Overview of Revelation

Intro

The final book of the New Testament in the Christian Bible is the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse of “John”. It is a book of prophecy that talks about when the world will end and what happened before it. It is written in a highly symbolic and cryptic style, and scholars and theologians have long debated how to interpret it. John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation, had a series of visions while he was in exile on the island of Patmos. It talks about a series of things that will happen in the future, like Jesus Christ’s return, the battle of Armageddon, and the end-time punishment for everyone. Additionally, it includes cautions and exhortations for non-believers as well as messages of hope and encouragement for believers.
However, there are significant problems with the authorship of this book as the traditional aspects of this book author this to the “John of Apostle”, but going into this we will know that this is highly unlikely.

Let’s start with the internal claims of this book. It goes that it was written by “John” (1:1, 1:4, 1:9; 22:8). It was written to churches in Asia minor (1:4; 1:11). The author of this book is in exile on island of Patmos (1:9).

Another claim referring to this is:
“It is said that in this persecution [Domitian’s] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:18 [NPF 2nd Series, 1:148])

However, we shall soon know that even in the early church there was no agreement as to which John wrote the book of Revelation.
According to the book, (Theology of “Relevation”), the author of Relevation is supposedly a Jewish-Christian prophet.

Tradition of Apostolic Authorship

John the apostle, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, may have been the John who had this vision on Patmos, according to Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Polycrates, early authorities. There were a few reasons why this seemed reasonable. First, Revelation and the Gospel of John, which was commonly believed to be the apostle’s work, share similarities. Second, the apostle John was reputed to have been associated with the city of Ephesus, which is not far from Patmos and is home to one of the churches mentioned in the book. This custom of Revelation’s apostolic authorship became deeply ingrained in Christian piety over time, and it has been widely reflected in popular Christian faith expressions (hymns, artwork, etc.). Early Christian writers assumed that the author of Revelation had also written the Gospel and Letters of John and identified him with John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles. Both of these assumptions are problematic.
━━━━━━━
More Opinions on this 📜
“John was the author of the Revelation to John” (1.1, 4, 9; 22.8), an anglicized form of the common ancient Hebrew name Johanan, which was frequently transliterated. Early Christian writers identified the author of Revelation with John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles, and assumed that he had also written the Gospel and Letters of John.

These two presumptions pose a problem. The author of Revelation identifies himself solely as a servant of God (1.1) and a brother who shares the sufferings of those to whom he addresses his book. He views the twelve apostles as authoritative figures from the past (21.14).

It seems unlikely that he wrote the Gospel or the Letters of John based on literary style and theological emphasis. Albeit present day basic researchers have commonly deserted the suspicion of normal creation for the pieces that make up the Johannine corpus (the Gospel As indicated by John, the three Letters of John, the Disclosure to John), the customary relationship of these five sytheses with the name John has supported the view that every one of the five were delivered by different individuals from a “Johannine people group” behind which stood the shadowy figure of John the missionary.

Revelation offers important clues about the author’s general identity, despite the fact that the author’s identity is unknown. His Jewish heritage is inferred by his numerous allusions to the Old Testament, particularly Ezekiel and Daniel. His Greek style has Semitic characteristics that suggest he was originally from Palestine and moved to Asia Minor, possibly in the wake of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (66-73 CE), during which many Jews were forced to flee for their lives. by describing his work as a book of prophecy (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18, and 19), he makes it abundantly clear that he is a prophet (allegedly).

Further evidence that he was likely a well-known itinerant Christian prophet is provided by his familiarity with the circumstances of the seven Christian communities he addresses (22.9).

“Unlike other Jewish and Christian apocalypses, whose authors write in the name of some revered figure from antiquity, the author of the book of Revelation identifies himself by name as John” (1.1, 4, 9; Harper Collins Study Bible, 2086). 22.8). Internal evidence from the book itself is inconclusive, despite the fact that some ancient sources (such as Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 81.4) suggested that this is the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. John of Revelation may have been a Palestinian Jewish Christian who fled to the Diaspora as a result of the First Jewish Revolt against the Romans (66-73 CE).

The author’s familiarity with the Jerusalem Temple and its rituals, his knowledge of the Hebrew Bible (of the 405 verses in Revelation, some 275 include allusions to passages from the Hebrew Bible or its Greek translation, the Septuagint), and his adoption of a literary genre that was familiar to Palestinian Juda His self-identification with the “seven churches that are in Asia” (1.4) as “your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance” (1.9) suggests that he was well-known to his audience, likely due to the prophetic ministry he performed among them (see 22.9).

