The Apocalypse of John Among its Critics: Questions and Controversies

By Alexander Stewart, Alan S. Bandy and Gregory K. Beale

Should Christians be embarrassed by the book of Revelation?

The Revelation of John has long confused and disturbed readers. The Apocalypse of John among Its Critics confronts the book’s difficulties. Leading experts in Revelation wrestle honestly with a question raised by critics:

• Should John’s Apocalypse be in the canon? (Alan S. Bandy)
• Was John intentionally confusing? (Ian Paul)
• Was John a bully? (Alexander E. Stewart)
• Did John delight in violence? (Dana M. Harris)
• Was John a chauvinist? (Külli Tõniste)
• Was John intolerant to others? (Michael Naylor)
• Was John antisemitic? (Rob Dalrymple)
• Did John make things up about the future? (Dave Mathewson)
• Did John advocate political subversion? (Mark Wilson)
• Did John misuse the Old Testament? (G.K. Beale)

Engaging deeply with Revelation’s difficulties helps the reader understand the book’s message—and respond rightly. The book of Revelation does not need to be avoided or suppressed. It contains words of life.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Release date: Jul 26, 2023
• ISBN: 9781683597070

Gregory K. Beale

G. K. Beale (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. In recent years he has served as president and member of the executive committee of the Evangelical Theological Society. He has written several books and articles on biblical studies.

Book preview

Cover.png

The Apocalypse of John among Its Critics

Questions & Controversies

EDITED BY ALEXANDER E. STEWART AND ALAN S. BANDY

STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE & BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

The Apocalypse of John among Its Critics: Questions and Controversies

Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology

Copyright 2023 Alexander E. Stewart and Alan S. Bandy

Lexham Academic, an imprint of Lexham Press

1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at [e-mail].

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

Scripture quotations marked (CSB) are from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible•, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are from the New American Standard Bible®. Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NET) are from the NET Bible®, copyright 1996–2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (NKJV) are from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Print ISBN 9781683597063

Digital ISBN 9781683597070

Library of Congress Control Number 2023930820

Lexham Editorial: Derek R. Brown, Claire Brubaker, Katy Smith

Design: Brittany Schrock

Contents

Abbreviations

List of Contributors

1.Introduction

Alexander E. Stewart and Alan S. Bandy

2.Should John’s Apocalypse Be in the Canon?

Alan S. Bandy

3.The Genre of Revelation

Ian Paul

4.John, Threats, and Fear Appeals

Was He a Bully?

Alexander E. Stewart

5.John and Punishment

Did He Delight in Violence?

Dana M. Harris

6.John and Women

Was He a Male Chauvinist?

Külli Tõniste

7.John and Dissenting Views

Was He Intolerant?

Michael P. Naylor

8.Was John Antisemitic?

Rob Dalrymple

9.Revelation and the Future

Was John a False Prophet?

David L. Mathewson

10.John and Government

Does the Apocalypse Advocate Political Subversion?

Mark Wilson

Afterword

Thirty-Five Years of Research on John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation

G. K. Beale

Bibliography

Subject & Author Index

Scripture & Other Ancient Sources Index

Abbreviations

PRIMARY SOURCES

SECONDARY SOURCES

List of Contributors

ALAN S. BANDY is associate dean of research doctoral programs and professor of New Testament and Greek at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is author of The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation.

G. K. BEALE is professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary. He has published extensively on Revelation and John’s use of the Old Testament.

ROB DALRYMPLE is the executive director of Determinetruth ministries and the author of several books and articles, including Follow the Lamb: A Guide to Reading, Understanding, and Applying the Book of Revelation; Revelation and the Two Witnesses; and a forthcoming commentary on the book of Revelation titled Revelation: A Love Story.

DANA M. HARRIS is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. She is currently working on several research projects related to Revelation and has published articles and book chapters on Revelation.

DAVE MATHEWSON is associate professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and has authored Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation and A New Heaven and New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21:1–22:5.

Michael P. Naylor is professor of New Testament at Columbia International University and author of Complexity and Creativity: John’s Presentation of Jesus in the Book of Revelation.

IAN PAUL is a theologian, writer, speaker, adjunct professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, and associate minister at St Nic’s Church, Nottingham, England. He recently authored Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries).

ALEXANDER E. STEWART is vice president of academic services, academic dean, and professor of New Testament at Gateway Seminary in Ontario, California. He is author of Reading the Book of Revelation: Five Principles for Interpretation and Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John.

