Eusebius documenting the Church history up to his time in the fourth century also argued against apostolic authorship. Quoting a statement attributed to Papias, Eusebius argued that Papias distinctly mentioned two Johns prominent around Papias’ time and that it is the second John, whom he called the presbyter, who wrote the Revelation and not John the apostle (Eusebius).
While external evidence from church tradition may overwhelmingly identify John the apostle as the author, internal evidence from the book itself suggest that this is unlikely. John never identified himself as an apostle in the Revelation (in contrast to other books attributed to him), but as a brother in Jesus, sharing with others the persecution and the kingdom (Rev. 1:9). In the description of the new Jerusalem, John talks about the twelve disciples as the pillar in a nonpersonal manner, suggesting that either he is not one of these exalted disciples or that the event being far in the future does not lend itself to direct personalization. This latter view is supported by John’s own description of the Revelation as a prophecy (Rev. 1:3).
In spite of the fact that these arguments have been elaborated by more recent commentators (Morris, 1987), it seems likely that the identity of the earthly author of the Revelation may never be resolved from scholarly analysis. This work does not therefore intend to join the debate about the apostolic identity of the author.
The issues are complex but we must start by accepting the author’s identity at his own valuation. The author declares his name unequivocally as John. However, a close study indicates that the name is that of the one who experiences the visions, and not necessarily the name of the one documenting it. In this regard, the legend of Prochorus is relevant. The ‘Acts of John by Prochorus’, is a legendary fifth century writing which claims that John was accompanied to Asia Minor by Prochorus, one of the seven people chosen by the Jerusalem church to assist in the daily distribution of food (Acts 6:5). It claims that Prochorus served as John’s scribe, recording the visions dictated to him by John that became the book of Revelation. Although, the story of Prochorus is regarded as probably non-historical, the traditions are strongly followed in some churches, particularly on the island of Patmos.
John tells us that he was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day at the beginning of the visions (Rev. 1:10), and this has logically, but not necessarily correctly, been assumed to represent a state of mind. He was in the spirit may equally indicate that he was in higher spiritual realm, the heaven he frequently alludes to, during most of the revelation (Rev. 4:2, 17:3, 21:10). If the latter is accepted, i.e. that he was in the spiritual realm, as I believe is the case, the challenge becomes to explain how he wrote down the script in the midst of his often intense experiences, especially, in those moving visions where he was specifically asked to write or sometimes not to do so.
These facts can be explained by exploring the possibility that John's work may have been transmitted to another on the earth plane who then wrote it down. This may indeed be the origin of the legend of Prochorus and becomes more attractive when we note that in many cases the intensity of John’s experiencing was at such depth that precludes his being able to write his experiences down and yet he was enjoined to write (Rev. 1:19, 14:13, 19:9). Indeed, as the last visions are still occurring, ‘the book’ is already considered completed (Rev. 22:6-19).
Lenski (1943) had concluded that this presents John as writing in excitement and suggested that his faculties were stimulated and exalted. It is however difficult for anyone to write coherently under circumstances of such excitement and it is more logical to suggest that his visions are simultaneously transmitted to another on earth who did the recording in a more leisurely fashion. The alternative position is that John assimilated and encoded the message for later documentation, but this is obviated by the fact that the writing was almost simultaneous. The fact that in at least one vision, he was actually forbidden to write what the seven thunders said (Rev. 10:4), also support the view that this was not a subsequent documentation of a stale vision.
The intensity of the experiencing suggests that the one receiving the vision directly cannot at the same time write it, but if he is connected with another in spirit, the documentation can go on a step removed.
The possibility of two collaborating human spirits being involved may explain the difficulties with resolving the authorship. The second and final transcriber may or may not be John the apostle, but clearly must be a strongly practicing Christian. Even if he is the apostle, the style of writing will not be entirely his and it is very likely in such a situation that he will not wish to put himself forward. Thus, in keeping with the gospel and epistle, he probably deliberately left his identity obscure. Nevertheless, whoever the transcriber may be, he must have felt it incumbent to identify his source with sufficient clarity while leaving his own identity in relative obscurity. This will account for the repeated use of the name John in the opening verses.
Of course, this interpretation raises the question of where the authors were. Were they both in Patmos on the Aegean? Were they even in the same geographical location, in view of the fact that the entire communication was in spirit? It has been suggested that the real author, who received the revelation was not on the earth plane at all, but in the Spiritual planes (Abd-ru-shin). The transcriber however must be on the earth plane to be able to achieve a physical record. The conclusion therefore, is that the one who receives the vision and thus the real author is John who resides in a spiritual plane and that the transcriber may or may not be another John (the apostle, the presbyter, the legendary Prochorus etc.)
The work, ‘In the Light of Truth’ informs us that the John that received the vision is the same spirit that incarnated on earth as John the Baptist at that time and that having left the earth, he actually received the visions in his spiritual home on the island of Patmos in the spiritual spheres. In the usual thorough preparation of all activities from the Light, the one that transcribes the vision on earth, who was also prepared for this work, received the transmission on the earthly island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea. That this author on earth chose to remain obscure must be deliberate on his part, as he may not wish to shift the focus away from the real author. It is of course possible that he is also named John. Interestingly, other commentators have identified a link between John the Baptist and the revelation (Ford, 1975).
John the Baptist is the forerunner who brings knowledge of the activity of the Light to all humanity and has been involved in Light happenings on earth that go beyond the coming of Jesus, the Son of God. John the Baptist was of course no longer on the earth plane at the time the revelation was given, but it is suggested that he received the visions in high spiritual realms from where he transmits it to the earthly author. While he sees the activity of the Light more comprehensively, the earthly scribe’s perception of the activities of the Light is more limited. Since the individual’s ability cannot be overridden in spite of spiritual connection and inspiration, this may account for the fact that throughout the Revelation, the earthly author sometimes identified Jesus Christ, the Son of God interchangeably with the seven fold Spirit, the Son of the Light and the Son of Man.
Because of this limitation, the earthly author may have confined the Light personalities involved to Jesus, and Creation wide events to earth. A careful study based on a deeper understanding of the structure of Creation now available in the work, ‘In the Light of Truth,’ indicates that the term earth in the revelation almost always refers to The whole of Material or Subsequent Creation and that our earth when referred to as such was called Jerusalem or the Holy city (where the Lord had worked). In addition, the earthly author did not distinguish between the Son of Man and the Son of God, a distinction that is necessary for any reasonable understanding of events of the second coming of the Lord.
On the other hand as discussed in sections of this study, John on the spiritual heights also sees the activity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as One since they are both One in God,