As a prior answer has examined where Enoch failed in canonicity, this one shall turn to the Book of Revelation to determine what factors led the church to recognize its canonicity.
Though a popular genre, few apocalyptic works found their way into the New Testament canon. The most obvious exception comes to the modern world as The Revelation to John or The Apocalypse of John. Though a few books have apocalyptic sections, no other New Testament work is apocalyptic from the first to last verse.1
Before any work can be properly studied, its historical background must be examined. Revelation easily places itself within the apocalyptic genre by its opening verse ("the apocalypse of Jesus Christ") and by following the accepted apocalyptic characteristics with only two exceptions: pseudonymity and statements of authority.2 Other than those two factors, Revelation contains all the characteristics of the apocalyptic genre: 1) dualism; 2) complete determinism; 3) life beyond history; and 4) imminent expectation of the eschaton. Furthermore, Revelation is also prophecy (Rev. 22:18f) and an epistle (Rev. 2 and 3). This section will speak of Revelation's author, location, date, and sitz im leben.
Whereas Enoch had at least five authors working over several centuries, Revelation has one author and comes from the first century. However, scholars debate the exact identity of the John who wrote the Apocalypse. Briefly, they give four possibilities: 1) John the Apostle; 2) John the Elder; 3) John Mark; 4) an unknown/pseudonymous John. As Revelation displays no similarities with Mark's gospel in style or grammar the third option has never been a serious consideration.3 Likewise, an unknown or pseudonymous John would be unlikely to gain major acceptance in the churches. Indeed, a pseudonymous work had little chance of becoming canonical.4 Therefore, only John the Apostle and John the Elder remain as serious considerations. Of these two, the early church held the same author wrote the Gospel of John and the Revelation, namely, John the Apostle. Though not unanimous, this view prevailed.
Judging the book on its own merits gives a similar story. From the beginning, the author identifies himself as "John" with no qualifying title. Obviously, the area knew John so well that he had no need of any further title—his own name gave authority to the work.5 If choosing a pseudonym, the author would have wanted to qualify which John he meant.
Also from internal evidence, one may deduce the author is a Palestinian Jew turned Christian. The author shows an affinity and familiarity for the Jewish Scripture that few converts would have had. Revelation contains a higher percentage of Old Testament allusions in its verses than any other New Testament work (278 allusions in 404 verses).6 Also lending credence to the Jewishness of the author, Revelation uses many semitisms and grammatical solecisms that a Greek would be unlikely to use.7
Those who argue for John the Elder say that Revelation contains too many differences in style and grammar from John's Gospel and Epistles. Dionysius used such an argument in A.D. 247.8 However, the style differences may be answered by the different genre or the use of a different scribe. Furthermore, Revelation and the Gospel contain many similarities in motif, Christology, eschatology, and expressions.9 Based on these facts, this paper concludes that John the Apostle wrote the Revelation.
John wrote the book of Revelation while exiled to the Isle of Patmos.10 From the Isle, John sent Revelation as an epistle to the seven churches under his care in Asia minor. One notes his choice of which churches to address. He did not choose only large churches or only small churches. He chose some wealthy and some poor. However, all seven lay along a major Roman trade route in the province of Asia Minor. By writing to these seven, John's book would travel fastest and spread farther.
Date and Occasion
Like other Apocalyptic works, Revelation comes from a time of crisis.11 Though John writes little of history before Christ, he tells enough of the situation that the modern reader can determine the crisis with a little effort. Commentators usually fall within two dates for Revelation: A.D. 65-68 and A.D. 96. Both dates require examination here.
The Late Date (A.D. 96)
If Revelation is written late, the book aims to encourage Christians during an imperial persecution. Those who argue for a late date to Revelation use both internal and external evidence. As external evidence they point to the early church writers like Iraneus (A.H. 5.30.3), Victorinus of Pettau (Apocalypse 10.11), Eusebius (H.E. 3.17-18), Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salvetur 42), and Origen (Matthew 16.6) who all agree John wrote during the time of Domitian.12 Further, late-date advocates point out how several of the churches addressed in the first three chapters had historical circumstances that do not match an early date for Revelation.
