Disputed but Not Dismissed: The Complex History of the Book of Revelation
Reception History, Authorship, Canonical Status, and Theological Tensions
A Complicated Place in the New Testament
The Book of Revelation has always held a complicated and often debated place within the New Testament. Much of this tension comes from how unevenly the book was received by early Christian communities.
Revelation was not immediately accepted everywhere. While it was never universally rejected as heretical, it was excluded from some regional canons for centuries. Its history reflects the slow and careful process by which early churches decided which writings carried lasting authority.
These decisions did not happen all at once or in one location. Different churches, spread across different regions and languages, made judgments based on their own theological concerns and local traditions. There was no single council in the first centuries that settled the New Testament canon for all Christians.
One early example of this diversity is the Muratorian Fragment, likely written in the late second century (though the dating of the Muratorian Fragment is debated). It lists many New Testament books but leaves out some that are now accepted, such as Hebrews, and includes others that were later excluded, such as the Apocalypse of Peter. This shows that early Christians were already forming canon lists, but agreement was far from complete.
Sources: Metzger, 1987; Gamble, 2002; McDonald, 2017
“Spoken Against” Does Not Mean Rejected
In early Christian discussions, Revelation was grouped with a set of writings known as antilegomena, a Greek term meaning “spoken against.” This label did not mean these books were considered false or heretical. It meant that some churches accepted them while others were unsure.
Revelation shared this category with books like Hebrews, James, Jude, Second Peter, and some of the shorter letters attributed to John. These writings were read and valued in many places, but not everywhere.
The early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the early fourth century, described three categories of books:
those widely accepted
those disputed
and those considered spurious.
Revelation appeared among the disputed books, not among those rejected outright. This shows that it remained present and influential even while questions persisted.
Sources: Eusebius, Church History 3.25; McDonald, 2017; Ehrman, 2005
Regional Use and the Lack of Central Control
Eusebius’ descriptions highlight an important reality: there was no central authority controlling which books every church used. Local communities decided what to read publicly based on factors such as connection to the apostles, theological coherence, and usefulness in worship.
Eusebius does not describe a church-wide council issuing binding rulings. Instead, he records differences of opinion, including disagreements about Revelation.
Later regional councils, such as the Synod of Laodicea around 363 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., produced lists that look more like the modern New Testament. Even then, these councils did not always agree with one another. Eastern churches in particular continued to hesitate over Revelation well into the fifth century.
Sources: Bruce, 1988; Council of Carthage records; Eusebius, Church History
Authorship Questions and Differences in Language
One of the main reasons for hesitation about Revelation involved authorship. The book identifies its author simply as “John,” but early readers noticed that its Greek style was very different from that of the Gospel of John.
The Greek of Revelation is rough and irregular. It contains grammatical inconsistencies and sentence structures influenced by Hebrew. Examples include mismatched grammatical agreements and awkward constructions that reflect Semitic patterns. By contrast, the Gospel of John is written in smoother, more polished Greek with a consistent literary style.
Because of these differences, some early Christians questioned whether the same person could have written both works.
Sources: Aune, 1997; Bauckham, 1993; Koester, 2014
Dionysius of Alexandria and Early Literary Criticism
In the third century, Dionysius of Alexandria became one of the earliest Christian thinkers to argue clearly that the author of Revelation was not the same John who wrote the Gospel and letters. His argument was based on internal evidence such as vocabulary, grammar, and literary structure.
Dionysius did not reject Revelation or deny its value. He respected its message but believed the linguistic evidence pointed to a different author.
Dionysius had studied under Origen, a major theologian who encouraged careful analysis and non-literal readings of Scripture when appropriate. This background likely shaped Dionysius’ willingness to question traditional assumptions and examine the text closely.
Some early Christian figures (like Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp) strongly affirmed apostolic authorship, even if modern scholars disagree.
Sources: Eusebius, Church History 7.25; Clark, 1992
More Than One Figure Named John
These debates fit into a broader early Christian awareness that there were multiple figures named John. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early second century, refers to both John the Apostle and John the Elder as distinct individuals connected to the early church.
This distinction, preserved by Eusebius, suggests that a book attributed to “John” did not automatically refer to the author of the Gospel. Later Western writers tended to merge these figures into one, which strengthened the association between Revelation and the Apostle John but rested on shaky historical ground.
Sources: Papias in Eusebius, Church History 3.39; Bauckham, 2006
A Growing but Not Universal Apostolic Link
By the mid second century, some Christian writers began explicitly connecting Revelation to John the Apostle. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 A.D., describes Revelation as written by “a certain man named John, one of the apostles of Christ.” This is one of the earliest clear statements tying the book to apostolic authority.
