The Tale of Two Johns: A Scholarly Examination of Authorship in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation



Introduction: A Question of Identity in the Johannine Corpus


Within the canon of the New Testament, a distinct collection of writings has long been grouped under a single name: the Johannine works. This corpus, comprising the Gospel of John, three epistles (1, 2, and 3 John), and the Book of Revelation, shares certain thematic and theological threads that have historically led to the conclusion of common authorship.1 For nearly two millennia, church tradition has confidently attributed these five texts to one of the most prominent figures in early Christianity: John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, the "disciple whom Jesus loved".3 This view, however, has been subjected to intense scholarly scrutiny, particularly since the Enlightenment, leading to a profound shift in academic understanding.

The modern scholarly consensus, supported by a formidable body of evidence, overwhelmingly rejects the traditional attribution of the entire corpus to a single author. While most scholars agree that the three epistles were likely written by the same hand, they draw a sharp distinction between the author of the epistles and the Gospel, and an even sharper one between the author of the Gospel and the author of the Book of Revelation.2 The academic position holds that the final book of the Christian Bible, the Apocalypse of John, was penned by a different "John" than the one associated with the Fourth Gospel.

This report will provide an exhaustive examination of the evidence underpinning this scholarly conclusion. It will move beyond simple assertion to articulate the multifaceted argument for dual authorship, demonstrating that the two texts diverge so profoundly as to make a common origin untenable. The analysis will proceed along three primary lines of inquiry. First, it will explore the external evidence from early Christian history, tracing both the formation of the traditional view and the ancient roots of the debate itself. Second, it will delve into the internal evidence of the texts' original Koine Greek, presenting a detailed linguistic and stylistic analysis that reveals a chasm between the two authors' literary abilities and habits. Finally, it will conduct a comparative study of the works' theological frameworks, highlighting fundamental differences in their conceptions of Christ, the nature of salvation, and the end of time. Through this systematic investigation, a clear picture emerges of two distinct authors, two separate communities, and two unique theological visions, both attributed to a man named John.


Part I: The Historical Witness – Tracing the Tradition and its Early Challenges


The question of who wrote the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John is not a modern invention. The debate has roots stretching back to the earliest centuries of the church, where the tradition of single authorship was established, challenged, and defended. An examination of this historical testimony reveals that while a dominant view emerged, it was never without its skeptics, whose arguments foreshadowed the conclusions of modern scholarship.


1.1 The Foundation of a Tradition: The Apostolic Attribution


The traditional view that John the Apostle wrote both the Gospel and Revelation rests on the testimony of influential second-century church leaders. The earliest external evidence comes from Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD), who, in his Dialogue with Trypho, explicitly attributes the Apocalypse to "a man among us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ".4 Shortly after, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD) provided what would become the cornerstone of the traditional attribution. Irenaeus, who claimed to have heard the teachings of Polycarp (c. 69–155 AD), stated that Polycarp was himself a disciple of the Apostle John.3 This created a powerful chain of tradition linking Irenaeus directly back to the apostolic circle. Based on this authority, Irenaeus asserted that John, the disciple of the Lord, received the Revelation near the end of Emperor Domitian's reign (c. 96 AD) and was also the author of the Fourth Gospel.3

This testimony from figures like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and later writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, solidified the belief in a single, apostolic author for the Johannine works.3 However, even within this early testimony, there are subtle complexities. Some scholars note that Irenaeus, while attributing the works to John, consistently refers to the author as "the disciple of the Lord," a title he uses for the author of the Gospel and Revelation, while referring to other figures like Peter and Paul as "apostles".1 This distinction, while perhaps unintentional, has been interpreted as an early, faint signal that even a key proponent of the tradition may have perceived a difference between the author of the Johannine works and the formal category of the Twelve Apostles.