He does not identify himself as one of the twelve apostles when he refers to them as historical figures (21.14). As a result, the traditional connection between the apostle of the same name and the John of the Book of Revelation is highly improbable, as is the connection between the John of the Book of Revelation and the Gospel According to John or the Letters of John. The New Oxford Clarified Book of scriptures, 2153)

━
More importantly, while the writer of the fourth Gospel has some of the best Greek in the New Testament, the writer of Revelation has some of the worst. It is not a “change in style” over time; rather, it is a distinct speaker with a distinct literary ability and Greek vocabulary. The author of John appears to be a Palestinian Jew who speaks Greek as a second language, while the author of Revelation appears to be educated Greek.

All the more significantly, there is positively not an obvious explanation to think the creators are something similar. The Gospel’s author never says that he or she is John, that someone named John wrote it, or that they were disciples or witnesses to anything. The author of Revelation never asserts that John was the Beloved Disciple, that he was an Apostle, or that he was named John. To assume that either of those books was written by John of Zebedee or that they were written by the same person, you would need to present any evidence at all. The majority of academics believe that they were written by different authors, none of whom was John of Zebedee, and neither book makes either claim.
━━━━━━━
Consensus and Theories on the Authorship
There is no deliberate consensus when it comes to the authorship of the book, there’s perhaps 4 theories remaining within the authorship:

John the Apostle (Claimed by some early traditional writers and fundamentalists)
A different John
Someone who doesn’t author the name John (thus false attribution)
Composite work of a difference
The fourth point is fair for other biblical texts and for other traditional composers, but not held directly to Relevation. The Apocalypse of John, Beckwith’s classic work from 1919, examines compositional perspectives from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Someone like J. Massyngberde Ford, who sees it as the result of a group of followers who were originally associated with John the Baptist, is one of the more recent proponents of a compositional view.
View 3, that the work is pseudonymous, runs into every one of the typical contentions over pseudepigraphical compositions. Another classic commentary, R.H. Charles’ The Revelation of St. John (1920), refutes it. In contrast to other apocalypses, the author claims no ancient figure to give authority to their text; rather, they simply self-identify as “John.” This provides good reasons to continue rejecting pseudonymity. It is pointless to call oneself “John” when, for instance, one’s real name is “James.” A text written under a false name would probably refer to himself as John the Apostle or some other authoritative figure at the very least.
In essence, view 3 is problematic due to its lack of information. On the off chance that somebody obscure whose name isn’t John composes a book under the name “John”, this varies very little from some obscure individual whose name is John.
As a result, we return to 1 and 2. It is essential to keep in mind that the author of the text is not John the Apostle. In addition, it is essential to be aware of two additional aspects: first, the author of the fourth gospel never claims to be John the Apostle, and second, even if you conclude that John the Apostle wrote Revelation, this does not imply that John the Apostle also wrote the Gospel of John.

However, by consensus the majority of scholars believed it was written by a ”John”, but not John the Apostle.

There were even challenges from early Christian church-fathers that doubted the authorship of Relevation being the Apostle of John.
━━━━━━━
Challenge to Apostolic Authorship
However, there were voices that questioned this identification even in the early church.

Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived in the third century, held that Revelation and other Johannine writings could not have been written by the same person because of their distinct literary styles. Scholars began to discount the tradition over time for a variety of reasons. Dionysius points out that the literary and linguistic style are actually very different from one another.

In terms of how it uses Greek grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, Revelation is less refined. In Revelation, key themes from John’s Gospel are completely absent. • “Eternal life,” “knowing the truth,” or even “believing” are not mentioned in the latter. Revelation’s author uses Scripture in a different way than John’s Gospel author. While Revelation is full of biblical imagery but never explicitly cites Scripture, the Gospel frequently does.