KÜLLI TÕNISTE is rector and professor of theology and biblical studies at Baltic Methodist Theological Seminary in Tallinn, Estonia. She is the author of The Ending of the Canon: A Canonical and Intertextual Reading of Revelation 21–22.

MARK WILSON is director of the Asia Minor Research Center in Antalya, Turkey, and Associate Professor Extraordinary of New Testament, Stellenbosch University. Among other publications, he has authored Revelation for the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, The Victor Sayings in the Book of Revelation, Victory through the Lamb, and Charts on the Book of Revelation.

1

Introduction

Alexander E. Stewart and Alan S. Bandy

John has fascinated and disturbed readers from the moment he put pen to parchment. Early evidence from the middle of the second century shows Christians disagreeing over how to interpret his vision of Jesus’s one-thousand-year reign.¹ Most early Christians recognized John’s writings as inspired even if they were not always sure what he meant.² Other early Christians, however, were not so kind. Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen in the early third century AD, describes how some approached the book. Now some before our time have set aside this book, and repudiated it entirely, criticising it chapter by chapter, and endeavouring to show it to be without either sense or reason.… They hold that it can be no sort of revelation, because it is covered with so gross and dense a veil of ignorance.³

Many modern readers and critics are quick to agree with John’s ancient critics. D. H. Lawrence was an influential critic of Revelation from early in the twentieth century. He argued that if you listened to some Christians,

you will hear that they are going to be very grand, very grand indeed, once they get to heaven. Then they’ll show you what’s what. Then you’ll be put in your place, you superior person, you Babylon: down in hell and in brimstone. This is entirely the tone of Revelation. What we realise when we have read the precious book a few times is that John the Divine had, on the face of it, a grandiose scheme for wiping out and annihilating everybody who wasn’t of the elect, the chosen people, in short, and of climbing up himself right on to the throne of God.⁴

A popular online skeptic claims that everything in Revelation should probably be highlighted, because it’s all violent, cruel, or absurd in one way or another. But that would make it too hard to read, and it’s hard enough as it is. Revelation has my vote for the worst book in the Bible.⁵

Some biblical scholars employ critical theory (or simply theory) to find a host of problems with John. Critical theory is a broad label that covers a broad range of ideological and methodological approaches to the text. Stephen Moore and Yvonne Sherwood write,

Over the past three decades, the term Theory, at once vague and specific, has stood in for a paradoxically expansive yet selective body of work: Russian formalism, French structuralism, semiotics, poststructuralism, deconstruction, Lacanian and post-Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, assorted Marxisms and neo-Marxisms, reader-response criticism and Rezeptionsästhetik, French feminist theory, third-wave feminist theory, gender studies, queer theory, New Historicism, cultural materialism, cultural studies, postcolonial studies, and (academic) postmodernism tout court, along with carefully selected slices of what is known (often polemically) as continental philosophy.⁶

Critical theory is materialistic (although not necessarily Marxist), and its practitioners seek to produce ethical readings that expose oppression and promote human liberation.⁷ Feminist biblical critics and others engaged in ideological criticism interrogate biblical texts and seek to hold the Bible to an ethical standard that is in some sense beyond or outside the Bible.⁸ Although few biblical books remain untouched, Revelation has been at the forefront of many of these critiques.

John is regularly critiqued for his violence, antisemitism, bullying, intolerance, and negative portrayal of women, among other things. Critical theorists often carry out their critique by lifting a text out of its original historical, biblical, and theological contexts and showing how it has been or could be wielded as a tool of oppression. Tina Pippin, in her influential critique, explicitly states that she is not concerned with recovering the historical context or the ‘original audience.’ ⁹ This disregard for history is problematic. It will become clear to any careful reader that critical theorists are playing the interpretive game by a different set of rules, which determine the negative outcome of any ethical evaluation in advance. Better rules exist.¹⁰

This book brings together many of the best Christian scholars working on Revelation today to wrestle with the difficulties raised by both ancient and modern critics of Revelation. Their methodological approaches vary, but most of the authors seek to place these critiques within the historical, textual, and theological contexts. These contexts provide fresh perspectives. Readers will not find glib or superficial answers but rather a deep engagement with the perceived problems and an exploration of the factors that affect how we can or should respond in a responsible and historically informed manner. Christian readers do not need to be ashamed of Revelation; it is not an ethical embarrassment.

