Revelation

Anchor Bible Dictionary Article

Adela Yarbro Collins

REVELATION, BOOK OF. The last book in the NT canon, also known as the Apocalypse of John. The book of Revelation professes to be a record of the prophetic visions given by Jesus to John, who was in exile on the island of Patmos.

———

A.     Title

B.     Place in the Canon

C.     Summary of Contents

D.     Plan of the Book

1.     The Recapitulation Theory

2.     The Source-Critical Theory

3.     Literary Unity and a Linear Design

4.     The Revival of the Recapitulation Theory

5.     Structural and Thematic Theories

6.     A Text-linguistic Approach

7.     Outline

E.     Text

F.     Authorship

1.     Date

2.     Place

3.     Identity of the Author

G.     Literary Character

H.     Relation to Other Ancient Literature

I.     Theological Perspective and Social Setting

J.     History and Methods of Interpretation

———

A. Title

The oldest textual witness to the opening of the book of Revelation (Codex Sinaiticus) gives “Revelation of John” (apokalypsis iōannou) as its title. This title is also found in Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), the best witness, along with Codex Ephraemi (also 5th century), to the text of this work. Other mss contain the titles, “Revelation of John, the one who speaks about God” (apokalypsis iōannou tou theologou); “Revelation of Saint John, the one who speaks about God” (apokalypsis tou hagiou iōannou tou theologou); “Revelation of John, the one who speaks about God, [the] evangelist” (apokalypsis iōannou tou theologou kai euaggelistou); and “The Revelation of the Apostle John, the Evangelist (hē apokalypsis tou apostolou iōannou kai euaggelistou). The work may have already been known by the title “Revelation of John” (apokalypsis iōannou) in the 2d century. The Muratorian Canon (ca. 200 c.e.) states, “We receive also the apocalyptic works, only [those] of John and Peter” (scripta apocalypse[s] etiam johanis et petri tantum recipimus; text cited by Charles Revelation ICC, 1:5). In the 2d century, however, the work may simply have been known as “Revelation” (apokalypsis; Swete 1909: 1).

It is likely that the work at first had no separate title and that the opening words aroused the appropriate expectations in the audience by designating the nature of its content: “A revelation of Jesus Christ” (apokalypsis Iēsou Christou). The meaning is “a revelation given by Jesus Christ,” as the following words show (“that God gave to him [Jesus Christ] to show to his servants”). This is the first time that the Greek word “revelation” (apokalypsis) was used to describe a written work or even an explicitly visionary experience (Smith 1983: 14, 18). When the book was copied onto scrolls, a brief title was added at the end of the work, probably “Revelation of John” (apokalypsis Iōannou). When the work began to be copied on booklike codices with pages, this title was placed at the beginning (Aune 1987a: 226). In the course of transmission, the older, brief title was expanded in various ways.

B. Place in the Canon

The book of Revelation eventually came to be the last book in the NT. It was in use in Asia and in the West in the 2d century (Swete 1909: cviii). According to Andreas, the archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (who wrote a commentary on Revelation, either around 515 or 620 c.e.; Bousset Die Offenbarung Johannis MeyerK, 63, 65), Papias knew and commented on the book of Revelation (Swete 1909: cviii). Papias flourished in the first half of the 2d century. Irenaeus knew and used the work as a sacred text (haer. 5.30). Justin used the book to support the belief in the resurrection and the thousand years in a restored Jerusalem, citing it along with Isaiah and a gospel saying (dial. 81). The Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne cites Rev 22:11 as Scripture (1.58). Although the events described occurred in 177, this portion of the work may have been added ca. 250 c.e. (Musurillo 1972: xxii and 80.12–14).

The first major figure to challenge the authoritative status of the book of Revelation was Marcion, presumably because of its strong ties to the Jewish Scriptures. Another challenge came from an extreme anti-Montanist group (the “Alogi”), apparently because it, along with the gospel of John, was a favorite text of the Montanists. Taking an anti-Montanist stand, Gaius of Rome (early 3d century), insinuated that the book was written by a certain Cerinthus, not by John the Apostle. This controversy did not seriously affect the acceptance and popularity of Revelation.

In the second half of the 3d century, however, the canonical status of the book was substantially threatened in the course of a conflict over the manner of fulfillment of the promises of the Scriptures. One group, reacting to the allegorical interpretation of Origen and his successors, insisted that the promises would be fulfilled in an earthly reign of Christ. This position was opposed by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria and follower of Origen. He did not directly challenge the inspiration of the book or its claim to have been written by someone named John, but argued that the gospel attributed to John the apostle and the book of Revelation could not have been written by the same person (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 7.24–25).

The result of Dionysius’ work was that the canonical authority of Revelation was greatly weakened in the East. Eusebius did not argue in favor of the book’s status as a genuine part of the NT. He simply reported that it was considered genuine by some and spurious by others. Cyril of Jerusalem (also 4th century) omitted Revelation from his list of books in the NT (catech. 4.36; cf. 15.13). The Council of Laodicea in Phrygia, held in the mid-4th century, also omitted Revelation from its list of the books of the NT (canon 60; the authenticity of this canon is disputed). Athanasius included Revelation in his list of the books of the NT (ep. fest. 39), and Gregory of Nazianzus cited it (or. 42.9). Gregory’s cousin, Amphilochius of Iconium (ca. 380 c.e.), however, noted that, although some accept the Revelation of John, most call it spurious. The Apostolic Canons, composed in the East in Greek in the 4th century, also omit Revelation from the canon of the NT (canon 85). John Chrysostom, of Antioch and Constantinople (fl. 380), does not cite Revelation. Theodore and Theodoret, also of Antioch, do not cite it.

Athanasius’ inclusion of Revelation in his list of books of the NT reestablished it as part of the canon recognized in Egypt (Cyril of Alexandria, for example, accepted it). In Asia Minor it was accepted not only by Gregory of Nazianzus but also by his fellow Cappadocians and contemporaries, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa (so Bousset ibid., 30; but see Swete 1909: cxvi, and Kümmel 1975: 498–99). Epiphanius of Salamis on Cyprus, also of the 4th century, accepted Revelation as canonical.

The book of Revelation was definitively rejected by the Eastern Syrian Church. It was not included in the early Syriac translation of the NT, the Peshitta (Swete 1909: cxvi; Bousset, 26). Ephraem (4th century), Junilius (6th century), and the Nestorians all ignore the book. The Western Syrian Monophysites, however, authorized a new Syriac translation of the NT. It was authorized in 508 by Philoxenus and thus has been known as the Philoxenian version. It was revised in 616 by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea). The Philoxenian version apparently survives only in the revised form and is now called the Harklean version. This version included Revelation. John of Damascus (fl. early 8th century), who wrote in Greek and admired the Cappadocian fathers, accepted Revelation as Scripture (Bousset, 30). The Peshitta is preserved and revered by the modern Syriac Church in a form lacking the book of Revelation. This version is used by both the Monophysites and the Nestorians (Aland and Aland 1987: 190–93). The older Armenian version, dependent on the Peshitta, lacked Revelation (Bousset, 30). The later Armenian version, dependent on Greek mss, includes Revelation (Aland and Aland 1987: 201).

In spite of the criticisms of Gaius and Dionysius, the support for Revelation in the West never flagged. The oldest complete commentary on Revelation was written in Latin by Victorinus of Pettau (d. ca. 304). Eventually the work was accepted as canonical in the East, but it was a slow process. The Trullan Synod (or Quinisextine [Fifth-Sixth] Council) held by Eastern bishops in 692 affirmed the Laodicean canon that omits Revelation, but they also drew up a list including it (Swete 1909: cxviii; Kümmel 1975: 499). The Byzantine list of canonical scriptures called the Stichometry of Nicephorus (ca. 810 c.e.) omits Revelation. The oldest surviving commentary in Greek was written either by Oecumenius or Andreas (see above). The archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Arethas, wrote the third surviving Greek commentary ca. 900 c.e. These commentaries apparently won greater recognition for Revelation in the East. In the 10th and 11th centuries Revelation began to be included once again in Greek mss of the NT (Kümmel 1975: 499).

C. Summary of Contents

Revelation opens with a prologue in the third person (1:1–3). It refers to the book as a revelation (apokalypsis) that was given through God’s angel (or messenger; angelos) to his servant (doulos) John (v 1). The (content of the) book is also called “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (v 2). It is also called “words of prophecy” (tous logous tēs prophēteias), and a blessing is pronounced on the one who reads it (aloud in a communal setting) and on those who keep the things written in it (v 3). The prologue ends with the pronouncement, “for the time is near” (ho gar kairos engus).

The rest of the book (1:4–22:21) has the framework of an ancient letter. This part of the work is in the first person, except for occasional speeches, that seem to be reports of auditions but are unattributed (e.g., 22:12–13). Following the prologue is an epistolary prescript (1:4–7), consisting of a salutation, greeting, and doxology. The salutation is from “John” to “the seven congregations (ekklēsiais) that are in Asia” (v 4a). The greeting is a wish for grace and peace upon the addressees from God and Christ (vv 4b–5a). The doxology is addressed to Christ (vv 5b–6). Corresponding to the prescript is an epistolary concluding blessing (22:21). It requests that the grace of Christ be with all the addressees. Attached to the epistolary prescript are two prophetic sayings (1:7 and 8).

