2001 Translation

Did you know that many early Christians rejected the Book of Revelation? It might surprise you, but this mysterious apocalyptic book wasn’t automatically accepted as scripture. In fact, many prominent church leaders actively warned against using it!

Today, most Christians accept Revelation without question. It’s seen as the dramatic finale to the Bible, full of vivid imagery and prophecies about the end times. But this wasn’t always the case. For centuries, particularly in the Eastern churches, Revelation was viewed with deep suspicion.

You see, the 1^st and 2^nd centuries saw an explosion of apocalyptic literature! Writers were producing all sorts of dramatic visions and prophecies, often attributing them to ancient figures. For example, there was the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and many others. These texts were popular but not considered scripture by most Jews or Christians.

This environment of widespread apocalyptic writing may help explain why early Christians were so suspicious of Revelation and even rejected it entirely.

Popular Apocalyptic Texts

The time period saw many dramatic ‘visions’ and ‘prophecies’ emerge, many of which were even considered frauds in ancient times.

Here are some examples:

• The Book of Enoch (300-100 BC) claimed to record Enoch’s heavenly journeys and visions of history, but was written over 3,000 years after Enoch lived.
• The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (100 BC - AD 200) contained prophetic visions falsely attributed to Jacob’s sons.
• The Psalms of Solomon (50-70 BC) included visions of the Messiah’s coming, but was written centuries after Solomon.
• The War Scroll (50 BC - AD 50) described an apocalyptic war between good and evil.
• The Assumption of Moses (AD 6-30) contained prophecies supposedly given to Joshua, but was written over a millennium later.
• 2 Enoch (late 1^st century AD) described Enoch’s journey through multiple heavens - another obvious fraud written thousands of years after Enoch.
• The Apocalypse of Abraham (AD 50-150) described Abraham’s mystical ascent to heaven, written nearly 2,000 years after Abraham lived.
• 2 Baruch (AD 70-100) contained visions about Jerusalem’s destruction and the end times, written long after Baruch’s death.
• 4 Ezra (AD 70-100) presented Ezra’s visions about Israel’s suffering and future hope, but was written centuries after Ezra lived.
• The Ascension of Isaiah (AD 100-150) detailed Isaiah’s journey through seven heavens, written hundreds of years after Isaiah.
• The Apocalypse of Peter (AD 125-150) described vivid visions falsely attributed to Peter.
• The Apocalypse of Paul (AD 150-200) claimed to reveal what Paul saw in his heavenly vision, but was written long after Paul’s death.

Why Were They Considered Fraudulent?

These texts were recognized as frauds even in ancient times for several obvious reasons:

• They were written centuries or millennia after their supposed authors lived.
• They contained historical errors that revealed their late composition.
• They often contradicted genuine scripture.
• Their writing style and theology reflected much later developments.
• Many contained obvious anachronisms (e.g. the Book on Enoch mentions Sodom).

These texts shared common features:

• Claims of divine visions or heavenly journeys.
• Attribution to ancient religious figures.
• Complex symbolism and dramatic imagery.
• Predictions about the end times.
• Detailed descriptions of heaven and the spiritual realm.

Most of these apocalyptic texts deliberately borrowed imagery and symbols from the Old Testament prophets. Just as Revelation uses beasts, horns, and cosmic imagery from Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, these other texts also:

• Recycled prophetic symbols (especially from Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah).
• Copied the writing style of older prophetic books.
• Reused familiar imagery like thrones, beasts, and heavenly journeys.
• Mimicked the formal language of ancient prophecies.
• Combined elements from multiple prophetic sources.

This borrowing of imagery was so common that it became almost a literary convention; readers expected apocalyptic texts to use these familiar symbols and styles.

This made early Christians wonder:

Was Revelation just another one of these fraudulent apocalyptic texts?

This flood of similar apocalyptic writings created an environment of skepticism. When Revelation appeared, claiming to be yet another divine vision with all the same features and themes seen in the others, many Christians naturally approached it with caution.

After all, they’d seen it all before!

Early Doubts

The story of Revelation’s contested status begins early. While Western churches eventually came to accept it, Eastern Christians remained far more skeptical. Many early canon lists from both East and West simply omitted it entirely!

Consider this: when Cyril of Jerusalem gave his famous lectures to new Christians in the 4^th century, he specifically warned them not to read Revelation. Meanwhile, the Syrian churches didn’t accept it into their canon until the 6^th century, and even then, some continued to reject it.