As the book title suggests, The Apocalypse of John among Its Critics attempts to address issues and topics that have been either the focus of critical theorists or perennial questions related to the unique challenges prompted by study of Revelation. Each chapter considers a question that the author seeks to answer by examining and critiquing prior scholarly contributions and offering new perspectives. The contributors thoroughly engage with current scholarship on John’s Apocalypse with fairness and equity, but they also advance fresh arguments and assessments of the text and theology of Revelation.

The first two chapters are more broadly focused, dealing with Revelation’s inclusion in the canon of the New Testament and its genre. Chapter 1, Should John’s Apocalypse Be in the Canon?, examines the issues related to Revelation’s slow and often contentious acceptance as Christian Scripture. Alan Bandy discusses its reception history and how, due to its apocalyptic content, it was disputed in the (Catholic) West until it was widely accepted, but it was rejected in the (Orthodox) East until the seventeenth century and has never formed part of the Orthodox liturgy. Bandy also considers possible explanations for why it is one of the least textually attested books of the New Testament in the manuscripts. He argues that it ultimately and rightly belongs in the New Testament as sacred Scripture because of its theology, message, and benefit to the Christian church.

Ian Paul, in chapter 2, addresses the question of Revelation’s genre and how to understand its language and imagery by answering the question, Was John intentionally confusing? After helpfully demonstrating why identifying genre matters, Paul reviews the definition of the apocalyptic genre famously articulated by John J. Collins.¹¹ While he finds this definition to be a helpful starting point, he observes how Revelation exhibits several features not consistent with it. Instead, Paul demonstrates how Revelation is a combination of literary genres, making it a uniquely complex, mixed genre. Most notably, it combines epistle (letter), prophecy, and apocalyptic, but it also has additional genre elements embedded, including benediction (blessings) and doxology (praise) replete with hymnic material. Paul concludes, John appears to have quite self-consciously combined multiple genres and kinds of writing in Revelation.

The remaining chapters tackle various issues related to critiques of John often discussed in scholarship on Revelation. Alexander E. Stewart, in chapter 3, addresses the issue of John’s threatening and fear-inducing rhetoric by asking, Was John a bully? He contends that John employed threats that are often understood to constitute an argumentative fallacy, the argumentum ad baculum. Stewart then proceeds to discuss specific texts related to God, Jesus, and John to ethically evaluate John’s use of fear appeals. He concludes that a negative evaluation of John’s character and intentions as a bully—only concerned with forcing rival Christian leaders to submit to his authority and oppressively sectarian vision of the world—ignores how the text provides a picture of John as deeply concerned with the health and final salvation of his hearers in light of powerful and deceptive spiritual adversaries.

In chapter 4, Dana M. Harris addresses the violent language and imagery in Revelation to answer the question, Did John delight in violence? The abundance of violent images strikes many interpreters as morally objectionable and even contradictory to the ethics of Jesus. Harris first discusses the three main approaches scholars have taken when it comes to these violent images. First, literalistic interpreters view the violence as necessary for God’s purposes of judgment. Second, many scholars view the violent images as metaphorical but, despite differing interpretations, with actual violence in view. The final approach, and the one Harris advocates, is that the violent imagery is metaphorical and is not to be understood as actual violence; the images instead point to justice and salvation. Harris contends that divine justice is a more accurate concept than divine violence. Concerning Revelation, Harris argues for the importance of recognizing the literary and historical contexts. The book was written to a marginalized people in Asia Minor who were immersed in a world where violence was ubiquitous. Her examination of the text of Revelation leads her to two important conclusions: (1) the violent images leave no doubt as to the true nature of the Roman Empire and offer a critique of it, and (2) amid an extremely violent world, John trusted that divine justice would prevail and God would bring ultimate salvation and restoration.

Külli Tõniste, in chapter 5, addresses the topic of John and women and answers the question, Was John a Male Chauvinist? Feminist scholarship on Revelation has regularly viewed John’s depiction of woman as demeaning, misogynistic, and chauvinistic. Tõniste begins the chapter by addressing various assumptions and expectations. After surveying major feminist scholars on Revelation, she examines the most controversial passages in Revelation: Jezebel (Rev 2:20–24), the pregnant woman (Rev 12), the 144,000 who have not defiled themselves with women (Rev 14:4), Babylon as a whore (Rev 17–18), and the new Jerusalem as a bride (Rev 21). She maintains that Revelation must be read with awareness of the ancient historical and cultural context of Asia Minor. Rather than anachronistically applying modern assessments and critiques to Revelation, one should pay more attention to the message John communicated to the churches. Tõniste concludes by providing a way forward that is hermeneutically informed and beneficial to reading Revelation as Christian Scripture within Christian communities.