The body of this unusual letter (1:9–22:5) consists of the report of a single, but highly segmented, visionary experience. Following this account is a kind of epilogue (22:6–20). The epilogue corresponds formally to the two prophetic sayings placed after the prescript and before the report proper. In part it continues the report (“And he said to me,” 22:6). In part it reprises the prologue. The reference to the sending of God’s angel or messenger angelos) to show his servants what must happen soon (22:6) recalls the similar statement in 1:1. The blessing on the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book (22:7) recalls 1:3. The narrator’s allusion to himself as “John” in 22:8 recalls the prescript (1:4) and the opening of the report (1:9). What he goes on to say in 22:8–9 recalls an incident in the report (19:10). There are other connections between 22:6–9 and 19:9–10. The rest of the epilogue contains various prophetic sayings with links to other parts of the work.

The report of the visionary experience is segmented into two formally different parts. The first is an epiphany of the risen Christ in the form of one like a son of man (1:9–3:22). This visionary experience takes place on earth. The manlike figure commands John to record his visionary experience in a book and to send it to the seven congregations. The focus of this first formally distinct part is a series of prophetic messages to the seven congregations that Christ dictates to John (2:1–3:22). The second main part (4:1–22:5) begins like a heavenly journey or ascent (4:1–2). But this formal introduction is not carried through with remarks about John’s journeying from place to place in the heavenly world. Such remarks are typical of the widespread literary form of the heavenly journey. At times John seems to be in heaven. For example, he speaks with one of the twenty-four elders (5:5; 7:13–17). At other times, his vantage point seems to be on earth. For example, the mighty angel of chap. 10 seems to come down to John from heaven. John takes the little scroll from the angel while the angel has one foot on the land and one on the sea. The seer’s position and vantage point also seem to be earthly in chap. 12. The implication is the same in 18:1, 19:11, and 20:1. The opening of chap. 4 seems deliberately to evoke the tradition of heavenly ascents, but the author did not seem concerned to make such a journey a structuring principle of the work.

The visionary experience recorded in 4:1–22:5 is itself highly segmented. The plan of this portion of the work will be discussed in the next section. It contains a vision of the heavenly court (chaps. 4–5) that introduces several series of symbolic visions.

D. Plan of the Book

A fundamental issue in discerning the plan of the book of Revelation is how to explain the numerous parallel passages and repetitions within it. The book itself suggests that the number seven is an ordering principle by presenting seven messages, seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls. The parallels between the trumpets and bowls are especially close and seem repetitious. Some commentators have explained the repetition as the result of the use of sources. Others have seen the repetition as part of the author’s literary design. The literary design has been seen as describing a linear sequence of events within history, including the past, present, and future. Another theory is that the same historical and eschatological events are described several times from different points of view.

1. The Recapitulation Theory. The theory that the book of Revelation describes the same events several times from different points of view is an old and venerable interpretive strategy. This position was taken by Victorinus of Pettau, the author of the oldest surviving commentary (d. ca. 304). He stated that both the trumpets and the bowls predict the eschatological punishment of unbelievers (Haussleiter 1916: 84, line 14–86, line 7). This approach was adopted by Tyconius in his lost, but heavily cited, commentary and by Augustine. It dominated the interpretation of the book for centuries.

2. The Source-Critical Theory. The recapitulation theory endured as the primary solution to the problem of the structure of the work until the fruitfulness of source-critical studies of the Pentateuch and Synoptic Gospels led some critics to apply the method to Revelation. The first such analysis was Daniel Völter’s study that appeared in 1882 (Bousset, 128–30). The extreme form of this approach is the theory that the author of Revelation was primarily an editor who simply compiled and superficially edited a number of written sources. Friedrich Spitta’s study is an example of this extreme source-critical analysis (Bousset, 135–36). He argued that the seals, trumpets, and bowls each reflect a source based on a sevenfold series.

In the 20th century, the source-critical approach has been adopted by M. E. Boismard, J. M. Ford, and U. B. Müller. Boismard used the repetitions in the work to distinguish two sources, one written under Nero and the other somewhat later (Boismard 1949). Müller used differences in messianic ideas to distinguish sources in Revelation from the minimal editorial work of the author. He found Jewish sources in chaps. 12, 14, 19, and 20, that depicted a national Messiah or Son of Man who would judge or do battle against the powers of the world. To the editor he ascribed the passages expressing a messianism focusing on the redemptive Lamb (Müller 1972). Ford hypothesized that chaps. 4–11 constitute a source consisting of the prophecies of John the Baptist and chaps. 12–22 represent another, later source originating from the disciples of the Baptist. Chaps. 1–3 and several verses in chap. 22 were added by a Jewish Christian. The phrases that mention Jesus throughout the work are taken as interpolations (Ford Revelation AB).

3. Literary Unity and a Linear Design. The source-critical studies of the 19th century definitively established that the author of Revelation did use sources. But the discernible sources are few and of limited scope. The theories that argued for extensive sources and reconstructed them were heavily criticized because of the overall unity of style in the book (Bousset, 126; Charles Revelation ICC, 1: lxxxviii–lxxxix). Most exegetes following Bousset have taken the position that the repetitions and parallel passages in Revelation are due to the literary design of the author. The recapitulation theory was not revived immediately, however, because it had been used in the attempt to demonstrate that the book prophesied history from the time of its composition to the time of the interpreter (see below). R. H. Charles argued that the literary design of Revelation describes a linear sequence of events (Charles, 1: xxii–xxiii). In this sequence, most of the events are in strict chronological order. There are significant exceptions, however. Chap. 12 does not continue the prophecies of the future associated with the seven trumpets but reverts to the past in order to prepare for the events related in chap. 13. Three “proleptic” visions interrupt the orderly unfolding of events to encourage the audience by reference to the more distant future (7:9–17; 10:1–11:13; chap. 14). The adequacy of this theory was called into question, not only by the need to posit these significant exceptions, but also by the related thesis that the text had been disordered by the activity of an editor after the work left the hand of the author (Charles, 1: xxii–xxiii; l–lv; lix).

4. The Revival of the Recapitulation Theory. As Bousset had already indicated, interpretation of the book of Revelation cannot do entirely without the recapitulation theory (121). The failure of the attempt to interpret the literary design of the work as a linear sequence of events led to the scholarly attempt to retrieve the recapitulation theory for historical-critical interpretation. The first such attempt was that of Günther Bornkamm. His starting point was to ask what portion of the book reveals the contents of the scroll with the seven seals that is introduced in chap. 5. He argued that chaps. 6:1–8:1 could not be an account of the revelation of its contents, since the scroll could not be read until the seventh seal was opened (8:1). He also rejected the theory that chaps. 6:1–11:19 reveal the contents of the scroll. His reasoning was that the unfolding of events connected with the seven trumpets does not exhaust the revelation of the scroll, because of the close parallel structure between 8:2–14:20 and 15:1–19:21. According to his interpretation, the former passage describes the same series of events as the latter, but in a mysterious, fragmentary, and proleptic manner. Because of the relationship between these two passages, he concluded that the revelation of the scroll with seven seals continues from 8:2 to 22:6 (Bornkamm 1937). For a retrieval of the recapitulation theory that leads to a different understanding of the plan of Revelation, see Yarbro Collins 1976: 32–44.

5. Structural and Thematic Theories. E. Schüssler Fiorenza discerned a pattern of inclusion or symmetry in the book of Revelation. The first (A 1:1–8) and the last (A´ 22:10–21) units are related to one another as promise and fulfillment. The second (B 1:9–3:22) and sixth (B´ 19:11–22:9) units correspond because they each have an “inaugural” vision of Christ (1:12–20 and 19:11–16). The third (C 4:1–9:21; 11:15–19) and the fifth (C´ 15:1, 5–19:10) units are related to each other because both evolve out of the scroll with seven seals. The fourth unit (D 10:1–15:4) is the center and climax of the book (Schüssler Fiorenza 1985: 170–75).

C. H. Giblin, building on the work of U. Vanni, argued that the thematic correlations of divine judgment and divine testimony in chaps. 16–22 are articulated in a literary structure of correlated narratives and correlated disclosures (Giblin 1974). The correlated narratives are the seventh bowl (16:17–21) and the elimination of all eschatological adversaries (19:11–21:8). The first describes the negative aspect of divine judgment, i.e., wrath against Babylon. The second is the fulfilled aspect of divine judgment that entails a new creation. The correlated angelic disclosures are the explanation of Babylon (17:1–19:10) and the discourse on the New Jerusalem (21:9–22:6, perhaps extending even further toward the end of the book).

6. A Text-linguistic Approach. David Hellholm has applied methods of text linguistics current in Germany to the structure of the book of Revelation (1986). The analysis has two complementary aspects. The first is the determination of the hierarchy of levels of communication. These levels are of two types, those external to the text and those internal to the text. The external type is between the author and the audience or between a character within the text and the audience. The internal type is between characters in the text. The other aspect is the division of the text into hierarchical text sequences. A shift from one text sequence to another is marked by a change in “world,” by indications of or changes in time, by indications of or changes in place, changes in the grouping of characters, reintroduction of a character, or by the use of adverbs or conjunctions.

In the book of Revelation, Hellholm discerned six levels of communication. The lowest level is that between the author and the general Christian audience (Rev 1:1–3 and 22:18–19). The second level is between the author and the more specific group of seven congregations. The third is between otherworldly mediators and the author (e.g., the risen Christ in chaps. 1–3). The fourth is between the “heavenly scroll” and the author (6:1–22:5). The fifth is between the otherworldly mediators and the author within the heavenly scroll. The highest level is communication between God and the author within the heavenly scroll, including the command to write (21:5–8; Hellholm 1986: 43–44). This “highest” level of communication may also be referred to, in text-linguistic terms, as the level of most profound embedment.