1.2 The Seeds of Doubt: Dionysius, Eusebius, and the "Two Johns" Theory


Despite the growing consensus, serious challenges to single authorship arose from within the church itself as early as the third century. The most significant and remarkably modern critique came from Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria (d. c. 265 AD). In a detailed analysis preserved by the later church historian Eusebius, Dionysius systematically dismantled the case for common authorship based on internal evidence.4

Dionysius argued that the Gospel and Revelation could not be from the same hand due to their starkly different literary qualities. He praised the Gospel and 1 John for being written "not only without any blunders in the use of Greek but with remarkable skill regarding diction, logical thought, and orderly expression".4 In stark contrast, he described the Greek of Revelation as inaccurate, employing "barbarous idioms" and committing "downright solecisms" (grammatical errors).9 Furthermore, Dionysius observed a crucial difference in authorial self-presentation: the author of the Gospel and epistles never names himself, whereas the author of Revelation explicitly identifies himself as "John" on multiple occasions.7 While Dionysius accepted Revelation as the work of a holy and inspired man, he concluded it must have been a different John, not the apostle who wrote the Gospel.7

A century later, the influential church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340 AD) amplified these doubts.2 Eusebius drew upon the writings of an earlier figure, Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD), who had mentioned two prominent Johns active in Asia Minor: John the Apostle and another figure he called "John the Presbyter" (or John the Elder).1 Seizing upon this distinction, Eusebius proposed a solution that accounted for the discrepancies noted by Dionysius: John the Apostle was the author of the Gospel, while John the Presbyter was the author of the Apocalypse.1 This "two Johns" theory provided an orthodox explanation for the profound differences between the texts while still attributing them to authoritative early Christian figures.


1.3 Canon and Controversy: The Contested Authority of the Apocalypse


The uncertainty surrounding Revelation's authorship had significant consequences for its acceptance into the New Testament canon. The arguments put forth by Dionysius and Eusebius resonated deeply, particularly within the Eastern, Greek-speaking churches, which remained skeptical of the book's apostolic origins for centuries.5 This skepticism was not merely a matter of literary taste; it was profoundly intertwined with theological disputes of the era.

The doctrine of millenarianism—the belief in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, based on Revelation 20—was embraced by groups like the Montanists, whom the mainstream church considered heretical.5 Figures like Dionysius were staunch opponents of millenarianism, and this theological opposition appears to have been a key motivating factor in his denial of Revelation's apostolic authorship.8 By demonstrating that the book was likely not written by an apostle, its theological authority could be diminished, thereby weakening the scriptural basis for the doctrines espoused by his theological opponents. This reveals that early textual criticism was not a dispassionate academic exercise but a potent tool in doctrinal battles. To question a text's apostolic pedigree was to challenge its authority and neutralize its force in theological debate.

The controversy was further fueled by accusations that Revelation was not just non-apostolic but an outright forgery. A Roman presbyter named Gaius (early 3rd century) claimed the book was fabricated by the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus, who falsely prefixed the name "John" to lend authority to his own millenarian fictions.4 While this charge was not widely accepted, the fact that it was made at all underscores the deep-seated controversies surrounding the book's origins and its contested place in the emerging Christian canon.


Part II: The Tale of Two Texts – A Comparative Linguistic and Stylistic Analysis


While historical testimony reveals the antiquity of the authorship debate, the most decisive evidence for the majority of modern scholars lies within the texts themselves. A comparative analysis of the original Koine Greek of the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation exposes a linguistic and stylistic chasm so wide that it renders the theory of common authorship highly improbable. The two works are not merely different in genre and subject matter; they appear to be the products of two fundamentally different minds, one a master of elegant and sophisticated Greek prose, the other a writer whose powerful vision is expressed in a rough, ungrammatical, and distinctly Semitic-influenced style.


2.1 The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: Eloquence and Literary Sophistication


The author of the Fourth Gospel writes in a Koine Greek that is, by scholarly consensus, fluent, skillful, and literarily sophisticated.4 Although the vocabulary is relatively simple and the sentence structure often appears straightforward, this simplicity is deceptive. The author demonstrates a masterful command of the language, employing it to construct a deeply theological and philosophically rich narrative.