The Gospel of John and Revelation have very different theological perspectives. • The themes that dominate Revelation, for instance, are the final judgment and Christ’s second coming, but the Gospel of John shows very little interest in them. The apostles are actually mentioned by the author of Revelation (18:20; 21:14) with next to no sign that he is one of them.
In point of fact, if the twenty-four elders mentioned in verse 4 are to be identified as the twelve apostles of Jesus and the twelve patriarchs of Israel, then is it reasonable to assume that John is observing himself among them? The majority of scholars also believe that this book was written in the 1990s, and they wonder if the apostle John could have survived to such an advanced age (assuming he did not succumb to the martyrdom that Jesus foretold would befall him in Mark 10:39). The Christian canon of Scripture had a difficult time accepting the book of Revelation. If authorities in the early church had believed that it could be reliably traced back to the apostle John, this would not have been the case.

Here’s Dyonisus of Alexandria on this:
“Some before us have set aside and rejected the book [of Revelation] altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. […] But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem.”
At this point Dyonisus analyses the Apocalypse, to conclude that:
“Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written. For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle. […] Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. […] I do not deny that [the writer of the Apocalypse] saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. “
Eusebius is relating Papias’s words in the second example. Papias refers to two distinct Johns in his writings: John the apostle and “Presbyter John” (John the Elder). Eusebius comments on that, saying:
“It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. […] This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.”
Eusebius connects the two Johns in Papias to two tombs in Ephesus in a rather convoluted manner, stating that the first John is the evangelist and the second John is the presbyter: Dyonisus also discussed the two tombs in Ephesus. in addition to the possibility of “not being willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Apocalype”.
━
The authorship of the New Testament book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, is discussed here. St. Dionysius, who lived in the third century CE, argued that the Apocalypse, which has different terms and expressions and is full of grammatical errors that Dionysius refers to as “barbarisms and solecisms,” could not have been written by the Apostle John, who is believed to have written the Gospel of John. It’s important to note that the Apocalypse’s Greek is generally thought to be ugly and grammatically wrong.

Dionysius countered by suggesting that the Apocalypse was actually written by a different John who lived in the same region as the apostle. However, it is also possible to argue that the Apocalypse’s poor writing quality is exactly what one would have expected from a Galilean Jew in the first century who had learned Greek as a third language after Hebrew and Aramaic. To put it another way, the fact that the Greek is not polished and has grammatical errors could actually be taken as evidence of authenticity because it suggests that the author was not a well-educated priestly scribe but rather a Galilean Jew who learned Greek in later life.
Also, the entry noticed that there is an Aramaic text written in the Scriptural Hebrew story style that radiates through the “savage” Greek of the End times, like the old Targums. Jewish communities relied on the Targums, which were early paraphrases or translations of the Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic language, to comprehend and interpret the Hebrew text. As would be expected of a Galilean Jew like the apostle John, this suggests that the author of the Apocalypse had strong ties to the Aramaic Targums and the traditional language of prophecy.

Last but not least, the passage mentions that the Apocalypse author forbids any changes to the text (Rev 22:18–19), which could be interpreted as a means of preserving the text’s authenticity. This could imply that the author is advocating for the literal translation of the text into Hebrew or Aramaic to preserve its authenticity. Overall, it appears that the passage is suggesting that the Apocalypse’s poor literary quality is a sign of its authenticity. Additionally, the passage’s connections to the Aramaic Targums and the prohibition against changing the text further support the idea that the Apocalypse was written by the apostle John or another Galilean Jew with a similar background.

━━━━━━━
Problem of Literary Style
Revelation differs significantly from John’s Gospel and epistles in terms of grammar and style. For centuries, people have been aware of this fact. Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived around 450 B.C., was the first person to write about it. A.D. 264). Eusebius extensively quotes him, despite the fact that his writings do not exist. Note his remarks:

R. H. Charles’s commentary (ICC, vol. 1) provides a comprehensive list and discussion of these distinctions. 1). In addition to two pages of “close connections,” Charles lists three and a half pages of differences (pp. xxix-xxxiv). His lengthy and in-depth discussion of “A Short Grammar of the Apocalypse” draws further comparisons between the two works (pp. cxvii-clix). He is aware of the significant Hebrew influence that the Greek style had. There are three possible explanations for the literary differences:
(1) Distinct sorts or kinds of writing, requiring an alternate utilization of terms (more strict than metaphorical utilization of action words, and so on. (See, particularly, John Battle’s An Exegetical-Statistical Study of the Most Common Words in John and Revelation. pp. 95-103).

(2) Patmos has neither the same nor a different amanuensis.

(3) The deliberate alteration of style in Revelation to recall Hebrew prophetic writings (refer to William Milligan’s excellent discussion in Discussions on the Apocalypse, chapter 5: “ The Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse,” pages 180-266).

