Book of Revelation

== Composition and setting ==
[[File:Johannes op Patmos Saint John on Patmos Berlin, Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie HR.jpg|thumb|''[[St. John the Evangelist on Patmos]]'' by [[Hieronymous Bosch]], {{circa|1489}}]]

=== Title, authorship, and date ===
[[File:ApocalypseStSeverFol026vJohnRecievesRev.jpg|thumb|St. John receives his Revelation, [[Saint-Sever Beatus]], 11th century]]
{{Main|Authorship of the Johannine works|John of Patmos}}
The name ''Revelation'' comes from the [[Incipit|first word]] of the book in [[Koine Greek]]: {{lang|grc|ἀποκάλυψις}} ({{transliteration|grc|apokalypsis}}), which means 'unveiling' or 'revelation'. The author names himself as "John" ({{Lang-grc|Ἰωάννης|Iōannēs}}), but modern scholars consider it unlikely that the author of Revelation also wrote the [[Gospel of John]].{{sfn|Collins|1984|pp=28–29}}{{efn|The Gospel of John itself is considered to be an anonymous work, with the appellation of the name 'John' to its author and the identification of this 'John' as [[John the Apostle]] only attributable to church tradition, beginning with [[Irenaeus]] ({{circa|130|202}} AD). Most scholars have abandoned this hypothesis or hold it only tenuously{{sfn|Lindars|Edwards|Court|2000|p=41}} – there are multiple reasons for this conclusion, including, for example, the fact that the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.{{sfn|Kelly|2012|p=115}} See [[Gospel of John#Authorship]] for further details.}} He was a [[Jewish Christian]] prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter.{{sfn|Stuckenbruck|2003|pp= 1535–1536}}{{sfn|Bauckham|1993|p=2, 24–25}}

The book is commonly dated to about AD 95, as suggested by clues in the visions pointing to the reign of the [[Roman emperor|emperor]] [[Domitian]].{{sfn|Perkins|2012|p=19ff}} The beast with seven heads and the number [[Number of the beast|666]] seem to allude directly to the emperor [[Nero]] (reigned AD 54–68), but this does not require that Revelation was written in the 60s, as there was a widespread belief in later decades that [[Nero Redivivus|Nero would return]].{{sfn|Collins|1984|p=100}}{{sfn|Stuckenbruck|2003|pp =1535–1536}}

=== Genre ===
Revelation is an [[apocalypse|apocalyptic]] prophecy with an epistolary introduction addressed to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia, in what is now western Turkey. The seven cities where churches were located are close together, and the Island of Patmos is near the western coast of Turkey.{{sfn|Bauckham|1993|p=2}} The term ''apocalypse'' means the revealing of divine mysteries;{{sfn|McKim|2014|p=16}} John is to write down what is revealed (what he sees in his vision) and send it to the seven churches.{{sfn|Bauckham|1993|p=2}} The entire book constitutes the prophecy—the letters to the seven individual churches are introductions to the rest of the book, which is addressed to all seven.{{sfn|Bauckham|1993|p=2}} While the dominant genre is apocalyptic, the author sees himself as a Christian prophet: Revelation uses the word in various forms 21 times, more than any other [[New Testament]] book.{{sfn|Couch|2001|p=81}}

=== Sources ===
The predominant view is that Revelation alludes to the [[Old Testament]], although it is difficult among scholars to agree on the exact number of allusions or the allusions themselves.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Fekkes|first1=Jan|title=Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development (The Library of New Testament Studies)|date=1994|publisher=Bloomsbury T&T Clark|isbn=978-1-85075-456-5|pages=61–63}}</ref> Revelation rarely quotes directly from the Old Testament, yet almost every verse alludes to or echoes ideas of older scriptures. Over half of the references stem from [[Book of Daniel|Daniel]], [[Book of Ezekiel|Ezekiel]], [[Book of Psalms|Psalms]], and [[Book of Isaiah|Isaiah]], with Daniel providing the largest number in proportion to length and Ezekiel standing out as the most influential. Because these references appear as allusions rather than as quotes, it is difficult to know whether the author used the Hebrew or the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures, but he was often influenced by the Greek.{{sfn|Beale|McDonough|2007|pp=1081–1084}}