Even more telling? John Chrysostom, one of the most important preachers in Christian history, never quoted Revelation. Not even once! And he wasn’t alone, many other Eastern fathers simply acted as if the book didn’t exist.

The opposition was so strong that several early Christian writers composed entire books criticizing Revelation, though these works are now lost to history. Eusebius mentions some of these critiques in his writings, showing just how seriously early Christians took their doubts about this mysterious book. This makes us wonder what criticisms those books contained.

Early Reception Problems

If Jesus really gave the Apostle John a spectacular vision of the future, we could reasonably expect certain reactions from the early Christian community.

Consider what’s missing:

• Enthusiastic acceptance by churches that knew John — missing.
• Widespread circulation among early congregations — missing.
• Quotations in early Christian letters and sermons — missing.
• References to its prophecies during times of persecution — missing.
• Defense of its authenticity by John’s disciples — missing.

Instead, what do we find? Many early Christians either ignored it or declared it a fraud!

This seems extraordinary. How could a genuine vision from Jesus, given to his last living apostle, revealing spectacular future events, be treated with skepticism by the very communities that had known and revered John?

The silence is particularly telling in Asia Minor, where John had lived and taught. These churches, which should have been most familiar with John’s teachings and writing style, were often among those that rejected the book. Even more puzzling, many of the earliest defenders of Christianity never mention it in their writings, even when discussing future events or final judgment.

This pattern of early rejection and skepticism presents a historical puzzle that’s hard to explain if Revelation were genuinely from John. While this doesn’t prove the book isn’t authentic, it certainly helps us understand why so many early Christians had their doubts.

The Path to Canonization

The story of how Revelation became canon reveals some interesting facts. While Western churches gradually accepted it, the process wasn’t smooth or universal, and the persons involved were often divided.

The earliest known defender was Irenaeus (AD 180), who argued strongly for its authenticity. But even his support raises questions. He claimed the book was written during Domitian’s reign, yet earlier sources suggested a different date. Was he working from reliable information, or just repeating what he’d heard?

The Muratorian Canon (around AD 170) included Revelation, but noted that:

‘some of us don’t want it read in church.’

Even in Rome, where this list originated, there was clearly division about the book. Surely if people accepted it as a ‘revelation’ from ‘Jesus’, they would have wanted to read it in church! This strongly suggests that many people simply didn’t believe it.

Origen (AD 185-254) accepted it, but his student Dionysius of Alexandria wrote detailed arguments against John’s authorship. This shows how even within the same theological tradition, scholars could reach very different conclusions.

The Council of Laodicea (AD 363-364) notably excluded Revelation from its list of canonical books. Yet just a few decades later, the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397) included it. These conflicting decisions reflect the ongoing regional divisions about the book’s status.

Spiritual or Political?

What’s particularly interesting is how the book’s acceptance often seemed to follow political lines. Western churches under Rome’s influence generally accepted it, while Eastern churches maintained their skepticism. This pattern suggests that acceptance might have been influenced by petty internal church politics more than theology!

For devout Christians, this raises serious questions about the canonization process:

• What role did church politics play in determining which books became scripture? Shouldn’t it be the holy spirit leading the church?
• If early Christians closest to apostolic times were skeptical, what changed later minds?
• How should we view decisions made during a period when many church leaders were becoming increasingly worldly and politically motivated? Why should we listen to their opinions?

These questions become even more stark when we look at the timeline of Revelation’s status.

A Timeline of Uncertainty

Why Did They Reject It?

Given how many fraudulent apocalyptic texts were circulating at the time, the early Christians (and those from throughout history) had good reason to question Revelation’s authenticity. After all, there were many similar texts claiming divine visions, heavenly journeys, and dramatic prophecies!

Yet there is more than mere skepticism at play here. They likely had several reasons to question Revelation’s authenticity. Here are objections that people raised in later times, which could have also been raised by the early Christians.

1. Literary Problems

The Greek writing style of Revelation is strikingly different from John’s other works. While the Gospel of John shows elegant, polished Greek, Revelation’s Greek is rough and often grammatically incorrect. This led Dionysius of Alexandria to ask, how could the same person have written both?

In modern times, people answer this objection by saying that perhaps John used a secretary to write it. That could easily be true. Others argue that it was originally in Aramaic, and then badly translated into Greek. Still others argue that Jesus was simply using everyday Greek, not the elegant style of John’s Gospel.

However, the Greek language itself shows several peculiarities:

• Strong Hebrew and Aramaic influences in its syntax.
• Uses ‘Septuagintalisms’ — expressions characteristic of the Greek Septuagint, rather than using what was contemporary Greek at the time.
• Some argue that it appears to intentionally use formal or archaic expressions to sound more ‘prophetic’.