Milligan takes note of that the writer of Disclosure is equipped for astounding and persuasive Greek in a few supported entries in the book. His deviations from standard usage were not the result of ignorance but rather were deliberate.
━━
Bart Ehrman on the authorship :mod:
“Even though the book of Revelation was finally included in the New Testament canon because Christian leaders came to think it had been written by Jesus’ disciple, John the son of Zebedee, there were outspoken dissenters against its inclusion. Perhaps the most famous was Dionysius, a bishop of the city of Alexandria (Egypt) in the mid-third century, whose remarks about the book have a surprisingly modern feel to them. Dionysius used the author’s self-presentation and his Greek writing style to show that he was not the writer of the Fourth Gospel (whom Dionysius assumed was the disciple John). His conclusion? There must have been two different early Christian leaders named John, both of whom were active in Asia Minor, whence both the Gospel and Revelation derived. The following quotations are drawn from Dionysius’s writings, as quoted by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 7.25).”

“Today, part of Dionysius’s views are widely held. Whoever wrote Revelation did not also write the Gospel of John. The writings styles really are massively different; whoever wrote Revelation (unlike the author of the Gospel) did not have Greek as his first language.
And there is another reason, something that Dionysius does not emphasize: the eschatological views are radically different. John is against the apocalyptic views of Jesus found in Matthew and Mark, for example; whereas Revelation promotes such apocalyptic ideas – even more than the earlier Gospels. The apocalypse is entirely what the book is about.

So two different authors. Was one of them John the son of Zebedee? Almost certainly not. Virtually the one thing the traditions agree on about John is that he was a fisherman in rural Galilee. That means he was almost certainly a lower-class day laborer (working in a rural part of a remote area of the empire). Such people did not receive an education. Learning to read and write – i.e. to compose — took many years of education. Day laborers couldn’t afford the time and money. Only the urban elites educated their young. John was not among that class. Very few people were – fewer than 95% of the entire population (and again, only ones living in cities).”*
━━
James Tabor on it :mod:
“In the references below I have put these interpolative elements bold italicized brackets. This exercise strongly suggests that these are later additions to an original Jewish text inserted to “Christianize” a book that in its origins had nothing to do with Jesus. This is a rather astounding phenomenon and once one sees it it seems clear that the underlying original text remains intact and makes complete sense without these references:”
https://jamestabor.com/can-a-pre-christian-version-of-the-book-of-revelation-be-recovered/

━━━━━━━
Problem of Two Johns
Dionysius, an early Christian bishop, suggested in the aforementioned statement that there were two Johns who lived in Ephesus, a city in ancient Turkey. Dionysius claims that one of these men wrote the Gospel of John, one of the four canonical gospels in the Christian Bible’s New Testament. Dionysius claims that the other John wrote the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse of John. The early Christian historian Eusebius preferred this theory because he was not a chiliast—that is, he did not subscribe to the chiliasm doctrine, which holds that Jesus Christ will physically rule on earth for a thousand years. As a result, Eusebius did not want to say that John the Apostle, one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles, wrote the book Revelation, which promotes chiliasm.

Eusebius quoted Papias, a disciple of John the Apostle, to support his theory that there were two Johns. Papias referred to two Johns in this quotation, one of whom he referred to as an “elder” or “presbyter.” According to Eusebius’ interpretation, this indicates that there were in fact two Johns in Ephesus, with one being an apostle and the other a presbyter. Eusebius also speculated that the author of the Book of Revelation was not the apostle John but the presbyter John.

However, Papias’s statement can be interpreted in a different way. It’s possible that Papias was only referring to John the Apostle when he used the term “presbyter” to refer to the apostles and John the Apostle. The fact that Papias referred to the apostles in the aorist tense while referring to John in the present tense lends credence to this assertion. The idea that John the Apostle was still alive after the other apostles died would be supported by this change in tenses. As a result, it’s possible that Papias was referring to a single individual by the name of John, who served as both an apostle and a presbyter.
━━━━━━━
What We can Gather from the book
The majority of academics prefer not to make claims about the book of Revelation that it does not support. We should not make the claim that the book was written by the apostle John because it does not make that claim, nor should we imply that the book’s authority is contingent on the establishment of such a claim. Scholars do try to learn as much as they can about the author from their reading of the book. Consider the following information:
He knows a lot about the Old Testament.

