CanonThe Fall and Rise of Revelation Revelation was used widely in the early church, then doubted in the East in the fourth century, but eventually accepted again. T. C. SchmidtA scene from Albrecht Dürer’s “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (1498). SourceMay 7, 2024 ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInPrint Level The book of Revelation describes many falls from grace, and its own is just as dramatic. In the late first century AD, John of Patmos received a cosmic vision while in exile for Christ. His account of this vision, our book of Revelation, was then quickly embraced by Christians all around the Mediterranean. So popular was Revelation that the number of early Christian writers who mention it rivals that of any other New Testament text. This begins with Papias (c. 115 AD) and Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD) who made use of Revelation in what is today Turkey. They are followed by authors like Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (c. 175 AD); Irenaeus in France (c. 185 AD); Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (c. 195 AD); Tertullian in Tunisia (c. 200 AD); Hippolytus in Rome (c. 200–235 AD), and many other writers besides. By the middle of the third century, it is difficult to find Christians who do not quote from Revelation. So popular was Revelation that the number of early Christian writers who mention it rivals that of any other New Testament text. A reversal of fortune But then, during the fourth century, a great reversal occurred. Several writers in the areas where Revelation had once been so beloved began voicing doubts over its legitimacy. These suspicions soon proceeded to foment and boil over in the succeeding centuries causing Revelation to be omitted from the New Testaments of many churches east of the city of Rome. There, in these Eastern locales, Revelation underwent a kind of New Testament exile from which it was only recalled after many centuries. This resulted in a great irony: Revelation, though possessing one of the strongest scriptural pedigrees, came to be known as the most disputed book in the New Testament. And all this naturally brings up several questions which this article will address: In what churches was Revelation held in suspicion? What caused such suspicions? How were they resolved? And when were they resolved? “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” one of Albrecht Dürer’s 15 engravings of Revelation. Source Doubt spreads Where Revelation was consistently held in high esteem from the very beginnings of Christianity in Western Europe, Northwest Africa, Egypt (both Greek and Coptic speaking areas), and it seems also to have been always embraced in Nubia and Ethiopia, though the evidence for these latter two areas is limited. The story is different for other regions. While Revelation was viewed highly in the Greek-speaking portions of Europe and Asia in the second and third centuries, this changed in the fourth. At that point, a precipitous decline becomes evident, so much so that many later Greek writers never quote from Revelation and even omit it from their New Testament lists. Greek manuscripts of Revelation also become rarer during this time, and those that do exist often place Revelation alongside non-New Testament texts. For more on the history of Revelation, see the author’s book. The situation in Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, and Slavonic contexts was graver still. Evidence suggests that Revelation was excluded when the first Armenian translation of the New Testament was commissioned in the 440s AD. An ancient Armenian translation of the book was eventually carried out, but it was little used. Likewise, the first Syriac translations of the New Testament (3rd–5th centuries) also appear to have omitted Revelation and it was not until the sixth and seventh centuries that Revelation was translated into Syriac. But even then, it was ignored by most Syriac writers and omitted from almost all Syriac biblical manuscripts. In Georgia, Revelation was yet again omitted when the Georgian New Testament was first translated (fifth century), and no translation of Revelation was ever made into Georgian before the tenth century. Lastly, though the first Slavonic translation of the New Testament appears to have included Revelation (ninth century), this translation was lost. Revelation was translated into Slavonic again several hundred years later, but then unhappily lost once more. Why There were multiple reasons for Revelation’s declining fortunes in the East. First and most simply is that Revelation is a difficult book to understand. While some found this difficulty to be divinely and profoundly mysterious, others found it obscure and nonsensical. Hence, these critics of Revelation voiced concerns over its alleged narrative incoherency, its supposed internal contradictions, and its seemingly ridiculous creatures and scenery. Compounding all of these issues were instances where Revelation was felt to be doctrinally suspect, as when Revelation—again allegedly—mentions seven different holy spirits (Rev. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6), portrays the spiritual heavens in a physical or even grotesque manner (Rev. 21), describes a final thousand-year earthly reign of Jesus (Rev. 20), calls Jesus a mere creature by stating that he is the “beginning of creation” (Rev. 3:14), and other such passages. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Another sharp thorn goading suspicion was that Revelation’s authorship was questionable. Many doubted that John the apostle and evangelist wrote Revelation because its style differed from the other writings of John and because some earlier Christians postulated that there were actually two disciples of Jesus named John. A further, though ancillary, reason contributing to the above concerns was that Revelation viciously critiqued Rome (Rev. 17 and 18). This was well and good when Christians were being persecuted by pagan Rome, but such critiques were harder to swallow when Christians came to rule Rome in the fourth century. Answering the doubts These suspicions were in large part answered by Revelation commentators. Beginning in the sixth century, writers began composing full-length, often verse-by-verse, commentaries defending Revelation from criticism. They pointed out that Revelation is a cyclical work that repeats material from different vantages and perspectives and, in this view, should not be seen as narratively incoherent. Regarding alleged internal contradictions and absurd creatures, commentators again and again highlighted that Revelation proclaims itself