Who Wrote The Book Of Revelation? (rev.4:1-2)

Who wrote the Book of Revelation? (Rev.4:1-2)

1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne.  

Although John’s Revelation falls into a category that can be called Jewish apocalyptic literature, there are number of distinctive features here. In this case, John gets immediate and unmediated access to the throne room of God, something that is not usually the case in other prominent Jewish apocalyptic works such as for example, The Testament of Levi and 1 Enoch.

It has been a matter of consensus that John’s Revelation displays significant literary dependence on another Jewish apocalyptic text – the Book of Ezekiel. As an interesting side note, in my earlier book “The Jewish Gospel of John” I argue (and some say convincingly) that whoever wrote John’s Gospel was very interested in the Book of Ezekiel. The amount of literary and thematic parallels is too great to deny such a connection. (But what am I doing you should buy and read the book!!!!)

The book of Revelation, authored by a person named John (a common Jewish name – Yohanan in Hebrew), also has obvious interest in the Book of Ezekiel. It was a very common thing to name an apocalyptic Jewish work by the name of some great Biblical character (for example, Apocalypse of Elijah, Apocalypse of Daniel, Apocalypse of Moses and the list can go on and on). What is unusual here is that this apocalypse is attributed to someone named Yohanan (John) seemingly without any prior notoriety, except if indeed John, the Apostle, is in fact in view.

Although evidence is certainly inconclusive (and John’s Gospel does a very good job of remaining an anonymous document although with occasional hints as to its author) it may have been John, the Son of Zebedee, who authored it. There are some very good arguments that show he belonged to a priestly lineage. If this is correct, his preoccupation with the Book of Ezekiel makes a lot of sense. One of the major arguments, however, against the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation being written by the same person (no such problem exists between Gospel of John and John’s letters) is that the Greek of John’s Gospel and that of Revelation is dramatically different. To put it another way the Greek of John’s Gospel is clearly better than the Greek of Revelation. But given that most literature was not written, but dictated to a scribe, the difference in the level of linguistic sophistication could be accounted for by different scribes doing the work, not to mention the genre adaptation from historic narrative (Gospel of John) to apocalyptic literature (Book of Revelation). In other words, if John wrote his Gospel from Ephesus (as some early traditions specify) it would make sense that he would have had access to some of the best scribes, while when he was on the Island of Patmos, even though it was not technically a prison, it is reasonable to assume that his choice of scribes was severely limited, if available at all.

About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

Shanah Tova!

By Julia Blum

Who Was Melchizedek?  (3)

By Julia Blum

Join the conversation (55 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. Kat H

    This is a Hebrew language question I hope to find in Eli’s future books. In Joel 2:12 the Hebrew word repent was defined as “ turn to the beginning”. Could John 1:1 “in the beginning” and Revelation 1:9 “for the logos of God” imply repentance? Would be interesting to understand this from a Hebrew perspective. Most of my circle repents from sin. I repented to… God

  2. Lloyd Dale

    I am having a very hard time understanding how it is possible to read through the article by Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg and all of the comments herein and not find one suggestion that the NT Scriptures never refer to John as the disciple whom Jesus loved. However, there are several references in the fourth Gospel that Lazarus was a disciple whom Jesus loved. It would appear from the information which we have in the NT that Lazarus may have come from a wealthy family. It is also suggested that the disciple whom Jesus loved was known by the high priest (fourth Gospel 18:16). From the evidence present herein and much more not presented, it should be suggested that Lazarus was the man with priestly ties and may very well be the author of the fourth Gospel. For more on this view see ” The disciple whom Jesus loved ” on the internet.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Lloyd, I agree that it could be Lazarus. But I don’t know if you are aware of an argument that says that John the Son of Zabedee was from a levitical family too.

  3. Kat H

    If I am correct and the author of the Book of John & Revelation used the Lord’s Prayer as a PATTERN then the Samaritan Woman (page 61 in your book) would indeed have been receiving the Holy Spirit for suffering rather than sinning: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them.” Is this called circumcision of the heart?

    NOTES
    Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
    Your kingdom come, your will be done,
    • My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) has become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.
    • The one who sat on the throne, Jesus, looked like 2 tribes (jasper & sardine) and the everlasting covenant (rainbow) looked like God’s will (emerald)

    on earth as it is in heaven.
    • 1 King (looking like 2 tribes) 12 apostles, 12 tribes = 24 seats

    Give us this day our daily bread,
    • hunger (Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God)
    • “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger” John 6:35 (Page 112 in book)
    —————————————————————-
    • God’s voice
    • 7 spirits of God (Psalm 103:20) (Hebrews 1:14)

    and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    • Thirst (and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”)
    • “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” John 20:22 (page 260 in book) ****healing after circumcision of the heart???
    ——————————————————————-
    • Transmitting light(sea of glass) like healing(crystals)

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      The model prayer that Jesus gave to his disciples lays at the foundation of Jewish spirituality – the same idea as Amidah prayer. It is a summary statement of several powerful theological understandings. No wonder it resounds in so many many places. Its actually to be expected.

