Title of Apocalypse
Written by Named Seer?
|Apocalypses of Enoch (1, 2, 3, 4 Enoch)||No|
|Assumption of Moses||No|
|Ascension of Isaiah||No|
|Apocalypses of Baruch (2, 3 Baruch)||No|
|Book of Daniel||No|
|Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra)||No|
|Apocalypse of the Virgin||No|
|Apocalypse of Peter||No|
|Apocalypse of Thomas||No|
|Questions of Bartholomew||No|
|Apocalypse of Paul||No|
|Apocalypse of Stephen||No|
|Apocalypse of John||??|
The issue is that last item on the list: the apocalypse of John. My preferred answer to the question at hand is the same as for the rest of the texts: no.
To the objection that the John in the title was not well known enough to merit his own apocalypse, I respond that the text must have received its title at a point at or after which the John said to have lived in Asia (however legendary, historical, or composite) had become famous; giving an apocalypse to this figure, then, is no different than giving an apocalypse to Thomas or to Paul. Rather than to some otherwise unknown seer named John, the text ascribes itself to that John, the John of ecclesiastical legend.
Do some of the contents of this apocalypse seem too early? Very well, then, they are traditional materials taken over by the real author. The hypothesis that this text is fundamentally a Jewish apocalypse which has been redacted by a Christian has a long and illustrious scholarly history; and some of the problems might admit of other solutions anyway.
What arguments might be marshaled against this one? Are there good reasons for supposing that this one apocalypse, alone out of seemingly all apocalypses, bears the name of its actual author?