The Gospel's style is characterized by its use of abstract concepts and thematic dualisms, such as light versus darkness, truth versus falsehood, and life versus death.14 The author is adept at using literary devices like irony, metaphor, and misunderstanding to advance the narrative and reveal deeper theological truths.15 Jesus's teachings are presented not as short parables, which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, but as long, intricate discourses and dialogues that explore profound Christological themes.14 The author's focus is on abstract ideas like the

Logos (Word), eternal life, and belief, weaving them into a narrative that is both historically grounded and theologically transcendent.10 The overall effect is one of polished, deliberate, and elegant prose, the work of a highly competent writer comfortable in the Greek language.


2.2 The Greek of the Apocalypse: Solecisms, Semitisms, and Prophetic Power


In stark contrast, the Greek of the Book of Revelation is notoriously rough, awkward, and frequently ungrammatical.4 As early as the third century, Dionysius of Alexandria noted its "barbarous idioms" 9, and modern analysis has confirmed his assessment. The text is filled with

solecisms, or grammatical errors, where the author violates standard rules of agreement in case, gender, and number.19

A classic and frequently cited example appears in the opening greeting of Revelation 1:4: ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (). A literal translation is "from he who is and he who was and he who is coming".19 Standard Greek grammar requires that a noun or pronoun following the preposition

ἀπό (, "from") be in the genitive (possessive) case. However, the author leaves the phrase in the nominative (subject) case, as if it were a fixed, unchangeable title for God that cannot be grammatically altered to fit the sentence.19 This is just one of many instances where the author's syntax is jarring to a reader of idiomatic Greek.

These irregularities are not random. They are often best explained as Semitisms—instances where the author's thought patterns and sentence structures are so heavily influenced by a Semitic language like Hebrew or Aramaic that they are imposed directly onto the Greek text.19 The author appears to "think in Hebrew or Aramaic; he wrote in Greek".19 This is particularly evident in his use of the Old Testament. The book contains hundreds of allusions to the Hebrew Bible, and the author often incorporates phrases directly from the Hebrew text or its Greek translation (the Septuagint) in a literal way that disrupts the grammatical flow of his own sentences.11

The "bad" Greek of Revelation, however, should not be mistaken for a lack of literary power. On the contrary, many scholars argue that this unique style is a deliberate choice. By rejecting the polished, idiomatic Greek of the Roman Empire and adopting a rugged, "biblical" style that sounds foreign and prophetic, the author may be engaging in a form of literary resistance.9 The jarring grammar serves a theological purpose, forcing the reader out of their comfortable linguistic world and into the otherworldly reality of the divine vision. The style itself becomes a counter-cultural statement, reinforcing the book's anti-imperial message. The author is not simply a poor writer; he is a subversive and powerful one, crafting a unique linguistic register for his prophetic message.


2.3 Evaluating Explanations for the Divergence


Defenders of single authorship have proposed several explanations to account for the dramatic stylistic differences, though none has proven convincing to the majority of scholars.

One common theory is the use of an amanuensis, or scribe. This view suggests that the Apostle John, an uneducated Galilean fisherman, dictated the eloquent Gospel to a skilled Greek-speaking secretary but was forced to write the rough Greek of Revelation himself while in exile on Patmos, where such help was unavailable.13 While this explanation is plausible on the surface, it fails to account for the depth of the differences. The divergence is not merely a matter of grammatical polish but extends to fundamental vocabulary, theological concepts, and literary structure—elements a scribe would not typically alter.4

Another argument points to the difference in genre. An apocalyptic vision, it is argued, naturally demands a different style than a narrative Gospel.6 While genre certainly influences style, it does not adequately explain the sheer number of basic grammatical mistakes and the pervasive Semitic syntax found in Revelation. Other Greek apocalypses from the period do not exhibit the same degree of grammatical irregularity.19

Finally, some have suggested that the author's ecstatic state while receiving the visions affected his ability to write proper Greek.19 This is unlikely, as the Book of Revelation is a highly structured and meticulously composed literary work, with intricate numerical patterns and a clear narrative arc. Its errors are consistent, pointing to a specific linguistic background rather than a random psychological phenomenon.

The cumulative weight of the linguistic evidence points overwhelmingly to two different authors. The following table summarizes the key contrasts.