  4. Kat H

    Seems to me like both authors are following a pattern using the the Lord’s prayer
    Book of John
    our daily bread– John 6:13 12 – loaves (page 103 in book)
    Forgive us our debts– John 20:22 – (page 260 in book)
    lead us not into temptation – John 19:30? cup of restoration? (page 253)

    Revelations
    The number 24 looks like “on earth as it is in heaven” (earth-12 apostles/Jasper/rainbow in clouds) (heaven -12 tribes/sardius/rainbow encircling the throne like a live coal)

  5. jane z. mazzola

    Thank you gents both, for the information. Dr. Eli, I’ll look up the reference in your book’s Bibliography & good clarification of the other question. Dr. van den Berg, I appreciate the NT analogy of Christ, the Bridegroom & the Church as His Bride. But this other Rabbinical law for the bride(woman) in particular, to be immersed for “sins” is just typical. Could have been worse……. I understand your point though, that it shows that immersion was in practice. Thanks again.

  6. jane z. mazzola

    That is ok. No apology necessary. Participation is present. Blessed, safe travels.
    Jane M

  7. yetilived

    Drs. Charles van den Berg, You mentioned in the Jewish wedding ritual “confession of sins”. Does that mean something we did wrong, or can it include something that will cause us to sin (Matthew 5:30 … and if your right hand causes you to sin) I ask because in John 3:20 it says that everyone who does evil hates the light, but everyone who practices the truth comes into the light.

    1. Drs. Charles van den Berg

      yetilived ,
      This is said of Jesus:

      ‘ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need’( Heb 4:15-16 )

      Temptation is not a sin. Temptation leads to sin at a wrong choice.

      1. Kat H

        Drs. Charles
        Yes, but I believe the Apostle John is the author of both the book of John and Revelations. John uses the Lord’s prayer as a pattern.

        Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil

        Therefore John 21:18-29 (Page 268 in book) would foretell Peter being delivered from evil (led by the Spirit). This is what we see in Revelations. Delivered from evil would then look like: “Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go”

        You might call this following Christ (denying yourself), to me it seemed like it was confessing sin (some call it convicted of sin. John 3:21 calls this living by the truth. I have to question if the Ancient Jewish wedding ceremony used the words “confession of sin”

        1. Drs. Charles van den Berg

          Kat ….Although this written record is of later date, in Talmud Jeroesjalmi (Bikkurim 3:3) is mentioned that on the wedding day chatan (groom) and kala (bride) get a general amnesty of transgressions and sins by God. The confession of sin is a general confession of sins. It’s like a personal Yom Kippur. As I previously mentioned temptation is neither a sin, nor a violation. Temptation turns into sin and transgression at a wrong choice.

  8. jane z. mazzola

    What support that you mentioned, Dr. Eli, is there that “the beloved John”, son of Zebedee, was of the priestly class?
    In that “ancient wedding tradition” of a woman being immersed while she confesses her sins to God, comment by Drs. van den Berg, was there any comparable “tradition” for the male of the wedding party? Or there again, only the woman has to be cleansed…? I understand the analogy of Christ, the bridegroom, to His church. But still maybe, offended.
    Next, Dr. Eli, what did you mean, @ “Jesus did not die”, etc.,? Did you mean being able to PROVE it? Or rather that it had not occurred before the Gospel narrative of description, Matt 18? In reading the comments from Drs. van den Berg, it appeared that you had explained to him, your intended meaning, but it did not appear in the comments.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Jane, in the book (in Bibliography I think I list an article that makes this argument very strong) about priestly class. It is complex but logical. About the wedding, I would let Charles answer this. By did not die I mean that it did not happen yet. So sorry folks for lack of participation this and next month I am very busy traveling (and prepare to travel). THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THIS DISCUSSION ALIVE.

    2. Drs. Charles van den Berg

      Jane …The mentioned wedding ritual is not a prescribed ritual in Torah. The source comes from Halakha (rabbinical Jewish law). But is is a mention of a given what all for Christ was present. And within this topic a proof that there existed already immersions in Judaism. This practice and thought is confirmed and applied to Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:25-27 :
      Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
      that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
      so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. .