as an allegorical work (Rev. 1:1, 1:20, 11:8, 12:1, 17:5, 17:7), and so its imagery should not be taken literally, but instead ought to be probed for deeper, profounder meaning. This too is why one should not assume that Revelation’s earthly depictions of heaven or its thousand-year reign of Jesus pertain to physical reality; rather such things symbolically and mystically outline exalted spiritual realities that would not otherwise be comprehensible to lowly humans. Related A depiction of Rev. 12 in the Silos Apocalypse (11th c.). Add MS 11695 Revelation’s Place in the Greek BibleThe history of the Apocalypse in the Greek manuscripts reveals that its place at the end is not uniform. Clark R. Bates Areas where Revelation was doctrinally suspect were also defended. When Revelation mentions seven spirits, it only uses “seven” as a figurative number representing the perfection of the one Holy Spirit; or if not, then the seven spirits refer to seven high ranking spiritual beings such as the archangels Michael and Gabriel. In like manner, Revelation does not call Jesus the “beginning (archē) of creation” (Rev. 3:14) but rather calls him the “origin” or “ruler” of creation, which indeed are other valid interpretations of the Greek word archē. As for Revelation’s authorship, commentators argued that stylistic differences should not trouble the reader because John may have changed his style intentionally to suit an alternative audience. One or two commentators also seem to have believed that if another John wrote Revelation, then he was still nonetheless a disciple of Jesus and therefore an apostolic man, much like Luke, Mark, James, Jude, and Paul who also wrote documents in the New Testament, yet were not numbered among the original twelve apostles. A final resolution It is impossible to be absolutely precise with dates, but, in the Greek church, Revelation begins its recovery around about the tenth century, though the commentary by Andrew of Caesarea seems to have started propelling it into popularity starting in the seventh century. In the Greek church, Revelation begins its recovery around about the tenth century. In Syriac areas, several famous scholars attempted to promote Revelation, commencing with Philoxenus around 500 AD, who translated it as part of his Syriac New Testament. Revelation was translated again for the New Testament of Thomas of Harkel (c. 615 AD), and an extract of it was later translated by Jacob of Edessa (c. 708 AD). An anonymous Syriac commentary was also written on it probably in the early seventh century, but none of these attempts seem to have been effective—Revelation was still largely omitted from Syriac New Testament lists and manuscripts. However, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it began gaining prestige in West Syriac circles, though East Syriac communities seem to have taken longer to come round, and certain of their communities did not accept Revelation until the early and mid-1800s, soon after the British Foreign Bible Society distributed the first accessible printed edition of the Syriac New Testament. An 11th c. Syriac manuscript that may have once contained the whole NT, including Revelation, but today breaks off at Hebrews (New College MS 333). Photo by Peter Gurry. In Armenia, Revelation was rehabilitated largely by Nerses of Lambron (c. 1179 AD), who re-translated it and then wrote a commentary (adapted from Andrew of Caesarea’s Greek commentary) defending it. His efforts seem to have been greatly successful. In neighboring Georgia, Euthymius the Athonite (c. 978 AD) made the first known Georgian translation of Revelation while also writing a commentary on the text (once again adapted from Andrew). Yet, it is unclear when Revelation became accepted in the Georgian church, and it may have been passed over until the printing of the Georgian New Testament in the early 1700s.1T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society (London: The Bible House, 1903), vol. 2.1 p. 478–479. For the placement of New Testament texts within Georgian manuscripts, see D. M. Lang, “Recent Work on the Georgian New Testament,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 19, no. 1 (1957): 87. In Slavonic circles, an anonymous commentary on Revelation was written in the tenth century (once more adapted from Andrew) and became quite popular. In 1499, the Archbishop of Novgorod included Revelation in his edition of the New Testament. However, as Revelation was regaining (or gaining, as the case may be) its standing in the East, it underwent its first real trial in the West when some of the Protestant reformers questioned its authority. Martin Luther, for example, claimed that Revelation was neither apostolic nor prophetic in his first edition of the German Bible, though in a subsequent edition he mostly reversed course, but still held doubts.2Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works, American edition (St. Louis & Philadelphia: Concordia & Muhlenberg, 1955-1986), vol. 35 pp. 398–399 (first preface), 399–411 (second preface). Conclusion Such as that may be, I quite agree with the arguments of Revelation’s ancient and medieval commentators. There are sound, reliable reasons for considering John of Patmos to have been a disciple of Jesus, whether John the apostle or another John. The text of Revelation, albeit challenging and at times bewildering, is full of mystery and profound insight. If you read with a mind awake to Revelation’s cyclical narrative; if you train a patient eye towards Revelation’s own instruction to understand it “spiritually,” then the stumbling blocks fall away. And in due time, you too will be able to exclaim along with Jerome (c. 420 AD) that The Apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hidden in its every word.3Letter 53.9; translation modified. Notes1T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society (London: The Bible House, 1903), vol. 2.1 p. 478–479. For the placement of New Testament texts within Georgian manuscripts, see D. M. Lang, “Recent Work on the Georgian New Testament,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 19, no. 1 (1957): 87.2Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works, American edition (St. Louis & Philadelphia: Concordia & Muhlenberg, 1955-1986), vol. 35 pp. 398–399 (first preface), 399–411 (second preface).3Letter 53.9; translation modified. T. C. Schmidt Tom Schmidt (PhD, Yale University) is Assistant Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Fairfield University. He has published translations from several languages and has a monograph tentatively titled Josephus and Jesus forthcoming with Oxford University Press.