The near universal consensus amongst the Patristics of both the Latin and Greek wings of the Early Church, as well as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine, is that the Two Witnesses are to be identified with Elijah and Enoch. One must admit that there is a rather formidable array of esteemed opinion coalesced around this identification.
That one of the Witnesses will either be Elijah himself or come “with his spirit and power” like St. John the Baptist did prior to the First Advent of Christ, is to my understanding
almost a virtual certainty. This belief is substantiated in numerous places throughout scripture, including from the mouth of Our Lord Himself:
“…Elijah shall come, and restore all things; but I say unto you, that Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they chose…”
There is no contradiction between “
Elijah is (still yet) to come” and
"Elijah has come already (in the person of my Forerunner John)". Here Jesus is referring to His First and Second Comings, both of which are presaged by the ‘return’ of the Prophet Elijah - whether in actuality or spiritually speaking.
So the idea that one of the Witnesses is to be identified in some way with either Elijah himself returned from heaven or as his ‘return’ in a spiritual sense, strikes me as having quite a high bar of certainty. I would say it is pretty close to bring as incontrovertible wisdom as an eschatological “expectation” can be - even though it still remains purely speculative.
St. Justin Martyr attests to this belief in his debate with the Jewish philosopher Trypho:
newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm
**Justin: Does not Scripture, in the book of Zechariah, Malachi 4:5 say that Elijah shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord?
Justin: If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place—one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the fore-cited passages—shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?
Justin: And, accordingly, our Lord in His teaching proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in [the person of] John, a prophet among your nation; after whom no other prophet appeared among you. **
That said, if the “Elijah” to come is possessed of his spirit rather than being the prophet himself - as St. John the Baptist was - then it is conceivable that he need not only be the ‘return’ of Elijah. He could come in the spirit and power of other figures from the biblical past as well. Nor does it preclude other more corporate and spiritualized meanings from also being present - such as the Witnesses acting as symbols for the Two Testaments and other more figurative understandings.
The passage in Revelation seems to indicate this, since it has imagery derived from OT verses pertaining to Zerubbabel/Joshua, Moses and other figures besides Elijah.
The identification of the other Witness as “Enoch” based upon the passage itself is the weakest part of this equation. There is nothing in the text itself that indicates “Enoch”. If we were working from the verses alone, free of tradition, there would be nothing to suggest Enoch so far as can tell - as there is to suggest Elijah, Moses and Zerubbabel/Joshua.
Indeed, scholars have noted that Moses seems more likely as a candidate in the text itself based upon the nature of the miracles attributed to the other Witness.