First, several of the churches addressed had lost their ardor for Christ, and heresies had infected others. Churches usually do not lose their ardor or find heresies in their first generation.13 Second, John calls Laodicia rich, but an earthquake almost leveled the city in A.D. 60. The city took many years to rebuild its wealth. Third, the church at Smyrna was not founded until A.D. 64, so it cannot have endured for a long time (as Revelation 2:8-11 seems to imply) if only three years old.14
Likewise, those who claim a late date for Revelation point out that the emperor worship described in chapters 13-20 matches best with Domitian.15 Though some earlier emperors proclaimed themselves gods, Domitian took the title "Lord and God," usurping kyrios a title of Christ.16
Another piece of evidence comes from the use of "Babylon" as a code word for a city in Revelation. Though early daters say Babylon refers to Jerusalem, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and The Sibylline Oracles all refer to Rome as Babylon. Jews and Christians linked the cities together because both powers had sacked the holy city.17 In a similar manner, the Pauline epistles refer to several heretical groups but never to the heresies plaguing the churches of Asia Minor, the Nicolatians. Both pieces of evidence point to a later first century date for Revelation.
An Early Date
Those who argue for an early date tend to see Revelation as a polemic against the Jews who rejected the Messiah.18 They see at least partial fulfillment in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Though they read Revelation 11:1-2 literally with its temple measurements, the measurements better match Ezekiel's eschatological temple.
Other problems come from the early date. For instance, the early daters insist that the number 666 refers to taking the Hebrew letters of Caesar Nero(n) and adding them up in a gematria. Though the arithmetic does indeed come to 666, such a view supposes a knowledge of Hebrew in a thoroughly gentile audience. Likewise, with little to no justification in the Greek, they tend to read Revelation 1:7's "all the tribes of the earth will mourn Him" as "all the tribes of Israel will mourn Him."19
Based on the evidence, this paper concludes that John wrote Revelation about A.D. 96 during Domitian's anti-Christian persecution, which John saw would expand in later years. Thus, Revelation serves to encourage to Christians facing their first major persecution that the Messiah will be victorious over their enemies. However, it also warns them of persecution for keeping the faith.
Consideration of Canonicity
Revelation had the longest and hardest fight of any book to be recognized as inspired. Though numerous early authors quoted and approved of it, others argued against Revelation.
History of Inclusion and Exclusion
Revelation appears in canonical listings as early as the Muratorian fragment in the second century. Iraneus quotes it often and approvingly, even making Revelation the basis of his “already-but- not-yet” eschatology.20 Cyprian, Clement of Alexandira, and Origen all accept the book. Likewise, though Dionysius interprets the book allegorically and rejects apostolic authorship, he accepts it as canonical.21
On the other hand, many in the early centuries disputed Revelation’s place in the canon. Marcion rejects Revelation because of the numerous Old Testament references in the book. Gaius and the Algoloi also reject it because the Montanists use Revelation so often.22 Eusebius places Revelation in both his "universally acknowledged" and "spurios" lists. Both times he qualifies his judgement with "should it seem right." Chrysostom never quotes from Revelation, leaving the modern world no clue to his thoughts on the book of Revelation. Gregory of Nanzianus, and Cyril leave it out of their listings of the canon. Moreover, the Nestorian churches still leave Revelation out of their canon.23 Revelation has never held a very secure place in the Eastern Orthodox canon. The Syriac Peshitta omits it, and the Council of Laodicia did not recognize it.24 As late as 850, the Eastern Church listed the book as disputed. They still do not read from Revelation regularly. Greek commentaries written in the fifth and sixth centuries probably helped Revelation gain acceptance in the Eastern empire.25
Even though the East had trouble with the book, the West recognized Revelation as inspired fairly early. Jerome, Ambrose, Rufinus, Augustine, and Innocent all accept it as canonical.26 The Third Council of Carthage (397) listed as canonical, and at the Third Constantinople Council officially ratified Revelation in 680. The book then follows a bumpy path into the modern world. Calvin could not understand the book and refused to write a commentary. Though Luther leaves Revelation in his translation, he sees it as "unapostolic" and cannot find Christ.27
Factors in Consideration of Canonicity
As said above, the early Church did not place any book in the canon haphazardly. In summary, a canonical work has to contain adaptable wisdom on how to live at any time.28 However, three other factors come into play: the book must 1) come from Apostolic circle in the first century; 2) contain only orthodox teachings; and 3) show inspiration.