=== Setting ===
Conventional understanding has been that the Book of Revelation was written to comfort beleaguered Christians as they underwent persecution at the hands of an emperor. This is, however, not the only interpretation; Domitian may not have been a despot imposing an imperial cult, and there may not have been any systematic empire-wide persecution of Christians in his time.{{sfn|Stephens|2011|pp=143–145}} Revelation may instead have been composed in the context of a conflict within the Christian community of Asia Minor over whether to engage with, or withdraw from, the far larger non-Christian community: Author Mark B. Stephens posed that the Revelation chastised those Christians who wanted to reach an accommodation with the Roman cult of empire.{{sfn|Stephens|2011|p=152}} This is not to say that Christians in Roman Asia were not suffering for withdrawal from, and defiance against, the wider Roman society, which imposed very real penalties; Revelation offered a victory over this reality by offering an apocalyptic hope. In the words of professor [[Adela Yarbro Collins|Adela Collins]], "What ought to be was experienced as a present reality."{{sfn|Collins|1984|p=154}} There is also theological interpretation that the book mainly prophesies the end of Old Covenant order, the Jewish temple and religious economy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Chilton |first=David |title=The Days of Vengeance |publisher=Dominion Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-930462-09-3 |location=Tyler, Texas |pages=55 |language=English}}</ref>

=== Canonical history ===
{{further|Development of the New Testament canon}}
Revelation was among the last books accepted into the [[Christian biblical canons|Christian biblical canon]], and to the present day some churches that derive from the [[Church of the East]] reject it.{{sfn|Wall|2011|p=no page number}}<ref>{{cite book |last1=Taylor |first1=David G. K. |chapter=Christian regional diversity |editor1-last=Esler |editor1-first=Philip F. |editor1-link=Philip Esler |title=The Early Christian World |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6fyCAgAAQBAJ |series=Routledge Worlds |publisher=Routledge |publication-date=2002 |page=338 |isbn=978-1-134-54919-1 |access-date=28 December 2015 |quote=[...] the minor Catholic epistles and Revelation continued to be omitted, and are still not included in the canon of the church of the East which was geographically (and from the late-fifth century doctrinally) isolated in the Persian empire.|date=11 September 2002}}</ref> Eastern Christians became skeptical of the book as doubts concerning its authorship and unusual style{{sfn|Pattemore|2004|p=1}} were reinforced by aversion to its acceptance by [[Montanism|Montanists]] and other groups considered to be heretical.{{sfn|Stonehouse|n.d.|pp=138–142}} This distrust of the Book of Revelation persisted in the East through the 15th century.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=AmMEhsEYHUsC&pg=PA3 Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou (editor) ''Commentary on the Apocalypse''] by Andrew of Caesarea (CUA Press 2011 {{ISBN|978-0-8132-0123-8}}), pp. 3–6</ref>

[[Pope Dionysius of Alexandria|Dionysius]] (AD 248), bishop of Alexandria and disciple of [[Origen]], wrote that the Book of Revelation could have been written by [[Cerinthus]] although he himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle ''(Eusebius, Church History VII.25)''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Caesarea|first1=Eusebius|title=Church History, Book VII Chapter 25|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm|access-date=17 October 2016}}</ref>

[[Eusebius]], in his [[Church History (Eusebius)|Church History]] ({{c.|AD 330}}), mentioned that the Apocalypse of John was accepted as a canonical book and rejected at the same time:

{{blockquote|{{plainlist|
*1. [...] it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings [Homologoumena].
*4. Among the rejected [Kirsopp. Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Caesarea|first1=Eusebius|title=Church History, Book III Chapter 25|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm|access-date=17 October 2016}}</ref>}}}}

The Apocalypse of John is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp. Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. The disputation can perhaps be attributed to Origen.<ref>{{Citation | first = ER | last = Kalin | title = Re-examining New Testament Canon History: 1. The Canon of Origen | journal = [[Currents in Theology and Mission]] | volume = 17 | year = 1990 | pages = 274–82}}</ref> Origen seems to have accepted it in his writings.<ref>{{cite book|author=Origen|title=Church Fathers: Commentary on John, Book V: 3 (Origen)|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101505.htm|access-date=15 October 2017}}</ref>

[[Cyril of Jerusalem]] (AD 348) does not name it among the canonical books (Catechesis IV.33–36).<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Jerusalem|first1=Cyril|title=Catechetical Lecture 4 Chapter 35|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm|access-date=12 October 2016}}</ref>

[[Athanasius of Alexandria|Athanasius]] (AD 367) in his ''Letter 39'',<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Alexandria|first1=Athanasius|title=Church Fathers: Letter 39 (Athanasius)|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm|access-date=14 October 2016}}</ref> [[Augustine of Hippo]] ({{c.|AD 397}}) in his book ''[[De doctrina christiana|On Christian Doctrine]]'' (Book II, Chapter 8),<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Hippo|first1=Augustine|title=On Christian Doctrine Book II Chapter 8:2|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm|access-date=12 October 2016}}</ref> [[Tyrannius Rufinus]] ({{c.|AD 400}}) in his ''Commentary on the Apostles' Creed'',<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Aquileia|first1=Rufinus|title=Commentary on the Apostles' Creed #37|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm|access-date=12 October 2016}}</ref> [[Pope Innocent I]] (AD 405) in a letter to the bishop of Toulouse<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/innocent.html|title=Letter of Innocent I on the Canon of Scripture|website=www.bible-researcher.com}}</ref> and [[John of Damascus]] (about AD 730) in his work ''An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith'' (Book IV:7)<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Damascus|first1=John|title=An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV Chapter 17|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm|access-date=17 October 2016}}</ref> listed "the Revelation of [[John the Evangelist]]" as a canonical book.

