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

This chapter considers the authorship of Revelation: from the view points of the text, the early Christian writers and more modern scholars; with possible dates of writing and local traditions; what the proposed macrostructure adds to these discussions; finally, a possible authorship/ date scenario is suggested.

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 disciples (the Apostle John) 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 A.D. and the Roman Empire ruled supreme in the area at the time.

7b) Authorship and the Early Church Fathers

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 A.D. 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 judgment of all men would likewise take place.’ Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, LXXXI

In other words, Justin believed John of Patmos was the Apostle John, and he (the Apostle) lived in Ephesus (‘with us’, i.e. where Justin was located at the time), he had a vision and he prophesied (in Revelation) that believers would live in Jerusalem for a thousand years (‘the Millennium’) and afterwards there would be an eternal resurrection and judgement for everyone. Justin’s writings were very influential and these quotes were referred to by Eusebius (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 so his work is unique and valuable, despite writing at least two hundred years after Revelation was circulated. Some modern scholars have reservations about his work, 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). However, Eusebius copied documents by Papias (c. AD 70 – 155, Bishop of Hierapolis), for example, who Eusebius described as being of ‘very limited understanding’ and wrong at times (quoted shortly). Eusebius is worth reading – despite the possibility that the original authors may be wrong in places or that Eusebius’ own assertions were incorrect at times.

When Clement of Alexandria (A.D. c. 150-215) listed the order of the Gospels, the Apostle John 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 is Eusebius III.24.18). The debate was still underway when Dionysius was Bishop of Alexandria (c. A.D. 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 were written’ (in Eusebius VII.25.7).

Dionysius does not accept Revelation as a work of the Apostle John, 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’, a title 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 the Fourth Gospel and the first epistle, 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’ (Revelation’s author) (in Eusebius VII.25.17). Dioysius rejected the Apostle’s authorship of Revelation because:

‘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.25.18-27).

Dionysius’ comments are endorsed by comparing Revelation with the Fourth 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, John the Elder and ‘the other writer’ i.e. John of Patmos, the Prophet of Revelation?

7b.1) The two tombs in Ephesus

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

‘John (the Apostle), 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 (who was bishop of Ephesus) (…) He also sleeps at Ephesus.’ (Eusebius, III.31.2-3). However, Dionysius wrote:

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

This is endorsed by Papias, writing c. A.D. 125-135 (Hengel, 1989b: 126-127) or before A.D. 110 (Osborne 2002:3). According to Eusebius, Papias took great care to question the immediate followers of ‘the elders’ (the Apostles and original disciples), rather than relying on what others had written (Eusebius III.39.1-4), 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), 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.

Papias had heard ‘the other John’ (not the Apostle) speak and that one was ‘a presbyter’ or elder who was ‘a lesser disciple than Aristion’ (who was perhaps the first Bishop of Smyrna), and Papias’ books included quotes of both of them:

‘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 before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

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.

Eusebius was hopeful that his repetition of Papias’ claim about two leaders called ‘John’ living and being buried in Ephesus was warranted. However, he 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 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. A.D. 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

Eusebius wrote that, according to Papias, there was the Apostle John and ‘the other John’ who was an elder/ presbyter or ‘the elder John’ who handed down ‘traditions’. 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, 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).

David Aune refers to modern suggestions that Eusebius may have misunderstood Papias’ words about the Elder (Aune, 1997: liii) but E. Schwartz endorsed Papias because he ‘had a command of the art of rhetoric’ and he ‘writes too well for “mere simplicity”.[1]

Eusebius’ comments about Papias and the apocalyptic tradition are negative but Grant Osborne suggests Eusebius was persuaded by the reference to the two tombs in Ephesus that John the Elder wrote Revelation (Osborne, 2002: 3): ‘For it is probable that it was the second (tomb), if one is not willing to admit that it was the first (the Apostle) that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John’ (in Eusebius, III.39.5-7, quoted earlier).

Was Eusebius himself willing to accept the Apostle as the author of Revelation? No, according to Osborne and Robert Mounce (Mounce, 1997: 11) and he (Eusebius) classified Revelation’s Scriptural credentials as ‘disputed’ (Boring, 1989: 3). Revelation was part of the New Testament Canon by the time Eusebius was writing, despite the negative literary observations noted by earlier leaders such as Dionysius, but the Apostle’s authorship of Revelation remains the orthodox view.

Revelation’s John may have had a high 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 and Irenaeus, and the later Patmos communities (described shortly) may have assumed this John was the Apostle.

Eusebius and the other writers quoted here may be 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 Apostles and 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. For further information about Papias, I recommend Richard Bauckham’s book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

[1] These statements are from two German papers quoted by Martin Hengel (Hengel, 1989a: 96, n.289).

7b.2) ‘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 the Fourth 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 or the Elder or another leader who lived in Ephesus in the second half of the first century A.D.

[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).

7c) Who was John?

If two leaders called John were buried in Ephesus and one was the Apostle John (who wrote the Fourth Gospel and perhaps the first Johannine letter) and the other was the Elder (who handed down the ‘traditions’, quoted earlier, and perhaps wrote the second and third Johannine letter) was there a third John, who wrote Revelation? Ian Paul suggests the ambiguity is a modern phenomenon (especially within the last 200 years, Paul, 2018: 8) but doubts began quite early, for example those raised by Dionysius (c. AD 200-265; see 7b). Modern scholarship tends to follow Dionysius but the Apostle’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Revelation remain the orthodox view so the onus lies with those who doubt the Apostle’s authorship to support their view. Other options vary from the negative to the complex. Aune lists and discounts several possible authors, including the Apostle and the Elder, and he suggests that John may have been an unknown Palestinian Jew who ‘regarded himself as a prophet and his composition as a prophetic book’, but one who was not part of the Apostle-based community ‘in any meaningful sense’ (Aune, 1997: l-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).

Martin Hengel complicates the authorship possibilities by suggesting the author of the Johaninne corpus was a composite figure of the Apostle and the Head of a School[1] in Ephesus (i.e. John the Elder) who had been exiled to Patmos in his earlier days (Hengel, 1989b: 130). The school included a mix of visionaries and those who followed the Apostle’s and Elder’s apocalyptic teachings. This is a different way of suggesting the author of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine letter(s) was indirectly the author of Revelation, with significant modifications by others. Authorship is even more complex if the Apostles authorship of the Fourth Gospel is doubted. Bauckham argues that the author of the gospel is the ‘Beloved Disciple’ (Jn. 21:7) but he was not John, the son of Zebedee, so not one of the Twelve but a more minor disciple, and a resident of Jerusalem (Bauckham, 2006: 412-413).[2] Bauckham also suggests the author was called John the Elder, and he wrote all three Johannine letters (Bauckham, 2006: 423) – but the author of Revelation was an otherwise unknown prophet. A detailed study of the Fourth Gospel is outside the scope of this study but its authorship is touched upon later.

The view with some consensus among scholars noted in this study is probably that John was part of a prophetic circle, perhaps a peripatetic prophet because of his familiarity with the seven churches mentioned in Revelation, but based in Ephesus because where a place is mentioned in early documents, it is Ephesus (Schnelle, 1998: 519). The order of the seven towns followed a path from Ephesus that a peripatetic prophet 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 temple); 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).

Revelation’s John may have been buried away from Ephesus if he died on a journey, especially if he was a peripatetic prophet. Some scholars call him ‘John the seer’ (Charles, 1913: 79) or ‘John of Patmos’ (Caird, 1966: 3-5), i.e. 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 Apostle as the likely author (Beale, 2015: 2-3). Smalley argues that John was the Apostle, but authorship remains open (Smalley, 2005: 3; so Mounce, 1997: 15).

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 much younger man. Caird suggests that common authorship was unlikely because of ‘the character of the Greek’, and he maintains that John should be designated ‘John of Patmos’ (Caird, 1966: 4-5). I doubted the Apostle’s authorship in the beginning of this study, mainly because of the difference in the Greek, but I now believe this can be explained by John’s use of a scribe who recorded John’s words, while the vision was happening, in a visionary situation of overwhelming complexity. Later I support the proposal that Revelation’s John also wrote the Fourth Gospel, but whether he was the Apostle or the Beloved Disciple/ Elder (as Bauckham suggests), I do not know. Does authorship matter? If the Revelation experience underlies the writing of the Fourth Gospel, then it does matter, but this is outside the scope of this study.

[1] 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).

[2] For example: Koester 2014: 67; see also: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/was-john-the-first-gospel/ and https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/do-the-gospels-contradict-each-other-on-holy-week/ [Accessed 2 April 2026].

This page will be completed as soon as possible

Page updated 13 April 2026

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