These linguistic features suggest the author was either trying to imitate prophetic writing styles or was heavily influenced by Semitic languages, or both.

If one were to question the book’s authenticity, these features might raise red flags; they’re exactly the kind of techniques that a fraudster could use to make a text sound more prophetic, authoritative, and genuine. It could be compared to how the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, wrote his Book of Mormon using then out-dated English from the King James Version to make his fraudulent text sound more Bible-like.

Early Christians, who were intimately familiar with genuine apostolic writings, may have doubted and even rejected Revelation for the style of writing alone, asking why on earth John would suddenly write as if he lived 300 years earlier, in the style of the Septuagint.

2. Confusing in Comparison with Other Biblical Visions

Revelation’s style differs markedly from other biblical apocalyptic writings. Consider how it compares to earlier prophetic visions:

In the book of Daniel, the visions are consistently explained:

• The four beasts are explicitly identified as four kingdoms (Daniel 7:17).
• The ram and goat are clearly explained as specific empires (Daniel 8:20-21).
• An angel interprets each symbol’s meaning (Daniel 7:16, 8:15-16, 9:21-22).
• The timeline of events is clarified (Daniel 9:24-27).

Similarly, Ezekiel’s visions follow a clear pattern:

• The prophet describes what he sees (Ezekiel 1:4-28).
• God or an angel explains the significance (Ezekiel 10:20).
• The meaning is tied to contemporary events (Ezekiel 11:14-21).
• Symbols are often defined within the text (Ezekiel 17:12-24).

In contrast, Revelation:

• Provides few explanations for its complex imagery.
• Moves from scene to scene without clear transitions.
• Leaves most symbols undefined.
• Contains numbers and images without interpretation.

This lack of internal explanation troubled early readers. While Daniel and Ezekiel’s visions were challenging, they at least included interpretive keys within the text itself. Revelation’s unexplained symbolism made some wonder whether it was truly meant as prophetic literature or if it served some other purpose.

To be blunt, Revelation does not follow the same pattern as accepted prophetic Bible books. Instead it follows the pattern found in other apocalyptic texts that were popular at the time: to be confusing, incoherent, and sensational, drawing on the imagery from the Bible and other religious works, and rarely explaining what they are really trying to say (or being extremely vague about it).

After all, when Isaiah or Jeremiah prophesied against Babylon, it was pretty clear that they were, um… prophisying against Babylon. When Jesus warned about Jerusalem and Jerusalem’s temple being destroyed, it was pretty clear that he was, um… prophesying about Jerusalem and Jerusalem’s temple being destroyed.

But Revelation and the other popular apocalyptic texts of the time don’t follow this pattern. It’s extremely unclear who they are talking about, or what they are trying to say will happen.

3. Borrowing from Other Texts

Revelation contains similar or identical features, symbols, and imagery as seen in other apocalyptic works, both biblical and non-biblical.

Note: This list is incomplete. In future, it will also include the non-biblical texts that share imagery with Revelation.

Here’s a summary:

This extensive borrowing of imagery from earlier prophetic books was common among fraudulent apocalyptic texts of the time. It likely made some early Christians wonder whether Revelation was just the same. Was it a way of saying a lot of words without saying anything much specific at all? Or a way of making the text sound genuine by borrowing from the Bible?

But the same could be said of other books!

However, this is not a definitive reason to reject Revelation. After all, some of the prophets had similar visions and borrowed imagery from each other:

• Isaiah’s throne room vision (Isaiah 6:1-4) shares elements with earlier descriptions of God’s presence in Exodus (Exodus 19:16-19, 24:9-10, 40:34-35).
• Ezekiel’s vision of living creatures (Ezekiel 1:5-14) draws from Isaiah’s seraphim (Isaiah 6:2-3) and the cherubim of the ark (Exodus 25:18-22).
• Daniel’s beasts (Daniel 7:3-7) echo imagery from earlier prophets depicting nations as beasts (Jeremiah 4:7, 50:17; Ezekiel 17:3-7; Hosea 13:7-8).
• Zechariah’s visions (Zechariah 1:8-11, 4:1-14, 6:1-8) incorporate symbols from earlier prophecies like horses (2 Kings 6:17), lampstands (Exodus 25:31-40), and chariots (2 Kings 2:11-12).
• Joel’s locust army (Joel 2:1-11) could remind readers of the Exodus plagues (Exodus 10:12-15) and uses similar imagery to earlier prophets (Amos 7:1; Nahum 3:15-17).