=== Synods ===
The [[Council of Laodicea]] (AD 363) omits it as a canonical book.<ref>{{cite book|last1=of Laodicea|first1=Synod|title=Synod of Laodicea Canon 60|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm|access-date=12 October 2016}}</ref>

The {{lang|la|[[Decretum Gelasianum]]}}, which is a work written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553, contains a list of books of scripture presented as having been reckoned as canonical by the [[Council of Rome]] (AD 382). This list mentions it as a part of the New Testament canon.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm|title=Tertullian : Decretum Gelasianum (English translation)|first=Roger|last=Pearse|website=www.tertullian.org}}</ref>

The [[Synod of Hippo]] (in AD 393),<ref>{{citation |chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html |chapter=Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.) |publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library |title=The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers who assembled at Carthage}}</ref> followed by the [[Council of Carthage (397)]], the [[Council of Carthage (419)]], [[the Council of Florence]] (1442)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM|title=Eccumenical Council of Florence and Council of Basel|website=ewtn.com}}</ref> and the [[Council of Trent]] (1546)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.htm|title=Paul III Council of Trent-4|website=ewtn.com}}</ref> classified it as a canonical book.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm|title=Church Fathers: Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)|website=New Advent }}</ref>

The [[Canons of the Apostles|Apostolic Canons]], approved by the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox]] [[Quinisext Council|Council in Trullo]] in 692, but rejected by [[Pope Sergius I]], omit it.<ref>{{cite book|last1=in Trullo|first1=Council|title=The Apostolic Canons. Canon 85|publisher=newadvent|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm|access-date=12 October 2016}}</ref>

=== Protestant Reformation ===
Doubts resurfaced during the 16th-century [[Protestant]] [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] called Revelation "neither apostolic nor prophetic" in the 1522 preface to his translation of the New Testament (he revised his position with a much more favorable assessment in 1530),{{sfn|Lohse|1988|pp=322; 337–338}} [[Huldrych Zwingli]] labelled it "not a book of the Bible",<ref>
{{cite book |last1=Glasson |first1=T.F. |chapter=How was the Book received by the Church? |editor1-last=Glasson |editor1-first=T.F. |title=The Revelation of John |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rh07AAAAIAAJ |series=Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=1965 |page=6 |access-date=29 June 2019 |quote=Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer, said, '[The Book of Revelation] is not a book of the Bible'.}}</ref> and it was the only New Testament book on which [[John Calvin]] did not write a commentary.{{sfn|Hoekema|1979|p= 297}} {{As of|2015|post=,}} Revelation remains the only New Testament book not read in the [[Divine Liturgy]] of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Boring |first1=M. Eugene |year=1989 |title=Revelation |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BDQOcCrYFuEC |series=Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching |location=Louisville, Kentucky |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |publication-date=2011 |page=3 |isbn=978-0-664-23628-1 |access-date=2019-06-29 |quote=To this day, Catholic and Protestant lectionaries have only minimal readings from Revelation, and the Greek Orthodox lectionary omits it altogether.}}</ref> though Catholic and Protestant liturgies include it.

=== Texts and manuscripts ===
There are fewer manuscripts of Revelation than of any other part of the New Testament.{{sfn|Parker|2008|p=227}} As of 2020, in total, there are 310 manuscripts of Revelation. This number includes 7 papyri, 12 majuscules, and 291 minuscules. But, in fact, not all of them are available for research. Some of them have burned down, vanished, or been categorized wrongly.{{sfn|Koester|2020|p=344}}{{sfn|Allen|2020|p=12}} While it is not extant in the {{lang|la|[[Codex Vaticanus]]}} (4th century), it is extant in the other great [[List of New Testament uncials|uncial]] codices: the {{lang|la|[[Codex Sinaiticus]]}} (4th century), the {{lang|la|[[Codex Alexandrinus]]}} (5th century), and the {{lang|la|[[Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus]]}} (5th century). In addition, there are numerous [[List of New Testament papyri|papyri]], especially {{Papyrus link|47}} and {{Papyrus link|115}} (both 3rd century); [[Lists of New Testament minuscules|minuscules]] (8th to 10th century); and fragmentary quotations in the Church fathers of the 2nd to 5th centuries and the 6th-century Greek commentary on Revelation by Andreas.{{sfn|Pate|2010|p=no page number}}