He is more acquainted with the symbolism and style of Jewish apocalypses than some other first-century Christian creator.

He writes in Greek as if he were originally from Aramaic or Hebrew. As a result, it seems possible that he was a Jewish Christian from Palestine who moved to Asia Minor during or after the Jewish-Roman war.

He is under the impression that the churches in Asia Minor will consider him to be a prophet (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18–19).

He does not feel the need to demonstrate his credentials by doing or saying anything; As a result, Christian congregations in that region of the world must know and respect him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTURdV0c9J0 talks well about Relevation on authorship.

https://youtu.be/zU8uAkS761k
Extremely good video.

More

Eusebius suggests that the author of the Book of Revelation was John the Presbyter, and says: “Either the book must be ranked as among the undisputed NT books or rejected as apocryphal”

“A debate still continues over whether the John who wrote this book to be identified with John the apostle, John the Elder or an otherwise unknown John”.

“Within the book itself, however, there is no specific indication as to who exactly this John was.”

Personal comment: I thought the commentator would tell us who exactly this John was, but apparently he does not know!

Kummel provides the following information on dating the Apocalypse of John (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 466-8):

According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book’s own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian. In the letters included in Rev, persecutions by the officials are expected (2:10), the blood of the martyrs has already flowed (2:13; 6:9), the whole of Christianity is threatened with a fearful danger (3:10): the immediate prospect is for the outbreak of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. In 17:6 John sees the harlot who is Babylon-Rome drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (cf. 6:10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2). In 20:4 participation in the thousand-year reign is promised to the martyrs who have been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshiped the beast and his image and have not accepted his sign on their forehead and in their hand, i.e., those who have refused divine honors to the emperor (13:4, 12 ff; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). Christianity has collided with the state and with the state religion, the Christ cult with the imperial cult. In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. That corresponds to the situation under Domitian.
Prior to Domitian, the state religion did not direct itself against the Christians. Nero’s mad acts in Rome against the Christians had nothing to do with the imperial cult. Under Domitian, who according to the Eastern pattern laid claim to divine honors for himself as emperor during his own lifetime, there arose for the first time the persecution of Christians by the state on religious grounds. In 96 in Rome members of the imperial household were called to account for the charge of αθεοτησ; i.e., violation of the state religion. And in the Christian tradition Domitian is unanimously regarded as the first persecutor of Christians after Nero. In the province of Asia imperial cult was promoted with special zeal. Under Domitian, Ephesus received a new imperial temple. Thus it was precisely in the province of Asia, the classical land of the imperial cult, that at the time of Domitian all the prerequisites were present for a severe conflict between Christianity and the state cult, which is what Rev has in view (cf. also I Pet). The seer nowhere points directly to Domitian as the then reigning emperor, and the Antichrist, the “beast” (13:1 ff, etc.), does not bear the features of any specific ruler but rather those of the demonic form of Nero redivivus, which was still a popular expectation in that time. But the temporal scene which Rev sketches fits no epoch of primitive Christianity so well as the time of the persecution under Domitian.
Kummel goes on to propose an interpretation of 17:9 wherein the counting of the emperors begins with Caligula so that Domitian would be the sixth in succession. He concludes (op. cit., p. 469):
Also favoring the end of the first century as the time of origin of Rev is the fact that according to 2:8-11, the church of Smyrna has been persevering for a long time, while according to Polycarp (Phil 11:3), at the time of Paul it did not even exist; and 3:17 describes the community of Laodicea as rich, while this city had been almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60/61.

