Conclusion
Conclusion
While the difference in Greek style is a problem, we are not convinced that the arguments of Dionysius or his latter-day followers make it impossible for the same person to have written both the fourth gospel and Revelation. We are thus inclined to accept the testimony of those who were in a position to know about these matters, and we attribute both books to John the apostle, "the beloved disciple.” 25
If this identification is rejected, then there are four other possibilities. First, Revelation could have been written by another well-known John in the ancient church. Dionysius, after suggesting (and properly rejecting) John Mark, 26 mentions a second John (in addition to the apostle John) buried in Ephesus. This second John is often identified with an "elder John” whom Papias mentions (see Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.4-5), and this "elder John” is thought by some to have written Revelation. 27 But it is doubtful whether Papias refers to two different men named John at all (see the section Author in chap. 5); the whole thesis is most improbable. Another well-known John in the early church was John the Baptist, and J. Massyngberde Ford has suggested that he could be responsible for much of Revelation. 28 But her theory is too far-fetched to command assent (see the section Composition and Genre below).
A second possibility is that Revelation, like Jewish apocalypses, is pseudonymous— written by an unknown person in John’s name. But Charles has shown this hypothesis to be unlikely, 29 and it is rarely argued.
Much more popular of late has been a third option: that Revelation, like the other Johannine books, was written by an anonymous member of a Johannine "school” or "circle.” Such a hypothesis seems to offer an attractive solution to the problem of explaining both the similarities and differences among these books. 30 Yet, as A. Y. Collins says, the hypothesis "is clearly not the result of careful historical-critical research, but a prior assumption that shapes the result of the research.” 31 We have elsewhere argued that the "school” or "circle” hypothesis is untenable (see esp. chap. 5, the section Stylistic Unity and the Johannine "Community").
We are left, then, as the only real alternative to John the apostle’s authorship, authorship by an unknown John, and this is the explanation held by most who demur from the traditional identification. 32 Yet we might question whether a John who is never mentioned in the abundant sources for first-century Asian church life would have had sufficient stature to write a book of this sort, so different from anything else in the New Testament, simply under his own name. Particularly does this seem unlikely when we recall that there was a John who was well known in this area at just this period.
Guthrie’s question is to the point: “Was the Asiatic church overrun with brilliant Christians by the name of John, who would only need to announce their name for the Christians to know which was meant?” 33