suggests that he was not claiming to be one of them. And when he mentions the apostles at all, it is only in his celebrated vision of the New Jerusalem that will descend from heaven after the end of the world: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,” he writes, “and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” 13
Pious theologians and secular scholars alike have proposed some highly imaginative scenarios to explain how the same author might have written both Revelation and the Fourth Gospel. Perhaps, they suggest, the apostle John wrote Revelation when he was younger and wilder and only newly arrived in the Greek-speaking provinces of the Roman Empire—and he wrote the Gospel when he was older and wiser, and only after he had acquired a mastery of Greek over long years of practice. Or perhaps he dictated the text of each book to a different secretary or translator, one far more skilled than the other—and, if so, the Gospel is the work of the more accomplished secretary, while Revelation suffered at the hands of the incompetent one.
Yet another explanation is that the apostle died before finishing one or both of the books. According to one ancient tradition, John was martyred for his faith sometime before 70 C.E. , which is earlier than the dates assigned to the Fourth Gospel or Revelation by contemporary scholars. Perhaps, then, one or both of the books were completed after John’s death by two separate redactors, each with a different understanding of his theology and an unequal mastery of Greek. One modern Bible scholar strikes an even more provocative stance when he imagines that the text of Revelation fell into the hands of a posthumous ghostwriter who was not merely inept but intent on ruining the work of St. John the Evangelist—“an arch-heretic who betrays a depth of stupidity all but incomprehensible, and only matched by his ignorance.” 14
Dionysius himself read the two books with pious but discerning eyes and was forced to conclude that Revelation was written by “another John”—that is, someone named John but not St. John the Evangelist. 15 Modern scholars share the same conviction. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that the apostle John is described in the Gospels as illiterate, and thus could not plausibly have written any of the biblical works that are attributed to him. 16 And the question of authorship is still being debated by scholars and theologians: “No subject of Biblical studies has provoked such elaborate and prolonged discussion,” complains one scholar, “and no discussion has been so bewildering, disappointing and unprofitable.” 17
Indeed, readers of Revelation across the ages have never been able to resist asking the most daring and tantalizing question of all: If the author was not St. John the Evangelist, then who was the other John, the man who really wrote the book of Revelation?
One early and intriguing candidate for the authorship of Revelation, for example, is an otherwise obscure elder (or “presbyter”) of the early Christian church whose name was also John. He is first mentioned in the work of Papias, a bishop of the second century who is the earliest known commentator on the book of Revelation. The original writings of Papias are lost, but he is cited and quoted by other ancient sources who knew his work. According to a passage in the influential church history composed by Eusebius in the fourth century, for example, Papias was in the habit of seeking out elderly Christians of his acquaintance, the presbyter John among them, in an earnest effort to learn about the life of Jesus from eyewitnesses to the events that are described in the Gospels.
“I do not regard that which comes from books,” insists Papias in an intriguing aside, “as so valuable for myself as that which comes from a living and abiding voice.” 18
Significantly, Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis, which was located in the vicinity of
Pious theologians and secular scholars alike have proposed some highly imaginative scenarios to explain how the same author might have written both Revelation and the Fourth Gospel. Perhaps, they suggest, the apostle John wrote Revelation when he was younger and wilder and only newly arrived in the Greek-speaking provinces of the Roman Empire—and he wrote the Gospel when he was older and wiser, and only after he had acquired a mastery of Greek over long years of practice. Or perhaps he dictated the text of each book to a different secretary or translator, one far more skilled than the other—and, if so, the Gospel is the work of the more accomplished secretary, while Revelation suffered at the hands of the incompetent one.
Yet another explanation is that the apostle died before finishing one or both of the books. According to one ancient tradition, John was martyred for his faith sometime before 70 C.E. , which is earlier than the dates assigned to the Fourth Gospel or Revelation by contemporary scholars. Perhaps, then, one or both of the books were completed after John’s death by two separate redactors, each with a different understanding of his theology and an unequal mastery of Greek. One modern Bible scholar strikes an even more provocative stance when he imagines that the text of Revelation fell into the hands of a posthumous ghostwriter who was not merely inept but intent on ruining the work of St. John the Evangelist—“an arch-heretic who betrays a depth of stupidity all but incomprehensible, and only matched by his ignorance.” 14
Dionysius himself read the two books with pious but discerning eyes and was forced to conclude that Revelation was written by “another John”—that is, someone named John but not St. John the Evangelist. 15 Modern scholars share the same conviction. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that the apostle John is described in the Gospels as illiterate, and thus could not plausibly have written any of the biblical works that are attributed to him. 16 And the question of authorship is still being debated by scholars and theologians: “No subject of Biblical studies has provoked such elaborate and prolonged discussion,” complains one scholar, “and no discussion has been so bewildering, disappointing and unprofitable.” 17
Indeed, readers of Revelation across the ages have never been able to resist asking the most daring and tantalizing question of all: If the author was not St. John the Evangelist, then who was the other John, the man who really wrote the book of Revelation?
One early and intriguing candidate for the authorship of Revelation, for example, is an otherwise obscure elder (or “presbyter”) of the early Christian church whose name was also John. He is first mentioned in the work of Papias, a bishop of the second century who is the earliest known commentator on the book of Revelation. The original writings of Papias are lost, but he is cited and quoted by other ancient sources who knew his work. According to a passage in the influential church history composed by Eusebius in the fourth century, for example, Papias was in the habit of seeking out elderly Christians of his acquaintance, the presbyter John among them, in an earnest effort to learn about the life of Jesus from eyewitnesses to the events that are described in the Gospels.
“I do not regard that which comes from books,” insists Papias in an intriguing aside, “as so valuable for myself as that which comes from a living and abiding voice.” 18
Significantly, Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis, which was located in the vicinity of
Similar Books