In all likelihood, therefore, Rev was in fact written toward the end of the reign of Domitian, i.e., ca. 90-95, in Asia Minor, in order to encourage Christian communities threatened by a destructive persecution to endure and to make them confident of the imminent victory of Christ over the powers of the Antichrist.
For more dating arguments:
David Aune gives a very detailed source-critical analysis in his three-volume WBC commentary, summarized in the introduction in cxviii-cxxxiv of Vol. 1. He regards the twelve self-contained textual units found throughout the book as the oldest portions, written over a duration of time mainly in the 50s and 60s. One of these units, the Whore of Babylon (ch. 17), gives a dating indication: five emperors have fallen (the Julio-Claudian dynasty), skipping over the interregnum of 68-69 CE, the one who is (present tense) would be Vespasian, and the Nero redivivus expectation that one of the five would return to destroy Rome confirms that Nero was regarded as one of the five fallen emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero). If one does not skip over the interregnum, then the time of composition would be during the reign of Galba (68-69). But the chaper also gives an ekphrasis (an artistic description of iconography) of the goddess Dea Roma (parodied as Babylon the Great), the personification of Rome, sitting on the seven hills of Rome, which matches the depiction on a Vespasian sestertius from 71 CE. A Vespasian date for this chapter seems probable, particularly one close to AD 71. The description of the woman as drunk on the blood of the saints also reflects knowledge of the earlier Neronian persecution of 64 CE.
Next Aune proposes that the twelve units of visions and auditions were then redacted around AD 70 into the first edition of Revelation, which used a heptadic structure (the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls). Three of the twelve units were placed between the seven trumpets and the seven bowls. Another three were placed inside the seven seals structure, in between the sixth and seventh seal. The remaining six were placed after the seven bowls, with two angelic revelations that frame the other units. Then there was a second edition produced in the late 90s, which added the letters to the seven churches. Aune points out that there is a literary seam at 4:1; in the original version, John heard the voice like a trumpet (1:10-11), he turned around (1:12a), and then he was summoned for revelation in 4:1. Aune goes on describe the many redactional touches that unify the first edition and the stylistic differences that distinguish the two editions (the second edition, for instance, has possible Pauline touches, emphasizes the nearness of Jesus’ coming, uses the words “church” and “testify”, etc.).
The last verse in ch. 18 says that the woman is the city that rules (present tense) over the kings of the earth, which could only have been Rome. The beast represents Caesar, with each head representing an individual emperor. The last king (the eighth) being one of the earlier kings is a clear allusion to the Nero redivivus myth found in the Sybilline Oracles, Dio Chrysostom, and other sources. The same notion appears in ch. 13 with respect to the beast healed of its fatal wound. With respect to the number of the beast, Aune points out that there was a legal document from Wadi Murabba’at that refers to Nero in Hebrew as קסר נרון, a spelling that yields 666 when read numerically (cf. the similar use of gematria in Barnabas 9:7-9). This shows that the number rests on a verified contemporaneous spelling of the name. The manuscript variant of 616 is also intelligible by this reading since it represents a transliteration from Latin as opposed to Greek. Aune points out that Greek θηρίον “beast” when translated into Hebrew תריון also has the gematrical value of 666. https://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/loan.html
There are two sociopolitical factors relevant to a date in the reign of Domitian. There is little evidence of an organized persecution under Domitian (as there had been under Nero in Rome). Rather there were local arrests and trials of Christians who did not pay the fiscus Judaicus, which Domitian had started to apply to Christians (contrary to Christians’ perceptions of themselves). Revelation reflects the situation after 85 CE, when the fiscus Judaicus began to be harshly enforced and Gentile Christians charged with atheism and drifting into Jewish ways; this is probably how the imperial cult became relevant in the persecution (for more on this see Marius Heemstra’s The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways, 2010, Mohr Siebeck). The second concerns the Nero redivivus rumor. There were earlier pretenders beginning in 69 CE but by 88 CE there was a third pretender in Parthia which nearly resulted in war (Tacitus, Historiae 1.2, Suetonius, Nero 57). So the emphasis on a returning Nero along with the notion of impending war (ch. 16) fits very well with the reign of Domitian.