In chapter 6, Michael Naylor addresses the charge that John had a harsh stance toward other Christian groups and leaders, and expected his audience to adopt this stance, by asking, Was John intolerant? Naylor first discusses who John’s opponents were, as indicated in the messages to the seven churches (Rev 2–3). He groups the opponents according to their similarity as (1) the synagogue of Satan (external opponents) in Smyrna and Philadelphia; (2) Balaam, Jezebel, and the Nicolaitans as promoting accommodation by eating food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality; and (3) false apostles (including Balaam/Jezebel/Nicolaitans) as those identifying with the Christian community (internal opponents—groups 2 & 3). The concern is that the internal groups represented other forms of early Christianity and perhaps even Pauline Christianity. Naylor outlines how food sacrificed to idols (eidōlothytos), sexual immorality (porneusai), and false teaching are consistently condemned in the canon of Scripture (OT and NT) as well as in early Christianity. In particular, he demonstrates that John was not at odds with Paul in 1 Corinthians 8–10. He concludes that John was consistent with other Jewish and Christians writings and that there are teachings that should be opposed and rejected by the Christian community. What is more, the claim that John was opposing Paul or Pauline Christianity is not sustainable.

Rob Dalrymple, in chapter 7, deals with the controversial and uneasy issue of antisemitism in John’s attitude toward the Jewish people by asking Was John antisemitic? He begins by quoting Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits and several New Testament scholars who have attributed the rise of antisemitism to the New Testament and Christianity. Dalrymple categorically denounces antisemitism as repulsive and antithetical to the gospel. John is often viewed as antisemitic, with his twice-repeated phrase synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9) which could be taken to indicate a hostile stance toward the Jewish communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia. Dalrymple first locates these passages in the context of John’s letters to the seven churches as an interconnected framework with the entirety of Revelation. He stresses that the references to the synagogue of Satan do not constitute a repudiation of the Jewish community, but rather that the local synagogues in these two cities were opposing and causing significant difficulties for the small and disadvantaged believers there. As such, while they claimed to be Jews, they were doing the bidding of Satan. After further discussions of the historical context, Satan, apocalyptic dualism, and the temple in Revelation, Dalrymple concludes, with accompanying argumentation, that although it sounds harsh to modern readers, neither John nor his readers would have understood his remarks as antisemitic.

Dave Mathewson, in chapter 8, tackles the fascinating question of the nature of John’s predictions about the immediacy of the end by asking, Did John make things up about the future? This issue stems directly from John’s repeated references to nearness and the soon fulfillment of his prophecies (Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20). The core problem is that either John meant something else by the imminence of the end or his predications failed to come true. Mathewson provides a robust analysis of this issue through an exegetical analysis of the relevant terms and passages. He argues that John’s predictions of Christ’s soon return were focused on the certainty of his return and its ethical and moral impact on his readers rather than its immediacy. Mathewson further supports this thesis by considering how the visions in Revelation, and the literary structure itself, suggest a delay (6:9–11). The rhetorical balance of imminence and delay enables John to urge his hearers to faithfulness and perseverance.

Mark Wilson considers the issue of John and government, answering the question, Did John advocate political subversion? in chapter 9. Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as ruler of the kings of earth. Wilson argues that in John’s ancient Asia Minor context this expression would have been understood as emperor of the kings of the earth. What is more, John indicates that his hearers are part of an empire (kingdom) in which they serve as priests (Rev 1:6). Wilson describes the realities of the Roman government and systems contemporary to John and his hearers, and explores Revelation as resistance or subversive literature. Revelation, in its twenty two chapters, uses extensive vocabulary related to government to apply to both the government of God and the Lamb and the counter government of the dragon and the beasts. Wilson organizes this vocabulary under four categories and provides a thorough analysis of the relevant terms related to authority and dominion along with titles and symbols. He follows this examination by questioning whether resistance literature is the appropriate designation to describe Revelation. Wilson argues that John does not advocate active or passive resistance to the Roman government, but rather he urges the believers to live submissively yet subversively as citizens of a new empire following the Lamb’s example. He concludes by discussing the challenges for modern believers in a variety of governmental systems to live as citizens of Christ’s empire.

