barr had previously commented that merely writing in Greek did not automatically mean an author was influenced by Greco-Roman thought processes and philosophy, because koine Greek was the universal language at the time (Barr, 1961: 9-10). Neither Revelation itself nor the language used tells us whether John was The Apostle/ Evangelist/ Elder or another leader who lived in Ephesus in the second half of the first century AD.

Revelation was part of the New Testament Canon by the time Eusebius was writing in the fourth century AD, despite negative observations noted by earlier leaders such as Dionysius. John the son of Zebedee’s authorship of Revelation remains the orthodox view.

Shortly, I suggest that John had a waking vision and he gave a summary of what he was seeing to his scribe, while it was happening, and it was the scribe’s Greek that Dionysius criticised (see 7f). Concerning Dionysius’ comments about the ‘ideas, and from the words and their arrangement’, Towards … 6 illustrates the very close alignment between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse/ Little Apocalypse (Lk. 21, Mt. 24, Mk. 13 and Lk.17).

[1] ‘The abnormal type of the Greek (…) has been recently said to be characteristic of the vernacular Greek of this period, and the existence of Hebraisms strictly so call denied. These positions are untenable. The style (…) is absolutely unique in all Greek literature, while linguistically it is more Hebraic than the Septuagint.’ (Charles, 1913: 79).

7b.2) The two tombs in Ephesus

If there were three or four men called John in leadership in Ephesus at that time, only two were later known to be buried there:

‘John, who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus.’ (Eusebius, III.1.1) and ‘his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates (a late second century bishop of Ephesus) (…) He also sleeps at Ephesus.’ (Eusebius, III.31.2-3). This John is not defined as the son of Zebedee (see 7c.1) and Dionysius is quoted:

‘But I think that he was some other one (not the son of Zebedee) of those (named John) in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John.’ (Eusebius, VII.25.16).

The presence of the two tombs was endorsed by Papias, writing c. AD 125-135 (Hengel, 1989b: 126-127) or before AD 110 (Osborne 2002:3), who was probably remembering much earlier times when the four Gospels were being written. According to Eusebius, Papias took great care to question the immediate followers of the original eye-witnesses (the Twelve and other disciples), rather than relying on what others had written, so he had good credentials:

Papias was ‘an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp (a Bishop of Smyrna who, in his old age, had known the Apostle John), but Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. (Eusebius, III.39.1-2).

‘It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him (Papias). The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion (who was perhaps the first Bishop of Smyrna) before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter (an elder).

This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day (i.e. early fourth century), is called John’s.

It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.’ Eusebius, III.39.5-7

According to Eusebius, Papias knew Polycarp who had known John the son of Zebedee who, Eusebius surmises, was the Evangelist; and he (Papias) had heard ‘the other John’ speak and that one was the Elder (‘a lesser disciple than Aristion’) and not one of the Twelve. Was Eusebius’ repetition of Papias’ claim about two leaders called ‘John’ living and being buried in Ephesus warranted? The two tombs still existed in Eusebius’ day and he (Eusebius) assumed one was for ‘the evangelist’ and the second was for ‘a presbyter’ (elder). Eusebius himself classified Revelation’s Scriptural credentials as ‘disputed’ (Boring, 1989: 3) and Grant Osborne suggests Eusebius was persuaded by the reference to the two tombs that John the Elder wrote Revelation (Osborne, 2002: 3; also Mounce, 1997: 11, Bauckham, 2017: 424).

Eusebius was very dismissive of Papias when he (Papias) recounted unwritten traditions of Jesus’ miracles, doctrine and other matters which Eusebius thought were fanciful, but they were very influential at the time (none survive intact today). According to Eusebius, Papias confirmed that there were unknown apocalyptical teachings of Jesus circulating which referred to the resurrection of the dead before the one thousand year kingdom of Christ on Earth:

‘The same writer (Papias) gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.

I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus (Bishop of Lyons, c. AD 139-202) and anyone else that may have proclaimed similar views.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning.’ Eusebius, III.39.11-14a

Another who ‘proclaimed similar views’ was Justin Martyr, who recognised ‘John, one of the apostles of Christ’ as the author of Revelation (quoted earlier in 7b) but Papias (according to Eusebius) thought the ‘the other John’, who was an elder/ presbyter or ‘the elder John’ who handed down ‘traditions’, probably wrote Revelation. The pronoun ‘the’ or ‘a’ presbyter/ elder may not be significant and there were probably several elders called John in Ephesus at any one time. It was a common name, especially in priestly circles at the time of the Second Temple in Palestine (Hengel, 1989b: 109) and, according to Dionysius (in Eusebius), this pattern continued in Asia:

‘But I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, (…) desired to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or Peter.’ in Eusebius VII.25.14.

Revelation’s John may have had a high social status or he was particularly influential at the time because only those people were exiled – other trouble-makers were usually killed (Hengel, 1989b; 126). This suggests John was an established leader and prophet (22:9), even if he was neither The Apostle nor The Elder. John’s high status within the Christian communities in Asia may be a reason why later influential leaders like Justin Martyr, Irenæus and Dionysius, and the later Patmos communities (described shortly) may have assumed this John was the son of Zebedee (or others assume they thought this). Dionysius makes it clear that he thought the son of Zebedee was the Beloved Disciple (he was ‘loved by the Lord’) and he was the author of the Fourth Gospel but not of Revelation.

Eusebius and the other writers quoted here are unreliable at times, but intervening time between the events and the transcriptions from oral traditions to text does not automatically mean they have limited value. For example, according to Eusebius’ transcriptions, Papias took great care to question the immediate followers of ‘the elders’ (the ‘holy apostles’ and Jesus’ original disciples), rather than relying on what others had written (in Eusebius III.39.1-4) – and Eusebius appears not to have liked Papias very much. The presence of the two tombs in Ephesus was very influential in the story of the Gospel and Revelation’s authorship.

7c) So who was John? The options

If two leaders called John were buried in Ephesus and one was The Disciple/ The Evangelist/ The Apostle John/ the son of Zebedee and the other may have been The Elder (who handed down the ‘traditions’, quoted earlier, and wrote the second and third Johannine letters), was there a third John, who wrote Revelation? John may have been buried away from Ephesus if he died on a journey, but based in Ephesus because John went to Asia[1] and where a place is mentioned in early documents, it is Ephesus (Schnelle, 1998: 519).

The order of the seven congregations mentioned in Revelation followed a path from Ephesus that a peripatetic prophet, or a well travelled Bishop, might take and John knew details of the seven congregations in Asia. For example: the temple on the side of a hill in Pergamum looks like a throne (2:13, assuming the slightly later Roman temple seen today reflects an earlier one); Sardis needed to wake up – and this reflected its past nocturnal betrayal (3:2); and the luke-warm waters of Laodicea reflected its location between hot springs and the valley (3:15-16).

John, the son of Zebedee’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the three letters and Revelation remain the orthodox view and Ian Paul suggests the ambiguity is a modern phenomenon (especially within the last 200 years, Paul, 2018: 8) but doubts began quite early. Modern scholarship tends to follow Dionysius and some scholars call John ‘John the seer’ (Charles, 1913: 79; Furlong, 2020: 37) or ‘John of Patmos’ (Caird, 1966: 3-5). In 1993, Bauckham identified Revelation’s John as an otherwise unknown Jewish Christian prophet, one of a circle of prophets in Asia (Bauckham, 1993a: 2). Later he commented that the identification of the author of Revelation was ‘an even more difficult question’ than the question of the authorship of John’s Gospel (Bauckham, 2017: 443). This is the view with some consensus among scholars noted in this study.

Other options vary from the negative to the complex. David Aune lists and discounts several possible authors for Revelation, including the son of Zebedee and the Elder, and he suggests that John may have been an unknown Palestinian Jew who emigrated to Asia in AD 66-70 and he ‘regarded himself as a Christian prophet and his composition as a prophetic book’, but one who was not part of the ‘Johannine community in any meaningful sense’ (Aune, 1997: lvi). This seems very dismissive of John and perhaps unlikely, given Revelation’s later inclusion in the New Testament Canon (albeit after a lot of debate).

Eugene Boring suggests John was a Christian prophet who served as an interpreter of historical events in John’s era to local congregations around Ephesus in a post-Resurrection world (Boring, 1989: 26). However, G.K. Beale rejects an unknown prophet as the author because John was clearly a significant leader in Asia; he supports the son of Zebedee as the likely author (Beale, 2015: 2-3), as do Mark Goodacre (Goodacre: 2025:108) and Stephen Smalley, but authorship remains open (Smalley, 2005: 3; so Mounce, 1997:15).

Martin Hengel complicates the authorship possibilities by suggesting the author of the Johaninne literature was a composite figure of the son of Zebedee and the Head of a School[2] in Ephesus (perhaps John the Elder) who had been exiled to Patmos in his earlier days (Hengel, 1989b: 130-134). The school included a mix of visionaries and those who followed the son of Zebedee’s and Elder’s apocalyptic teachings – with (hypothetically, suggests Hengel) the figure of the former ‘superimposed in a veiled way’ on the figure of the Beloved Disciple by the Elder, yielding an ‘ideal figure’ as the author of John’s Gospel (Hengel, 1989b: 131-135). This is a different way of suggesting there were two (or three) separate senior leaders called John in Asia and knowledge of their individual contributions have been lost in time and obfuscated by later traditions. Dean Furlong suggests this fusion began in the beginning of the third century AD (see 7c.1).

