Book of Revelation

=== 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.