This kind of prophetic borrowing served several purposes:

• It connected new revelations to established prophecies.
• It showed continuity in God’s messages across generations.
• It helped validate new visions by linking them to accepted ones.
• It created a shared prophetic vocabulary that readers could understand.

So while Revelation’s extensive use of earlier imagery raised questions, it is not foreign to scripture. However, there is nothing stopping a fraudulent writer from using the same techniques to manufacture credibility. Indeed, we could do the same today if we wanted to write a fake ‘lost prophecy’.

4. Doctrinal Questions

While we don’t have detailed records of all the early Christians’ theological objections to Revelation, modern readers have noticed several potential doctrinal tensions between Revelation and other Bible writings.

Perhaps some early Christians raised the same concerns.

• Jesus is described as sitting on God’s throne (Revelation 3:21), while Hebrews 8:1 clearly states he sits beside it.
• The concept of ‘seven spirits’ (Revelation 1:4) appears nowhere else in scripture.
• The description of God on His throne (Revelation 4:6-8) seems to be copied from Ezekiel, but the details are different and some contradict what is said in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 10).
• The description of ‘the dead who die in the Lord’ (Revelation 14:13) seems to conflict with the Christian teaching that believers are ‘the living’.
• The order of end-time events in Revelation 11:17-18 may contradict Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
• The temple imagery seems to conflict with Christian teaching about believers being the temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16), as Revelation has the large crowd serving in the temple (Revelation 7:15)
• The concept of a ‘new Jerusalem’ without a temple, because God is its temple (at Revelation 21:22) seems to contradict the teaching that Christians themselves are the temple (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:5).
• The vision of souls crying out for vengeance (Revelation 6:9-10) appears to conflict with Jesus’ teaching about loving enemies and praying for persecutors (Matthew 5:44).
• The concept of a ‘second death’ (Revelation 20:14) is unique to this book and appears nowhere else in scripture.
• The violent imagery, such as Jesus with a sword coming from his mouth (Revelation 1:16), seems at odds with the gospel’s message of peace and the teaching that ‘those who live by the sword will die by the sword’ (Matthew 26:52).
• The violent imagery of widespread death and destruction (Revelation 6:8, 16:16, 19:15, 20:4, 8, 14) seems at odds with the gospel’s message of forgiveness and reconciliation to God through Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Please note that we’re not saying that these are the reasons why early Christians doubted Revelation, as those records (mentioned by Eusebius) haven’t survived.

Also, we’re not saying that these are valid reasons for you to doubt or reject Revelation today! We’re simply trying to identify what objections the early Christians might have had to Revelation, whether these objections are valid or not.

Whether these are valid objections or not is a separate question out of the scope of this article.

5. Church Politics

In addition to doctrinal problems, the book’s references to internal church conflicts causes some to doubt its authenticity:

• Multiple condemnations of ‘Nicolaitians’ (Revelation 2:6, 15).
• Repeated references to ‘false Jews’ (Revelation 2:9, 3:9).
• Seems focused on sectarian disputes (Revelation 2:14-15, 20-23).
• May reflect church conflicts that occured after John died (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13-15, 20).

Undisputed prophetic books like Daniel and Isaiah focused primarily on major historical events and God’s overall plan, not internal religious disputes. However, a counter-argument is that these references to internal conflicts could be prophetic signs, meant to parallel later eras. Also, the ancient prophets did talk of some internal conflicts, such as idolatry and false prophets.

6. Regional Differences

The split between Eastern and Western acceptance of Revelation raises some questions. While the Latin-speaking West eventually accepted it (though not without questions), the Greek-speaking East remained highly skeptical for centuries.

Why this difference? The Eastern churches, being closer to the original languages and contexts, may have been more sensitive to the book’s unusual features. Those in the Latin-speaking West, however, had less knowledge of Greek, and would perhaps have been less aware of the ‘Septuagintalisms’ and bad grammar in the text.

Also, Western Christian communities likely had fewer Jewish converts than in the East, so fewer people would have been able to spot the borrowings from the Old Testament. Further, Latin speakers would have been less familiar with the genre of fraudulent apocalyptic texts, as they were mostly in Greek. So they would have been less likely to recognize the similarities between Revelation and those other ‘prophecies’.

The Syrian churches present an especially interesting case. Despite being the closest to the original Christian communities geographically, they were the last to accept Revelation, and some never did!