Later, I suggest there were two apostles called John living in Ephesus at the same time, at least for a while (the son of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple, see 7c.2). I also suggest that the author of John’s Gospel was not a composite figure – he was the Beloved Disciple, who was assumed to be the son of Zebedee by the time that Dionysius read Revelation (see 7f).

[1] ‘Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world Parthia, according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas and Asia to John, who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus.’ (Eusebius III.1.1) [Accessed 2 September 2026].

[2] The School consisted of a group of men who followed a particular teacher, equivalent of Jesus and the Disciples. Hengel suggested the Head of the School was John the Elder (Hengel, 1989b: 124). Rather than a ‘school’, Aune refers to ‘prophetic guilds’ which existed in ancient Israel and early Christianity. The author of Revelation may have been the ‘master prophet’ (Aune, 1997: liv).

7c.1) The Fourth Gospel conundrum

Authorship of Revelation is even more complex if the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is contested; traditionally they have the same author. Does authorship matter? If the Patmos experience underlies the writing of John’s Gospel and the Johannine letters, then it does matter because his own interpretation of his vision on Patmos underlies these other documents, and John’s history provides a context for Revelation.

‘John’ as the author of the Fourth Gospel is an early attribution (Bauckham, 2017: 415) – but which John? The son of Zebedee? The Elder? There is another option: he was the Beloved Disciple. He, according to Tradition, was the son of Zebedee – or he may have been the Elder or another disciple.

Who was the John, the son of Zebedee? John and his brother James (the sons of Zebedee) were fishermen working on the boats owned by Simon Peter and his partner Zebedee when they met Jesus (Mt. 4:18-22, Mk. 1:16-20, Lk. 5:1-11). They became two of the Twelve and Jesus chose them to accompany him during the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-9, Mk. 9:2-10, Lk. 9:28-36) and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt. 26:36-46, Mk. 14:32-42, Lk. 22 39-46). They became effective evangelists and leaders who were recognised as such by the early Christian communities and both are referred to in the Book of Acts and the Apostle Paul’s letters (see 7d.1); later, John settled in Asia.

Who was the Beloved Disciple? According to Jn. 21:20-24: ‘Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; (,,,) This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.’ The name ‘Beloved Disciple’ is an epithet, not a real title (Bauckham, 2017: 401) and it is not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels or Acts. Jn. 13:23, Jn. 19:26-27, Jn. 20:2, Jn. 21:7 and Jn. 21:20-24 are keys to the argument that he was The Apostle who wrote John’s Gospel (assuming later editors have not changed the original text, Hengel, 1989b: 131).

Polycrates and Irenæus both refer to the disciple who ‘reclined upon the bosom of the Lord’, (meaning the Beloved Disciple) but they may have come to different conclusions. In about AD 190, Polycrates (previously mentioned in 7b.2 with reference to John’s burial place) writes in a letter:

‘For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming (…). Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles (Phillip’s daughters …); and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate (Jewish priestly vestement). He also sleeps at Ephesus.’ (Polycrates in Eusebius V.24.2b).

Polycrates does not specifically mention the son of Zebedee here, who was perhaps the greatest of the ‘great lights’ based in Ephesus, does this suggest that this John may have died a long time previously – or was he still alive when the letter was written? (see 7f) ‘Moreover’/ ‘still yet there is also’ there was another John, who was the Beloved Disciple, a lesser disciple than Philip – and he was not one of the ‘great lights’, nor the Twelve. This John was not the son of Zebedee (so Furlong, 2020: 44-45, contra McGrew, 2021: 455).

However, Irenæus uses a similar phrase: ‘Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.’ (Irenæus in Eusebius III.8.4) – and Irenæus believed the writer of the Gospel was the son of Zebedee (see 7d.2). There are no definitive answers concerning the identity of the Beloved Disciple in the early documents but Tradition maintains he was the son of Zebedee.

How were the son of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple connected in the Gospels? Like the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple worked on Peter’s boat, but perhaps only after the Resurrection (Jn. 21: 1-14). The Beloved Disciple was at the Last Supper table (Jn. 13:23, Jn. 21:20). Jesus ‘came with’ the Twelve to the Last Supper (Mk. 14:17) and they reclined at the table (Mt. 26:20, Lk. 22:14).

According to Mk. 14:18-21, Jesus said: ‘One of you will betray Me (…) It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl’ who will betray Jesus. The Synoptic Gospels do not refer to ‘the Twelve’ in this context (Mt. 26:23, Lk. 22:21). Were others, apart from the Twelve, reclining at the table? No one knows. Lydia McGrew concludes there were no others present and if only the Twelve were present, then there is a ‘strong indication’ that the Beloved Disciple was one of the Twelve, and if he was called John, then he must be the son of Zebedee (McGrew, 2021: 437-441). Richard Bauckham concludes there were others present (Bauckham, 2017:565-566), so John need not be the son of Zebedee.

The apostles’ different roles are illustrated at the crucifixion of Jesus. The sons of Zebedee went into hiding (or at least they kept a low profile) after Jesus was arrested (as did the rest of the Twelve, now eleven), as they were leaders within the community. This meant that they were in danger of being arrested themselves. Even their mother and many other women remained at a distance from the cross where Jesus died (Mt. 27:55-56). The Beloved Disciple, on the contrary, was allowed to accompany Jesus’ mother (Mary), Mary’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene (Jn. 19:25) to the base of the cross itself, presumably because he was not considered to be a threat to Rome, so not at risk of arrest. It was there that Jesus commended his mother to this disciple and, after Jesus’ death, Mary went to live with the Beloved Disciple (Jn. 19:25-27).

The women from Galilee were the first to see Jesus’ empty tomb and the angel(s), and they quickly went to tell the disciples (Mt. 28:1-8, Mk. 16:1-8, Lk. 24:1-12). According to Luke, Peter arose and ran to the tomb, saw the linen cloths and went home, ‘amazed at what had happened’ (Lk. 24:12); the sons of Zebedee are not specifically mentioned here. According to John, the Beloved Disciple ran with Peter to the tomb, he arrived first but then he hesitated before entering so Peter entered the tomb first (Jn. 20:5); hesitation or respect for Peter? In either case this is a very strong indication that this John was not the son of Zebedee.

If he was not the son of Zebedee, then the Beloved Disciple was one of two ‘other disciples’ in the boat when Jesus appeared for the third time after his resurrection; he was the one who recognised the resurrected Jesus (Jn. 21:7). The chronology (using the proposed macrostructure, see Towards … 6, Table 1) indicates that this last ‘calling’ (Jn. 21:1-14) mirrors the first ‘calling’ of the disciples (Lk. 5:1-11); the Gospel contexts indicate they were not the same event. The Beloved Disciple was following Peter and Jesus when Peter asked what would happen to him (the Beloved Disciple) in the future (Jn.21:20-23, see 7b.2); this conversation led to the erroneous belief that the Beloved Disciple would not die and to the Tradition that he lived a long life (see 7d.2).

Who was the Elder? He was a senior Christian leader in Asia in the first century AD and he wrote letters (as the Elder), two of which remain today: to ‘the elect lady and her children’ (2 Jn.) and to Gaius (3 Jn.). Papias (in Eusebius) had listen to this person (‘the other John’), who was outside the group containing John the Evangelist (who Papias wrote was one of the Twelve), ‘putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter’ or elder (see 7b.2). According to Dionysius, the Elder did not write the Gospel and 1 John (see 7b.2) but the orthodox view today is that the son of Zebedee was the Elder. Dean Furlong comments that attributions of all the Johannine literature to the son of Zebedee only began in the early third century AD; he agrees that the Elder was the Evangelist (Furlong, 2020: 37). Modern scholarship is polarised: Richard Bauckham suggests the Elder wrote all three Johannine letters, and he was the Beloved Disciple (Bauckham, 2017: 423); Mark Goodacre goes so far as to describe the Elder as ‘some Johnny come lately’ (Goodacre, 2025: 109).

The Elder wrote: ‘I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority’ (3 Jn. 9). Diotrephes was clearly a troublemaker but doubting the Elder’s authority if he was known to be the son of Zebedee is improbable – and more likely if the Elder was another Christian leader. I find attribution to John the Elder difficult; was the Beloved Disciple (if he was the Elder) so reticent that his connexion to Jesus, Peter, the sons of Zebedee and Mary was unknown? Others would know the truth and, according to Tradition, John the son of Zebedee and Mary had lived in Ephesus (see 7e). Was the Beloved Disciple really a lesser disciple than Aristion? This also seems improbable.

Papias recorded that there were ‘traditions as handed down by the presbyter John’ – do ‘traditions’ correspond to John’s Gospel, Revelation and the Johannine letters? This is implausible because these became significant documents, attributed to the Apostle John, that were in circulation by the time Papias was writing. However, we do not know who Papias thought wrote John’s Gospel – so it is complicated.

The identity of John was an iterative process for me and my own view changed during this study; my present thoughts are given in 7f. To quote a phrase used earlier, I ‘refer those who are fond of learning’ to the original documents written by the Early Church Fathers and the books in the Mini Biography at the end of this chapter.

[1 ] https://www.logos.com/grow/a-priori-dean-furlongs-work-on-john-mark/ [Accessed 1 August 2026].

7c.2) How the possible authors are described

Was the Apostle (the son of Zebedee) the author of John’s Gospel, the Johannine letters and Revelation? This is the traditional view but consider how others treated or described him and how John described himself in Revelation. John was exiled to Patmos, rather than killed, so he may have been of high status or not thought of as a great threat to Rome at the time. He expected the imminent coming of Christ as King (1:7) and his condemnation of Rome (Babylon) was clear. John was a prophet and prophecy was an important motif in Revelation,[1] and he was reminded of his prophetic role in the community:

‘I (the angel) am a fellow-servant with you (John) and your comrades the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!’ And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.’ 22:9

We know little else about John but we can surmise that he was one of life’s observers; questions and explanations are very limited in Revelation. Only 13:18 is explained, and readers are encouraged to work out who was ‘666’, but the name (according to Irenæus) was not made common knowledge at the time.[2] Babylon’s condemnation (17:1-18) was explained to John by one of the bowl angels in response to his astonishment, not his questioning (17:7). Is this in keeping with what is known about the son of Zebedee?

John and James, the sons of Zebedee, were called the ‘sons of thunder’ by Jesus (Mk. 3:17) which suggests they were fiery, bold and loud personalities. They were confident in their own authority, as illustrated on the journey to Jerusalem: John said to Jesus, ‘Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.’ (Lk. 9:49-50, also Mk. 9:38-40); and when a Samaritan village did not welcome them, James and John asked: ‘Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’(Lk. 9:52-56); in both cases Jesus rebuked them. The sons of Thunder (with their mother, Mt. 20:20-28) were confident enough to demand of Jesus: ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory’ (Mk.10:37). This was an impossible demand and it made the other disciples indignant. In Jesus reply, he warned them that they would suffer, as he would suffer (Mt. 20:22-23, Mk. 10:38-39). A common interpretation of this is that they were both martyred. James was killed early on (Acts 12:2) but John’s fate is uncertain.

The Beloved Disciple seems more reticent than the son of Zebedee and his presence at the cross implies he was not seen as a threat to Rome (Jn. 19:25). He did not push himself forward (when Peter and Jesus were talking, he followed them close enough to hear them but he was not part of their conversation, Jn. 21:20-24) and he went with Peter to the tomb, but he waited before entering (Jn. 20:2). He was observant (he recognised the resurrected Jesus before everyone else when they were out fishing, Jn. 21:20-24) and he was aware of the local politics (he knew that Lazarus became a target of the chief priests after his (Lazarus’) resurrection (Jn. 12:9-11). He was caring (Jesus chose him to look after Mary, Jn. 19:26-27). The Beloved Disciple was unassuming – John records others whom Jesus loved: Martha, Mary and Lazarus (Jn. 11:5), whereas the Synoptics do not even mention Lazarus as the brother of Martha and Mary (Lk. 10:38-41) nor use that epithet, so it was not one that John advanced. The words of Mark Goodacre are so true: ‘The figure of the beloved disciple is so superbly crafted that we think we can see him, and we want to believe in him.’ (Goodacre, 2025, 133) – but Goodacre thought the Beloved Disciple was the son of Zebedee.

Only Mark records a similar phrase ‘Jesus, looking at him, (a rich young man) loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me’ but this young man would not give up his possessions (Mk. 10:24-31). At first sight it seems unlikely that he was the Beloved Disciple – unless he changed his mind later on, which (I suggest) he did. This use of the phrase ‘Jesus loved him’ is unique in the Synoptics and it is missing in the corresponding passages (Mt. 19:16-22, Lk. 18:18-23). Mk. 10:24-31 supports the tradition that the Beloved Disciple was a rich young man who lived in Jerusalem.[3] This incident is not recorded in John’s Gospel.

There is debate about whether the Beloved Disciple was the ‘other disciple’ who was instrumental in Peter entering the high priest’s courtyard (Jn. 18:15-24); was he? I suggest he probably was, because the Synoptics do not record exactly how Peter entered the courtyard otherwise (contra Goodacre, 2025: 114-115), Richard Bauckham suggests the answer is ‘very uncertain’ (Bauckham, 2017: 573).

Peter is thought to be Mark’s source for his Gospel (Bauckham, 2017: 203-205, 210), and Peter knew the Beloved Disciple very well – wherever the ‘Beloved Disciple’ is mentioned in John’s Gospel (except at the cross), Peter is there. The Beloved Disciple followed Peter (Jn. 21:3, Jn. 21:20) but Peter asked him to question Jesus at the Last Supper (indicating he was reclining closer to Jesus, Jn. 13:24). Mary Magdalene ran to where they both were when she saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb (Jn. 20:2-3), which confirms that the Beloved Disciple was an active member of the inner group of disciples. Richard Bauckham considers the relationship between the Beloved Disciple and Peter and he concludes: ‘There is no implication of personal closeness between the two disciples’ (Bauckham: 2017: 572-573). If this is correct, I suggest the relationship was perhaps something like a young person following a mentor, and this would indicate that the Beloved Disciple was not the son of Zebedee. John’s Gospel indicates that the Beloved Disciple was alert to what was happening and Peter was most probably the source of his information about Jesus ministry when he (the Beloved Disciple) was not present.

In his Gospel, John recognised that ‘Having loved his own who were in the world, he (Jesus) loved them to the end’ (Jn.13:1) and he records Jesus’ words: ‘I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’ (Jn.13:34-35, Jn. 15:12). This commandment is not recorded in the equivalent Gospel verses (according to the Aland synopsis I used). I used to wonder that if Jesus loved some people, were there those he did not love? Then I realised that John recognised that the universal love of God applied to him, and that he was acknowledging this blessing when he wrote his Gospel and added the postscript. The postscript reflects a deep understanding of God’s love.

Comparing the Gospel references, John the son of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple are like two different people with different gifts and skills. Revelation’s John has more in keeping with the latter than the former. Reading the Greek today, even without Dionysius’ ability to recognise nuances of fashion or period, the Gospel and Revelation are clearly so different in style (notwithstanding the differences in genre) and grammar that it is hard to accept they were by the same author, even if one was written when the author was a younger man. I doubted a common authorship in the beginning of this study, mainly because of the difference in the Greek. I now believe this can be explained by John’s use of a scribe who recorded the words John gave him, while the vision was happening, as a summary (not a transcript) of a visionary situation of overwhelming complexity (see 7e).

‘John’ is described in the early written sources (see 7c) as witness, teacher, priest, prophet, evangelist and apostle living in Ephesus – many roles undertaken by these two men (or maybe three men, because there is the Elder to consider). Were the two tombs in Ephesus for these two apostles (see 7b.2)? The first congregations knew who they were; therefore they did not have to specify which John was which. Later assumptions have clouded Traditions ever since. If the apostles in question were both called John, who ministered in Asia, and both had fished from Peter’s boat, both knew Galilee and Jerusalem, and both were close to Jesus during his ministry, so both were entitled to be called ‘holy apostle’; then it is easy to see how the one may have been confused with the other as time passed; but who was the Elder?

Later (see 7f), I support the proposal that Revelation’s John also wrote John’s Gospel and the first Johannine epistle, and he was probably the Beloved Disciple, who may have been Mark’s rich young man (Mk. 10:24-31). Whoever he was, according to Polycrates, he was ‘both a witness and a teacher (… and) a priest’ (see 7c.1) and a bishop (7d.2). By the time Papias was writing, the Fourth Gospel had been written by the Evangelist/ Apostle, who was not considered as less than anyone (see 7b.2). For this reason, I support the view that the Elder was not the Beloved Disciple. I suggest the key to uncovering the reason why there is so much confusion about John’s identity is to uncover the fate of the son of Zebedee.

[1] References to prophecy: 1:3, 11:6, 19:10, 22:7, 22:10, 22:18, 22:19; prophets, the servants of God: 10:7, 11:10, 11:18, 16:6, 18:20, 18:24, 22:6; the need to prophesy: 10:11, 11:3 and false prophets: 2:20, 16:13, 19:20, 20:10.

[2] ‘We (Irenæus) will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.’ Irenæus, Against Heresies, V.30.3 (see 7d.2).

[3] https://www.logos.com/grow/a-priori-dean-furlongs-work-on-john-mark/ [Accessed 1 August 2026].

7d) When was Revelation written/ circulated?

The date of the vision and the date of its circulation do not necessarily coincide and authorship of Revelation is related to both of these. The most commonly suggested dates are either AD 68-70 or AD 95-97, i.e. just before or a long time after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. If there was a common author for the Johannine writings, George Caird suggests it would have had an early date, ‘for if one man wrote both Revelation and Gospel, it is certain that the Revelation came first’ (Caird, 1966: 5; so Smalley, 2005: 3; so Hengel, 1889b: 126-127). Stephen Smalley suggests John’s Gospel written in AD 80 (or c. AD 80, Bauckham, 2017:14) and the Johannine letters in AD 90 and, if so, this supports the earlier proposed date for the writing of Revelation (Smalley: 2005: 3). There are alternative options, Dean Furlong proposes the Gospel was written in the late 90’s AD (Furlong: 2020: 174) but, using archaeological evidence from Jerusalem, George van Kooten proposes that the Gospel was written before AD 70 (van Kooten, 2025: 31).[1] There are indications within Revelation of when it was written because John writes that his exile was part of a wider persecution:

‘I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.’ (1:9).