Irenaeus (130–202ce) also gives us the easiest tradition about the Apocalypse of John, and he dates it to the later half of the reign of Domitian, who died in 96 CE.
Continuing:
Revelation is usually regarded as finalized in the 90s CE during Domitian’s enforcement of the fiscus Judaicus. But it is a composite work likely compiled over decades. I would argue that some early visionary units in Revelation date to the 60s, particularly 11:1-14 which expresses the view that the sanctuary would not be breached, reflecting the perspective in earlier Jewish tradition and by the Zealots that the Temple was inviolable (cf. Zechariah 12:2-6, 1 Enoch 56:5-8, Sibylline Oracles 5.101-10, Josephus, BJ 5.459, 6.98; cf. Dio Cassius 65.5.4), with the Gentile trampling of the city only lasting the same duration as prophesied by Daniel. So this does not look like an ex eventu prediction but one made during the events prior to Titus’ destruction of the Temple in 70 CE that counters the expectation that the Gentiles will breach the sanctuary. The act of measuring in v. 1-2 has in mind Ezekiel 40-42 which mentions the wall surrounding the inner court (42:20, cf. 1 Kings 6:36, 7:12), as well as Zechariah 2:1-5 which posits Yahweh himself as a wall of fire protecting the people inside (compare also Zechariah 12:1-9). Another early unit is ch. 17 which probably dates to the early 70s.
There is a clear contemporary allusion to the emperors of Rome, with the five fallen kings possibly analogous to the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero), suggesting that the king who “is” may have been Vespasian (with the year of four emperors being treated as an interregnum). It is technically possible that four emperors were counted in the list, which would date the unit to 69 CE. But decisive evidence against this is the sesterius from 71 CE which depicts exactly the image of the woman (the goddess Dea Roma, lampooned as a prostitute by John of Patmos) sitting on the seven hills of Rome (17:9). The chapter also evidences a clear notion of Nero redivivus with the last emperor being one of the five earlier emperors, as he presently “is not” (οὐκ ἔστιν), i.e. has already died (ὃ ἦν). The first pretenders arose in 69 CE but the third pretender in 88 CE in Parthia nearly resulted in war (Tacitus, Historiae 1.2, Suetonius, Nero 57). In the analysis of David Aune, an original collection of twelve independent units of visions and auditions were later inserted into a heptadic structure (three of the twelve units were placed between the seven trumpets and the seven bowls, while another three were placed inside the seven seals structure in between the sixth and seventh seal). The heptadic material may date to the 80s CE in light of a possible allusion to the Vesuvius eruption (8:8-9) and a more developed Nero redivivus expectation that may draw on the pretender from 88 CE (so the Beast brings forth the kings of the East over the Euphrates from Parthia). The book was finalized in the 90s with the addition of the epistolary frame and other redactional touches throughout (as discussed by Aune which attempt to unify the heterogeneous material). I think it is reasonable to consider Revelation as John’s life’s work compiling together his many visions and auditions he experienced over several decades. It is in the epistolary material where one finds likely allusions to Domitian’s enforcement of the fiscus Judaicus (which occurred between 88 and 96 CE), resulting in the banishment of Jewish Christians like John and execution of Gentile Christians (resulting in some Christians leaving the Christian community). John also makes Jesus promise them “I will not blot out your name from the book of life (οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς)” (v. 5), a statement that undoes the curse in the Birkat ha-Minim “Let them be blotted out of the book of life and not be written together with the righteous”. So I think Revelation is an early witness to the addition of the 18th benediction to the ‘Amidah.
According to the Marius Heemstra (The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways; Mohr Siebeck, 2010), the birkat ha-Minim arose in this period in part as a response to Domitian’s tax policy during which Christians were excluded from synagogues in many places (cf. the neologism ἀποσυνάγωγος in the gospel of John, also dating to the 90s CE, as a term for synagogue expulsion, cf. 9:22, 12:42, 16:2). This date fits well with the claim in Irenaeus, Hegesippus, and Eusebius that John was released from imprisonment at Patmos in the reign of Nerva (96-98 CE).
That’s the dating done, and I want to add in another thing that has nothing to do with dating.
Norman Perrin makes the following comments (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 81-2):
That John of Patmos can be identified as a prophet is more important to understanding his work than identifying him with some other individual named John in the New Testament. Traditionally it has been claimed that he is the John, son of Zebedee, known to us from the gospel stories, but this is most unlikely. It has also been claimed that he is the “John” of the fourth gospel, but the difference in language and style alone makes this identification quite impossible. However, that he is able to identify himself, and as a prophet (in sharp contrast to the pseudonymity and practice of apocalyptic writers in general), speaks volumes for the vitality, power, and self-confidence of New Testament Christianity.