Table 1: Comparative Linguistic and Stylistic Features of the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation


Feature

Gospel of John

Book of Revelation

Greek Quality

Fluent, elegant, and idiomatic Koine Greek.4

Rough, awkward, and ungrammatical Koine Greek, full of "barbarous idioms".4

Grammar & Syntax

Generally adheres to standard grammatical rules. Employs complex sentence structures and literary devices.4

Frequent grammatical errors (solecisms) in case, gender, and number agreement. Syntax is heavily influenced by Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) patterns.19

Vocabulary

Rich and abstract: logos (Word), life, light, truth, world, believe.10

Symbolic and concrete: lamb, beast, dragon, seal, trumpet, bowl, whore of Babylon.4

Use of OT

Allusions are subtle and seamlessly integrated into the Greek narrative.14

Allusions are numerous, direct, and often literally translated from Hebrew or the Septuagint, sometimes disrupting the Greek grammar.11

Literary Style

Long philosophical discourses, irony, metaphor, dualism (light/darkness), narrative as testimony.14

Apocalyptic visions, numerology, cyclical patterns (seals, trumpets, bowls), hymns, prophetic pronouncements.5


Part III: Divergent Visions – A Comparative Theological Framework


The case for dual authorship extends beyond matters of style and grammar into the very theological core of the two works. The Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation present not only different literary forms but also profoundly different theological visions. Their approaches to eschatology (the doctrine of end times), Christology (the nature of Christ), and the author's own role and authority are so distinct that they suggest two authors operating in different spiritual and historical contexts, addressing the needs of different communities.


3.1 Eschatology: The "Now" versus the "Not Yet"


One of the most significant theological divergences lies in their understanding of eschatology. The Gospel of John is characterized by what scholars term "realized eschatology".10 In this framework, the blessings of the end times are not merely a future hope but a present reality for the believer. "Eternal life" is not something one waits for after death; it is a quality of life that begins at the moment of belief in Jesus.16 As Jesus states, "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me

has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24, emphasis added). Judgment, too, is a present phenomenon, determined by one's response to the revelation of Jesus in the here and now.

The Book of Revelation, by contrast, is dominated by a "futuristic" or "apocalyptic eschatology".10 Its focus is almost entirely on future events that are to take place "soon" (Revelation 1:1).11 The narrative unfolds as a sequence of future cataclysms—the breaking of seals, the sounding of trumpets, the pouring out of bowls of wrath—all leading to the climactic and imminent return of Christ, a final cosmic battle, and the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth.4 While the Gospel internalizes eschatological realities, making them present and spiritual, Revelation externalizes them, projecting them into a dramatic, future-oriented cosmic timeline.


3.2 Christology: The Revealer versus the Conqueror


The two books also present markedly different portraits of Jesus Christ. While both share some unique terminology, such as calling Jesus the "Lamb" and the "Word" (Logos), the emphasis and overall portrayal diverge significantly.3

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is primarily the divine envoy, the incarnate Logos sent from the Father to be the ultimate revealer of God's nature and will.14 His mission is one of testimony and revelation; his "work" is to make the Father known. His death on the cross is portrayed not as a moment of defeat but as his "lifting up" and glorification, the moment he draws all people to himself. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel is a philosophical and theological figure who engages in deep discourse to reveal divine truth.

In Revelation, Jesus is a transcendent, cosmic, and often terrifying figure. While he is the "Lamb who was slain" (Revelation 5:6), a title emphasizing his sacrificial death, his dominant role is that of a conquering warrior-king and an apocalyptic judge.26 He is the "Alpha and the Omega" who holds the keys of Death and Hades (Revelation 1:8, 18), the rider on the white horse whose name is "The Word of God" and who "judges and makes war" with a sharp sword proceeding from his mouth (Revelation 19:11-15).13 The tone is not one of gentle revelation but of cosmic warfare, with Christ as the supreme commander leading the armies of heaven to a violent and final victory.

These differing theological emphases are not random; they reflect the distinct historical circumstances of the communities being addressed. The Gospel's "realized eschatology" and focus on Jesus as the source of a new spiritual identity provided profound comfort and assurance to a community likely grappling with its painful separation from Judaism. It answered the question, "Who are we now?" In contrast, Revelation's futuristic hope and vision of a conquering Christ offered encouragement and a promise of ultimate vindication to communities facing the threat of persecution from the powerful Roman Empire. It answered the question, "How can we endure?" The two "Johns" were not just different writers; they were pastors responding to fundamentally different crises—one of identity, the other of survival.


3.3 Authorial Persona and Stance


Finally, the authors' self-presentation and claims to authority are diametrically opposed. The author of the Gospel of John is rigorously anonymous and self-effacing. He never once names himself in the text.3 Instead, he grounds the authority of his work in the testimony of another, unnamed figure: the "disciple whom Jesus loved".28 The author presents himself as a mere transmitter of this disciple's witness (John 21:24), making his authority indirect and rooted in a revered source.

The author of Revelation is assertive, direct, and authoritative in his own right. He explicitly names himself "John" four times (Revelation 1:1, 1:4, 1:9, 22:8).3 His authority is not derived from a human predecessor but comes directly from a divine revelation mediated by an angel from Jesus Christ himself.3 He identifies himself not as an apostle but as a "servant" and a "prophet," consciously placing himself in the tradition of the great prophets of the Old Testament.5 This stark contrast in authorial stance further solidifies the conclusion that two different individuals, with two very different understandings of their own roles, were at work.


Part IV: Reconstructing the Authors – The Identity of the Two Johns


Having established that the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were written by two different men, the final step is to synthesize the available evidence to construct profiles of who these two authors likely were. This involves moving beyond the simple fact of their difference to explore their probable identities, their historical contexts, and the literary worlds in which they operated.


4.1 The Author of the Gospel: Anonymity, the "Beloved Disciple," and the Johannine School


A crucial starting point for understanding the author of the Fourth Gospel is the recognition that, like the other three canonical Gospels, it is formally anonymous.27 The titles "The Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John" were not part of the original manuscripts but were added by the church in the second century to distinguish the accounts and assign them apostolic authority.27 The text itself makes no claim to be written by John the Apostle.

Instead, the Gospel internally credits its source material to an enigmatic figure known only as the "disciple whom Jesus loved".28 The final verses of the book state, "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). The identity of this "Beloved Disciple" has been the subject of intense debate for centuries.

  • John the Apostle: This is the traditional identification, supported by early church fathers like Irenaeus. However, it is challenged by the Gospel's curious omission of key events where the Synoptic Gospels place Peter, James, and John at the center, such as the Transfiguration and the prayer in Gethsemane.28

  • Lazarus: An intriguing alternative candidate. Lazarus is the only male individual in the Gospel of whom it is explicitly said that Jesus loved him (John 11:3, 36). Furthermore, all references to the "Beloved Disciple" occur in the narrative after the raising of Lazarus in chapter 11.34

  • John the Elder: The figure mentioned by Papias and championed by Eusebius as the author of Revelation could also be a candidate for the Beloved Disciple, distinguishing him from the apostle.1

  • An Ideal Figure: Some scholars suggest the Beloved Disciple is not a historical person but a literary creation representing the ideal model of discipleship.29

Given these complexities, the prevailing scholarly theory is that the Gospel is the end product of a "Johannine community" or "school".1 This model posits that a community formed around the teachings of its founder, the "Beloved Disciple" (whose historical identity remains uncertain). Over several decades, this community preserved, reflected upon, and developed these traditions. The final Gospel, written around 90–100 AD, was likely composed by a brilliant, Greek-speaking member of this school, who masterfully wove together the community's traditions into the profound theological narrative we have today.1


4.2 The Author of Revelation: John of Patmos, Prophet of Asia Minor


The author of the Apocalypse, conventionally known as John of Patmos, presents a much clearer, though still incomplete, profile.4 From the internal evidence of his book, we can deduce several key characteristics.

He was a Jewish-Christian prophet.5 He never claims to be one of the twelve apostles, and in his vision of the New Jerusalem, he seems to distinguish himself from them by describing the city's foundations as bearing "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14), a description that suggests he is not part of that group.4 He was a well-known and respected figure among the seven churches in the Roman province of Asia (modern-day Turkey), to whom his book is addressed. The fact that he simply introduces himself as "your brother John" without needing further identification implies that his audience was intimately familiar with him and his authority.4

His linguistic background was clearly Semitic, as evidenced by the Hebraic and Aramaic structures that permeate his Greek.4 At the time of his writing, he was exiled to the island of Patmos "because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9), an exile traditionally dated to a period of Roman persecution under the Emperor Domitian around 95 AD.3

The very different ways the two authors present themselves reflect the literary conventions of their chosen genres and further underscore their distinct identities. The author of the Gospel follows the tradition of anonymous "sacred history," where the authority lies in the message about Jesus, not in the identity of the messenger.27 In contrast, most apocalyptic literature of the time was pseudonymous, written in the name of an ancient hero like Enoch or Daniel to grant it authority.4 John of Patmos breaks with this tradition. He names himself as a contemporary figure, rooting his authority not in a past hero or in apostolic succession, but in the power of the direct, unmediated prophetic vision he received from God.4 This fundamental difference in their understanding of authorial role and the basis of their authority is one of the most profound indicators that they were two different men, working in two different literary and theological worlds.


Conclusion: The Cumulative Case for Dual Authorship


The long-held tradition of attributing the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation to a single author, the Apostle John, cannot be sustained under the weight of historical, linguistic, and theological evidence. While the tradition has ancient roots, so too does the debate, with figures like Dionysius of Alexandria raising critical objections in the third century that remain valid today. The cumulative case for dual authorship, now the consensus position in modern biblical scholarship, rests on three converging pillars of evidence.

First, the historical witness is ambiguous at best, with early and influential voices expressing strong doubts about a common origin and proposing a "two Johns" theory to account for the clear discrepancies. Second, the internal linguistic and stylistic evidence is overwhelming. The chasm between the elegant, sophisticated Greek of the Gospel and the rough, ungrammatical, Semitic-influenced Greek of Revelation is too vast to be explained by genre, circumstance, or the use of a scribe. The texts appear to be the products of two writers with fundamentally different levels of comfort and competence in the Greek language. Finally, the theological frameworks of the two books are profoundly divergent. They present contrasting views on eschatology (realized vs. futuristic), different primary portrayals of Christ (revealer vs. conqueror), and opposite approaches to authorial identity (anonymous vs. self-identified prophet).

The overwhelming weight of this evidence leads to the conclusion that the "John" of the Fourth Gospel—likely the final author from a Johannine school preserving the traditions of the "Beloved Disciple"—and the "John" of the Apocalypse—a Jewish-Christian prophet exiled on Patmos—were two distinct individuals.1 Recognizing their separate authorship does not diminish the power or authority of either text. Instead, it allows each book to be read and appreciated on its own terms, within its own unique historical context and for its own unique theological contribution. It replaces a harmonized but historically improbable tradition with a more complex, nuanced, and ultimately richer understanding of the diversity and dynamism of early Christianity.

Works cited

  1. Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

  2. John the Apostle - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle

  3. Who Wrote the Book of Revelation? — Blog - Groundwork Bible Study, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://groundworkonline.com/blog/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation

  4. Who Wrote the Book of Revelation? The Surprising Answer! - Bart Ehrman, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation/

  5. Book of Revelation - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

  6. Revelation - Biblical Scholarship, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/revelation/

  7. Who wrote the book of revelations? : r/AskHistorians - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ij58v/who_wrote_the_book_of_revelations/

  8. 2.9 - Authorship | Precept Austin, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.preceptaustin.org/revelation-intro-author

  9. Poor quality Greek in the Book of Revelation? Why did the early church fathers believe John the Baptist wrote it? : r/AcademicBiblical - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2c19oh/poor_quality_greek_in_the_book_of_revelation_why/

  10. Who is the 'John' of Revelation? - exegetical.tools, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://exegeticaltools.com/2020/05/24/who-is-the-john-of-revelation/

  11. Is John who wrote the Gospel of John the same John of Patmos who wrote Revelations? : r/AcademicBiblical - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/19escid/is_john_who_wrote_the_gospel_of_john_the_same/

  12. Who was John of Patmos? And what gave him the authority to write The Book of Revelation? : r/AcademicBiblical - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1ex4bz1/who_was_john_of_patmos_and_what_gave_him_the/

  13. Why do people believe the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were written by the same person when the writing styles are so different? - Quora, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-believe-the-Gospel-of-John-and-the-Book-of-Revelation-were-written-by-the-same-person-when-the-writing-styles-are-so-different

  14. Distinctive Theologies in the Gospel of John - Craig Blomberg | - Biblical Training, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/academy/bt201-a-guide-to-biblical-theology/bt201-13-distinctive-theologies-in-the-gospel-of-john

  15. The Revealing and Hidden Language of the Gospel of John – Theology Research News - KU Leuven, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/press/theologyresearchnews/2022/01/10/the-revealing-and-hidden-language-of-the-gospel-of-john/

  16. The End of Time in Revelation and the Gospel of John - The Bart ..., accessed on October 5, 2025, https://ehrmanblog.org/the-end-of-time-in-revelation-and-the-gospel-of-john/

  17. Is Revelation a forgery written in the name of the Apostle John? : r/AcademicBiblical - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1hu5lcc/is_revelation_a_forgery_written_in_the_name_of/

  18. Is there any evidence that the book of Revelation was originally written in Hebrew? - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1ktsk56/is_there_any_evidence_that_the_book_of_revelation/

  19. 2.8 - Style of Writing | Precept Austin, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.preceptaustin.org/revelation-intro-style

  20. Bible Gem 2188 - Why is the Greek of Revelation and John's Gospel Different?, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.bereaninsights.org/bible-gem-2188-why-is-the-greek-of-revelation-and-johns-gospel-different/

  21. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-gospel-of-john-and-christian-theology/

  22. What kind of writing is the Book of Revelation? (i) - Psephizo, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.psephizo.com/revelation/what-kind-of-writing-is-the-book-of-revelation-i/

  23. (PDF) Theological Affinities Between the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381261450_Theological_Affinities_Between_the_Fourth_Gospel_and_the_Book_of_Revelation

  24. Is John who wrote the Gospel of John the same John of Patmos who ..., accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/19escid/is_john_who_wrote_the_gospel_of_john_the_same_john_of_patmos_who_wrote_revelations/

  25. Loader, William. Jesus in John's Gospel: Structure and Issues in ..., accessed on October 5, 2025, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3734&context=auss

  26. The Person of Christ in John's Revelation and Gospel - Brill, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004435612/BP000024.pdf

  27. Why Are the Gospels Anonymous? - The Bart Ehrman Blog, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/

  28. Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for Sure? - Zondervan Academic, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

  29. The Beloved Disciple: Who Is the Disciple that Jesus Loved? - Bart Ehrman, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.bartehrman.com/who-is-the-disciple-that-jesus-loved/

  30. Who Wrote the Book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel? - The Bart Ehrman Blog, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://ehrmanblog.org/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation-and-the-fourth-gospel/

  31. Were the Gospels anonymous? - Wesley Huff, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.wesleyhuff.com/blog/2020/10/16/where-the-gospels-anonamous-29jm2

  32. Are the Gospels Anonymous? - The Life, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://thelife.com/are-the-gospels-anonymous

  33. Are the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John considered anonymous by scholars? : r/AskBibleScholars - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/comments/l2qpci/are_the_authors_of_matthew_mark_luke_and_john/

  34. Who Wrote the Gospel of John? | Zondervan Academic, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john

  35. John, the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/01/john-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved?lang=eng

  36. Lazarus, not John, was the beloved disciple | by Alan Rudnick - Medium, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://medium.com/@alanrudnick/lazarus-not-john-was-the-beloved-disciple-a4723223a16a

  37. John was not the “beloved disciple.” And he did not write the Gospel of John. - Reddit, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1jcbhae/john_was_not_the_beloved_disciple_and_he_did_not/

  38. Which John Wrote the Gospel of John? | Catholic Answers Video, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/video/which-john-wrote-the-gospel-of-john

  39. Could the Author of Revelation step forward, please? - Dialnet, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5792224.pdf