  9. yetilived

    There is so much richness in one article. I think what John sees affects education or lack of it, so I hope to hear more in the future. My first Pastor promoted education /seminary yet it contradicted our theological position. The very first question I asked after my “vision’ of Christ was complete (my eyes were opened) was “What is this?” I was told it was truth from heaven (aka ”I get it”/Spiritual illumination). People who believe they have open access to heaven don’t need classes. We are spiritually illuminated. Our understanding comes from heaven, not from studying. It cultivates a“I am right” attitude and we cannot listen to others or renounce our position. This does not promote reunification like you suggest in your book. What are the 7 spirits of God? 🙂

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      My theories on 7 spirits were discussed in other Revelation articles that deal with that verse. do a search within the site and you will find them.

  10. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    !!!!!!!!! Sorry Eli, I understand that you was referring to the incorrect view that no one would be baptized for Jesus ‘ death. It’s a long time since we misunderstood each other.!!!!!!

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes. that is the case… no apologies necessary Dr. van den Berg. So glad to have you participating!

  11. frankhamrick

    “Upon this rock I WILL build my church.” When Matthew 18 was spoken at/near Banias, the “ecclesia” did not yet exist – it was still future according to the text. It is no wonder that Jesus would speak of a yet future ‘ecclesia’ consisting of both Jew & Gentile.
    As to Jesus’ skillful employment, I do agree that Jesus was an ‘artificer,’ not a worker in wood – but more than likely a worker in stone. However, that has little bearing on the intended audience of The Revelation of Jesus Christ, and so doesn’t in itself minimize the argument of David Corran.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      This is a good point… ecclesia in Greek does not mean church! I know that is how everyone translates it, but the Greek word does not mean “an assembly of followers of Jesus” It is a word for a gathering, an assembly, but without further qualifications. The word “church” in contrast has a very clear connotation. The reverse would be if I said please come join us next Monday night for antiquarian book collectors church. But you sees there is no prayer, no Jesus, no religion at all, its just a gathering of book collectors. To call it church would be misleading.I should have used a neutral word – meeting. So is with ecclesial – it is a generic neutral term, not a Christian one. Incorrect terminology is a big problem because it creates a conceptual world which did not exist.

  12. John Sweeting, CWO4 USN (rret), MAEd

    Dr. Lixorkin-Eyzenberg: I would like your take on something. I have noticed over the last seven years, when I began to study and research seriously, the constant referencing to the Greek. Did Jerome not have access to Hebrew documents? Wycliffe? Tyndale? Luther? Can we prove the New Testament documents were all originally written in Greek? What about the contemporary claims of original scripture being available in Aramaic? I understand that Greek was common then. But would there not have been, especially after the Maccabean wars fought against the Greeks over cultural and religious issues, an aversion to writing such documents in Greek? Also, since all Jewish scriptural works were already in Hebrew at the time, does it not follow the original documents would have been in Hebrew. Yes, I will not disagree that the Epistles may have been written in the language of the intended recipient. But that would not all be in Greek either.
    In reading several concordances and looking at claimed translations from Aramaic, I find the Greek references, in my heart and mind, to be a bit “off”.
    Thanks for all of your works.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Dear John, let me see if I can answer it this way… Aramaic is certainly a much more “Jewish” language because is it is has the same eastern roots as Hebrew does. And indeed it was spoken in the eastern part of the world in Babylon, in Syria and other parts, yet not exclusively. But in other parts of the civilized world Greek was much more dominant. Can we prove that NT was in Greek? – pretty much.. at least there is more tangible proof for this than other scenarios. The logic would be the same if a person asked me if we could prove that the Dead Sea scrolls were originally in Aramaic. I would turn to physical evidence… The earliest copies of and fragments of manuscripts we have are in Greek. What about Aramaic? – much later manuscripts and all show dependence on Greek base texts. Hebrew? – no early manuscripts of NT exists. The ones that exist are all late and show dependence on Greek and later Aramaic. Would I personally love for the NT to be originally in Hebrew? – Without a doubt! But despite my wishful hopes the evidence is simply not there. So yes – Greek is the key to original text. This of course does not take away that those who wrote Greek were still thinking Hebrew!

  13. Fres Aguelo

    To me, even with certain diffences, it still points yo John the Beloved. I suspect he is of priestly descent also & remember that he was familiar with Caiaphas & others in the Temple. But most of all, I would like to focus on the Yeshua because it is His revelation!

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes, there are many pros and cons. Which is why it it good to think out loud.

