1. The writer of Revelation tells us that his name is John (1:4). He calls himself a ‘servant’ (1:1), ’your brother’ (1:9), and apparently one of ‘the prophets’ (22:9).

2. The use of the name John without qualification may point to the apostle as author. No-one else, it is argued, would call himself simply John. Only one John was great enough among the Christians to need no description. The general air of authority that pervades Revelation would accord with apostolic authorship.²⁰

3. Such references as there are to authorship in the early literature are unanimous in ascribing this work to John the apostle. This ascription is as early as Justin Martyr,²¹ testimony which impresses Kiddle.²² The Gnostic Apocryphon Johannis, dated no later than c.AD 150, cites Revelation 1:19 in such a way as to indicate that the author was John the apostle.²³ Support is found in Irenaeus,²⁴ while the Muratorian Fragment twice speaks of the author as John, evidently meaning the apostle.²⁵ Clement of Alexandria appears to support this view,²⁶ as does Tertullian.²⁷ Until Dionysius of Alexandria there is no dissenting voice in the church.²⁸

There was, it is true, some hesitation in certain parts of eastern Christendom in accepting the book. Eusebius is a well-known example.²⁹ Revelation is missing from some eastern lists of canonical books, and it was for long excluded from the Syriac canon. Indeed it first appears to have been included in the Syriac version in the revision of Philoxenus (C.AD 500). But the doubts appear to have been aroused as much by the subject-matter of the book as by anything.³⁰ There does not appear to be evidence of any early or well-grounded tradition which regards anyone other than the apostle as the author.³¹ Indeed, B. W. Bacon can go so far as to say, ‘There is no book of the entire New Testament whose external attestation can compare with that of Revelation, in nearness, clearness, definiteness, and positiveness of statement.’³²

4. . A big objection to the apostolic authorship is that of style. R. H. Charles says that the Greek of Revelation is ‘unlike any Greek that was ever penned by mortal man’.³³ The argument from difference of style is as old as Dionysius of Alexandria. Indeed the arguments against the apostolic authorship of Revelation are still essentially those of Dionysius. Later scholars have scarcely done more than repeat and elaborate the position he took up. In the matter of style his words are these:

The Apocalypse is utterly different from, and foreign to, these writings (i.e. the Fourth Gospel and 1 John); it has no connexion, no affinity, in any way with them; it scarcely, so to speak, has even a syllable in common with them. Nay more, neither does the Epistle (not to speak of the Gospel) contain any mention or thought of the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle ... by means of the style one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse. For the former are not only written in faultless Greek, but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings, and the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete absence of any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For their author had, as it seems, both kinds of word, by the free gift of the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I will not deny that the other writer had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy; nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate, but that he employs barbarous idioms, in some places committing downright solecisms. These there is no necessity to single out now. For I have not said these things in mockery (let no one think it), but merely to establish the dissimilarity of these writings.³⁴

 

So greatly has this point impressed recent students that T. W. Crafer can say, ‘Modern criticism has set aside altogether the authorship of the son of Zebedee, and has largely inclined to the view (e.g. Bousset), suggested by Eusebius, that there was a second John who may have been the author.’³⁵ This difference in style is very real. R. H. Charles has made a thorough examination and has drawn up an impressive list of stylistic differences between the Greek of John’s Gospel and that of Revelation.³⁶ He notices, for example, the absence from Revelation of constructions often used in John such as the genitive absolute, the attracted relative and others. There are vocabulary differences, as when the two writings use different words for ‘lamb’, for ‘possession’, for ‘until’ etc., or when identical words are used in different senses. The Greek of John is idiomatic, but that of Revelation is so unusual that Charles wrote a special grammar for it. But it should not be overlooked that Charles also sees a connection between the two writings because of another set of linguistic resemblances.³⁷ The question is not simple.

Dionysius also sees a difference in approach. The Evangelist ‘nowhere adds his name, nor yet proclaims himself, throughout either the Gospel or the Epistle’ whereas the author of Revelation ’put himself forward‘.⁵

There are, however, other considerations.

a. The solecisms may sometimes be deliberate. Thus R. A. Edwards says, ‘It is a strange book, obviously belonging to the world of poetry rather than to that of straight prose, and, as we have been forced to learn in our own times, poets do not always observe the rules of syntax.‘³⁸ It is worth noticing that if John does on occasion break grammatical rules, on other occasions he keeps those same rules.³⁹ In other words it seems as though his peculiar Greek is written for a purpose, and not through ignorance of the right forms.⁴⁰

Caird is of opinion that the balance of probability is against common authorship, but he does not see the language differences as decisive. Revelation is written in Hebraic Greek. ‘But because a man writes in Hebraic Greek, it does not inevitably follow that this is the only Greek he is capable of writing. He may have adopted this style quite deliberately for reasons of his own, as Luke appears to have imitated the style of the Septuagint in his nativity stories, and as the Jew Aquila, in a much more pedantic fashion, chose to reproduce the details of Hebrew idiom in his Greek translation of the Old Testament. John’s Greek may be all his own, but it is not the product of incompetence, for he handles it with brilliant lucidity and compelling power.’⁴¹ On the score of lucidity a comment of Farrer’s is worth noting: ‘We often have to wonder how he came to write what he wrote, but very seldom to wonder what he meant.’⁴²

b. Undoubtedly there is much apocalyptic reading behind this work. Allusions to apocalyptic literature and typical apocalyptic expressions are everywhere. Quotations and echoes of this type of literature make for strange reading.

c. Revelation was written in exile. The writer had no access to the tools of scholarship and apparently no opportunity for a leisurely scholarly approach.