Last, but not least, G. K. Beale provides a tour de force assessment of scholarship on the use of Scripture in Revelation in light of the thirty-five years of his own scholarship on Revelation’s use of the Old Testament. The underlying question is, Did John misuse or distort the meaning of the Old Testament? Beale is one of the foremost scholars on this topic and his own influence on the study of John’s use of Scripture cannot be overstated. Since virtually every verse of Revelation is saturated with echoes and allusions to the Old Testament, any scholarship on this must interact and engage with Beale’s contributions. However, how John uses the Old Testament is hotly debated in scholarship. Beale’s main argument is that John uses the Old Testament in line with the original Old Testament context. Others contend that his use of Scripture gives little regard to the Old Testament context. This chapter represents Beale’s review and analysis of major scholarly publications on John’s use of the Old Testament through the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. Beale not only provides a fairly comprehensive survey of literature; he critiques, engages, analyzes, and counters alternative arguments with observations and insights about John’s contextual sensitivity to the Old Testament.

We hope that The Apocalypse of John among Its Critics will prove itself to be a valuable resource for the study of Revelation for decades to come. While not everyone will agree with the answers to the questions presented in these chapters (even some of the authors may disagree with each other), this book represents a robust contribution by leading scholars whose work cannot be easily dismissed. A positive and honest assessment of John and Revelation is academically sustainable, theologically faithful, and applicable to the modern church.

2

Should John’s Apocalypse Be in the Canon?

Alan S. Bandy

John’s Apocalypse is unique in the New Testament. Its imagery, symbols, and visionary content stand apart from the narrative, biographical, and didactic nature of the Gospels and Acts, and it is completely unlike the straightforward theology and instruction found in the Pauline Letters and General Epistles. While we may easily ascribe the different character of Revelation to its literary genre as apocalyptic, this in no way glosses over the inherent challenges this book presents for the Christian church, especially as pertains to hermeneutics and interpretation. In many ways, John’s Apocalypse is like the black sheep of the New Testament in that it may be accepted as Christian Scripture, but it is either largely ignored by most or the focus of obsession by those who think they alone have the sole key for unlocking its secrets. Several years ago, I came across a published FBI report on cults and militia groups that are focused on the book of Revelation as potential threats for radicalized actions. The tendency to ignore or obsess over Revelation and misinterpret it is a long-standing phenomenon going all the back to the second century AD. It was the last book to be affirmed within the New Testament canon and was even omitted in some canonical lists or questioned as either deuterocanonical or dubious.

We ask the question Should John’s Apocalypse be in the canon? for several reasons. To begin with, and most importantly, the very existence, nature, and boundaries of the canon continue to be a source of discussion and debate in New Testament studies. At the heart of the issue is how one defines the canon and understands the nature of the historical processes involved in its developments as pertains to what is authoritative Christian Scripture. Another reason we ask this question is that Revelation has an uneasy history when it comes to its reception in the early church and its interpretation. This aspect has been pronounced in recent years, as more focus has been given to the issue of the New Testament canon in light of the discussion of why some books were not included even though there were Christian communities that valued them as Scripture. Lastly, we ask this question because if Revelation is canonical, how should we read it, and what role should it play in shaping Christian faith and practice?

This chapter seeks to examine the question of Revelation’s place in the canon as authoritative Scripture and suggest some implications for a canonical reading of the book. It will focus on a survey of the early reception history of Revelation in both Western and Eastern Christianity with attention to the various critical concerns, hermeneutical issues, and canonical lists. By framing the question within the state of the current debate over the New Testament canon, this chapter will make the case for Revelation to be regarded as canonical and suggest some implications for reading it as such.

THE RECEPTION OF REVELATION AS CANON

Revelation has a place in the New Testament, but the history of its inclusion demonstrates the contested nature of its canonical status. The reason Revelation has received a mixed reception is a combination of issues involving the question of authorship, the comparative lack of manuscript evidence in its transmission, and concerns related to its theology and genre. Bernard McGinn rightly states, From roughly 150 CE, John’s Apocalypse was the subject of debate, not only about how it should be read, but also whether it should be included in the list of authentic books.… These two issues cannot be easily separated, because the emergence of readings of the Apocalypse that were judged fruitful for the life of the church was central to the arguments of those who insisted on its apostolic origin and canonicity.¹ In other words, acceptance of John’s Apocalypse as Scripture and thereby as worthy of inclusion into the New Testament canon hinged on the question of authorship, but to a much greater extent doubts about it largely stemmed from issues related to its interpretation and the subsequent theology/eschatology that developed.