Other writers from the same period, such as Melito of Sardis and Theophilus of Antioch, also refer to Revelation, though they do not always specify who wrote it. These references show that the book was being used and respected, but that its authorship was not settled everywhere.
Irenaeus, writing in the late second century and drawing on the testimony of earlier figures like Polycarp, strongly affirmed that Revelation was written by John the Apostle. His influence helped solidify the traditional view in the West, even as stylistic concerns persisted in the East.
Sources: Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 81; Hill, 1999; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.1
Canonical Recognition Over Time
Revelation gradually gained secure canonical status through consistent use in worship, copying by scribes, and theological reflection. In 367 A.D., Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of the New Testament as we know them today, including Revelation. He presented this list as recognition of existing practice, not as a new decree. Though Eastern communities continued to vary in their acceptance of Revelation for some time after.
Revelation also appears in important manuscript collections such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, as well as in early Latin translations. These witnesses show that the book was preserved alongside other accepted writings.
For example, the Syriac Peshitta, the standard biblical text in many Eastern churches, did not include Revelation until the 6th or even 7th century, reflecting continued hesitancy in those regions.
Even so, some churches, especially in the East, continued to question or omit Revelation well into the medieval period.
Despite its inclusion in the canon, Revelation was read less frequently in liturgical settings than other New Testament texts, a hesitancy that reflects both interpretive caution and pastoral concerns.
Sources: Athanasius, Festal Letter 39; Metzger, 1987; Parker, 2008
Claims About Power and Control
Because Revelation’s acceptance was slow and cautious, it is difficult to argue that it was included in the canon mainly to enforce control or intimidate dissenters. If church leaders had viewed the book as especially useful for exerting power, it likely would have been embraced earlier and more consistently.
Instead, many early Christians were uneasy with its imagery, precisely because it could be misunderstood or misused. The hesitation surrounding Revelation points to concern over interpretation, not enthusiasm for its disciplinary potential.
At the same time, while Revelation may not have been canonized for the purpose of control, it has certainly been used that way at times in Christian history.
Sources: Pagels, 2012; Collins, 1979
Violent Imagery and the Apocalyptic Genre
Modern readers often struggle with Revelation’s vivid and violent imagery, especially when it seems to clash with Jesus’ teachings about love and peace. Much of this discomfort comes from misunderstanding the type of literature Revelation is.
Revelation belongs to the apocalyptic genre, which developed within Jewish tradition. Books like Daniel, 1 Enoch, and parts of Zechariah use symbolic visions, cosmic conflict, and dramatic imagery to communicate divine judgment against unjust powers. These images were not meant to be read as literal instructions for human behavior.
Apocalyptic literature is not meant as predictive journalism, but as symbolic theological visioning.
Sources: Collins, 1998; Carey, 2005
A Critique of Empire, Not a Call to Violence
Revelation does not depict Christians seizing power through force. Instead, it portrays believers enduring suffering while trusting in God’s justice. Its promise is one of accountability for oppressive systems, not domination by the faithful
Some readers point to Revelation 19, where Christ appears as a rider on a white horse, waging war in righteous judgment. But even this image, rich in symbolic meaning, reflects apocalyptic tropes rather than literal calls to violence. The battle is portrayed as divine and visionary, not human or political in nature.
Sources: Bauckham, 1993; Collins, 1976; Revelation 13, 17–18
Careful Conclusions
The evidence supports several measured conclusions. Revelation’s place in the canon was debated, but this was common in the early church. Its author was known as John, but whether this John was the author of the Gospel was questioned and never definitively resolved. Its eventual inclusion reflects long-term recognition through use, not sudden enforcement.
Scholarly interpretations today remain diverse. Some view Revelation as primarily a political protest against empire, while others emphasize its theological vision of cosmic restoration. These differing approaches reflect the text’s layered symbolism and openness to multiple readings.
Although Revelation has been misused at times to inspire fear or exclusion, such uses reflect later interpretations, not the intent of the text itself.
Sources: Koester, 2014; Pagels, 2012
The Real Challenge of Reading Revelation
The real challenge of Revelation is not that it presents a different Jesus. The challenge is that it demands careful reading. When its symbols are treated as literal predictions or political programs, the text becomes easy to misuse. When read within its historical setting and literary genre, Revelation offers what it offered its first readers: hope, resistance to injustice, and confidence that oppression does not have the final word.
As Richard Bauckham writes,
“Revelation is not a coded account of historical events but a theological book that reorients our view of the world.”
Sources: Bauckham, 1993; Koester, 2014a
Thanks for reading Berean Underground! Share this if it made you think, and subscribe for more reflections that refuse to settle for easy answers
Disclaimer: This post was sharpened with the help of AI tools for clarity and flow.
Change Your Mind?
If you ever decide this content isn’t for you, you can unsubscribe with the link below at any time.