While the opinions of these ancient peoples do not dictate our own today, it’s interesting that those who most eagerly accepted Revelation were those least familiar with its original language, and those with the least knowledge of fake apocalyptic literature.

Is it Okay to Doubt Revelation?

Understanding the issues and the early rejection of Revelation does not automatically mean that we should reject the book. However, it should encourage us to think critically about its place and interpretation.

However, some ask: is it even right to question a book included in most Bibles today?

Consider these points:

• ‘Test the breaths’: The Bible itself commands Christians to ‘test the breaths to prove whether they actually come from God’ (1 John 4:1). This implies that questioning a text’s divine origin isn’t wrong; it’s scriptural command! In fact, discouraging such critical examination could be seen as going against this very command. And talking of commands…

• Tradition vs. God’s Word: Jesus strongly criticized those who put human traditions ahead of God’s commands (e.g., Mark 7:8-13). Simply accepting Revelation because it became traditional, despite centuries of historical doubts and the biblical command to ‘test,’ arguably risks repeating this pattern.

• Historical Precedent: The fact that prominent early Christians (who were closer to the events and culture than we are) questioned Revelation shows that it’s not a modern phenomenon. If they had doubts, it’s reasonable for us today to consider those same questions.

• Testing by Fruit: Part of ‘testing’ whether something originates with God might involve observing its effects. As discussed later, the type of ‘fruit’ often produced by intense focus on Revelation: obsession, division, fear, and failed predicted dates for the end times. These contrast sharply with the fruits of God’s spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23. This doesn’t definitively prove anything, but it’s a factor worth considering in the ‘testing’ process.

• ‘All the Holy Writings were inspired by God…’: When the Apostle Paul wrote that famous phrase at 2 Timothy 3:16, the Book of Revelation hadn’t been written yet. So, Paul’s statement doesn’t automatically grant Revelation canonical status; it applied to the texts accepted as scripture at that time. You were supposed to then ‘test’ any new ‘inspired expressions’. Do people do that? Or do they just accept Revelation because everybody else does?

Ultimately, recognizing this history encourages us to:

• Read Revelation more carefully and critically.
• Consider its unique historical and literary context.
• Be humble about interpretations, avoiding dogmatism.
• Acknowledge its long and controversial history within Christianity.

After all, if the early Christians had such serious questions, shouldn’t we at least be willing to examine their concerns? And if the Bible itself commands us to ‘test’ the spirits, shouldn’t we be willing to do that?

Our Approach to Revelation

We include Revelation in our translation, but we also acknowledge these historical doubts. We believe it’s important to understand that:

1. The book’s canonical status was debated for centuries.
2. It should be read with awareness of its contested history.
3. Christians are free to accept or reject it as they see fit.

Our translation takes no position, other than to provide you with all the facts. Whether you choose to accept or reject Revelation is up to you. Indeed, the fact we provide a translation of Revelation does not mean we take a position on its canonical status. Our long-term goal is to provide translations of all surviving apocalyptic texts, not just Revelation.

A Warning About Revelation Obsession

Have you noticed how Revelation seems to attract conspiracy theorists and extreme interpretations? While other Bible books inspire peace, love, and spiritual growth, Revelation often leads readers down strange paths:

• People become obsessed with finding hidden codes and meanings.
• They see current events as fulfilling its prophecies (just like every generation before them!).
• They develop complex, unprovable theories about world events.
• They focus more on predicting the future than living like Jesus.

This pattern is very troubling. When Christians study the Gospels, Acts, or Paul’s letters, they typically grow in love, wisdom, and Christ-like behavior. But those who dive deep into Revelation often become… well, different.

They might:

• Stockpile supplies for the end times.
• See conspiracies in everyday events.
• Become paranoid about governments and technology.
• Spread fear rather than hope.
• Argue endlessly and spitefully over interpretation.
• Claim their interpretation is ‘what the Bible says.’
• Calculate many dates for the end times (which all fail).
• Disparage others who don’t share their views.

This stark difference in fruit makes us wonder: Is the holy spirit really guiding these Revelation-focused interpretations? After all:

‘…the fruitage of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, patience, being caring, goodness, faith, reasonableness, and self-control’ (Galatians 5:22-23).

How many Revelation-obsessed interpretations produce these qualities?

Perhaps this modern phenomenon helps us understand why early Christians were so cautious about this book. They may have seen similar patterns of obsession and division in their own time!

Learn more

• Read our translation of Revelation
• Timeline of Church Fathers
• Timeline of Bible Canon Formation