d. It was also written in excitement. The writer tells us that he was ‘in the Spirit’. We must not expect calm, detached, polished prose.⁴³

e. It is agreed that the author is Aramaic-speaking. But he has obviously read a good deal of Greek and has written in it.

f. The influence of an amanuensis cannot be ruled out. It is possible that one and the same author had the help of an amanuensis in composing the Gospel, but not in Revelation.

g. It has been pointed out that the writer writes not as an apostle but as a prophet. The less he was known the more likely the next age was to ascribe his book (which claims inspiration and a high place for itself, 1:10; 22:18-19) to the greatest John it knew.

h. It is possible that some of the curious language is due to the fact that the writer is setting out visions and oracles of divine origin. There is some evidence that an ungrammatical style was held in certain circles to be appropriate to such inspired communication. ⁴⁴

 

5. . If there are differences in style from the Fourth Gospel there are also resemblances. These two writings alone in the New Testament refer to the logos (Jn. 1:1; Rev. 19:13); they use the imagery of ’the lamb‘, ’the water of life‘, ’he. that overcomes‘, ’keeping the commandments‘, the adjective ’true’ (althinos, nine times in John, four times in 1 John, ten times in Revelation, and five times in all the rest of the New Testament). These two have a striking form of Zechariah 12:10 (Jn. 19:37; Rev. 1:7), an invitation to him that is thirsty (Jn. 7:37; Rev. 22:17), a commandment received by Christ from the Father (Jn. 10:18; Rev. 2:27), and white clothing (for angels, Jn. 20:12; the worthy, Rev. 3:4). Crafer points out that both writings have the same sharp contrasts between absolute good and absolute evil, they both emphasize the bearing of witness and the keeping of the commandments of God.⁴⁵

6. Some of the ideas of Revelation are said to be incompatible with those in the other Johannine writings. It is not uncommon to find scholars alleging that Revelation is sub-Christian, at least in part.⁴⁶ Thus, whereas the Gospel and the Epistles emphasize the love of God, Revelation seems to put his wrath in the prominent place. Yet here it must be borne in mind that ideas of wrath and the like would not be at all impossible for a man described as a ‘son of thunder’. As R. A. Edwards says, ‘We have also to remember that the idea of the “wrath of God” is a normal part of the New Testament, and to accept the idea that there is real opposition between “this world” and the world of the Kingdom.’⁴⁷ It has to be borne in mind that the Jews did write fiercely about their persecutors. They regarded them as the enemies of God, and they pulled no punches.

In similar fashion some students make a good deal of the fact that Revelation has a great concern for eschatological imagery, whereas the Gospel concentrates on this life.⁴⁸ Revelation is constantly looking for the coming of Christ, whereas in John Christ abides in believers and they in him. But this is no more than a matter of emphasis. The Gospel sometimes does use traditional eschatological imagery (e.g. Jn. 5:25ff.). The subject-matter of the two books is very different, and this may be sufficient to account for this point. Certainly it is going too far to say that on this score the two writings demand different authors.

7. . It is often argued that John was a very common name, and that therefore we have no real reason for ascribing Revelation to the same author as the Gospel. Whatever be the truth about the use of this name among the Jews,⁴⁹ the fact is that we do not have a great number of Christian Johns to choose from. We have no certain knowledge of any Christian John of this period other than the apostle and John Mark. Even Dionysius, writing as early as the end of the third century, and trying to make a case for an author of Revelation other than John the apostle, can yet say no more than, ’I think that there was a certain other (John) among those that were in Asia, since it is said both that there were two tombs at Ephesus, and that each of the two is said to be John’s.‘⁵⁰ Notice the caution with which he puts the suggestion forward, ’I think ... it is said ...‘. Clearly Dionysius had no exact knowledge, and equally clearly he wanted to establish the point so that if he had had reliable information he would have brought it forward. E. Stauffer says that the view that there were two tombs in Ephesus has been ’contradicted by excavations on the spot‘.⁵¹

The evidence that there were two Johns cannot be said to be really strong. Edwards says, ‘The fact from which we start is that antiquity assigned the whole of the Johannine literature to one man. That judgment ought only to be disturbed on irrefutable grounds.’⁵²

8. E. Stauffer sees in the liturgical interest common to the Fourth Gospel and the Revelation evidence for an affinity between them. He finds in this an argument for apostolic authorship for both.⁵³

Stauffer has this to say about authorship: ‘These three main Johannine writings are not just related in style, they are related in theology, too, and they form with II and III John an individual group of writings which stand out very clearly from the other literature of the primitive Church. In view of all this we have sufficient ground to ascribe these five writings to a common author of remarkable individuality and great significance, and to identify him as the apostle John.’ Then he notes the possibility that disciples shared in the writing and concludes, ‘So we have to sum up our position in the cautious thesis: the Johannine writings of the NT are to be ascribed to the apostle John or to his influence.’⁵⁴ Kummel cites, as favouring apostolic authorship for the Gospel and Revelation, ‘most of the Catholic scholars, Michaelis, Albertz, Hadorn, de Zwaan, Klijn, Feine-Behm, Guthrie, E. Stauffer’ .⁵⁵

9. . A number of recent scholars accept the view that John the apostle was martyred early and that accordingly he cannot have been the author of Revelation (or the Gospel). I have discussed this view elsewhere and have endeavoured to show that the evidence for it is scanty.⁵⁶ It should be mentioned for the sake of completeness, but the idea has little to recommend it.

10. The statement that on the foundation stones of the heavenly city are written the names of ’the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ (21:14) is often adduced as incompatible with apostolic authorship. It is difficult to see why; an apostle might well give this information.⁵⁷ Another subjective consideration is the contention that the writer shows no trace of having been an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Jesus. This is scarcely a strong objection in a book so very much preoccupied with heaven.⁵⁸