  14. klg666

    I believe a strong case can be made that when John (the Apostle) wrote Revelation he was intentionally putting on the mantle of a prophet and mimicking OT prophetic style with his vast number of Hebraisms. That is, he intentionally wrote in an awkward, Hebraic manner for stylistic effect. This would be something like a preacher today praying in a King James Version style English (thee, thou, art, wilt, etc.) to get his biblical point across. John’s style “problems” are usually in the visionary sections for this reason (see Vern Poythress).

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Interesting idea… I think it is more complicated, but thanks for your thoughts.

  15. Paul Starks

    I am in thought of the time between Paul journey and preaching among the Greeks and his exile what difference will it possibly make with his faith and testimony with the time and condition Paul is at

  16. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    Eli, I agree with you. But, Jesus did not die? You are kidding !

    Rom 5:8 Maar God bevestigt Zijn liefde jegens ons, dat Christus voor ons gestorven ( 1 ) is, als wij nog zondaars waren.

    Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth ( 1 ) no more; death ( 2 ) hath no more dominion over him.´

    Rom 8:34 Wie is het, die verdoemt ? Christus is het, Die gestorven is ( 1 ) ; ja, wat meer is, Die ook opgewekt is, Die ook ter rechter hand Gods is, Die ook voor ons bidt.

    1Co 15:3 Want ik heb ulieden ten eerste overgegeven, hetgeen ik ook ontvangen heb, dat Christus gestorven is voor onze zonden, naar de Schriften.

    14 Want indien wij geloven, dat Jezus gestorven is en opgestaan, alzo zal ook God degenen, die ontslapen zijn in Jezus, weder brengen met Hem. (1Th 4:14 SVV)

    Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death ( 2 ) , so that by the grace of God he might taste death ( 2 ) for everyone

    ( 1 ) ἀποθνῄσκω apothnesko = to die.
    ( 2 ) θάνατος thanatos = the dead of the body .

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      You misunderstood me Dr… I referred briefly to Matt 18 church anachronism. There was no church in Matt 18! Jesus did not die yet (at that point) and no one rose and no one was even baptized into his name. 🙂

      1. Drs. Charles van den Berg

        Yes, I already mentioned that I had understood you wrong Dr. …. but my posts come and disappear.

  17. yetilived

    I have to ask because I noticed. The Book of John uses words like save, trust, believe, follow…. The Book of Revelation uses the word repent. Is this what makes the Book of Revelation uneloquent?

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      These are all common words. But you would agree they are appropriate to each book, because the intent and the messages of those books match those terms exactly. One can tell so much of the authorial intent by the forceful words he uses often.

      1. Kat H

        Yes, but some say Paul did not found the church of Ephesus (for example). And John the Baptist began with the message of repentance. I wonder if the letters of the 7 churches were prior to the death and resurrection of Christ.

        1. Kat H

          From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” This was the message Jesus used to call His disciples. A date timeline of the 7 churches would be helpful as the word church speaks A.D. to me.

  18. David Corran

    “There are some very good arguments that show that he belonged to a priestly lineage.”
    Why does that matter, in the Christian Church of Jesus Christ?
    It might be an imperative to a Jew, but Jesus was a Carpenter, his Disciples were Fishermen, a Tax Collector, a Tent Maker (a Roman Citizen).
    And the message via John the Revelator was for Our Day and for All Mankind who would listen. For me it does not matter if that John was John the Beloved but certainly, none of the Disciples were beloved generally and Patmos would be a ‘lucky escape’, even a miraculous preservation, so as to serve the Lord.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      The problem with your comment is precisely how sure about everything you said 🙂 (terms) Jesus was a carpenter (no he was not, the word in Greek is usually someone who works with stone not with wood as we imagine Jesus). Christian Church??? (which one? remember first century? Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, I am talking about Matt.18 (tell it to the church). Jesus did not die, noone was baptized (baptism was at that point a Jewish ceremony!), etc. think about it! Once again you are assuming to many things being far too sure about them.