Hellholm’s preliminary delimitation of the hierarchically ranked text sequences in Revelation indicates that the title (apokalypsis Iōannou) is the lowest-ranked text sequence (the double nil grade). The prologue (1:1–3) is the next lowest (the nil grade). On the first grade, he places the epistolary prescript (1:4–8), the visionary part (1:9–22:5), the epilogue (22:6–20), and the epistolary postscript (22:21). The following passages are placed on the second grade: the address (1:4b–5), the doxology (1:5c–6), motto in the form of a prophetic saying (1:7), God’s self-predication (1:8), the revelation without an otherworldly journey (1:9–3:22), revelation with an otherworldly journey (4:1–22:5), attestation of the book (22:6–7) including Christ’s statement of the book’s motto (“Behold, I am coming soon” in v 7a), verification of the seer (22:8–9), paraenesis (22:10–15), Christ’s statement of the revelatory transmission (22:16), prophetic saying (22:17), Christ’s canonization formula (22:18–19), Christ’s final citation of the motto and a prophetic cultic response (22:20). There are nine grades altogether.

The most striking result of this analysis is that the level of communication most profoundly embedded (the speech of God in 21:5–8) also occurs on the highest grade of the hierarchy of text sequences. According to Hellholm, the reason for this hierarchic embedment is the authorization of the message (1986: 45).

7. Outline. The first key to the plan of the visions of the book of Revelation is the fact that they are, to a great extent, organized in series of seven (Yarbro Collins 1976: 13–16). The second major principle of composition is the technique of interlocking. For example, the seven messages (2:1–3:22) have a dual function in the first major section of the work (chaps. 1–3). On the one hand, they are the logical continuation of the epistolary introduction (1:4–6). They fulfill the literary expectations aroused by the prescript. On the other hand, the messages are part of the account of the epiphanic vision of Christ that begins in 1:9. The seven messages thus contain the personal addresses and remarks that the epistolary prescript leads the audience to expect. At the same time, they are part of a visionary account.

The device of interlocking is used again in the transition from the seven seals to the seven trumpets, this time doubly so. The fact that the appearance of seven angels with seven trumpets is one of the effects of the unsealing of the seventh seal interlocks the entire series of the trumpets with that of the seals. The vision of the angel with the golden censer (8:3–5) also interlocks the seals and the trumpets. It alludes back to the fifth seal (“the altar” is mentioned both in 6:9 and in 8:3) and repeats its action (the praying of the saints) under a different image. At the same time, it foreshadows the trumpets in that the casting of fire on the earth prefigures the catastrophes associated with the trumpets.

The trumpets are not linked to what follows in as clear and firm a manner as the trumpets themselves are linked to the seals. The following series of visions is foreshadowed, however, by the abrupt introduction of the beast from the abyss in 11:7. The audience is not informed about the nature of this beast until chap. 13. Although there is foreshadowing, the compositional techniques seem to indicate a division between 11:19 and 12:1. The unnumbered series of visions beginning in 12:1, however, is again firmly interlocked with what follows, the series of the seven bowls. The last vision of the unnumbered series, the portrayal of the faithful in heaven (15:2–4), is inserted within the introduction to the seven bowls (15:1, 5–8).

The series of the seven bowls (chap. 16) is interlocked with the unnumbered series of visions that closes the visionary report (19:11–21:8) by the parallelism between the explanatory revelations that follow each of these series. The seventh bowl is directly followed by a brief report of the fall of Babylon (16:19). The nature of Babylon and its fall is elucidated in the following vision interpreted by one of the seven angels who had the bowls (chap. 17). The revelations of 18:1–19:10 elaborate on this theme. Similarly, the last vision (21:1–8) of the series that begins in 19:11 includes a brief mention of the new Jerusalem (21:2). The nature of the holy city is then elucidated in a visionary tour of the city led by one of the angels who had the seven bowls (21:9–22:5). The introductions to the two explanatory visions are virtually identical (mutatis mutandis). The visions are also linked by antithetical parallelism. Both involve symbolic women, but one is a harlot clothed in scarlet and the other is the pure bride of the Lamb (cf. 21:9 with 19:8).

A final structuring device to be mentioned is the use of two scrolls. The scroll with the seven seals (5:1) characterizes the first half of the book (chaps. 1–11) as mysterious and veiled. A second scroll is introduced in chap. 10 in a way that suggests that it is parallel to the scroll of chap. 5. The angel who appears to the seer in chap. 10 is coordinated with the angel in chap. 5 who asks, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to break its seals?” (5:2). The latter is called “a mighty angel” (aggelon ischyron). The angel of chap. 10 is introduced as “another mighty angel” (allon aggelon ischyron; 10:1). A further indication that chap. 10 is meant to be parallel to chap. 5 is the fact that both visions involve a heavenly writing. In both cases the scroll is at first in the hand of a heavenly being. In 5:1 the scroll is in the hand of the deity. In 10:2, 8 the scroll is in the hand of the angel. There also seems to be a deliberate contrast made between the “sealed scroll” (biblion . . . katesphragismenon) of 5:1 and the “opened scroll” (biblion to ēneōgmenon) of 10:8. The scroll is removed from the hand of the heavenly being in similar ways. In chap. 5 the action of the Lamb is described: “And he went and took [the scroll] from the right hand of him who was sitting on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll . . .” (5:7–8). In chap. 10 the description of the action of the seer is similar: “And I went to the angel. . . . And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel . . . and when I had eaten it . . .” (10:9–10).

The open scroll of chap. 10 foreshadows the second half of the work and characterizes it as less enigmatic than the first. The fact that it foreshadows 12:1–22:5 is clear in the commission given the seer by the angel, “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings” (10:11). The allusion to many kings does not fit what immediately follows (11:1–13), but does describe the content of chaps. 13 and 17. Chaps. 10 and 11:1–13 are accounts of visions that have been inserted between the sixth and the seventh trumpets. Chap. 10 foreshadows 12:1–22:5 by introducing a new heavenly book to characterize that unit and by the command to prophesy about many kings. Chap. 11:1–13 foreshadows 12:1–22:5 by abruptly introducing the character of “the beast from the abyss” who plays a prominent role in chaps. 13, 17, and 19.

The hypothesis that the open scroll characterizes the series of visions beginning in 12:1 is supported by the parallel commissions that John receives from Christ in chap. 1 and from the mighty angel in chap. 10. In the epiphany of Christ in chap. 1, John is told to write what he sees in a scroll and to send it to the seven congregations (1:11). The commission is resumed in 1:19 when he is told to write “what he saw and what is and what is about to take place hereafter.” The last clause of this commission is repeated in 4:1. The seer is shown an open door in heaven and he hears the same voice that he heard in the first vision, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place hereafter.” The resumption of the commission of 1:19 in 4:1 shows that the seer was ordered to communicate not just the seven messages but the vision that begins in 4:1 as well. In the vision of the mighty angel in chap. 10, the seer is commissioned a second time. In vv 8–9 he is told to take the little scroll from the mighty angel and to eat it. His compliance is described in v 10. The eating of the scroll here is a symbolic action that expresses in a concrete way the idea that the message communicated by the prophet does not originate with himself but has a divine origin. A similar symbolic action is related in Ezek 2:8–3:3. The commission to prophesy follows the symbolic action in Ezek 3:4–11. So also in Rev 10:11, a command to prophesy follows the eating of the scroll. The image whereby the angel gives the seer a scroll to eat implies that the angel conveys to the seer the message he is to communicate. The wording of the commission in v 11 indicates that the message is embodied in 12:1–22:5. Chaps. 1 and 10 are thus parallel because they each describe the appearance of a revealing figure who commissions the seer to communicate what is about to be revealed to him. They each involve the idea of the reception of revelation in written form. The wording of the commission in 10:11 implies that the first commission is about to be fulfilled and that a new one is being issued: “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.”

The overall plan of the book of Revelation indicated by the discussion above is as follows:

Prologue 1:1–3

Epistolary prescript 1:4–6

Prophetic sayings 1:7–8

Visionary report 1:9–22:5

Epiphany of the risen Christ 1:9–3:22

The seven messages 2:1–3:22

Visions in the spirit 4:1–22:5

The scroll with seven seals 6:1–11:19

The seven trumpets 8:2–11:19

The open scroll 12:1–25:5 (cf. 10:1–11)

The seven bowls 15:1–16:20

Vision of Babylon 17:1–19:10

The last things 19:11–21:8

Vision of Jerusalem 21:9–22:5

Prophetic sayings 22:6–20

Epistolary concluding blessing 22:21

E. Text

The textual history of the book of Revelation differs significantly from that of the rest of the NT. The reason for this difference is the fact that the canonicity of the book was contested in the East (see above). In the 26th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Kurt Aland et al., and referred to as the Nestle-Aland text, certain “constant witnesses” are cited for each canonical book. These are the mss whose importance is so great that their readings are collated for every variant. The most significant are cited explicitly for every variant when they are extant for a passage. Others are cited explicitly only when they differ from the reading of the majority. Because of its differing textual history, the “constant witnesses” for Revelation are different from those of the other books. All available papyri are included among the “constant witnesses” for all books of the NT. In Revelation, not only are all extant papyri included, but also all surviving uncials. In the cases of other books, so many uncials containing those works are available that only a selection can and need be cited. In the case of Revelation, they are so few that all may be cited. Some minuscule mss are also included among the “constant witnesses” for Revelation.

The “constant witnesses” for Revelation in Nestle-Aland²⁶ include the following papyri: p¹⁸ (3d–4th century), p²⁴ (4th century), p⁴³ (6th–7th century), p⁴⁷ (3d century), and p⁸⁵ (4th–5th century). Since all of these mss are fragments, each represents only a small portion of the work. The following are the uncials: Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (5th century), 025 (9th century), 046 (10th century), 051 (10th century), 052 (10th century), 0163 (5th century), 0169 (4th century), 0207 (4th century), and 0229 (8th century). Of these only Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and 046 are complete. Codex 025 is nearly complete. It is lacking portions of chaps. 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. Codexes 052, 0163, 0169, 0207, and 0229 are fragments. The minuscules are 1006 (11th century), 1611 (12th century), 1841 (9th–10th century), 1854 (11th century), 2030 (12th century), 2050 (copied in 1107 c.e.), 2053 (13th century), 2062 (13th century), 2329 (10th century), 2344 (11th century), 2351 (10th–11th century), and 2377 (14th century). Several of these mss are lacking large portions of the work.

The earliest witnesses are p⁴⁷ and Codex Sinaiticus, but they are inferior attestations to the text of Revelation in comparison with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi. The latter codexes are of secondary value for other books of the NT but are very valuable for Revelation. Another unusual aspect of the textual history of Revelation is that the majority text-type falls into two groups. Group A consists of a large number of mss that agree with the text of the commentary by Andreas of Caesarea. Group K is constituted by a comparably large number of mss that are of the strictly Koine type. Codex 025 agrees with Group A; Codex 046 with Group K. The minuscules 2053, 2062, and 2344 are related to Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi.

There are no ms lectionaries attesting to the text of Revelation, since it was not included in the Greek lectionary system. The Ethiopic version of Revelation is dependent on the text-type represented by Alexandrinus and Ephraemi, with subsequent influence of the Coptic and Arabic versions. Unlike other parts of the NT, the book of Revelation was not translated into Old Church Slavonic until the 12th century (Aland and Aland 1987: 160, 205, 208). For more information on the textual transmission of the book of Revelation, see the detailed study of Josef Schmid (1955–56). See also TEXTUAL CRITICISM (NT).

F.     Authorship

Only the general geographical region in which Revelation was composed is a matter of consensus. The date and the identity of the author have been matters of dispute.

1.     Date. The earliest external evidence for the date of the book of Revelation is the statement of Irenaeus that it was seen at the end of the reign of Domitian (haer. 5.30.3). Domitian was emperor from 81 to 96, so this witness implies a date ca. 95–96. The wording leaves open the possibility that the work was written somewhat later than the occasion of the visionary experience on which it was based. It is questionable, however, that Irenaeus made such a distinction. Victorinus of Pettau states that John was banished (damnatus) by Domitian to a mine or quarry (metallum) on the island of Patmos, where he saw the revelation (in Apoc. 10:11). In another passage, he explicitly says that the work was written during the time of Domitian (in Apoc. 17:10). Eusebius cites Irenaeus and follows him on the date of Revelation. Jerome states that John was banished (relegatus) by Domitian to the island of Patmos, where he wrote Revelation (De Vir. Ill. 9).

Epiphanius (4th century) states that John prophesied and was on the island of Patmos during the reign of Claudius (41–54 c.e.; Adv. Haeres. 51.12,33; Charles, 1. xcii). The source of Epiphanius’ opinion is unknown. But, as a date for the work as it now stands, the reign of Claudius is excluded by the internal evidence (see below). The title prefixed to both of the Syriac versions and the 11th-century archbishop of Bulgaria, Theophylact (praef. in ioann), attest to a date under Nero (54–68 c.e.). This dating is probably an erroneous inference from the internal evidence. There are allusions to Nero in the book, but that does not mean that it was written during his reign. In another work, Theophylact implies that Revelation was written under Trajan (98–117 c.e.; com. in Matt. 20: 22). The dating to the time of Trajan may be an inference from Irenaeus’ remark that John lived in Ephesus until the time of Trajan (haer. 2.22.5).

The most significant internal evidence for the date of Revelation is to be found in its references to the destruction of a city called Babylon (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). It is highly unlikely that the author of Revelation would have been interested in the conquest of the historical Babylon by the Persians in the 6th century b.c.e. or in the occasions on which it was sacked during the period of the wars among the successors of Alexander. It is even less likely that the author hoped for the destruction of a fortified town called Babylon at the head of the delta of Egypt that was the headquarters of a Roman legion during the early empire. The text itself makes clear that the name is not to be taken as a literal denotation. In chap. 17 this city is revealed to John in a vision as a woman. The name “Babylon” is written on her forehead and the audience is told that this name is a mystery (mystērion; 17:5). Later the angel who has shown John this vision offers to explain the “mystery” of the woman (v 7). The explanation that follows makes clear that the woman represents the city of Rome. The seven heads of the beast on which she sits are explained as seven hills (orē; v 9). Rome as “the city of the seven hills” was a common expression in classical writings. Further, the woman is interpreted as “the great city that holds rule (basileia) over the kings of the earth” (v 18). The politically dominant city in the Mediterranean world in John’s time was of course Rome.

It is important to note that “Babylon” was not the only symbolic name a Christian of this time familiar with Jewish tradition might choose to designate the city of Rome. “Egypt,” “Kittim,” and “Edom” appear along with “Babylon” in Jewish sources as symbolic names for Rome. “Kittim” is the most common name in the Qumran literature. “Edom” is the most common in the rabbinic literature (Hunzinger 1965). Most of the occurrences of “Babylon” as a symbolic name for Rome in Jewish literature occur in works with a strong interest in eschatology: the apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra = 2 Esdras 3–14), the Syriac apocalypse of Baruch (2 Bar.) and the fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles. In each occurrence, the context makes clear the reason for the choice of this particular symbolic name: Rome’s forces, like those of Babylon of an earlier time, have destroyed Jerusalem and the temple (4 Ezra 3:1–2, 28–31; 2 Bar. 10:1–3; 11:1; 67:7; Sib. Or. 5:143, 159). Thus, the author of Revelation uses the name “Babylon” for Rome, not only to symbolize the great power, wealth, arrogance, or decadence of the city, but to allude to the events of 70 c.e. The use of this symbolic name is thus an important indication of the date of Revelation. It implies that the work was written after the destruction of the temple by Titus, that is, after 70 c.e.

A passage that seems to offer important internal evidence for the date of Revelation is 17:9–10. Besides the interpretation of the seven heads of the beast upon which the woman rides as seven hills, another interpretation is offered. They are also seven kings (basileis). The text then hints at who the seven kings are and at the apparent time of writing: “five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, but when he comes, he must remain a short time.” The date known from external evidence may be used to solve this riddle, or this riddle may be used to determine the date. If we follow Irenaeus’ dating and use it to solve the riddle, then the “one” who “is” must be Domitian. The five who have fallen would be the five emperors immediately preceding Domitian, namely, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and Titus. The one who has not yet come must be Nerva, who indeed “remained,” i.e., ruled, for only a short time (96–98 c.e.). This is the solution of Victorinus (comm. in apoc. 17:10). There are two problems with this solution. How did the author know that Nerva would remain a short time? Was this genuine prophecy? Or was it eschatological dogma that happened to be historically accurate? Or was Revelation actually written during the time of Trajan (98–117 c.e.), so that the author was giving the impression of having written during Domitian’s reign, but actually wrote under Trajan and thus knew that Nerva had ruled only a short time? Or one could argue that the vision occurred under Domitian but was written down or edited under Trajan. The second problem is that v 11 says that “the beast who was, and is not, is both (the) eighth (king) and one of the seven and he goes to perdition.” Victorinus takes this eighth king to be Nero, as do most modern commentators. But if the seven are identified as above, Nero is not one of them. Victorinus “solves” this discrepancy by interpreting “the beast is of the seven” to mean “before those kings Nero reigned.”

If one starts with the riddle, appropriate premises are that the kings are Roman rulers and that one should start counting from the beginning of the empire and count consecutively. Contemporary literature indicates that writers of this time, when counting Roman emperors, began with Julius Caesar (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars; Sib. Or. 5: 12–51; 4 Ezra 11–12). Thus, the five who have fallen would be Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, and Claudius. The “one” who “is” would be Nero and the one who has not yet come would be Galba. As we have seen, the work as a whole could not have been written before 70 c.e. A further problem is that “the beast,” who is Nero or Nero redivivus, at the time of writing “is not,” i.e., is dead.

The solution that best explains the evidence is that the first part of the riddle (“they are also seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come” and possibly also the part stating “and when he comes he must remain a short time”) is an older tradition, incorporated and reinterpreted by the author of Revelation. The older tradition may have been formulated in the time of Nero. It is impossible to determine with certainty how the author of Revelation understood the five kings, but it is very likely that Nero was one of them. The second part of the riddle (“and the beast who was and is not, he also is [the] eighth and one of the seven and he goes to perdition”) was composed by the author and alludes to the return of Nero as eschatological adversary.

Another passage that seems to provide reliable internal evidence for the date of Revelation is 11:1–2. As we have seen, this vision is part of an interlude in the seven trumpets. John is given a reed like a rod and told to “rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those worshipping in it.” He is told not to measure the courtyard outside the temple, “because it was given to the gentiles, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.” This passage seems to imply that the earthly, historical temple was still standing at the time Revelation was written. Before source criticism was applied to Revelation, i.e., before 1882, this passage was used to date the entire work before 70 c.e. In the 20th century, J. A. T. Robinson revived the argument that Revelation as a whole was written before 70 (1976: 238–42). Robinson took Rev 11:1–13 as a unity and interpreted the measuring of the temple as a command that the temple be purified. He saw this command as part of the call to repentance issued by the two witnesses whose activity is described in 11:3–13. Robinson argued that vv 1–13 as a unit could not have been composed after 70, since only a tenth of Jerusalem falls after the ascension of the witnesses (v 13) and that destruction occurs because of an earthquake, not an enemy attack.

Contrary to Robinson’s premise, 11:1–13 was probably not composed freely by the author of Revelation as a unit. The connection between vv 1–2 and 3–13 is loose and external. The only link is that both are set in Jerusalem. The same period of time is mentioned in different forms in each, but this repetition is an editorial seam. The first unit (vv 1–2) focuses on the temple. The second (vv 3–13) does not mention the temple at all. It is likely that two separate sources stand behind this section. Verses 1–2 seem to be based on a prophetic oracle that circulated in Jerusalem during the war against Rome, before the temple was destroyed. This oracle has been adapted by the author of Revelation in such a way that the earthly temple represents the heavenly temple that cannot be destroyed by Rome.

The most reliable external evidence of the date of Revelation is the testimony of Irenaeus. The clearest internal evidence indicates a date after 70 c.e. Since the internal evidence does not point to a precise date, it seems best to accept Irenaeus’ statement and to date the book to ca. 95–96. For a more detailed discussion of the evidence and scholarship on the date, see Yarbro Collins 1984: 54–83.

2.     Place. The consensus is that the book of Revelation was composed somewhere in the general region of the W coast of Asia Minor. Some assume that it was composed on the island of Patmos. Others think it more likely that it was written in Ephesus. The text itself says that the revelation contained in it was received on the island of Patmos (1:9). The work is addressed to the Christian congregations in seven cities of W Asia Minor, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11). All seven of these cities belonged to the Roman province of Asia in the 1st century c.e.

The likelihood of the work being written on Patmos is linked to the question of why John went there. The text says that he was there “on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (1:9). A few commentators take this to mean that he went there to proclaim the gospel. This explanation is not impossible, but it is odd that an early Christian missionary would have chosen such a remote and sparsely populated place. The language of Revelation counts against this hypothesis. The Greek preposition translated “on account of” (dia) usually designates the cause of an effect in Revelation; it is never used elsewhere in the book to indicate the purpose or goal. Many commentators take seriously some aspects of comments by Victorinus and other early Christian writers and conclude that John was deported to Patmos by the Roman governor of Asia. (In addition to the ancient writers cited in the discussion of the date above, see Hippolytus, antichr. 36.) The odd thing about this hypothesis is that most condemned early Christians were executed, not deported. A further problem is that there is no evidence, besides Revelation, that Patmos was used as a place of deportation at this time. The general practice, however, is well attested in non-Christian sources and there is evidence that islands near Patmos were so used. For a more detailed discussion of John’s sojourn on Patmos, see Yarbro Collins 1984: 102–4. If John had been sent to Patmos by the Roman governor and was confined there, the use of the letter form to circulate his account of the revelation he had received on the island would readily be intelligible. Confinement, however, is not the only likely explanation for the use of the written medium or the letter form. The classic prophetic oracles had been collected and written down. The written medium is self-consciously chosen and typical of apocalyptic texts in early Judaism. Note in this connection the command issued by the risen Christ to John to write down the revelation. The letter form had been established by Paul as a mode of communication by early Christian leaders.

3.     Identity of the Author. The external evidence will be reviewed first. As noted above, the earliest writer known to have been familiar with the book of Revelation was Papias. In the early part of the 2d century, he was bishop of Hierapolis, a city not far from one of the cities to which Revelation was addressed, Laodicea. No clear statement from Papias, however, has been handed down concerning the identity of the author. Justin says that Revelation was written by “John, one of the apostles of Christ” (or “of the messiah”; heis tōn apostolōn tou christou; dial. 81). Irenaeus is the first writer to attribute the book of Revelation and the gospel of John to the same author (compare haer. 3.11.1 with 4.20.11). He calls this author “John, the disciple of the Lord.” That his use of the term “disciple” (mathētēs, discipulus) does not exclude the idea that the author was an apostle is shown by his reference to this disciple and “the other apostles” in another passage (haer. 2.22.5). Just prior to the latter passage, Irenaeus states that this John was conversant with some elders in Ephesus and remained among them until the times of Trajan. Hippolytus identified John, the author of Revelation, with “blessed John, apostle and disciple of the Lord” (antichr. 36). Origen identified the author of Revelation with John, the son of Zebedee (Jo. 1.14). It is clear that he considers the author of the gospel of John and the author of Revelation to be the same person; he calls this person “apostle,” “evangelist,” and “prophet” (Jo. 2.4; see also a fragment from the fifth book of Origen’s commentary on the gospel of John and its citation in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25). Dionysius of Alexandria, after Origen’s death, argued that Revelation and the gospel of John could not have been written by the same person (see above).

Turning to the internal evidence, one notes that the author refers to himself as “John,” but not in such a way as to point clearly to John the son of Zebedee or to the anonymous beloved disciple in the gospel of John. The name John (Gk Iōannēs; Heb Yohanan) was common among Jews from the Exile onward and among the early Christians (Swete 1909: clxxv). The author of Revelation never refers to himself as an apostle or disciple of the Lord. In the vision of the new Jerusalem, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are seen inscribed on the twelve foundations of the wall around the city (21:14). The implication is that the Church in the author’s time prefigures the new Jerusalem or that it is the earthly counterpart of the heavenly Jerusalem. The interpretation of the foundations of the wall of the city as the twelve apostles is characteristic of a time in which the age of the apostles is past. It is unlikely that a living apostle would speak in such a way. Rev 21:14 has more in common with the post-Pauline Eph 2:20 than with Paul’s own remarks in 1 Cor 3:10–15. The conclusion that best fits the evidence is that the author of Revelation is a man named John who is otherwise unknown to us (for a more detailed discussion, see Yarbro Collins 1984: 25–34).

The historical quest for the identity of the author of Revelation has yielded primarily negative results. A more fruitful line of research has been the attempt to discern the social identity of the author. Considerable research has been done on the relation of the author and his work to the phenomenon of early Christian prophecy (Nikolainen 1968; Hill 1971–72; Müller 1976; Schüssler Fiorenza 1985: 133–56; Aune 1981; Yarbro Collins 1984: 34–49). Most scholars who have written on early Christian prophecy have distinguished community, congregational, or church prophets from wandering prophets. The primary evidence for community prophets is 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. The primary evidence for wandering prophets is the Didache. The community prophets are thought of as permanent, settled members of a particular Christian congregation. Wandering prophets are generally defined as translocal leaders, who traveled from place to place, proclaiming their teaching or the revelations they had received. This is a useful distinction but should not be pressed too far, given the great mobility of persons, especially of the nonrural population, that characterized the early empire. At least two types of wandering or itinerant Christian prophets may be distinguished: (1) the prophet who traveled to a particular place to execute a divine commission (Agabus in Acts 11:27–30 and 21:10–14; Hermas in The Shepherd of Hermas); (2) prophets whose wandering was an enactment of the ascetic values of homelessness, lack of family ties, and the rejection of wealth and possessions (Did. 11–13; prophets of the community reflected in the Synoptic Sayings source [Q]; Peregrinus in Lucian’s The Passing of Peregrinus [Aune 1981: 18–19, 29]).

John never actually referred to himself as a prophet in Revelation, but he implied that he was one by describing his work as a “prophecy” (prophēteia; 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). Some have argued that the prologue (1:1–3) and the “canonical formula” or curse (22:18–19) were added to the work after it left John’s hands. Even if they were, 22:7 and 10 still stand to make this point. Further, John came very close to identifying himself as a prophet when he attributed the following words to the revealing angel, “I am your fellow servant, and the fellow servant of your brothers the prophets” (22:9).

Some have seen the reference to “your brothers the prophets” as evidence for a prophetic circle, school, or guild in one or more of the seven cities. This conclusion goes beyond the evidence. The reference to prophets here is very general, as elsewhere in Revelation, and does not necessarily imply a group of prophets gathered around John. The term “brothers” implies coreligionists, i.e., other Christian prophets (cf. 19:10). This is slim evidence, however, for the hypothesis of a prophetic school led by John.

John was probably not a settled community prophet. His acquaintance with the seven Christian communities in the Roman province of Asia suggests that he was a translocal leader. His rivals, the false apostles who visited Ephesus (2:2), “Jezebel,” who evidently was recognized by some Christians as a prophet (2:20), and “Balaam” (2:14), appear to have been translocal leaders also. There is no evidence that John traveled to the seven cities because of a divine commission. Some argue that he went to Patmos by divine order to receive a revelation there, but this theory goes beyond the text. Of the types of known prophet, John fits best the type whose wandering expressed the values of homelessness and the rejection of wealth. The ascetic values associated with that type are expressed in the text of Revelation indirectly (Yarbro Collins 1984: 111–40).

John presented himself indirectly as a prophet. He does not seem to have made a sharp distinction between Israelite and Christian prophets (10:7; 11:3–13; 16:6; 22:6). His self-presentation and the account of the revelation he received are shaped by the records and traditions of the classical prophets of Israel. The evidence suggests that John was a wandering prophet who was familiar with all seven communities because he had visited and instructed each of them. If one of the cities was his primary residence or center of operations, we have no reliable way of determining which of them it was.

G.     Literary Character

The terms in Greek meaning “to reveal” (apokalyptein) and “revelation” (apokalypsis) were probably in common use in the last two or three centuries b.c.e. to refer to the revealing of secrets (Smith 1983: 9–14). Human beings had long attempted to secure guidance from the divine world for personal and public affairs. Eventually, the terms came to be used of heavenly revelations that had to do with cosmic secrets, hidden realities in the present, and with the future. In Luke the verb “reveal” is used to describe the manifestation of the Son of Man to the world in the future (Luke 17:30). Analogously, Paul uses the noun for the manifestation of Christ at the time of his return at the end (1 Cor 1:7). The noun is also used by Paul for a revelatory religious experience (e.g., 2 Cor 12:1).

In Rev 1:1 the noun “revelation” (apokalypsis) probably refers collectively to the secrets that Christ has revealed to John (cf. 1 Cor 14:6). In other words, it refers to the content of the book with connotations of a particular kind of revelatory experience. The term in Rev 1:1 is not yet a literary designation or definition of genre, although its use here gave rise to that meaning and use. The situation regarding the opening of Revelation is analogous to the use of “good news” (euaggelion) in Mark 1:1. “Good news” in Mark 1:1 was apparently intended as a description of the content of the work: the events associated with Jesus. But the use of the term at the beginning of Mark contributed to the eventual use of “good news” or “gospel” as a literary term.

The 2d-century Shepherd of Hermas uses the verb “reveal” (apokalyptō) for a religious experience involving the granting of the ability to read a heavenly book (Herm. Vis. 2.2.1). The noun “revelation” (apokalypsis) is used to describe a vision in which a heavenly being reveals the meaning of another vision (Herm. Vis. 2.4.1). The work itself as a whole is not described as an apocalypse, either in the text or in the title, except that Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) gives “The Fifth Revelation” (apokalypsis ē) as the title of what is labeled as “The Fifth Vision” (horasis ē) in other mss. Like the risen Christ in Revelation, the heavenly shepherd who appears in this fifth vision commands the seer to write down what he is about to reveal to him (commands or mandates and parables or similitudes).

According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria considered a “revelation (apocalypsis) of Peter” to be canonical (Hist. Eccl. 6.14). The work is probably the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter, preserved in fragments in Greek and entirely in Ethiopic. It contains a description of the places of punishment and a vision of paradise. It is probably the same work that is mentioned in the canonical list known as the Muratonian Canon (see above). Although it is not known how the work designated or described itself or whether it had a title, it is at least clear that the Christians who used it called it a “revelation” (apokalypsis). This usage may have been inspired by the opening or title of the book of Revelation. It may, however, have been due in part to a growing interest in the Greco-Roman world in the phenomenon of revelation as a religious experience and a literary form.

Such a growing interest may be reflected in the shift in vocabulary from the Old Greek translation of Daniel to the later translation attributed to a certain Theodotion. In a number of passages the verb “reveal” (apokalyptō) is used in the latter, whereas different verbs are used in the former (cf. the two translations of Dan 2:19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 47; 10:1; 11:35). For apparently independent pagan use of the terminology in the 3d and 4th centuries, see Smith 1983: 18.

A Greek work attributed to Baruch (3 Bar.) has two superscriptions in the two surviving Greek mss. The first designates the work as “(the) narrative (diēgēsis) and revelation (apokalypsis) of Baruch.” The second simply as “(the) revelation (apokalypsis) of Baruch.” Although the work was apparently originally Jewish and composed ca. 200 c.e., it was transmitted and edited by Christians. Thus the superscriptions may well be due to Christian hands.

The codices found at Nag Hammadi in 1945 contain five works preserved in Coptic that are designated as “revelations” or apocalypses in their titles. One of these, the Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V,5), has no explicitly Christian characteristics. It contains no clear indications of date, but may be as early as the 1st or 2d century c.e. This work is a revelation given to Adam by three heavenly beings that he narrates to his son Seth. The other four works are clearly Christian. The Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V,2) is dated to the 2d century. It describes Paul’s ascent to heaven and his journey from the third to the tenth heavens. Following the Apocalypse of Paul in Codex V are two works, both of which are entitled “The Apocalypse of James” (NHC V,3, 4). These works are also relatively early. The (First) Apocalypse of James describes the revelation received by James the Just from the risen Lord. The (Second) Apocalypse of James describes revelation given by Christ to James after the resurrection and also the death of James by stoning. The (Coptic) Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII,3) was probably written in the 3d century. It is an account of a revelation seen by the apostle Peter that is explained by Jesus.

There are many later Christian works that are designated “revelations” in their titles (see Yarbro Collins 1979 and Himmelfarb 1983). This brief survey of the use of the verb “reveal” (apokalyptō) and the noun “revelation” (apokalypsis) shows how the literary character of the book of Revelation was perceived in antiquity.

In modern times, scholars have defined a genre “apocalypse,” the starting point of which is the book of Revelation. The name of the genre comes from the title and opening word of the book. The scope of the genre likewise has been defined as those ancient works resembling Revelation. These writings include at least the following Jewish works: 1 Enoch, Daniel, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, 2 Enoch, and 3 Baruch. The corpus of Christian apocalypses includes those discussed above as well as the Ascension of Isaiah, the (apocryphal Latin) Apocalypse of Paul and other, mostly later, works. A number of Greco-Roman, rabbinic, and Persian works resemble these in form and content (Attridge 1979; Saldarini 1979; Collins 1979).

There has been a great deal of debate on what the central characteristics of this genre are. Some scholars emphasize eschatological content and its relation to a social situation of crisis or revolution. Others argue that the term applies to any revelatory text. Others see certain themes as the key, such as theodicy or national restoration. Still others emphasize formal features like pseudonymity or symbolic visions. In the 1970s and 1980s, attempts have been made to define the genre in terms of form and content (Collins, ed. 1979) and in terms of form, content, and function (Yarbro Collins 1986). See also the proceedings of the international conference on apocalypticism held in Uppsala in 1979 (Hellholm 1983).

As noted above, besides its apocalyptic character, the book of Revelation also has affinities with prophecy (Aune 1983) and with early Christian letters.

Revelation has been compared to Greco-Roman drama (Bowman 1955a; 1955b). The most significant insight resulting from such a comparison is that the hymns and acclamations in the book function in a way similar to the choral odes in Greek tragedy.

H.     Relation to Other Ancient Literature

A major breakthrough in the scholarly study of Revelation was the recognition of the source and character of its images and narrative patterns. These were not composed freely by the author to comment on the current situation; in other words, they are not primarily allegories invented to comment on current affairs. Further, these images and narrative patterns were not simply borrowed from the “Old Testament” and cannot be understood fully in terms of such borrowing. They can be understood appropriately and in depth only in the context of ANE and Greco-Roman myth. This insight was the contribution of the history-of-religions school to the study of Revelation (Gunkel 1895; Bousset). The approach was sometimes taken to an extreme, with the result that almost all historical allusions were denied (Lohmeyer Die Offenbarung des Johannes HNT). But, complemented by other methods, it has become an essential interpretive approach to the work (Charles Revelation ICC; Caird Revelation HNTC; see also Yarbro Collins 1976).

Gunkel showed that the portions of the Hebrew Bible on which Revelation was dependent ought to be understood in comparison with ancient Mesopotamian mythic literature. He also demonstrated that the mythic elements in Revelation were not fossils but expressions of a living mythic mentality. When examples of Northwest Semitic (Canaanite) mythic literature were discovered at Ugarit, later scholars showed that these provided a more immediate context for the Hebrew Bible (CMHE; Hanson 1973; 1975) and for Revelation (Yarbro Collins 1976). The clearest use of Greco-Roman mythic traditions is in the description of the woman clothed with the sun (related to traditions about Isis) and the narrative plot in which the woman about to bear a child is threatened by a serpentine monster (related to the story of Leto’s threatened bearing of Apollo) in chap. 12 (Yarbro Collins 1976: 57–85). Other Greco-Roman traditions have influenced the image of Jesus as the morning star in 22:16 (Yarbro Collins 1977a: 379–80), the use of the four elements in chap. 16 (Betz 1966; Yarbro Collins 1977a: 367–79), and the attribution to Jesus of the keys of death and Hades in 1:18 (Aune 1987b: 484–89).

Since the book of Revelation is contemporary with, or perhaps somewhat earlier than, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, one cannot expect to find allusions to them in Revelation. They have much in common with Revelation in form and content (apocalyptic and eschatological motifs). With regard to canonical Jewish literature, it is well known that Revelation does not cite these older works but uses images and themes from them in a new literary creation. The books of Daniel (Beale 1984) and Ezekiel (Vanhoye 1962) are used extensively in this manner. The book of Revelation is not literarily dependent on any texts from Qumran. Its use of holy war imagery has some affinities with that of the War Scroll (Yarbro Collins 1977b). The description of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21 is analogous to the description of the eschatological Jerusalem in the fragmentary new Jerusalem text from Qumran (cf. Ezekiel 40–48 and 4 Ezra 9:26–10:59). The commentary by J. M. Ford (Revelation AB) suggests many parallels between Revelation and various documents from Qumran.

The anti-Roman attitude and the use of the motif of Nero’s return are shared by Revelation with books 4 and 5 of the Sibylline Oracles (Collins 1983).

I.     Theological Perspective and Social Setting

God is described near the opening of Revelation as he “who is and who was and who is to come” (1:4). This description is a concrete way of expressing what later theologians would call the eternity of God. The first prophetic saying of the book contains God’s self-revelation as “The Alpha and the Omega” and the “Almighty” (1:8). The “Alpha/Omega” epithet expresses metaphorically not only God’s eternity but also the notions that God is the source of all things and encompasses all things. The epithet “Almighty,” of course, alludes to God’s omnipotence. The vision of chap. 4, building on older visions, indirectly presents God as King, enthroned in heaven and surrounded by counselors (the twenty-four elders). The song of the four living creatures emphasizes God’s holiness (4:8; cf. Isa 6:3). The song of the twenty-four elders emphasizes God’s activity as Creator. In the final series of visions God appears as Judge (20:11–15) and as Creator of the new heaven and earth (21:1, 5). The deepest and most important aspect of the new age symbolized by the new Jerusalem is the dwelling of God with humanity (21:2–4, 6–8). At the beginning and end of the work, it is emphasized that God communicates with humanity through Christ, angels, and the prophets in general and through this book in particular (1:1–3; 22:6–7).

The christology of the book of Revelation is expressed in images, not in philosophical concepts. Like most of the other writings of the NT, Revelation’s most basic affirmation is that Jesus is the Christ, i.e., the Messiah (1:1, 2, 5). Jesus is also called “the faithful witness” (1:5). This epithet has two levels of meaning. First, Jesus has communicated faithfully to John the revelation given to him by God (1:1–2; 22:16, 18). Second, Jesus’ remembered behavior during his arrest, trial, and execution undoubtedly functioned as a model for the audience who were threatened by persecution (cf. 1:5 with 2:13; 6:9; 12:11; 20:4). Jesus’ role in the present, from the point of view of the author, is that, as the firstborn of the dead, he rules the kings of the earth (1:5). The work of Jesus in the past is referred to in the doxology of 1:5b–6. He has freed those who believe in him from their sins by his blood. This affirmation is similar to the summary of the gospel in 1 Cor 15:3 and to Matthew’s version of the words of Jesus spoken over the cup at the Last Supper (Matt 26:27–28). The work of Jesus is not yet complete. He is expected to appear in the future as judge or warrior (1:7; 19:11–21).

In the first vision recounted in the book, Christ appears to John as “one like a son of man” (1:13). In terms of form and content, Rev. 1:9–3:22 seems to have been modeled on Dan 10:2–12:4. Both passages describe the epiphany of a heavenly being to a human visionary. In both, the seer identifies himself by name and gives the time and place of the experience. In both texts, the visionary says that he looked and then gives a description of the heavenly being. Following the description, both passages relate that the seer is overwhelmed by the apparition and falls to the ground senseless. The heavenly being then comforts or strengthens the seer. After this exchange, the heavenly being conveys to the seer a long verbal revelation which is associated with a book. In Daniel this book is the heavenly book of truth (10:21); in Revelation it is the book which John is to write (1:11, 19). Significant similarities occur in the descriptions of the heavenly revealer figures. Both are girded with gold; both have eyes of fire; both have lower limbs that appear like metal. Both their faces shine like light.

These similarities suggest that the risen Christ is portrayed in Revelation 1 as an angelic figure. This hypothesis is supported by the angelic character of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13, to whom allusion is made in Rev 1:13. It is likely that the author of Revelation understood the human figure in Dan 7:13 as an angel. The revealing angel of Daniel 10 is also said to be in human form (v 5). If the author of Revelation identified the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 with the revealing angel of Daniel 10, this identification would explain why elements from Dan 7:13 and Dan 10:5–6 are conflated in the description of the heavenly being of Rev 1:12–16.

A striking characteristic of the description of Christ as son of man in Revelation 1 is that it also includes an attribute of the “one that was ancient of days” in Dan 7:9. Like the ancient of days, the son of man has hair like (white) wool (Rev 1:14). How one explains the juxtaposition of the attributes of these two figures has important implications for one’s understanding of the christology of Revelation. One possibility is that the author of Revelation understood both the “one ancient of days” and the “one like a son of man” to be manifestations of God. There is evidence that some rabbis read the passage in this way (Mek. R. Sim. b. Yohai bashalah 15; see Segal 1977: 35). Such an understanding may imply a christology analogous to the prologue of the gospel of John. The preexistent Christ is a divine being alongside God and apparently equivalent to God in nature. The designation of Christ as “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev 3:14) suggests that the author of Revelation considered Christ to have been preexistent in relation to the human Jesus. Alternatively, the understanding may be that neither the “one ancient of days” nor the “one like a son of man” is identical with God. The transcendent God is beyond the senses and thus the only truly and fully divine being. All the manifestations of God described in the Jewish Bible are to be identified with an angelic being. For the author of Revelation, this being is Christ. The human Jesus could be identified with this high or principal angel in the same way that Enoch was identified with the preexistent Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch. Given the apparent description of God in Revelation 4 and of the Lamb in God’s presence in chap. 5, the former possibility is more likely.

Another issue in the christology of Revelation is whether the image of Christ as Divine Warrior in chap. 19 is transformed by the image of the suffering Lamb in chap. 5 or whether, on the contrary, the image of the suffering Lamb is transformed by that of the Divine Warrior. The character of the book as a whole, as well as the context of the image of the Lamb in chap. 5, suggests that the latter is the case. The death of Christ is affirmed, as we have seen, as the event that freed believers from their sins (1:5b). In chap. 5, the image of the “lamb, standing as if slain” is immediately transformed by the description of the animal as having seven horns (v 6). As is well known, the horn is a biblical and postbiblical image of military might and the horned ram is an image for great military leaders and for a warrior-messiah in the Dream Visions of Enoch (1 Enoch 85–90). The impression that the older Christian image of the sacrificial Lamb is being reinterpreted in Revelation is supported by the introduction of the figure as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (5:5).

This militant christology must be seen in light of the social setting of the book. Several aspects of the work imply that the author perceived a social-theological crisis and was responding to it. One important aspect of this crisis was conflict with the Jews of the synagogues of the province of Asia. The message to Smyrna refers to the Jews of that city as “those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (2:9). The context implies that Jewish hostility to local Christians has led the former to accuse the latter before the authorities. These accusations are expected to lead to arrest and interrogation (2:10). Since new religions were frowned upon and the Jewish way of life was approved, rejection by the synagogue meant legal insecurity for local Christians. Similar conflict is reflected in the message to the Philadelphians (3:9).

In the messages to Pergamum and Thyatira, the addressees are warned against eating meat sacrificed to idols and “playing the harlot” (porneusai).“Playing the harlot” may be interpreted as idolatry. The two warnings together may refer to social occasions on which food offered to the Greco-Roman gods was consumed and prayers offered to them. Alternatively, porneusai may refer to marriages forbidden by the Jewish law. The similarities between these warnings and the “apostolic decree” of Acts 15 support this possibility. In either case the underlying issue seems to be the relations of Christians with gentiles. According to the first interpretation of porneusai, the issue would be how much and what kind of socializing was possible. This issue was important for those with non-Christian gentile relatives and for those who belonged to non-Christian voluntary associations. If the second interpretation of porneusai is correct, the issue would involve not only socializing but the question whether newly converted Christians should divorce their non-Christian spouses (cf. 1 Cor 7:12–16).

Social tensions resulting from different degrees of wealth and different attitudes toward wealth are reflected in the book of Revelation. The Christians of Laodicea are criticized for relying on their wealth (3:17–18). The Roman Empire is criticized for being a source of wealth, most clearly in chap. 18. There is evidence of tension between rich and poor in Asia Minor at the time Revelation was written (Yarbro Collins 1984: 94–97).

In addition to the tensions between these social groups, Revelation reflects particular events that were traumatic for the author of Revelation and those who shared his point of view. The Jewish War with Rome and the destruction of the temple was a traumatic event, as the use of the name “Babylon” for Rome shows. That Nero’s police action against Christians in Rome was perceived in a similar way is indicated by the use of Nero redivivus as the eschatological adversary. We may infer that the enthusiastic performance of the imperial cult in the province of Asia was deeply offensive from the antithetic parallel drawn between worship of God and worship of “the beast.” Finally, the death of Antipas and the exile of John, the author of the book of Revelation, were events that emphasized the threatened situation of the Christian communities in the province.

The theology and christology of the book of Revelation are shaped by these elements of crisis and trauma. A new set of expectations had arisen as a result of faith in Jesus as the Messiah and belief that the kingdom of God had been established. If the risen Jesus was enthroned as the ruler of the kings of the earth, the followers of Jesus should share in that rule and glory. The events just described, however, frustrated those expectations. It was the tension between John’s vision of the kingdom of God and his social situation that led him to write his apocalypse. The tension is overcome by a revelation of the true, though hidden, state of affairs. God and Jesus do reign in spite of appearances and the Roman Empire is a rule of chaos, not a golden age. It is also overcome by a revelation of the future. In the end, the unjust earthly powers will be judged and the faithful will be rewarded.

J.     History and Methods of Interpretation

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria in the 3d century, wrote that some had set the book of Revelation aside, pronouncing it senseless and without reason. He himself refused to set it aside, because many brothers and sisters valued it highly. But he felt that its subject exceeded his capacity, saying:

For, though I do not understand, yet I suspect that some deeper sense is enveloped in the words, and these I do not measure and judge by my private reason; but allowing more to faith, I have regarded them as too lofty to be comprehended by me, and those things which I do not understand, I do not reject, but I wonder the more that I cannot comprehend (quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 7.25).

Few interpreters of Revelation have been so modest. Most have felt that they had the key that could unlock its mysteries. For some the key is divine inspiration, analogous to that received by John. For others it is a theory of interpretation or a scholarly method. Yet others believe that their social situation or life experience, which is like that of the original audience, alone makes a sympathetic reading possible (for example, only the oppressed can understand Revelation).

The first great controversy over the book of Revelation was how to interpret the visions involving the binding of Satan for a thousand years and the reigning of the participants in the first resurrection for a thousand years with Christ (20:1–6). Most Christian writers of the 2d century, like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, read Revelation as prophetic history; that is, as prediction of events in the future. They thus expected an earthly reign of Christ to follow his second coming. Some writers pictured this millennium as a time of eating, drinking, marrying, and producing children. Such views were criticized as overly “sensual” by other Christian writers. By the end of the 2d century, an alternative reading developed, that is usually called “spiritual” or “allegorical.” This new reading interpreted Revelation’s images as referring to events within history; thus, it may be called an “immanent” reading, as opposed to the older “imminent” reading (McGinn 1987). According to this reading, the binding of Satan had taken place already as a result of Jesus’ life and death. The thousand-year reign is the history of the Church.

Augustine of Hippo adopted the immanent or spiritual reading and his authority led to its dominance for seven hundred years. This reading did not eliminate the element of prophecy from Revelation entirely, but it discouraged seeing current events as signs of the end. Revelation was used primarily as a resource for moral teaching against vice and error in the Church.

Prophetic and apocalyptic experiences and concerns, however, never died out and became prominent again in the 12th century. Joachim of Fiore developed a new interpretation that he said was given to him by divine inspiration. Joachim was the first to read the book as a revelation of the entire world-historical process, past, present, and future. World history consisted of three states or ages: the first state was the time of the Law, whose author was God. The second state was the age of the Gospel, brought by the Son. The third state was to come in the near future. It would follow the defeat of the Antichrist and was to be the culmination of history that would involve the reformed and purified monastic Church. This was to be the age of freedom, granted by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the thousand years, although not taken literally, was once again interpreted as a prophecy of a future perfect age.

Martin Luther maintained the old interpretation of the millennium that understood it as the time of the Church within this world and history. But he suggested that other parts of Revelation correlated with events of world history and that some prophesied events of his own time. For example, he identified the papacy with the Antichrist.

The radical Puritan strain in England led to the modern revival of truly millenarian readings of Revelation. Such readings became popular in the 17th century. The expectation of a literal return of Christ to earth to bind Satan and to reign with the saints was revived by Puritan academics in the context of scholastic, if not scholarly, readings.

In the 18th century, the postmillennial view was introduced by Daniel Whitby and others. This position held that the binding of Satan referred to the turning point toward a more just and humane society, one about to occur in their own time. At the end of this new and better age, Christ would return. This perspective had an influence on the first great American commentator, Jonathan Edwards. The term “premillennial” is used to refer to the dogma that Christ will return to earth before the reign of a thousand years. The term “postmillennial” refers to the doctrine that Christ will return after the thousand years. The term “amillennial” is used to refer to those theological traditions that do not take the reign of a thousand years literally.

At the end of the 18th century, historical-critical readings became dominant. These studies raised questions about the sources and traditions used in the book. This approach located the book of Revelation in the time in which it was written. Some images were interpreted as allusions to events in the immediate past and present of the author and the rest to the eschatological future.

The historical-critical approach has evoked two major reactions. One is the aesthetic literary mode of interpretation, that emphasizes the qualities of Revelation that characterize it as a work of art and of the imagination. The other is the fundamentalist approach that insists on the literal truth of Revelation’s images, usually as predictions of future events.

The basic issues of interpretation, that still exercise commentators and readers today, are (1) whether the structure of the book is linear, recapitulative, or thematic; (2) how the images and narrative patterns relate to history; and (3) what the goal of interpretation is: whether one should discover and approve only one or multiple meanings and whether one should attempt to discern the author’s intention or the reader’s response.

Bibliography

Aland, K., and Aland, B. 1987. The Text of the New Testament. Trans. E. F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids.

Allo, E.-B. 1933. Saint Jean: L’Apocalypse. 4th rev. ed.EBib. Paris.

Attridge, H. W. 1979. Greek and Latin Apocalypses. Semeia 14: 159–86.

Aune, D. E. 1981. The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John. BR 26: 16–32.

———. 1983. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids.

———. 1987a. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia.

———. 1987b. The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic. NTS 33: 481–501.

Beale, G. K. 1984. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham.

Betz, H. D. 1966. Zum Problem des religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnisses der Apokalyptik. ZTK 63: 391–409 = On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism. Pp. 134–56 in Apocalypticism, ed. R. W. Funk. JTC 6. New York. 1969.

Boismard, M. E. 1949. “L’Apocalypse” ou “les apocalypses” de S. Jean. RB 56: 507–27.

Bornkamm, G. 1937. Die Komposition der apokalyptischen Visionen in der Offenbarung Johannis. ZNW 36: 132–49 = Pp. 204–22 in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze Band II. BEvT 28. Munich. 1959.

Bowman, J. W. 1955a. The Drama of the Book of Revelation. Philadelphia.

———. 1955b. The Revelation to John: Its Dramatic Structure and Message. Int 9: 436–53.

Collins, J. J. 1979. Persian Apocalypses. Pp. 207–17 in Collins, ed. 1979.

———. 1983. Sibylline Oracles. Vol. 2, pp. 317–472 in OTP.

Collins, J. J., ed. 1979. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14.

Fallon, F. T. 1979. The Gnostic Apocalypses. Semeia 14: 123–58.

Farrer, A. 1949. A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse. Westminster. Repr. Albany, 1986.

Giblin, C. H. 1974. Structure and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16–22. Bib 55: 487–504.

Giet, S. 1957. L’Apocalypse et l’histoire. Paris.

Gunkel, H. 1895. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Göttingen.

Hanson, P. D. 1973. Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern. JBL 92: 37–59.

———. 1975. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia.

Haussleiter, I., ed. 1916. Victorini Episcopi Petavionensis Opera. CSEL 49. Leipzig. Freytag.

Hellholm, D. 1986. The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John. Semeia 36: 13–64.

Hellholm, D., ed. 1983. Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Tübingen.

Hemer, C. J. 1986. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield.

Hill, D. 1971–72. Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John. NTS 18: 401–18.

Himmelfarb, M. 1983. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Philadelphia.

Holtz, T. 1971. Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2d ed. TU 85. Berlin.

Hunzinger, C.-H. 1965. Babylon als Denkname für Rom und die Datierung des I. Petrusbriefes. Pp. 67–77 in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land, ed. H. G. Reventlow. Göttingen.

Jörns, K.-P. 1971. Das hymnische Evangelium. SNT 5. Gütersloh.

Kümmel, W. G. 1975. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Trans. H. C. Kee. Nashville.

Lindblom, J. 1968. Gesichte und Offenbarungen. Lund.

McGinn, B. 1987. Revelation. Pp. 523–41 in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge, MA.

Müller, U. B. 1972. Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung Johannes. SNT 6. Gütersloh.

———. 1976. Zur frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Gütersloh.

Mussies, G. 1971. The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John. NovTSup 27. Leiden.

Musurillo, H. 1972. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford.

Nikolainen, A. T. 1968. Über die theologische Eigenart der Offenbarung des Johannes. TLZ 93: 162–70.

Robinson, J. A. T. 1976. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia.

Saldarini, A. J. 1979. Apocalypses and “Apocalyptic” in Rabbinic Literature and Mysticism. Semeia 14: 187–205.

Schmid, J. 1955–56. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse Textes. 3 vols. Munich.

Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 1985. The Book of Revelation. Philadelphia.

Segal, A. 1977. Two Powers in Heaven. SJLA 25. Leiden.

Smith, M. 1983. On the History of APOKALYPTO and APOKALYPSIS. Pp. 9–20 in Hellholm, ed. 1983.

Swete, H. B. 1909. The Apocalypse of St. John. 3d ed. London.

Vanhoye, A. 1962. L’Utilisation du livre d’Ézéchiel dans l’Apocalypse. Bib 43: 436–76.

Yarbro Collins, A. 1976. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HDR 9. Missoula.

———. 1977a. The History-of-Religions Approach to Apocalypticism and the “Angel of the Waters” (Rev 16:4–7). CBQ 39: 367–81.

———. 1977b. The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John. JBL 96: 241–56.

———. 1979. The Early Christian Apocalypses. Semeia 14: 61–121.

———. 1984. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia.

———. 1986. Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism. Semeia 36: 1–11.