As discussed above, John the Apostle did write Revelation. Though debated early, the view of John the Apostle as author prevailed, much to the delight of Justin Martyr, Bishop Melito of Sardis, and Theophilus of Antioch who all defended the Apostle as author.29 After the view became accepted, the West almost stopped arguing against Revelation.
Having settled the question of authorship, Revelation also came under attack because of its theology. The Eastern church did not like the earthly eschatology taught in the book. Many in the West viewed Revelation as obscure and used it to speculate the future. To combat these positions, the East interpreted it allegorically and Augustine argued that Revelation be included only with an admonition against using the book speculatively (City of God XX.6-9).30 Eventually, the Church recognized Revelation as inspired.
Assessment of Determining Factors
As with all books, inspiration determined Revelation's canonicity. Though one can never empirically prove inspiration, it can be disproven. For example, had Revelation attempted to deceive people by being pseudonymous, one could almost guarantee the non-inspiration. However, the Church became convinced of the Apostolic origin of the book. Likewise, had Revelation contained doctrines contrary to already accepted Scripture, the Church would have seen the Holy Spirit was not behind it.
On the other hand, Revelation contains much to recommend its inspiration. The book more than adequately fulfilled Luther's rule of "Does it teach Christ." The book itself claims to be Scripture, and as the author was an Apostle, one is hard pressed to think the author might be wrong on such an important matter. Furthermore, the book contains adaptable wisdom on how to live at any time. Revelation has a message for both its original audience and today's reader.31 The book encourages readers from all times to hold fast to the faith while warning of the persecution to come later.
Unlike First Enoch, which showed its lack of inspiration by contradicting orthodox doctrine and presenting a faulty soteriology, Revelation fulfilled the criteria for inspiration more than adequately. The book comes from the first-century, Apostolic circle, sustains and expands orthodox teaching, and has a message for believers beyond its first audience. Beyond these three traits, Revelation has some undefinably characteristics commending it to Christian readers.
1 For a differing viewpoint, see Robert L. Thomas “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 181 who defines the book as simple prophecy based on Revelation 22:18ff.
2 The other apocalyptic writers see themselves as heirs to the prophets and not prophets. Revelation’s claims to being a prophecy (10:11; 22:18ff) as well as its apocalyptic genre and the seven small epistles within make it unique in the ancient world.
3 Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 9.
4 Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 261; G. K. Beale The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 34.
5 Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1998), 271.
6 B. S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994), 509.
7 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 35. Edward McDowell, The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1951), 11.
8 Scott Gambrill Sinclair, Revelation: A Book for the Rest of Us (Berkely, California: BIBAL Press, 1992), 25; Bruce Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1993), 14.
9 See C. Martin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 171-172 for a chart favorably comparing some of the key elements in John’s Gospel and Revelation.
10 Amazingly, this author found little if any dissent to this view.
11 As the nature of the crisis determines the date, this section will combine what was two sections in Enoch.
12 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 19.
13 Edward McDowell, The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation, 4.
14 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 16.
15 Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1977), ci.
16 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 5.
17 Ibid., 18-19.
18 Kenneth Gentry, Jr. “A Preterist View of Revelation” in Four Views, 51.
19 Ibid., 48.
20 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 20.
21 Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 85, 191, 192, 195.
22 D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 480.
23 Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 198, 212-215.
24 Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, 481.
25 Swete, Commentary on Revelation, cxvii.
26 Ibid., cxviii.
27 Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, 481. Luther later changed his mind. With Revelation’s references to the Lamb who was slain in chapter 5 and the vision of Christ coming in glory in chapter 19, one wonders why Luther could not find Christ in it.
28 James A. Sanders, Canon and Community, 28.
29 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 930.
30 Many before and since have used Revelation as a blueprint of the future (See, Marvin C. Pate, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, and Arthur W. Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalpyse (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1993), 21-87 for a history of the millennial interpretation to Revelation). Such use of Revelation is wrong if, as Sinclair says, “[Revelation’s] authority came from Christian leaders who insisted Revelation must not be used for futuristic speculation” (Scott Sinclair, Revelation: A Book for the Rest of Us, 27) However, if Revelation’s authority comes not from the Church but from God, then the fourth century Church’s opinion on the book’s interpretation matters does not bind later believers. The job of the early Church was to recognize Revelation’s authority and place it in the canon, not to dictate its interpretation for all eternity.
31 For this reason, this author now holds an “already-but-not-yet” view of Revelation.