    2. Drs. Charles van den Berg

      David Corran …..The baptism (Hebr. ‘T’vila’) by immersion in Jesus, is one of many ritual immersions within Judaism, although by far the most important. According to Torah, should anyone who is unclean, immersed in living water (Mayim Chayim) to be clean again. The ritual bath is called ‘Miq’va’. It is a reference to Jesus, the Source of living water. The command for immersion for cleansing and sanctification of men and women can be found in Lev.15. Special cleaning laws for women can be found in Lev. 12:1-5. The ‘Gi’ur’ is the process by which someone proceeds to Judaism. “Tevila’and ‘Miq’va’ is an important part to be cleansed to be cleaned of pagan impurity. Surfacing from ‘ Miq’va ‘ symbolizes the rebirth as with the New Testament baptism. Farizeeers would not have gone to John the Baptist for immersion, if they were not familiar with this practice. A necessary part of the inauguration of a priest was ‘T’vila’ in het ‘Miq’va’. (Ex. 29:4,40:12; Lev. 8:6. The High Priest had to be cleaned by immersion, before he was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies on the day of Atonement. (Lev. 16:4.24). A centuries-old Jewish wedding ritual includes the cleaning by immersion of the woman, while she confesses her sins to God. The church of Jesus is a priesthood (1 Petr. 2:5.9) . The members of His Church, that is, His Body have to be baptized by immersion to be allowed to enter into the heavenly sanctuary. The Church is His Bride and Jesus is the Bridegroom (Ef. 5:25-27; Rev. 22:17; 19:7) and who is baptized is together with Jesus part of a centuries-old Jewish wedding ritual. I want to finally say that Judaism has no sprinkling as infant baptism in the traditional church. This was in the first centuries, no part of the Church. They find her origin in pagan rituals. The first official ruling was at the Synod of Carthage (251 A.D.) and even in the fourth century is still an object of discussion.

  19. Ralston bishlaam Jansen

    Shalom Sir, you have this uncanny ability touch on subjects that interest me. Been looking at and wondering exactly if the thoery that the Gospel, the Epistles and the book of Revelation was written by the beloveth Apostle. Totally agree with you and Mr Samuel on this one.
    Stay blessed

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Great to hear! 🙂

  20. JB

    If tradition says John the Apostle wrote it then why the obsession with who wrote it?
    This obsession is not going to give me “the reader” anything of importance in terms of faith or help for living out the faith.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      I agree. The obsession is not justified. I am with you. But I don’t think that this post abscesses with it :-).

    2. Paul Walton

      Tradition is most often not correct. Look at the tradition of Christmas and other such traditions that are not mentioned in the Word. and to deny a tradition, I have been chastised for not believing it the virgin birth which has nothing to do with a tradition, but fact. Fact says that because of when Zechariah was priest and the father of John the Baptist, which is a known historical fact. When Elizabeth was 6 months along, Mary visited and John leapted in the womb at the announcement of Jesus. So then nine months later, Jesus was born and it could not have been beyond Oct. 15 of that yeqar….. Not December 25 no matter how you slice that cake.

      1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

        I did not realize we are talking about Christmas :-).

  21. yetilived

    Eloquent? Sometimes suffering changes language because we learn to fix our eyes on Jesus. According to your Book (page 16), a key theme in Ezekiel was the reunification of Southern and Northern Israel. I noticed that “what would take place” was made known by an angel (heavenly messenger) in Levi, Enoch, and John (Rev 1). Rev 4 does seem different because the door is standing open (something has already taken place). How does this reunite Israel? What I most notice is that there are 7 lamps instead of 7 lampstands and seven spirits of God instead of seven angels. This is the kingdom, not the assemblies? Is in spirit the completed spirit of Christ in us vs drops of rain?

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      These are all questions hard to answer with certainty. Fun to try, but then our subjectivity… we have to be honest with ourselves.

  22. Adan Ayup Perez

    Gracias doctor , me edificaron sus comentarios al respecto de la tutoría de Juan el Amado sobre el libro de la revelación y el evangelio según San Juan.

  23. Drs. Charles van den Berg

    The thought that he would not have developed his notes, seems to me very unlikely. The thoughtful construction and structure of the book say what else. The building does not seem to be chronological display of all he has seen. The many numeric structures that runs through the whole book, witnesses there also. See for example the seven blessings in one of the first episodes in this series.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      I agree, there is a level of sophistication in themes and structure.

  24. Elender Góis Gallas

    There are also references about the book of Daniel in Revelation.

    1. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes of course.

  25. premkumar samuel

    John has been directed to write down what he saw and heard.It is like taking notes during a lecture or writing a review while watching a movie.The soud and light effects could have traumatised him and finally he has been ordered not to add or delete anything from it so he could not polish or develop his notes, this would have made the different styles of his Gospel and Revelation.
    the motiff of lamb , logos,light ,door and shepherd lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel and the book of revelation were written by the beloved Apostle.

    1. Joyce Howe

      I had in fact had those very thoughts, as I was reading the comments above the lower comment, He was older possibly and not in such a good physical or mental state at the time he was on Patmos. So think this could be a very fair assumption!

    2. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

      Yes, true.

    3. Kori Hayes

      The evidence seems to supports that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was Lazarus.