What is fascinating about Revelation’s reception is that it has gone through a variety of periods of acceptance, rejection, and disputation by groups in different geographic areas and at different points in history. Although it retained a place on the canonical lists by the fourth century in Western Christianity (Roman Catholic), it was omitted from the canon in Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodox) until it was finally included in the seventeenth century, and it has never formed part of the Orthodox liturgy.² Revelation was widely accepted in both the East and West very early on among the second-century fathers only to face scrutiny and skepticism in the following centuries.

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE IN THE EARLY CHURCH

One reason these early fathers affirmed Revelation was the belief that it was written by the apostle John—the son of Zebedee. Few other books of the New Testament enjoy such clear and unambiguous testimony of authorship as does Revelation in the early church tradition.³ Explicit early testimony asserting apostolic authorship is found in the writings of Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus (Haer. 4.20.11), Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.119; Quis dives salvetur 42; Stromateis 6.106), Hippolytus (De antichristo 36), Origen (Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 2.4), and Tertullian (Marc. 3.14.3; 3.24.4).⁴ Justin Martyr, writing in the second century (ca. AD 155), unambiguously asserted that John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse (Justin, Dial. 81.4; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.18.8). This tradition was echoed and affirmed by the others without any hint of competing views against apostolic authorship. So strong is this evidence that Donald Guthrie observes that those who deny apostolic authorship suppose that the early fathers were simply ignorant of the true origins of the book and foolishly assumed that the author must have been the son of Zebedee.⁵

Papias of Heiropolis (ca. 60–130), who is said to have been a hearer (akoustēs) of John, a companion (hetairos) of Polycarp, and one of the ancients (archaios), continues to be a controverted figure when it comes to using him as support for apostolic authorship (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.1). Papias distinguishes between a John as one of the apostles and another John called the Elder, a distinction affirmed by Eusebius, who appealed to the legend of two tombs of John in Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.5). Gerhard Maier offers the most thorough investigation of Papias and the Apocalypse, concluding that Papias personally knew John the apostle, referred to as the Elder in Asia Minor, and regarded Revelation as his writing.⁶ Maier bases his conclusion on three primary arguments. First, Andreas of Caesarea remarks that Papias testified to the Apocalypse as trustworthy or credible (to axiopiston), which suggests that he affirmed its apostolic origin.⁷ Second, Papias demonstrated a familiarity with and approval of the Apocalypse in two existing records. One example is when Andreas cites one of the lost writings of Papias, who commented on Revelation 12:8.⁸ Another example comes from Eusebius’s recounting of some comments by Papias regarding the millennium, clearly echoing Revelation 20:4 (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.12).⁹ Maier’s final argument contends that the conclusions about Papias are drawn from an argument of silence in that Eusebius was only concerned with early church eschatological traditions and not Papias’s personal views on the authorship of the Apocalypse.¹⁰ Although Papias remains as an inconclusive source regarding the authorship of the Apocalypse,¹¹ it is safe to say that he knew the Apocalypse and tacitly affirmed it as a trustworthy and apostolically authoritative document.

The Muratorian Fragment (or Muratorian Canon) was discovered in Milan by Lodovico Anotonio Muratori in 1738–1740, and it quickly became a very important document for establishing a late second-century date for the formation of the New Testament canon.¹² The fragment, a Latin translation of a Greek document, was for a long time widely believed to have originated around AD 180–200 in Rome.¹³ An internal examination provided four clues about the document’s provenance: (1) the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected because it was written in our times (lines 73–74), which suggests a date between AD 145 and AD 200; (2) the Roman origin is confirmed in lines 38 and 76 with the mention of the urbs and urbs Roma; (3) it most likely came from the Western churches due to the inclusion of the book of Revelation and the exclusion of Hebrews and James;¹⁴ and (4) the heretics denounced in lines 81–85 (i.e., Arsinous, Valentinus, Miltiades, Marcion, and Basilides) belong in the second century.¹⁵ While the arguments for the early date have merit, recent scholarship tends to favor a date between AD 400 and 500.¹⁶

The Muratorian consists of a mere eighty-five lines, listing New Testament writings regarded as canonical Scripture. In lines 9–33, the writer attributes the Fourth Gospel and the three epistles to John the disciple and apostle of the Lord. Then, in lines 58–60, the writer attributes the Apocalypse to the same John without indicating any distinction. Therefore, we can at least posit a possible early witness to canonical status based on the authorship of Revelation in the Muratorian Fragment.

Table 1.1

This widespread testimony for the apostolic authorship of Revelation and its place within the Christian canon, however, increasingly came into question beginning with some fringe groups in the second century and gained more mainstream momentum in the third century. Marcion was the first to reject Revelation as the product of John the apostle, according to Tertullian (Marc.