To what persecution was John referring? According to Tacitus, there was persecution following the Great Fire in Rome (AD 64), for which Christians were blamed, and it was brutal and short-lived – but limited to Rome.[2] Later, according to Josephus (c. AD 37/38-110/120)[3] and quoted in Eusebius II.26.1, there were terrible persecutions and war against the Jews in the twelfth year of Emperor Nero’s reign (in AD 66; Nero committed suicide in AD 68). The risk to life indicated by the use of ‘666’ instead of a name for the beast (13:18) is more in keeping with Nero’s reign than with Domitian’s.

What were the Christian leaders doing on these dates? Acts covers about 30 years (from the Resurrection to the early 60’s AD) and there were local uprisings (Acts 5:36-37) before the main Jewish War (AD 66-70). We know that the early church in Jerusalem suffered persecution. After Stephen’s martyrdom (c. AD 34–36*),[4] the apostles remained in the city (Acts 8:1) but believers scattered far and wide (Acts 11:19). The last reference to the Apostle John by name in Acts was when his brother, James, was killed with a sword on the orders of King Herod and Peter was arrested (Acts 12:1-4; c. AD 44*). Paul and Barnabas were driven out of Antioch (Acts 13:50) and the Epistles refer to persecution of the faithful (see also Rom. 8:35, Gal. 5:11, Gal. 6:12, 2 Tim. 3:12). Persecution associated with John’s exile could have happened at any time before AD 70. Possible oppression under Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) is considered shortly (7d.2).

Where was John in the early days?

After staying in Galilee following the Resurrection, the disciples returned to Jerusalem and they remained in the city (Acts 8:1); other believers scattered far and wide (Acts 11:19). The ‘chosen’ apostles were present at the Ascension. The ‘chosen’ were those who witnessed the risen Jesus over the forty days (Acts 1:2-4), and both the son of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple were witnesses (Jn. 21:1-22) and thus entitled to be recognised as such:

‘Then (after the Ascension, the apostles) they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the believers (together the crowd numbered about one hundred and twenty people) and said …’ (Acts 1:12-15).

If John was not the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple was among the hundred and twenty believers in Jerusalem. According to Tradition at the site of ‘Mary’s last house’ in Ephesus, the Beloved Disciple (recognised there as the son of Zebedee there) went to Ephesus ‘after the crucifixion’. However, it is likely they first remained in Jerusalem for some years because Paul founded the church in Ephesus (see 7d.1). The site is not called ‘Mary and the Beloved Disciple’s last house’, so perhaps Mary outlived the disciple or he lived elsewhere. The site became a small chapel but another Tradition indicates Mary died in Jerusalem.[5]

[2] Tacitus, The Annals XV, 38-45. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_15#38 [Accessed 11 August 2026].

[3] https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-11.html [Accessed 9 May 2025].

[4] The dates mentioned in this section (7d) are uncertain and gleaned from many sources; they give relative approximations for the timings of the events. For the dates with an asterisk – and only for this, I used Perplexity AI; then I checked the sources quoted [Accessed 10 August 2026].

[5] The house of Mary in Ephesus https://ephesiantourism.com/house-of-the-virgin-mary/?_gl=1*1gysmke*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTU3ODAwODA1NS4xNzY5MzYzNDQz*_ ga_34DV7FZ43C*czE3NjkzNjM0NDIkbzEkZzEkdDE3NjkzNjM1MDkkajYwJGwwJGgw [Accessed 17 March 2026].

7d.1) John, Paul and the early days in Ephesus

Disciples in Ephesus were originally followers of John the Baptist (Acts 18:19-22, Acts 19:1-41) and the Apostle Paul founded the church on a brief visit in AD 54.[1] Several months (up to a year*)[2] later, Paul returned to Ephesus during his third missionary journey and he lived in Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31), from where he wrote to the Corinthians:

‘The churches of Asia send greetings. Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in the Lord.’ 1 Cor. 16:19.

Paul left Ephesus and travelled first to Macedonia, and at the end of his journey he met with ‘the elders of the church’ from Ephesus at Miletus (no mention of John or Mary). Paul did not want to travel back to Ephesus itself because he was keen to move onto Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 20:16-38; c. AD 58); there he met with ‘James; and all the elders’ (Acts 21:18), indicating that the Apostle John was not in Jerusalem at the time. In his letter to the Galatians (written c. AD 48-49 or AD 50-55*), Paul twice refers to John (or his absence) in Jerusalem. First: in the early AD 30’s:

‘Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him for fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.’ Gal. 1:18-19. Second, probably after his first missionary journey, c. AD 48-50*:

‘Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.’

‘and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.’ Gal. 2:1-10.

Acts and Paul’s recollections indicate that John the son of Zebedee lived in Jerusalem but he may have sometimes travelled elsewhere. There is no record of when he and/ or the Beloved Disciple and Mary first arrived in Ephesus, but it was Paul who established the community there so it was after Paul’s final visit (post c. AD 58).

In what was probably one of his final letters (probably written in the mid to late 60’s), Paul wrote to Timothy that ‘all who are in Asia have turned away from me’ (2 Tim. 1:15) but he sent Tychicus to Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:12). He asked Timothy to greet Prisca and Aquila but Trophimus had been left ill in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:19-20); there is no mention of John in Ephesus. This suggests John and/ or the Beloved Disciple and Mary may have remained in Jerusalem until they saw the gathering Roman armies, i.e. heeding Jesus’ warnings about the fall of Jerusalem (originally oral and later recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, Mt. 24:15-22, Mk. 13:14-20, Lk. 21:20-24). ‘Commanded by a revelation’, Christians heeded warnings to flee Jerusalem before the Jewish War and they escaped to Pella (Eusebius III.5.3). John and his party went to Asia. If the revelation was Revelation, then it was in circulation before AD 70.

If John was NOT the son of Zebedee or the Beloved Disciple

Revelation’s link with Ephesus is undisputed and many modern scholars agree John was formerly a resident of Jerusalem (see 7c). His travels may have been similar to those of the son of Zebedee and/or the Beloved Disciple or he may have left Jerusalem earlier.

Alternatively, as an elder or unknown prophet, John (originally from Jerusalem) may have became a believer in the Lord following the visit by Paul, Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila (Acts 18:18); he may have been one of the elders who met with Paul at Miletus (Acts 20:16-38; see 7e).

How does this ambiguity affect the Revelation time-line? Time-constraints are ambiguous but a post-c. AD 58 (and probably mid-AD 60’s) date for John’s exile to Patmos is likely, regardless of which John is being referenced (see 7f).

[1] AD 52 is the commonly quoted date but ‘From Acts 18–19, we know that Paul’s first brief visit there was in 54 (dated from what we know about Gallio’s time as proconsul of Achaia)’ https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-spiritual-gifts-in-1-corinthians-12/ [Accessed 18 May 2026].

[2] For the dates with an asterisk – and only for this, I used Perplexity AI and then I checked the sources quoted [Accessed 10 August 2026].

7d.2) The later date for Revelation (c. AD 95-97) – Eusebius, Irenæus …

In the alternative scenario – that the vision occurred in AD 95-97 – the first audiences will have known the temple and Jerusalem had been destroyed (AD 70) and they were recovering from possible oppression under Emperor Domitian. This case accepts as truth the comment of Irenæus in Eusebius (recorded in connection with the number of the abyss beast, 13:18; see 7c.2) that John’s exile was rescinded by Emperor Trajan. According to Eusebius’ own comments, and then his copies of Irenæus’ and Clement’s documents:

‘After Domitian had reigned fifteen years (AD 96, the year of the emperor’s assassination), and Nerva (who reigned for 2 years between Domitian and Trajan) had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honours should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.’ Eusebius, III.20.10-11

‘At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian (in AD 96) from his exile on the island. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses (…) Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria’. (…).

He (Irenæus) attests “But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan (after AD 98), is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition. (…) For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (see also Irenæus, Against Heresies V.30.3).

(According to Clement) “Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative (…) concerning John. (On his return from Patmos to Ephesus), he went away upon their invitation to the neighbouring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry someone of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.” ’ Eusebius III.23.1-6.

According to the documents Eusebius copied, both Irenæus and Clement agree that the Apostle/ Evangelist John returned from Patmos to Ephesus, and he was alive after the death of Domitian and living in Asia. However, it was the apostle and evangelist John who was ‘the one whom Jesus loved (…) still living in Asia’, in other words this was clearly the Beloved Disciple, but not necessarily the son of Zebedee. The late-date hypothesis for Revelation is attributed to Irenæus because of this statement and Eusebius used it as the basis for his own Ecclesiastical History.

Dean Furlong gives an alternative translation and interpretation for Irenaeus’ statement – indicating that it was a meeting between John and the elders (that included the reference to 666 and the beast) that occurred in Domitian’s reign, not the exile to Patmos (Furlong, 2020: 100-102) – and the following reading of Irenaeus’ words seems much more probable:

‘John himself expounded concerning the beast to the elders, when, as you know, they gathered to him and saw him face to face in his old age. Nevertheless, he did not provide the meaning of the name to them at that time. This being the case, we should also be cautious in trying to deduce the meaning. In fact, the meaning will only be important when the fulfilment is imminent, and it cannot be imminent now, for if it were, then it would have been explained by that one who himself also saw the apocalyptic vision, for, as you know, he was seen face to face by the elders nearly in our generation, at the end of Domitian’s reign, but they received no such information.’ Irenæus in Furlong, 2020: 102.