Another most unusual aspect of the book of Revelation is its letters to seven churches in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (see chapters 2 and 3). This is unparalleled in apocalyptic writing and has to be due ultimately to the impact that Paul’s letter writing made on the New Testament church. Paul’s letters had become so important that the literary form was imitated even by an apocalyptic writer. The book of Revelation as a whole has the external form of a letter in that it begins with an opening salutation (1:4-6) and closes with a benediction (22:21). The contrast in literary form between the direct address of the letters and the symbolic drama of the remainder of the book is startling, but no more so than the fact that an apocalyptic writer identifies himself and calls his work a prophecy.
The fact that we have here the outward form of a Pauline letter helps us to grasp the essential thrust of the work. It begins with a salutation in the Pauline style: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” (Rev 1:5b-6; compare Gal 1:3-5). But then it continues: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amon” (1:7). This is a classic statement of early Christian hope for the return of Jesus as apocalyptic judge and redeemer. Similarly, the closing benediction, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen” (22:21), is in the Pauline style, but it is preceded by a prayer for the coming of the Lord, “Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20). However, this is the early Palestinian Christian Eucharist prayer Maranatha, which Paul himself used at the end of a letter: “Our Lord, come! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen” (1 Cor 16:22-24). It is a reminder that for all its surface strangeness, the book of Revelation is not to be separated from the rest of the New Testament. The hope it represents is a fundamental feature of a major part of the New Testament.

Errors in Greek

David Aune takes about 50 pages in his commentary (WBC, Vol. 1) to delineate the many unusual syntactic features in the book of Revelation. He remarks:
“The Greek of Revelation is the most peculiar Greek in the NT, in part because it exhibits interference from Semitic languages, perhaps both Hebrew and Aramaic. The peculiarity of the language of Revelation encouraged many copyists to make ‘improvements’ in the text, with the result that the problem of reconstructing the original text has been made very difficult. In some instances it appears that only a single MS (Alexandrinus or Sinaiticus) has preserved the original reading (e.g., Rev 13:10)….The Greek of Revelation is not only difficult and awkward, but it also contains many lexical and syntactical features that no native speaker of Greek would have written. Dionysius of Alexandria (died ca. AD 264) observes of the author of Revelation (Eusebius Hist eccl. 7.26) “… that his use of the Greek language is inaccurate, and he employs barbarous idioms [ἰδιώμασίν τε βαρβαρικοῖς], producing solecisms [σολοικίζοντα]” (pp. clxii, cxcix).
It is a bit too prescriptive to just call these language errors; Koine Greek itself arose through dialect leveling when it became a lingua franca in the Hellenistic world. The LXX is translation Greek filled with Hebraisms and Aquila’s version is even more reflective of Hebrew syntax (with σὺν calquing the direct object marker אֶת). The author of Revelation obviously spoke Aramaic or Hebrew as a mother tongue but wrote in a kind of learner Greek that no native speaker of Greek (such as Paul or the author of Luke-Acts) would probably produce. This is pertinent to the question of authorship on stylistic grounds; Dionysius of Alexandria was the first to argue on the basis of language that Revelation and the gospel and epistles of John could not have had the same author. Those who find common ideas and themes between the gospel and Revelation thus often talk in terms of both arising from a common circle (such as the Johannine community).
Erasmus couldn’t find a manuscript with the Greek ending of revelation. The manuscript he used was given by a friend and the last page was missing. Erasmus could not stop the project and try to find a better manuscript so in the end of revelation he simply used the vulgata and translated it back to greek so he wouldn’t have to delay the printing. Here is the explanation made by Bart Ehrman in misquoting Jesus:
It appears that Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfthcentury manuscript for the Gospels and another, also of the twelfth century, for the book of Acts and the Epistles—although he was able to consult several other manuscripts and make corrections based on their readings. For the book of Revelation he had to borrow a manuscript from his friend the German humanist Johannes Reuchlin; unfortunately, this manuscript was almost impossible to read in places, and it had lost its last page, which contained the final six verses of the book. In his haste to have the job done, in those places Erasmus simply took the Latin Vulgate and translated its text back into Greek, thereby creating some textual readings found today in no surviving Greek manuscript.
There’s been a lot of studies on Revelation’s Greek. Eusebius records Dionysius of Alexandria saying that it is ‘not accurate’, ’employs barbarous idioms’, and commits ‘downright solecisims’. Explanations have included John simply knowing Greek poorly; Semitic interference or influence; unusual but acceptable Hellenistic Greek (Moulton and Howard); Callahan has gone so far as to see the grammar itself as a form of counter-imperialist protest.

Beale notes, and helpfully I think, that a lot of the problems occur exactly where John is citing or alluding to the OT, and retains grammatical features from the OT context without making the appropriate adjustments for his usage. This could be deliberate. This would build on the views of Ruiz and Stuart, who argue that the solecisms are intentional and designed for either (a) causing the reader to stop and reflect (Ruiz), or (b) for rhetorical effect (Stuart).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply