Irrelevant Revelation

A critical overview of institutionalized falsehood in modern Christian Apocalypticism.

There is no subject in Christianity that is more in need of criticism and reform than the disordered and lurid apocalypticism that has overtaken it in the last 100 years or so. Much of it is based on bizarre interpretations, interpretations springing from one source because of its overwhelming ambiguity: the book ironically called Revelation. It is such a hodgepodge of semi-Gnostic late first/second century allegories it was considered queer even by those of the same period who understood some of its illusions. About 100 years after its writing, the noble Dionysius of Alexandria penned that there were “those before our time [that] rejected and altogether impugned the book, examining it chapter by chapter and declaring it to be unintelligible and illogical, and its title false. For they say that it is not John’s, no, nor yet an apocalypse (unveiling), since it is veiled by its heavy, great thick curtain of unintelligibility.” That what it said failed to come about in a timely manner was not lost on many early Christian writers. For the judgment of Rome that it spoke about did not happened; worse Rome turned Christian, something the writer did not foresee. The only thing that allowed for its survival to the modern day was the erroneous association of the Apostle John— the “unlettered” Galilean Jew— with the book’s slop jockey attempt at Babylonian prophetic style in imitation of Daniel and to an extent Zechariah.

   This, however, was clearly exposed even by the ancients; and not one major Christian early apologetic except Irenaeus of Lyons can be found to have endorsed the idea that the book originated with the apostle John. (Justin Martyr had mentioned it as John’s as well). Indeed, the error that Revelation did originate with the “unlettered” Galilean Jew was propagated most of all by Irenaeus in his book Against Heresies, (180s AD) in which he, applying unusual adulation for his own personal memory, recalls that as a boy he heard Polycarp speak of the Lord’s disciple named John who lived at Ephesus.

   Because Irenaeus had only heard of one man named John, he must have assumed this was a reference to the apostle. That Polycarp should refer to this John as a disciple or elder seemed permissible since it was well known in Irenaeus’ time that “elder” and apostle were very interchangeable terms in the late 1st century and early 2nd century. Irenaeus bolstered his assertion by referring to the books of an early churchman named Papias, who had been the Bishop of Hierapolis, another city in Asia Minor near Ephesus. Papias had written 5 volumes called The Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord. These books contained many accounts of Jesus’ supposed sayings, with Papias’ interpretations tacked on, and they also contained many of the legends and stories that came from the apostles’ first generation of disciples. Irenaeus asserted that within these books Papias declared that he had been the student of the apostle John and that John was the source of much of the sayings he related. Papias also frequently used direct language and illusions from the book of Revelation in his own commentaries within these 5 books. Therefore what Papias was relating through this John Irenaeus took as apostolic and sound teaching.

   In doing so Irenaeus proved he was not a careful scholar and, moreover, that his memory was subject to error. Papias’ books carried no statement that he had direct contact with any apostle. Although Irenaeus’ assertion was exposed in ancient times, notably by Eusebius, the legend continued to dog Christendom that Papias had been a student of John the Apostle. Eusebius had shown how the church knew well of the fact that the apostolic elder at Ephesus had also been named John, and by brilliantly quoting Papias’ own introduction to his 5 volume set Eusebius made it incontrovertible that Papias had only been the student of John the Presbyter (Elder).

   In his Church History, Eusebius (260-339 AD) writes: “Five books of Papias are in circulation, which are entitled ‘Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord.’ Irenaeus also mentions these as the only works written by him, saying something like this: ‘Papias, a man of the early period, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, bears witness to these things in writing in the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him.’ So says Irenaeus. Yet Papias himself, in the preface of his discourses, indicates that he was by no means a hearer or witness of the holy apostles, but shows by the language he uses that he received the matters of the faith by those who had known them.”

   Eusebius now wisely quotes Papias direct. Papias’ own introduction:

                 I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, everything I carefully learned then from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if by chance someone who had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders— what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice.

   Eusebius continues his comments on Papias:

“Here it is worth noting that he lists the name of John twice. The first he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the Evangelist, but he classes the other John with others outside the number of the apostles by changing the wording and putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him “elder.” Moreover, by these remarks he confirms the truth of the story told by those who have said that there were two men in Asia who had the same name, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even today is said to be John’s. It is important to notice this, for it is probably the second, unless one prefers the first, who saw the Revelation that circulates under the name of John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had followed them, but he says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the Elder. In any event he frequently mentions them by name and includes their traditions in his writings as well. Let these statements of ours not be wasted on the reader.”

     Eusebius’ words were not wasted on his readers. He was the Bishop of Caesarea and a very careful and respected scholar. At the Council of Nicea he was in the personal counsel of Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor. But because Eusebius deferred to the legend that there had been two Johns at Ephesus, Christian writers after Eusebius engaged in an innocent compromise, to wit: Papias had been a hearer of both Johns.

     This didn’t help the book of Revelation much, for the church had already divided between the author of the gospel and 1st epistle of John and the author of 2nd and 3rd John and the book of Revelation. The apostle John was credited with writing the gospel and 1st epistle, and the elder John was credited with writing the two minor epistles and the book of Revelation. It was a tribute to the leniency of the times that one could be allowed to contend who the authors actually were. It must be stressed that this was, as Eusebius put it, a matter of preference.

   The weight of actual evidence, however, clearly placed the authorship on John the Elder of Ephesus, and, if one wished to push it, probably on Papias himself in John’s name. This was not lost on Eusebius, since he took to denigrating Papias’ intelligence next and by extension then those from whom he got his stories. Eusebius had a loathe for the book’s concepts, but instead of pursuing a case against John the Elder he rather remained focused on Papias. Papias’ books were also in circulation, and therein there was the claim that he had been John’s scribe. It wasn’t hard for any Greek cleric to note that the Apocalypse (Revelation) was written in a totally different style than the other Johannine works. The suspicion was no doubt justified that Papias penned the Apocalypse on his own, in tribute to John from whom the basic elements had come. (Note: it is possibly the opposite-- that John wrote the Apocalypse earlier and that Papias was scribe on the Gospel and epistle. Papias admitted in his 5th book that he was the scribe on the Gospel but does not mention Revelation. See further into this article.)

   This might have influenced Dionysius of Alexandria, Writing only about 20 years after Irenaeus first confused the situation, he refused to accept that the book of Revelation could have been written by the same author of the gospel considering how different the literary style was. It was with Dionysius of Alexandria that a very scholarly voice can be found dividing between the book of Revelation and the other Johannine works. He also noticed that 2nd and 3rd John were clearly introduced by the “elder.” Dionysius declared they only circulated under the name of John. Moreover, the letters of Ignatius were (and are) extant and commonly referred to. His letter to Ephesus around 107 AD acknowledges Paul’s ministry there, which must have been 50 years before, but he makes no mention that the apostle John was ever there, though 107 AD was very close to the time of the writing of the Johannine books from Ephesus.

     There was thus very good reason by Eusebius’ time to be reticent to accept apostolic authorship. This was justified when Eusebius did the only practical thing and went to the source: Papias. In discovering there was no apostolic claim made for John at Ephesus, he deferred the authorship and reliability of the books to one’s preference. So be it. Wise and prudent. Personally, Eusebius showed his disregard for the book Revelation. In his own collection of books he placed it in the “spurious” section. There is also no question that after Eusebius the church lost any major interest in the book of Revelation, seeing plainly that it held no apostolic authority.

     This fact may have been buried at times, but never lost. Despite the book of Revelation’s inclusion in the list of books at the Council of Carthage in 397, the dispute was not settled. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, the most powerful cleric in the Eastern or Orthodox Church, still listed it in the “disputed section.” This was in the 9th century during the time of Charlemagne. The Reformation in the 16th Century, when Protestantism rebelled against the corrupt idolatry of Rome, did little to advance the book’s strange illusions forward. No Reformer accepted it, or at the very least was ambivalent to it. Though enjoying using some illustrations from the book, Luther still denounced it as “a dumb prophecy.” The “Great Whore Babylon” of which the book speaks was always a thinly veiled reference to Rome. Lutheran illustrations showed the “whore” dressed in the papal attire and wearing the triple crown of the popes. Not surprisingly, that made the book even less interesting to the Catholic hierarchy.