... and Clement

According to Clement, John was the Apostle/ Evangelist and he was an active, travelling bishop after Patmos, who proclaimed the Gospel orally and by the time he wrote his own Gospel, he had read and endorsed the three Synoptic Gospels:

‘Of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.(…) And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three (Synoptic) Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.’ Clement in Eusebius III.24.5b-7.

According to Clement, ‘the pressure of necessity’ could mean the disciples’ anticipated deaths or the impact of the Jewish War in Judea on Asia or social collapse. The Apostle/ Evangelist John’s priority was on evangelism but ‘finally proceeded to write’ does not preclude an early date for any or all of the Gospels. If they were written in the AD 80’s this is a long time after the Ascension and there is common agreement that John was exiled to Patmos before the Gospels were written (see 7b.2). Dean Furlong suggests the pressure of time passing led to the Gospel being written in the late 90’s AD ‘after sixty-five years of oral preaching’, shortly before his death in the reign of Emperor Trajan (Furlong: 2020: 174).

If John was arrested and exiled to Patmos in his old age (and then he wrote the Gospel or if he wrote Revelation after the Gospel), Clement would have commented on this because he was very familiar with ‘tradition’ and the Apostle/ Evangelist’s work – I suggest this absence of information places doubt upon the late date for Revelation. Dean Furlong is scathing about Eusebius interpretation of these passages: ‘Eusebius thus created a pastiche of ill-fitting secular and ecclesiastical sources, held together by a thread of misinterpreted statements from Clement and Irenæus, to construct the fiction of the Domitianic banishment of John.’ (Furlong, 2020:102). These are strong words, and Eusebius’ own comments are very suspect, but they must not overshadow the value of the documents that Eusebius copied. I do not believe that Eusebius changed the words of the documents he copied – as illustrated by comparing Eusebius’ copies with the direct quotes from Justin Martyr and Irenæus, quoted in 7b.

Eusebius’ interpretation of Irenæus’ dates are not plausible, in my opinion – that John was exiled to Patmos ‘towards the end of Domitian’s reign’ and then he died early in ‘the time of Trajan’, because this is such a short period (probably up to five years). It is more probable that John returned from Patmos to Ephesus a long time before Emperor Domitian died, and his ministry continued for decades afterwards – so his reputation was well established in Asia by the time of his death. I suggest that if the late date for Revelation has any credibility at all then it was associated with the re-circulation of the letter, probably a short time before or after John died. If Dean Furlong’s translation and interpretation are correct then the late date was based upon Eusebius’ mistake or misinterpretation.

Later, I support the proposal that there were two apostles called John living in Asia, for at least a time, in the second half of the first century AD: the son of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple; either could be called the Evangelist (see 7f) – but it was the latter who died early in the reign of Emperor Trajan. Of course, if John was neither of these apostles then Clement and Irenæus’ words are even more uncertain for dating Revelation.

7d.3) The date ambiguity in modern times

Modern authors cited in this study recognise the ambiguity about the date and most tend to prefer a later one for Revelation (for example: Caird, 1966: 6; Thompson, 1990: 15; Friesen, 2001: 151; Osborne, 2002: 9; Koester, 2014: 79; Paul, 2018: 16) with ‘either Nero’s (AD 54−68) or Galba’s reign (AD 68−69) also a possibility’ (Stewart, 2024: 3). Beale supports a date shortly after AD 90 because of details concerning the seven congregations, limited persecution described in the seven messages (2:3, 2:13, 3:8-9), the power of emperor worship and Babylon’s influence (Beale, 2015: 3-4). However, I suggest these do not define either an earlier or later date because:

The Ephesus congregation (founded c. AD 52-54), although diligent, could have rapidly lost its first loving zeal for Christ (2:1-5) before Jerusalem fell (AD 70) – in one of his final letters, the apostle Paul confirmed that ‘all who are in Asia have turned away from me’ (2 Tim. 1:15; see 7d.1);

Perhaps Laodicea, described as ‘rich’ (3:17), indicates that some people recovered their wealth very quickly after its devastating earthquake in AD 60-61 (particularly those who followed the ways of Babylon)[1] or 3:17 may be an ironic statement;

The limited persecution described in the seven messages agrees with possible limited persecution against Christians late in Emperor Domitian’s reign (Friesen, 2001: 143) but Acts describes limited persecution in earlier days;

The cult of emperor worship is important in Revelation – how important is debated (Friesen, 2001: 145) – but it began with the deification of Emperor Augustus shortly after his death (AD 14) so it is not time specific. The number/ name of the abyss beast (13:18) is more commonly considered to be a disguised reference to Emperor Nero rather than later emperors;

Equating Rome with Babylon was a post-AD 70 identification according to some scholars (for example: Michaels, 1992: 45; Beale, 2015: 3-4), but Babylon/ Rome are linked by hedonism, not conquest, in Revelation.

The genre of the text, as apocalyptic literature, does not help define the date. David Aune comments that the Apocalyptic tradition was a Jewish literary genre that did not survive long once ‘early Christianity’ moved outside Palestine (Aune, 1997: l) but Eusebius indicates that the apocalyptic tradition was very active in Asia by about AD 120; it was one of his criticisms of Papias (see 7b.1). Ben Witherington suggests that Revelation reflects a ‘shift from traditional prophecy to apocalyptic’ in John’s era, associated with expectations that the ‘end times’ were imminent (Witherington: 2003: 34).

Craig Koester comments that the textural and external evidence can apply to both the earlier and later dates (Koester, 2014: 79), so all we can be sure of is that Revelation was in circulation by the end of the first century AD. It is safe to say that modern scholarship does not dispute the fact that a Christian leader called John had a vision(s) on Patmos when he was exiled there by the Roman Empire sometime in the second half of the first century AD. Later, I suggest it is Revelation’s text that gives the best indications of John’s identity, when he was exiled to Patmos and when Revelation was circulated (see 7f).

[1] This is in agreement with Harry Maier : ‘John criticizes some of his audience because – as his message to the Laodiceans says, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing” (3:17). When in Revelation 18:9 – 19 he depicts the rulers, merchants, and seafarers who mourn over the smoking ruins of the great city because of the loss of political power, markets for luxury goods, and trade he is speaking to an audience that is implicated in the relative prosperity an exploitative economic order has brought it.’ (Maier, 2021: 50).

7e) Traditions on Patmos

According to traditions quoted today on the Monastery of St John webpage in the official guide to Patmos,[1] John the Apostle (the son of Zebedee) went to Asia and he was there for some time before he was exiled from Ephesus to Patmos by the Romans in AD 96. This follows the previously mentioned Irenæus/ Eusebius tradition (see 7d.2). According to this guide, John lived with his student/ scribe (Prohorus) [2] in the port of Skala and they regularly walked about half way up a nearby valley (less than a mile) to a small cave for some quiet reflection and prayer. While they were at the cave, John had a vision (the Book of Revelation) and Prohorus wrote it down, ‘by order of the Lord’. After about eighteen months they were allowed to return to Ephesus and ‘they’ wrote the Fourth Gospel.

Some ambiguity in the local traditions is illustrated by the two mosaics over the doors of the monastery that envelopes what is believed to be the site of the vision (John’s cave). Over the main visitors’ door is the mosaic of an icon which shows John reclining on his bed in the cave when he had the revelation, with Prohorus using a ledge in the cave wall as a resting place for his recording of John’s words; this is the accepted tradition. Over another door, John is standing outside the cave and Prohorus is seated inside, writing down John’s words while the vision is in progress. John turns around during his vision (1:10-12), so this other mosaic may be the better illustration of John’s experience of a waking vision (see Towards … 3d).

[1] https://www.patmos-island.com/en/MONASTERIES/APOCALYPSE.html [accessed 16 January 2026].

[2] Prohoros or Prochoros is unknown from other sources and the tradition was not written down until several centuries after Revelation was written. Spelling of names is variable and any family connection to Procorus, one of the original seven deacons, is unknown (Acts 6:5).

7f) What this study adds to these discussions

As I considered whether the Apostle John (the son of Zebedee) did/ did not write Revelation, I realised that perhaps the best guide for authorship and date of writing that is recognisable today lies within the text; and an earlier date for the vision does not necessarily mean that Revelation was widely circulated at that time. I hope others will take my comments in this study further.

Several questions have been raised so far in this chapter: was Revelation written in a time of persecution? Was Revelation written and circulated in the late-60’s AD, or AD 95-97 or at another time? Why is/ was there so much ambiguity surrounding John’s identity?

7f.1) Was Revelation written in a time of persecution?

Although Revelation’s apocalyptic genre means that the physical-spiritual earth in the vision only symbolically reflects the material world (and the biblical earth reflects Scripture), its overall story does reflect the Gospel’s prophecies (see Towards …6). In the material world, John was exiled to Patmos by the Roman Empire because of his faith (1:9) and this study proposes that two periods of persecution at this time are described in Revelation. Firstly, during the first four seals (associated with the ‘Four Horsemen (of the Apocalypse’, 6:2-17) and their victims are the martyrs of the fifth seal (6:9-11). Secondly, persecution and terror during the sixth seal (6:12-17), which is recognised as the Great Tribulation (7:13-17). What happens on earth during the Silence of the seventh seal (8:1) may correspond to the ‘times of the gentiles’ in which Jerusalem is downtrodden (Lk. 21:24), i.e. post-AD 70 (see Towards … 6). Those are times of suppression and some persecutions, including any persecution by Emperor Domitian.

Did John experience the first seals or the seventh seal, i.e. before or after the fall of Jerusalem? In Revelation, disasters associated with the first four seals are quite generic (and unending), but conquest, war, famine and death intensified after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ (see Framework 2B.a). The proposed macrostructure indicates that it is the fourth seal which represents persecution before 70 AD:

‘I looked and there was a pale green horse! Its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed with him; they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, famine, and pestilence, and by the wild animals of the earth.’ 6:8

This includes Emperor Nero’s victims in AD 64, which particularly affected Christians in Rome, or AD 66 (see 7d). What follows is the sight of the faithful martyrs waiting in heaven:

‘When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?’ They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow-servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed.’ 6:9-11

The martyrs of the fifth seal (6:9-11) encompass all of Emperor Nero’s victims, traditionally including the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome. The fifth seal provides reassurance for those who face death and for their loved ones who survive, but it is also a warning of future persecutions.

When the sixth seal opens, the earthquake and cosmic disturbances are harrowing enough for everyone to think that the Day of God’s Wrath was upon them (6:12-17):

‘I looked, and there came a great earthquake; (and celestial omens …). The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth (and everyone else …) hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to (them …), ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’ 6:12-17

Jerusalem is not mentioned by name here, but the Gospels warn of dangers for the first generation after the Ascension. When believers see armies surround Jerusalem (Lk. 21:20) they must flee to the hills because its inhabitants will be killed or taken captive (Lk. 21:21-24). Matthew and Mark add: flee when the desolating sacrilege is set up (in the Jerusalem Temple is implied, Mt. 24:15-22, Mk. 13:14-20).[1] This anticipates the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is some comfort in Revelation in the restraining of the ‘four angels’ from unleashing further judgement (so that the 144,000 representatives from the twelve tribes of Israel can be ‘sealed’ or protected, 7:1-8), but lasting comfort follows:.

‘After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation (…), standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. They cried out in a loud voice, saying,‘Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ And all the angels stood around the throne (…), and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshipped God (…). Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, ‘(… the ones robed in white) these are they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.(…) the one who is seated on the throne will shelter them (…) for the Lamb at the centre of the throne will be their shepherd (…) and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” 7:9-17

With the benefit of hindsight, the ‘great ordeal’ (also known as the Great Tribulation) was the Jewish War (AD 66-70) and the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) because there are no other historical catastrophes for Jews and Christians in the first century AD that match these events (notwithstanding Nero’s persecution).

This study proposes that John was exiled to Patmos from Ephesus during the seals – probably during the fourth seal persecutions because John would not have been near Jerusalem when it fell. Was Revelation written in a time of persecution? Yes, during the time of the seals.

[1] See also the fall of Jerusalem: Mt. 23:37-39; Lk. 13:34-35, 19:41-44.

7f.2) Was Revelation circulated during AD 68-70, AD 95-97 or at another time?

The seals do not only represent disasters, they also contain messages of hope for those who are going through, or who have been through, terrible times for their faith. The times of the fifth seal and following the sixth seal indicate that survivors of persecutions can be comforted knowing that the faithful martyrs will celebrate their victories in heaven. The time that this strengthening of John’s community was most needed was in the mid/ late AD 60’s and early AD 70’s.

Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the seals but its total material destruction in John’s era completely overshadows the collapse of (only) ten percent of Jerusalem with (only) 7,000 fatalities when the sixth trumpet sounds (11:1-13) in the age-to-come. Christ’s appearance was expected to be very soon at the time[1] and the vision was interactive; for example John has a conversation with one of the elders in heaven about the Great Tribulation (7:13-17) and he talks with the ‘mighty angel’ (10:4-11:14). It seems improbable that John would be aware of Jerusalem’s total material destruction without inquiring of the elder or Mighty Angel how the city and Temple could be re-built in the (anticipated) short time before the coming of Christ. The presence of the Temple in the vision (implied in 11:1-2) supports a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation. This is confirmed by van Kooten’s comment that: ‘No Jewish, Greek or Roman author would have referred to architectural features in Jerusalem in the present tense between 70 and 135 ce’.[2]

Stephen Smalley proposes that John was the Apostle and that Revelation ‘emerged’ just before Jerusalem fell so a vision of the New Jerusalem (chapters 21 and 22), for ‘John’s circle (…) provided exactly, and at the right moment, all the spiritual encouragement they needed’ (Smalley, 2005: 3). The promise of the thousand year reign with Christ was additional encouragements (see 7b). I propose that these were in addition to the comfort described within the seals themselves, so it seems very improbable that the encouragement in Revelation was delayed until the late 90’s. In other words, this study supports the proposal that John was exiled from Ephesus after Paul had ceased visiting (c. AD 58, see 7d) but sometime before AD 70, i.e. before Jerusalem fell. Was Revelation circulated during AD 68-70, AD 95-97 or at another time? During AD 68-70. I know this is contrary to much scholarly opinion today but the text itself, in my opinion, supports the early date for John’s exile and circulation of the document.

[1] Events happening ‘soon’: 1:1, 6:11, 22:6. Christ coming ‘soon’: 2:16, 3:11, 22:7, 22:12, 22:20.

[2] Van Kooten: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/pre70-ce-dating-of-the-gospel-of-john-there-is-in-jerusalem-a-pool-which-has-five-porticoes-52/6EB521B72901E535E1BB31A1A1473C94 [Accessed 14 April 2026].

7f.3) Common authorship: Revelation, the Gospels, the Johannine letters

I used the ‘Olivet Discourse’ in the Synoptic Gospels (Lk. 17 and Lk. 21/ Mt. 24-25/ Mk. 13) as part of the validation process of the proposed macrostructure (see Towards … 6) and this first persuaded me that the identity of Revelation’s author was important for understanding Revelation’s context – did he also write John’s Gospel? This Gospel complements the Synoptics but it does not duplicate the content of those chapters. Similarities between Revelation and John’s Gospel are more subtle (for examples, see Smalley, 2005: 38-40 and Paul, 2018: 8-11). They have different genres and styles, but there are similarities in motif. For example, Jesus is the slain Lamb throughout Revelation (27 references) and, in John’s Gospel, John the Baptist sees Jesus and cries out: ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (Jn. 1:29) ‘Look, here is the Lamb of God!’ (Jn. 1:36). Reference to Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb in Scripture are not a motif in the Synoptic Gospels. The word for ‘lamb’ is different in the Gospel and Revelation (Koester, 214: 82) but this supports the local tradition on Patmos that John dictated the events he witnessed in his vision to his scribe (see 7e).

Compatibility in the references to Creation between the documents reinforced their common authorship. Figure 1 of the Macrostructure Model illustrates the structure of the visionary story in Revelation, which begins (after the seven messages to the congregations) with celebration of creation (4:11) in heaven’s throne-room (4:1-5:4) (see Framework 1A and B). The celebration would have begun with the moment of Creation itself, and this moment is confirmed in heaven’s environs (12:1-5):

‘A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon (satan), with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. 12:1-6

In Framework 1B.c, it is suggested 12:5 refers to the birth of the Messiah/ Christ who is ‘the origin of God’s Creation’ (3:14) and he has held the book-of-life since creation (13:8, 17:8), rather than to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. What follows are the defeat of satan in the heavenly realms and expulsion to earth (12:7-9) and the triumph of the Messiah (12:10-12). John’s Gospel also begins with Creation:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it (…) The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. (…) And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.’ Jn. 1:1-10.

The ‘Word’, the ‘true light’ who was with God from the beginning (also Jn. 17:24), is the child of the celestial-mother-of-light who is taken to the throne as soon as he is born (12:5) – in other words, he is on the throne at the moment of Creation. The cosmic Christ who came into the world as Jesus (in Bethlehem) defeats satan, who is ‘now the ruler of this world (satan) will be driven out. And I (Christ), when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself’ (Jn. 12.31-32). This is accomplished by Jesus death, resurrection and ascension and it has a parallel with ‘they (the faithful) have conquered him (satan) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony’ (12:7-11). This is illustrated by time-parallel 1 in the proposed macrostructure.

Mark Goodacre suggests that reference to ‘we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son’ refers to the Transfiguration (Mt. 18:1-9, Mk. 9:2-9, Lk. 9:28-36), so the author must be John the son of Zebedee (Goodacre, 2025: 128-132). However, the author of Revelation also saw the glory of Christ, and the original hearers/ reader of the Gospels in the first century AD would know this.

Reading 1 John was the final endorsement, for me, that the author of that letter was also the author of John’s Gospel and Revelation. All three documents stress the eternal nature of the Son and the cosmic importance of the shedding of the blood of Jesus; it is this that enables the faithful to recognise the Messiah, to overcome satan and to receive eternal life:

‘We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin’ 1 Jn. 1:1-8

1 John confirms that the author knew Jesus during his earthly ministry and the letter ends with something like a postscript: ‘Little children, keep yourselves from idols.’ (1Jn.5:21). The risk of being overwhelmed by Babylon (Rome, in John’s day) is a key message in Revelation – ‘Come out of her (Babylon), my people, so that you do not take part in her sins’ (18:4a); in other words reject the idol-based hedonistic lifestyles and embrace what David deSilva recognises as ‘disenfranchisement’ in Rome’s society (deSilva, 1992 : 376).

Finally, all three documents stress the personal natures of these testimonies: in the letter just quoted, in the postscript to the Gospel (which implies that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Fourth Gospel, Jn. 21:20-25) and the four references to the author ‘John’ in Revelation (1:1-9, 22:8). Today, we may be unsure about exactly who John was but at the time he gave his clear credentials.

7f.4) The very real literary differences (see 7b)

This study supports the local tradition on Patmos that John had a scribe (see 7e). The repetitive vocabulary and simple phrases used (particularly when describing the seal, trumpet and bowl torments) suggests that John experienced a waking vision and he described something like a summary (not a transcript) of what he was seeing and hearing to the scribe, while it was happening (Towards … 3f). This is particularly noticeable when Babylon falls. In just a few verses: armies gather and Babylon falls in one place (physical-spiritual earth, 16:14-21); the fall is announced to two places (biblical earth, 14:8, below-the-earth, 18:1-3) and heaven celebrates (19:1-4). This is illustrated by time-parallel 10 (see Towards … 4g). Similarly, Revelation’s storm (4:5, 8:5, 11:19, 16:18) and other thunder references (6:1, 14:2, 19:6), compared with Ezekiel’s first vision (Ez. 1:4-3:15) for example, are evocative but concise.

John did not alter the structure of the vision (the time-parallels in the proposed macrostructure would be unrecognisable if he had) and he is warned in the vision:

‘I (Jesus) warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.’ (22:18-19).

The warning indicates that any editing or honing of the text and the myriad allusions to Scripture came into John’s mind as the waking vision was happening. John was on various visionary vantage points (see Towards … 4g) and, especially if the vision lasted all day, there may have been time for some contemplation within it as he recognised Revelation’s prophetic, historical and eschatological dimensions – and its worship and hymns. This suggests that Revelation’s ‘not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms’ (see 7b) reflects the scribe’s education, which is in contrast to its literary complexity which reflects John’s education.

We only know about the education of one of the potential Johannine authors: the Beloved Disciple who, according to Polycrates, was ‘both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate’ (see 7c.1).

7f.5) Questions of identity

In 7f.3, I support those who advocate common authorship for the Johannine literature – but who was John? The Evangelist, the Beloved Disciple, the Apostle could be one and the same person – he could be John, the son of Zebedee – because they were all apostles and eye-witnesses to Jesus’ ministry. Was the Elder part of this group, as the common author, or was he ‘some Johnny come lately’ (Goodacre, 2025: 109)? The second important question in this section is: when did John die?

John the Elder as the common author

The Elder wrote 1 and 2 John but the only extant source for his identity was Papias’ recollections recorded by Eusebius (previously mentioned in 7b.2):

‘the other John he (Papias) mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter (an elder)’ (… he) says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.’ Eusebius, III.39.5-7

Dionysius accepted that the author of the Gospel of John and 1 John was the son of Zebedee but for 2 and 3 John ‘there is written the anonymous phrase, “the elder” (in Eusebius VII.25.11), who was a different, unknown person (see 7b). Eusebius may have misinterpreted Papias’s words and Dionysius may have been wrong about the son of Zebedee but I suggest these quotations, if they are valid, rule out the Elder as the common author of the Johannine literature because he was not an apostle; so he was not the Beloved Disciple or the Evangelist. If these are misquotations or misinterpretations then we are back to square one. Was the Elder the common author? Following these references, I do not believe the Elder was the common author. There are alternative interpretations and for those that are interested, I recommend the books in the Mini Biography at the end of this chapter.

When did John die?

I began this study with vague ideas supporting the Orthodox Tradition that John was the son of Zebedee and I became thoroughly confused as I began researching the topic. There are two main traditions associated with John’s death: an early martyrdom or a peaceful death in old age; these are contradictory. The ‘early martyrdom’ scenario is based upon Jesus’ warning to the sons of Zebedee that they would suffer, as he would suffer (Mt. 20:22-23, Mk. 10:38-39). James was killed with a sword by King Herod in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-4), probably around AD 44. So what happened to John? Richard Bauckham comments: ‘Whatever Mark (and Matthew) may have meant, it was doubtless inevitable that later Christian readers interpret the text in conformity with what they believed had happened to John the son of Zebedee’ (Bauckham 2017: 585).

It is difficult to choose a path through the traditions, especially if you do not have preconceived ideas. According to several traditions, the Apostle John was killed during the reigns of Emperor Claudius (late AD 50’s) or Nero (by AD 68) in Jerusalem, or even on Patmos. The validity of the Jerusalem and Patmos traditions are weak, given the strong association between Ephesus and the son of Zebedee. Eusebius may have omitted Papias’s affirmation that the Apostle John was martyred, rather than dying naturally in his old age (see 7b) but Dean Furlong comments that traditions associated with John’s early martyrdom are stronger than the later traditions concerning his peaceful death in old age (Furlong, 2020: 31). However, modern scholarship today tends to support the peaceful death scenario (see the Mini Bibliography).

According to Clement, the teaching ‘of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero’.[1] This tradition was confirmed by Tertullian, who repeats a legend that John was plunged into boiling oil and came out unscathed (Bauckham 2017: 585, Furlong, 2020: 111). John’s miraculous survival was necessary to explain the tradition that John lived until the time of Emperor Trajan (after AD 98, see 7d.2). According to Hippolytus:

‘John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.’ Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles, §3 [2]

This has implications for who were buried in the two tombs in Ephesus (see 7b.2). Irenæus and Clement agree that the Apostle/ Evangelist John (‘the one whom Jesus loved’) returned from Patmos to Ephesus, and he was alive after the death of Domitian (after AD 98); but this was the Beloved Disciple and not necessarily the son of Zebedee (see 7d.2). From the Gospels and Revelation, I have argued that the son of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple were two different men (see 7c.2).

The path I have chosen suggests that descriptions in the Gospels indicate there were two disciples called John living in Ephesus at the same time and both were entitled to be called ‘holy apostle’ (see 7c.2). The AD 60’s were times of societal unrest – the Jewish War was underway in Judea and Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed in AD 70; its aftermath impacted the whole region. I suggest that the son of Zebedee was killed in Asia on the orders of Emperor Nero in the late 60’s AD – probably about the time that the Apostles Peter and Paul were killed in Rome and the other John was exiled to Patmos. The second John was the one ‘who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord’ (the Beloved Disciple, referred to by Polycrates and Irenæus, see 7c.1). Dean Furlong comments: ‘Thus, plunging in oil seems to have been associated both with Nero’s reign and with John’s banishment to Patmos by sources which are no longer extant, but which were known to Jerome.’ (Furlong, 2020: 211).

After John returned to Ephesus from Patmos, he was described by Eusebius as a peripatetic evangelist based in Ephesus who was known as The Apostle or The Evangelist. It was he who lived a long life and he died at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Trajan (see 7b.2 and 7d.2). The Early Church Fathers referred to the Evangelist and the Apostle, without specifying if he was the son of Zebedee – probably because they knew exactly who he was, and there was no ambiguity for them.

The composite figure that was mentioned earlier (in 7c.2) was probably originally based upon the son of Zebedee (because he was one of the Twelve) and both disciples called John lived in Asia until they both left Ephesus at about the same time (one to his death and the other to exile). Only one disciple returned and he was a prophet, associated with his ‘comrades the prophets’ (22:9), but he became the peripatetic Bishop. Polycrates describes him as a witness, teacher and priest (see 7c.1); was he ever, also or continue as the Head of a School of Prophecy in Ephesus? We do not know. Dionysius specified John as the son of Zebedee, and this suggests that the ‘composite figure’ had already been established by his time (c. AD 200-265; 7b). In 7c.2, I suggest there was no such composite figure; rather the authority of the son of Zebedee was overlain upon the actual figure of the Beloved Disciple. In other words, this was a false assumption and not a combination of personal attributes. The literary differences between John’s Gospel and Revelation added to the authorship confusion as time moved on (see 7b.1).

[1] https://ccel.org/ccel/clement_alex/stromata/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvii.html. [Accessed 8 August 2026]

[2] ‘John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.’ Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles, §3 https://biblehub.com/library/hippolytus/the_extant_works_and_fragments_of_hippolytus/hippolytus_on_the_twelve_apostles_.html [Accessed 11 September 2026].

Conclusions

Of all the chapters in this study, this one was the most confusing for me to unravel. I used the original sources to begin with and I found many of the traditions were contradictory. Realising that Eusebius may have omitted information that disagreed with his own views, and that sometimes his own comments were wrong, were big disappointments to me; although I think Dean Furlong’s comment is a bit strong: ‘Eusebius thus created a pastiche of ill-fitting secular and ecclesiastical sources, held together by a thread of misinterpreted statements from Clement and Irenæus, to construct the fiction of the Domitianic banishment of John.’ (Furlong, 2020:102). I agree that the Domitianic banishment is wrong, and Eusebius’ own comments are sometimes unreliable, but I am not aware that Eusebius’ copies of the early literary sources are inaccurate. I found Eusebius’ work a useful starting point because it is so readable and accessible online today, but it was necessary to investigate the other sources.

When this study first began, I followed the Orthodox view – that John was the son of Zebedee. Then I thought this was unlikely because of the literary differences between John’s Gospel and Revelation, the uncertainty of Revelation’s authorship and the ambiguity of its date – now, my views have changed again. There were some key stepping stones for me along the way towards recognising the identity of John and the date of his exile to Patmos:

Dionysius’ assessment of Revelation was helpful but I suggest that the author of Revelation (John) gave a short summary (not a transcript) of what he was seeing in his single waking vision to his scribe and he (John) followed the visionary instructions not to change anything he heard or was shown in the vision (22:18-19); so the ‘not very accurate Greek’ within Revelation demonstrates the scribe’s level of education (see 7b). The myriad scriptural allusions and embellishments reflected John’s own knowledge and education.

I suggest that Revelation, John’s Gospel and 1 John (but not 2 and 3 John) were written by the same person (see 7f.3). Possible authors are: the Apostle John (the son of Zebedee and one of the original twelve disciples); the ‘Beloved Disciple’ (‘the one whom Jesus loved’ Jn. 13:23, Jn. 19:26-27, Jn. 20:2, Jn. 21:7, Jn. 21:20); the Elder (author of 2 Jn. and 3 Jn.); or John may have been an otherwise unknown prophet.

Comparing references to the Beloved Disciple and John the son of Zebedee in the Gospels, they are described as having different personalities and attributes and this strongly indicates that they were two different people. The former was most likely the author of Revelation, and thus also the author of John’s Gospel and 1 John (see 7c.2).

The Beloved Disciple may have been the ‘rich young man’ (Mk. 10:24-31) who would not give up his wealth to follow Jesus, at least at that time, because the only other reference to someone whom Jesus loved (outside John’s Gospel) was to this young man (see 7c.2)

Mark is commonly thought to have had Peter as the source for his Gospel, and Peter knew the Beloved Disciple very well. I suggest that Peter was also the source of John’s information about what happened during Jesus’ ministry when he (the Beloved Disciple) was not present because wherever the ‘Beloved Disciple’ is mentioned in John’s Gospel (except at the cross), Peter is there (see 7c.2).

Was the Beloved Disciple the Elder? Papias had heard the Elder speak but he (Papias) had not met any of the Twelve, so the Elder was not the son of Zebedee. Papias had met friends of the Twelve, and this probably included the Beloved Disciple. Diotrephes did not accept the authority of the Elder (3 Jn. 9) and Papias described the Elder as ‘a lesser disciple than Aristion’ (see 7c.1). By the time Papias was writing, the Fourth Gospel had been written by the Evangelist/ Apostle – who was certainly not ‘less’ than anyone – this suggests the Elder was not the Beloved Disciple.

There was one ‘holy apostle’ called the Evangelist living in Asia in the second half of the first century AD. Both the Beloved Disciple and the son of Zebedee were entitled to be called this (see 7d) but if they were both in Ephesus at the same time, this would have become a ‘tradition’. There are two traditions about the fate of the John the son of Zebedee: he was killed during the reign of Claudius or Nero; or he lived a long life and died peacefully in Ephesus. I support the view that the two traditions relate to two different apostles called ‘John’.

Polycrates makes no mention of John (the son of Zebedee) as a ‘great light’ in Asia who had died (like Philip) and I suggest this was because John had died a very long time a previously. I support the tradition that he was killed late in Emperor Nero’s reign – in Asia because of his very strong association with Ephesus; according to Clement, the teaching ‘of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero’ (see 7c.1). This was post-c. AD 58 because the Apostle Paul established the church in Ephesus (see 7c.2). According to Polycrates, there was another John who was ‘a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and (…) a priest’; this was the Beloved Disciple and he died peacefully in Ephesus in his old age.

There were two first century AD tombs for Christian leaders called John in Ephesus. Tradition says that these were for the son of Zebedee and the Elder (see 7b.2). However there is also a tradition which says that John’s grave was never found (see 7f.5). If John was the Beloved Disciple, who was not the son of Zebedee but he was the Evangelist, then the tomb was probably for him. The second tomb may have been for the Elder.

Some modern scholarship suggests that ‘the Evangelist’ was a composite figure of all three contenders (see 7c). The ambiguity began from the beginning of the third century AD, which was about one hundred years after the first extant sources were written (see 7c.2). The Evangelist was known to be the disciple who had ‘reclined upon the bosom of the Lord’ (the Beloved Disciple, see 7c.1) and I suggest the identity confusion came about when later writers assumed this was the son of Zebedee (because he was one of the Twelve and he had lived in Asia). This was not a confusion of identities, as such, but a wrong assumption.

The identity of John matters because a common background and inspiration adds depth to the Johannine literature; it reinforces their value and credibility. Revelation’s John was not an otherwise unknown prophet, he was an eye-witnessed to Jesus ministry. As the Beloved Disciple, he recognised the love of Jesus, for everyone and not just himself.

Two dates are associated with John’s exile to Patmos: c. AD 68-70 or AD 95-97. I support the proposal that the exile occurred before Jerusalem fell – in the mid-60’s AD and Revelation was circulated in AD 68-70 or just afterwards. This is based upon the text, specifically the witnesses waiting under the altar during the fifth seal (6:9-11) and the celebration in heaven after the sixth seal (7:9-17) (see 7f.1), because the purpose of Revelation was to provide support and comfort for believers during times of intense upheaval and trauma for the Christian and Jewish communities.

Revelation was probably the basis for, or one of, the apocalyptic (revelatory) teachings to which Papias referred (see 7b) and it was definitely in circulation by the end of the first century AD. The later date (AD 95-97) may have been based upon misinterpretation of the words of Irenæus by Eusebius (see 7d.2) – if it has any validity at all, it may have been associated with the re-circulation of Revelation, perhaps just before or after John died.

The modified linear chronology of Revelation is illustrated by the proposed macrostructure and it highlights the two-generation message that reflects the Olivet/ Little Apocalypse Discourse (Lk. 17 and Lk. 21/ Mt. 24-25/ Mk. 13). These Gospel chapters were used to validate the proposed macrostructure (see Towards … 6). The first generation was John’s era (the beginning of the seals, see 7f.1) and the second is the Parousia-generation. The trauma of the seals does not end but it will merge into the time of the trumpets.

The time of John’s exile to Patmos and circulation of Revelation matters because it contains hope for the persecuted believers, their family and friends (the faithful martyrs are celebrating in heaven, 7:9-17). Such comfort was particularly needed leading up to the fall of Jerusalem and its aftermath (during the reigns of Emperors Claudius to Vespasian), much more so than during the reign of Emperor Domitian (early in the seventh seal, see 7f.2). However, the comfort illustrated within the seals is relevant for the persecuted of every generation.

The proposed time-line in this study is: the Apostle Paul establishes the church in Ephesus … the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple and Mary (the mother of Jesus) arrive in Ephesus from Jerusalem (after c. AD 58) … John the son of Zebedee is killed and John the Beloved Disciple is exiled to Patmos on the orders of Emperor Nero in the mid-60’s AD … John returns to Ephesus and Revelation is circulated to the local congregations (AD 68-70) … the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) … John, as the peripatetic Bishop of Ephesus, is called ‘the Evangelist’ … John writes the Gospel c. AD 80 … perhaps the re-circulation of Revelation in AD 95-97 (towards the end of Emperor Domitian’s reign), shortly before or after John dies in the beginning of the reign of Emperor Trajan (after AD 98).

Mini Biography - full book details are given in the main Biography

Martin Hengel (1989) suggests that John was a composite figure of ‘the head of the Johannine school’ and the Elder (a minor disciple, formally a resident of Jerusalem);

Richard Bauckham (2017) suggests the author of John’s Gospel (but not Revelation, which was written by an otherwise unknown prophet) was the Beloved Disciple (John the Elder), who was a more minor disciple than the Twelve and formally a resident of Jerusalem;

Dean Furlong (2020) argues that from the turn of the third century AD, the identity of ‘John’ was based upon a conflation several titles: the Apostle, the Evangelist, the Seer (of Revelation) and the Elder. The Seer may have been the Evangelist and Elder but he was not the Apostle, although the title ‘apostle’ is ambiguous. Furlong suggests The Elder was ‘John called Mark’ (Acts 12 and 15) who, in some early sources, was the disciple that stood by Jesus at the cross (the Beloved Disciple)[1] and only later was the Elder identified with the son of Zebedee.

Lydia McGrew (2021) presents the case for the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, with the Apostle John (the son of Zebedee) as its author – with useful summaries at the end of each chapter. In the Appendix, she specifically refutes the arguments made by Richard Bauckham.

Mark Goodacre (2025) confirms Tradition that the Beloved Disciple was the son of Zebedee and he dismisses the Elder as ‘some Johnny come lately’ (Goodacre, 2025: 109).

[1] https://www.logos.com/grow/a-priori-dean-furlongs-work-on-john-mark/ [Accessed 1 August 2026].

Page updated 15 October 2026

Towards a newspatio-temporal macrostructure for Revelation - who was John?