   Any modern day authority applied to the book slowly began to build after the 17th century when the Calvinist Westminster Confession of 1643 canonized the book without any objections whatsoever, unlike the preceding and infamous Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, which still expressed reservation for the book of Revelation. (See Canon of the New Testament) The new undisputed authority added to the book (and others) by the Calvinist conventions of the 17th century has not molded modern Christian apocalypticism as much as the then-new “guidance of the spirit” gezeirah. The institutionalization of this concept was crucial in allowing all the objections to the book to be forgotten by later generations of Christians. This did not allow even a modicum of criticism to be considered anymore. With canonization came the rebuke that excommunication could ensue for all who did not agree these were God’s clearly inspired words. All criticisms, ancient and modern, were squarely silenced by the assertion that what is decreed must be inspired by the Spirit of God, else it would not have been decreed. This has grown to such proportion that the “holy roller” movement of the late 19th century, started by a complete novice convert, could revitalized interest in the book with its lurid “observing of times,” finding and promoting its illusions reflected in the modern world. All the ancient and Reformation warnings and reservations were forgotten. It was the modern impression that John the Apostle wrote Revelation; therefore that was the guidance of the spirit enlightening people. Many are shocked to find out that thousands (if not the majority) of Christians over as many years did not accept the book’s apostolic authority, and they are even more shocked to discover that Martin Luther condemned it as stupid.

   These facts and attitudes fly straight in the face of the manmade gezeirah, and has only undermined the notion that what mankind decrees and agrees to must automatically carry the rubber stamp of the will of God. Jews are entering Christianity in large numbers, some estimate over 100,000 are now considering themselves Messianic Jews. Yet the vast majority of these are entering through portals created by Pentecostals and Charismatics, the movements that in the last 100 years resurrected Revelation and turned it into the number one prophetic book for the present and future. This was started by a Christian novice and continued to this day by elements in Christianity that are just as ignorant of established facts. The upshot is that some “Messianic Synagogues” appear very much like knockoffs from a Christian movement little older than 100 years, sporting ideas and interpretations that have no foundation in actual New Testament teachings and apostolic instructions. Gentile “prophets” that feed the charismatic movement tailor their outlooks to justify a book that they clearly didn’t know wasn’t divinely inspired. And the worst of it is they are waiting for events that simply will not happen.

     This article is intended to resurrect Christian criticism by quoting the ancients and letting them give their opinions. There will be no doubt why Revelation was held in dispute and why the Reformers dutifully brought up these disputes again, to the point no Reformer endorsed the book of Revelation.

   The oldest mentioning of the book of Revelation actually comes from Papias mentioned earlier. Although he does not mention the book by name (that we know of), his commentaries directly use exact language and concepts from the book. This is piquing, to say the least, for Papias is not quoting or claiming to be referring to another’s work. Papias’ books remained intact for so long that Andrew of Caesarea (563-637 AD) writes in his own preface to his pesher on the Apocalypse:  “Regarding, however, the divine inspiration of the book we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness.” Regardless of Andrew’s assertion the Apocalypse (Revelation) is genuine, the names he defers to all date to Irenaeus’ time or later, meaning they merely copied his mistake. The only name antedating Irenaeus is, of course, Papias, whom we know made no such apostolic assertion. In quoting Papias next, Andrew reveals the amount of identical language that Papias used in his own writings.

             But Papias says, word for word: “Some of them”— obviously meaning those which once were holy— “he assigned to rule over the orderly arrangement of the earth, and commissioned them to rule well.” And next he says: “But as it turned out, their administration came to nothing. And the great dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, was cast out; the deceiver of the whole world was cast down to the earth along with his angels.”

   This is clearly the identical language of Revelation, though not from Revelation but from Papias regarding his dissertation on the angelic fall. Many have wondered if Revelation was itself not a vast allegorical “spiritual” history of the earth and heavenly realm. Papias’ language seems to imply that. Not all of Revelation involves “future” revelation.

   That Dionysius of Alexandria should dispute an apostolic origin  shortly after Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ assertions is not surprising. That Revelation was written or heavily inspired by a non apostolic person can be found in how the book itself is heavily dependent on other written works. Even the introduction was very borrowed. In Revelation 1:13 we read: “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last. I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” Obviously, it is Jesus speaking (all bibles even mark it in red), but why should John the Apostle call him the Son of Man at this point in time? It doesn’t make sense. John the Apostle would have said “I saw Jesus,” whom he could easily recognize. Moreover, the language attributed to Jesus does not even suggest familiarity with this John. Revelation is, in fact, a heavily borrowed work from Daniel and the Book of Enoch, in which the Son of Man is repeatedly identified in those terms.

     The Book of Enoch chapter 46 “And there I saw One who had a head of days; and His head was white like wool; and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man. And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the LORD of Hosts hath chosen him; and whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the LORD of Hosts in uprightness for ever.  . . . And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats, and the strong from their thrones; and shall loosen the reins of the strong, and break the teeth of the sinners. And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms because they do not extol and praise Him, nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them.”

   There are other passages in the book that show that John was indeed not the apostle. In Revelation 21, John sees the new Jerusalem. 10: “And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.”

   The statement that the foundations of Jerusalem itself are named after the apostles is not written in the language that this is one of the apostles speaking. Indeed, Revelation never claimed that status.  We can be certain that the book was not written by any apostle, especially the “unlettered” Galilean Jew, as John was called in Acts.

     The question is, how could Irenaeus have made the mistake he made, especially in light of the fact he had some of the books of Papias? It is with this we must probe into Irenaeus’ own methods of research. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons, France), far from the area where such books had been penned. Yet he had as a boy recalled having met the great Polycarp, when he was in the area of Asia Minor. In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes:

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bathhouse without bathing, exclaiming, ‘Let us fly, lest even the bathhouse fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.’ And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, ‘Dost thou know me?’ ‘I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.’ Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, ‘A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.’ There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”

   Irenaeus’ conviction that this is referring to the apostle John merely stems from a  vague memory of meeting Polycarp while very young while he was in Asia, and hearing him refer to an aged and respected John. His description of “John’s” behavior above, however, is far from what one would expect of the “Son of Thunder.” He also had no idea of what John the Apostle was like or what a Galilean Jew in general must have been like. He is describing the behavior of a pompous and somewhat self righteous sounding Greek philosopher. Unfortunately, Irenaeus’ memory is his own authority, a memory upon which he even more unfortunately places unusual veneration.  To put it politely, he must have been a real piece of work. He appeals once again to his memory’s authority in his letter to Florinus in response to certain opinions Florinus had broached, and from this we get another mental promenade into his youth.  

   “These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church’s pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eyewitnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through God’s mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: “O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things?” And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he dispatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.”

   Irenaeus’ memory seems to apply the same pious (or self-righteous) behavior to Polycarp as he does for John. In reality, neither would have fled from a dispute.

     His reliance on his memory and his lack of knowledge of what the Jewish apostles were like led him to accept everything in Papias’ books. In doing so, he quotes John’s teachings therefrom. This is important for us today, since they reveal that the “John, Disciple of the Lord” could not be the apostle. In his Against Heresies (ca 180-185 AD), Irenaeus writes:

   “The blessing thus foretold undoubtedly belongs to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous will rise from the dead and reign, when creation, too, renewed and freed from bondage, will produce an abundance of food of all kinds ‘from the dew of heaven and from the fertility of the earth,’ just as the elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, recalled having heard from him how the Lord used to teach about those times and say:

         The days will come when vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when crushed will yield twenty-five measures of wine.  And when one of the saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, ‘I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me.’ Similarly a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and every head will have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine flour, white and clean. And the other fruits, seeds, and grass will produce in similar proportions, and all the animals feeding on these fruits produced by the soil will in turn become peaceful and harmonious toward one another, and fully subject to man.

   Papias, a man of the early period, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, bears witness to these things in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him. And he goes on to say: ‘These things are believable to those who believe.’  And, he says, ‘when Judas the traitor did not believe and asked, ‘How, then, will such growth be accomplished by the Lord?’ the Lord said, ‘Those who live until those times will see.’ ”

   This was obvious not taught by Jesus or relayed by John the Apostle. Unfortunately, this reveals that John the Presbyter was hardly a hearer of the apostles himself if he is the “John the disciple of the Lord” who is Papias’ source. It is in the next Irenaeus quote we get an example of his process skills upon which his memory, even if good, depended. In his Against Heresies, he writes of “The Traditions of the Elders” that they taught that Christ’s ministry had lasted for 10 years until he was almost 50 years old. His claim for this source is remarkable.

             But that the age of thirty years is the prime of a young man’s  ability, and that this extends even to the fortieth year, everyone will admit, but after the fortieth and fiftieth years, it begins to verge toward advanced age. This was our Lord’s age when he taught, inasmuch as the Gospel and all the elders who lived with John, the Lord’s disciple, in Asia testify that John delivered this tradition to them. For he remained with them until the time of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but  other apostles as well, and heard this same account from them and testify concerning the previously mentioned account.

   Obviously not accurate. No where does the gospel mention that Jesus was that age. No one who had been with Jesus would have said this— another clear example that the John mentioned above was not the apostle. Again:

         Where then was the first man placed? In Paradise, obviously, as it is written: ‘And God planted Paradise eastward in Eden, and there he placed the man whom he had formed.’ And from  there he was expelled into this world, because of his disobedience. Therefore the elders, disciples of the apostles, also say that those who were translated were translated there (for Paradise was prepared for righteous and inspired men; the apostle Paul also was carried there, and ‘heard words unspeakable,’  to us at least in this present life), and that those who are translated will remain there until the end of all things, as a prelude  to immortality.

Again:

         Now such being the state of the case, and since this number is found in all the good and old copies, and the very men who had seen John with their own eyes testify to it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the Beast, according to the reckoning of the Greeks (i.e., by the letters contained therein), is 666 ...some, though I do not know how, have erred, following a particular reading, and have taken liberties with the middle number of the name, subtracting the value of fifty and choosing to have only one ten instead of Six.(For an interesting dissertation on this see this article Returning the Book of Revelation to its Historical Context by Joey Cobble.)

   It is remarkable that the last comment should be in Against Heresies, since Irenaeus’ concept of orthodoxy reeks of repeating mere legend or pompous Asia Minor teachers claiming to be direct disciples of apostles. There is no way that John the Apostle, or any Gallilean Jew would have taught this storytelling. It gets worse, and Papias is the source:

       The blessing thus foretold undoubtedly belongs to the times of the kingdom. . .just as the elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, recalled having heard from him. . . . As the elders say, then will those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; but in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy. They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth a hundredfold, and those who bring forth sixtyfold, and those who bring forth thirtyfold: the first will be taken up into the heavens, and the second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city. For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, ‘In my Father’s house there are many rooms’; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling. ...The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are being saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son finally yielding his work to the Father, as it is also said by the apostle: ‘For he must reign until he puts all enemies under his feet.’

     The “elders” include Papias since he was regarded as a hearer of John. Aristion and the Elder John obviously never heard this from the Apostle John, and Jesus never taught any such steps to higher attainment.  One can also understand why Eusebius had a low opinion of both Irenaeus and Papias. Eusebius:

     “It is worthwhile to add to the statements of Papias given above other sayings of his, in which he records some other remarkable things as well, which came down to him, as it were, from tradition. That Philip the Apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip’s daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant. The Book of Acts records that after the ascension of the Savior the holy apostles put forward this Justus with Matthias and prayed for the choice by lot to fill out their number in place of the traitor Judas; the passage runs as follows: ‘And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said. . .’ The same writer has recorded other accounts as having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain strange parables of the Lord and teachings of his and some other statements of a more mythical character. Among other things he says that there will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. These ideas, I suppose, he got through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not realizing that the things recorded in figurative language were spoken by them mystically. For he certainly appears to be a man of very little intelligence, as one may say judging from his own words. Yet he was the reason that so many ecclesiastical writers after him held the same opinion, on the grounds that he was a man of the early period— like Irenaeus, for example, and anyone else who has expressed similar ideas.”
   “In his writing he also hands on other accounts of the sayings of the Lord belonging to Aristion, who has been mentioned above, and the traditions of John the Elder, to which we refer those interested. . .”

   Unfortunately, that is not possible anymore. Out of all the writings of the early period to survive, Papias’ are not among them, except where he is quoted by other authors. This is amazing in itself if Papias’ works were considered to be saturated with the words of Christ and the Apostles. Five volumes is quite an accomplishment, equal to the gospels and Acts put together. But it seems that later generations began to see through some of Papias’ writings, and they fell into disuse and have now disappeared. One can plainly see why the church became very skeptical of Papias’ writings and any source he implored.

   Fortunately, Papias’ books still survived in Eusebius’ time, and he was therefore able to make clear that John the Elder was a very different person from the Apostle. In doing so, he flushed a lot of Irenaeus’ credibility; at least his memory’s, which, like Papias,’ seemed to wander into absurdities. Both men were noteworthy for relying on their memories and not on written accounts. John appeared to be a Hellenized Jew, who was clearly the elder and not an apostle. 

     The book of Revelation’s reemergence in the last 100 years has ironically not been a blessing for the prophecies contained therein, since it has brought up with it the criticism again, in order to spare people from the dangerous and wild interpretations made from its general allegories. Its pedigree has been dug up (as this page shows), and Revelation is clearly being revealed for what it is. See (Final Tribulation and Canon of the New Testament and Apocryphal Apocalypticism )

   From Eusebius’ time until the Reformation there were several comments regarding Papias’ role with “John.” It is from these that we get a taste of the potential controversy that could easily be brewed up if someone wished to push the point of Papias’ relation to John of Ephesus. Perhaps this is why Eusebius preferred to avoid it. In the 5th century, Philip of Side in his own Church History, wrote:

   “Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Theologian and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books on the sayings of the Lord. In them he made a list of apostles, and after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, he included among disciples of the Lord Aristion and another John, whom he also called ‘the Elder.’ So, some think that this John is the author of the two short catholic epistles which circulate under the name of John, because the men of the earliest period accept only the first epistle. And some have mistakenly thought that the Apocalypse was also his. And Papias is also in error regarding the millennium, and so is Irenaeus, who follows him.”
   “Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews. The aforesaid Papias recorded, on the authority of the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, drank the poison of a snake in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers and was protected from all harm. He also records other amazing things, in particular one about Manaim’s mother, who was raised from the dead. As for those who were raised from the dead by Christ, he states that they survived until the time of Hadrian.”

     Several interesting comments. Taking the latter first proves that Papias survived until the time of Hadrian or later. This relates in an interesting way to the book of Revelation, for therein is contained the comment that in chapter 17: 10 “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11: And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” This prophecy was in relation to Babylon the whore who sits on seven hills, the metaphor for Rome after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Hadrian was the 5th emperor since the temple was destroyed. The 6th and present emperor at the time of the writing would have been Antoninus Pius -- 138 AD to 160 AD. This is far too late for John to have been alive, but it is very obvious that Papias was still alive. (For a different and very interesting perspective see this article Returning the Book of Revelation to its Historical Context by Joey Cobble.)

     This raises the question whether the impressions are justified that Papias wrote the book of Revelation in John’s name based on John the Elder’s vision and allegories, a custom of tribute in Hellenism. Certainly, Eusebius deferred to this in a sly way by trouncing Papias’ stories and level of intelligence while connecting him with John the Elder. This would also explain why Dionysius and others have noted the stark difference in literary style between the gospel and the book of Revelation.

   Moreover, the above statement of Papias,’ as preserved by Philip of Side, that John and James ben Zebadee were martyred in Israel, is probably also true. A copy of the calendar of the Church of Antioch still survives and is dated to the early 3rd century. It contains thereon the dates of the martyrdoms of the apostles and leading disciples, preserving John’s death in Jerusalem for December 27 before the temple was even destroyed. Since Papias never claimed John the Elder to be anybody but the presbyter, it would seem logical that he would include the martyrdoms of all the apostles, preserving with perhaps general accuracy the stories in circulation.

   Philip’s comments show, however, there was still an attempt to link Papias with the “Theologian.” This was also done by the great Jerome (circa 342-420).  In his Famous Men, also noted that Papias mentioned two Johns.  “From this it is clear that in the list of names itself there is one John who is placed among the apostles, and another, John the Elder, whom he lists after Aristion. We have mentioned this fact because of the statement made above, which we have recorded on the authority of a considerable number of people, that the two later epistles of John are not the work of the Apostle but of the Elder. He is the one who is said to have promulgated the Jewish tradition of a millennium, and he is followed by Irenaeus, Apollinarius, and others, who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints.”

       There can be no doubt that Jerome is crediting the Elder with the Book of Revelation— “the Jewish tradition of a millennium.” This also confirms it was known he was some Hellenized Jew. But unlike Eusebius, Jerome and Philip, though mentioning two Johns, do not bother to accentuate the fact that Papias’ language reveals he did not know the apostle John personally.  The controversy that would stem from making a point of it is that Papias made clear references to being John’s scribe on the gospel.  It was possibly too controversial for anybody to take to task the rumor that John the Apostle was also at Ephesus. To attack the notion that two Johns were at Ephesus would be to undermine the gospel and the 1st epistle of John, which were also clearly published from Ephesus, and which were well received by this time as a legitimate apostolic account.

     The books of Papias survived long enough for a 9th century comment regarding this controversial matter. In the Codex Vaticanus Alexandrinus 14 (of the 9^th century) the Gospel of John’s provenance is explained:

                             Here begins the summary of the Gospel According to John:
                       The Gospel of John was made known and given to the
                       churches by John while he was still in the flesh, as a man of
                       Hierapolis by the name of Papias, a beloved disciple of John, has
                       related in the exoteric— that is, the last-part of his five books.
                       Indeed, he wrote down the Gospel correctly as John dictated.

       This is a remarkable statement. This comment, if it did exist in Book 5, would show, in conjunction with Papias’ introduction in Book 1, that the John who wrote the gospel was the Presbyter, and that Papias wrote it down for him. Indeed, the Gospel of John shows that an editor did have something to do with it, concluding it with: John 21: 24: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”

   An ancient and very uniformed and anonymous commentary on the Gospel of John is drawn from various Greek fathers but confirms the essentials:

                         For the last of these, John, surnamed “the Son of Thunder,”
                   when he was a very old man (as Irenaeus and Eusebius and a
                   succession of other trustworthy historians have handed it down
                   to us) and about the time when terrible heresies had cropped up,
                   dictated the Gospel to his own disciple, the virtuous Papias of
                   Hierapolis, to complete the message of those before him who
                   had preached to the peoples of the whole world.

     There was, in fact, a rather apparent chain linking the Gospel and Revelation to Papias. And there remains today the sure and certain proof that Papias, by his own word, was a hearer only of John the Elder. In his 5 books he faithfully recorded the martyrdoms of James and John ben Zebadee in Israel and many other accounts supposedly of historical fact. Papias and those after him listened to John the Elder, Aristion and other “elders” in their recollection of what apostles and their disciples relayed. This was done in good faith . . .but it appears that they were not always capable of weeding out the false from the true. Papias’ penchant for picking up unusual stories is demonstrated by Apollinarius of Laodicea (4th century):

       “Judas did not die by hanging but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: “Falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out.” Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the ‘Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord,’ as follows:

               Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this
                 world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a
                 place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by
                 itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not
                 see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor
               using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer
               surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than
               anyone else’s, and when he relieved himself there passed through
               it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame.
               After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his
               own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and
               uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that
               place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from
               his body and so far did it spread over the ground.

         Once again, turning to Andrew of Caesarea we encounter Papias’ beliefs on the history of the spiritual realm, which are certainly reflected in the Book of Revelation as well. In his treatise on the Apocalypse, he writes in detail of the Devil’s literal fall to earth:

                       And Papias spoke in the following manner in his treatises: ‘Heaven did not endure his earthly intentions, because it is impossible for light to communicate with darkness. He fell to earth, here to live; and when mankind came here, where he      was, he did not permit them to live in natural passions; on the contrary, he led them astray into many evils. But Michael and        his legions, who are guardians of the world, were helping mankind, as Daniel learned; they gave laws and made the prophets       wise. And all this was war against the dragon, who was setting stumbling blocks for men. Then their battle extended into       heaven, to Christ himself. Yet Christ came; and the law, which was impossible for anyone else, he fulfilled in his body, according to the apostle. He defeated sin and condemned Satan, and through his death he spread abroad his righteousness over all. As this occurred, the victory of Michael and his legions, the guardians of mankind, become complete, and the dragon could   resist no more, because the death of Christ exposed him to ridicule him and threw him to earth, concerning which Christ      said: ‘I was seeing Satan fallen from heaven like a lightning bolt.’ In this sense the teacher understood not his first fall, but the second, which was through the cross; and this did not consist of a spatial fall, as at first, but rather judgment and expectation of a mighty punishment. . . .

Andrew of Caesarea,
On the Apocalypse, on Rev. 12:7-9

       A very different outlook on Papias was rendered by Vardan Vardapet in his Explanations of Holy Scripture: “That story of the adulterous woman, which the other Christians have written in their gospels, was written by a certain Papias, a disciple of John, who was declared and condemned as a heretic. Eusebius said this.”

       Not exactly. Eusebius made it clear he was an idiot.

       But Papias’ connection with the story of a woman taken in sin (John 8: 1 -11) was well known. All the early writers cite him, saying “From Papias comes the story of a woman taken in sin.” It is his connection with “John” at Ephesus that probably finally influenced clerics to place the story in the Gospel of John in the 5th century. Even as late as the 10^th century, Agapius of Hierapolis confirmed this. He wrote, however, in his World History, that Papias received this from reading the gospel:

                           At this time there lived in Hierapolis a prominent teacher
                   and author of many treatises; he wrote five treatises about the
                   Gospel. In one of these treatises, which he wrote concerning
                   the Gospel of John, he relates that in the book of John the
                   Evangelist there is a report about a woman who was an adulteress.
                 When the people led her before Christ our Lord, he spoke to
                   the Jews who had brought her to him: “Whoever among you is
                   himself certain that he is innocent of that of which she is
                   accused, let him now bear witness against her.” After he had
                   said this, they gave him no answer and went away. (See Canon of the NT)
 

       Thus we have seen the many (though not all) historical remembrances that Papias was indeed linked with a church leader at Ephesus named John. Papias is innocent of the confusion. He made it plain that he heard the teachings of “Aristion and the Elder John.” It is thanks to Irenaeus that this mushroomed into the “unlettered Galilean Jew.”

       Because of this, I would say we must be very careful not only of all the endless interpretation pollinating from the book of Revelation but also of the book itself. Many clerics clarified its origin or casually made reference to it and the gospel, preserving thereby the origin from John the Elder and Papias. That John and Papias meant well there should be no question, nor question made whether they are in paradise. They believed and they held firm their faith, however unusual some of their ideas were on other subjects.

     But we are not babes of the early Christian era. John and Papias wanted to see God’s revenge on Rome for having destroyed the temple and persecuted the Christians. What Revelation spoke of was soon to come to pass, and it would reek havoc on Rome. Neither foresaw Rome turning Christian; that God would triumph rather than destroy. Their prophecy was born from their reliance on popular contemporaneous impression-- “the end was near.” Yet God would not have it that way. Interpretation is a dangerous thing, and even more so is popular hearsay. The false prophets spoke according to observing of times and catering to the most popular sentiments, confirming by this method a justification for popular outlooks. God’s true prophets do not. That was John and Papias’ mistake in making the book one of prophecy with a “spiritual” revelation about the end being very near.

   There is no question that Daniel was paramount in both Papias’ mind and the mind of the one that wrote Revelation. Its claimed author, John, would hardly have been the apostle, an “unlettered Jew,” as he was called in Acts.  All the evidence points to the elder of Ephesus. There should be no question that Revelation, and indeed, all the works attributed to John, came from the Elder at Ephesus, with the assistance of Papias. It seems hard to believe that this John had any connection with the apostles except by claim. It is unfortunate that unlike the presbyter who was caught and confessed to writing the fabulous though popular Acts of Paul that John was not challenged to probe into the background of the “beloved disciple” to reveal he was a hearer of our Lord or a hearer of the apostles. (See Gospel of John)

   Just as we so distorted the idea of what the messiah would be like 2000 years ago, modern Christians repeat our mistake, awaiting a very unusual Parousia, apocalypse and “millennium” that is the result of interpretations based on a book that will no doubt, like the Book of Enoch, be discarded in time (again). The Age of the Gentiles will end as it was decreed to end, but no one will comprehend the signs because they are hooked on a book that comes from men who believed their time 2000 years was the end and laced a book of prophecy with second century Greek illusions based on stories that did not originate with apostles. As such, they may not recognize its actual fulfillment and thereby fall victim to it. It is best to remain firmly based in Scripture . . .and above all pray with a humble heart to God for enlightenment. There is nothing better than that. His spirit will truly guide one. Traditional outlooks and consensus will not.