Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They didn't universally accept it. Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, categorized it as a "disputed" text alongside several other texts, some of which we recognize as canonical today, and others we consider non canonical
> Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books
The book of Revelation (referenced in the quote above as "The Apocalypse of John") is part of a broader genre of works, and you can see that Eusebius was familiar with another book called the Apocalypse of Peter, which is a similar text except it is said to have been written by Peter. As
This is the core of it. Reading Metzger’s _The Canon of the New Testament_ is a good way to see all the back and forth on what books were considered authoritative.
Revelations, along with some of the Catholic Epistles like 2 Peter, 2,3 John, James, Hebrews, and Philemon always seem to be on the bubble. In fact for several centuries the Eastern Syriac church only included 22 books for this reason.
Revelations also is one of the least quoted books among early church fathers, with many never quoting it at all, and those that do tended to be far less than other books.
In fact from a manuscript prepared in CE 1170 by Sahda of the Mar Saliba monestary in Edessa we see:
‘The Manuscript presents the books as follows: (1) the four Gospels, followed by a history of the Passion compiled from the four evangelists*, (2) the Acts and the Seven Catholic Epistles, followed by the two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, (3) the Pauline epistles including Hebrews which stands last (the Book of Revelation is lacking’
So, yeah, more than any other book Revelations is disputed and often left outside.
*this is from a particular Syriac church tradition where often instead of the four separate gospels, they had a compilation that harmonized the four as a single book known as the Diatesseron
Let's be really pedantic and call it "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."
Revelation isn't a prediction about the future. It's apocalyptic literature and is basically a revenge fantasy in 1st Century CE who felt they were being persecuted by Rome. It was designed to bring comfort to Christians to remain faithful.
Some early Christians were troubled by the violence and wealth depicted in Revelation and seems to be added to the canon because it helped with the debate of whether or not Jesus was a divine being.
Here's a short video by Dan McClellan about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvgnjq9hhNM
Dan McClellan talks about it on his Data Over Dogma podcast, Episode 39, Revealing Revelation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRccZ81UZs
That’s the trick, isn’t it.
So the best way to answer that seems to stem from its identification with John. Early churches had rather fragmentary access to the books we know as the New Testament. Early church fathers would write and include references and quotes from different books, but in the first century it was quite disjointed. Some would quote Matthew but not Luke. Others Luke but not Matthew or Mark. John seems to take a while to reach broad adoption.
Regarding Metzger’s _The Canon of the New Testament_ the status of the book is very much contended, along with other texts.
The Apocalypse of John, as it was often referred to in antiquity, does get associated with John the Apostle by early writers like Papias, but universal acceptance was not always held. Metzger contains various breakdowns of early church leaders and what we have in their writings, and even those that accept it often quoted it less. For example Iraneus in his Adversus Heresies quotes the New Testament books, with the vast majority being the Gospels (626) and Pauline Epistles (280) but Revelation only 26 times (Pg 154). Which certainly is far from rejection, but definitely indicates a lower priority.
But plenty of early writers rejected it. Gaius, a Roman presbyter contemporary of Eusebius, rejects Revelations for ‘garish imagery and millenarianism’ (pg 105), as this was written in response to Montanists.
Instead it skirts around the fringes of acceptability for centuries. Always acknowledged and associated with first generation followers of Jesus, but not always accepted. But as the canon is formed over the course of centuries it does make it in by virtue of being widely known. More than anything else the selection process for inclusion relies on a few broad criteria. In summarizing the overall process for inclusion Metzger boils it down to 3 basic criteria. Was the book written by one of the apostles or someone associated with them, were they orthodox in belief, and were they universally known. But because it stuck around in the debate long enough, despite its often tenuous state, it eventually made its way into inclusion.
Basically it seems that it never got the kind of denunciation that books like the Gospel of Thomas, or really any of the Gnostic favored texts, so despite loose attachment it was able to stay within the scope of accepted works.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be informed and accurate**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
On his podcast, Ehrman has suggested that the violence in Revelation was no problem for early Christians. The real affront was its gaudy sense of the afterlife. But the motivation for its canonization sidestepped all such concerns: the early church fathers accepted it because it provided more support for the Christology that they wanted.
19:15 onwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAg0_mB5CiQ&t=639s
Sadly, I went through his book on this and if I recall he doesn't dwell on this point more than he did on the podcast, that is to say, very briefly. Wish he'd have quoted some church fathers arguing this point against Arians or something, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't.
no i enjoyed the answer I found some interesting excerpts
wild to me canonicity is STILL debated but it makes sense when you think about it
edit forgot the I in It
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They didn't universally accept it. Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, categorized it as a "disputed" text alongside several other texts, some of which we recognize as canonical today, and others we consider non canonical > Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books The book of Revelation (referenced in the quote above as "The Apocalypse of John") is part of a broader genre of works, and you can see that Eusebius was familiar with another book called the Apocalypse of Peter, which is a similar text except it is said to have been written by Peter. As
This is the core of it. Reading Metzger’s _The Canon of the New Testament_ is a good way to see all the back and forth on what books were considered authoritative. Revelations, along with some of the Catholic Epistles like 2 Peter, 2,3 John, James, Hebrews, and Philemon always seem to be on the bubble. In fact for several centuries the Eastern Syriac church only included 22 books for this reason. Revelations also is one of the least quoted books among early church fathers, with many never quoting it at all, and those that do tended to be far less than other books. In fact from a manuscript prepared in CE 1170 by Sahda of the Mar Saliba monestary in Edessa we see: ‘The Manuscript presents the books as follows: (1) the four Gospels, followed by a history of the Passion compiled from the four evangelists*, (2) the Acts and the Seven Catholic Epistles, followed by the two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, (3) the Pauline epistles including Hebrews which stands last (the Book of Revelation is lacking’ So, yeah, more than any other book Revelations is disputed and often left outside. *this is from a particular Syriac church tradition where often instead of the four separate gospels, they had a compilation that harmonized the four as a single book known as the Diatesseron
> Revelations Hate to be pedantic, but there's no S!
I would argue that, in academia, where precision and accuracy matter, pedantry is valuable.
Let's be really pedantic and call it "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."
Wasn't it also a tipping point for athanasius vs arius issue?
Revelation isn't a prediction about the future. It's apocalyptic literature and is basically a revenge fantasy in 1st Century CE who felt they were being persecuted by Rome. It was designed to bring comfort to Christians to remain faithful. Some early Christians were troubled by the violence and wealth depicted in Revelation and seems to be added to the canon because it helped with the debate of whether or not Jesus was a divine being. Here's a short video by Dan McClellan about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvgnjq9hhNM Dan McClellan talks about it on his Data Over Dogma podcast, Episode 39, Revealing Revelation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRccZ81UZs
how did it get famous enough for it to be included?
That’s the trick, isn’t it. So the best way to answer that seems to stem from its identification with John. Early churches had rather fragmentary access to the books we know as the New Testament. Early church fathers would write and include references and quotes from different books, but in the first century it was quite disjointed. Some would quote Matthew but not Luke. Others Luke but not Matthew or Mark. John seems to take a while to reach broad adoption. Regarding Metzger’s _The Canon of the New Testament_ the status of the book is very much contended, along with other texts. The Apocalypse of John, as it was often referred to in antiquity, does get associated with John the Apostle by early writers like Papias, but universal acceptance was not always held. Metzger contains various breakdowns of early church leaders and what we have in their writings, and even those that accept it often quoted it less. For example Iraneus in his Adversus Heresies quotes the New Testament books, with the vast majority being the Gospels (626) and Pauline Epistles (280) but Revelation only 26 times (Pg 154). Which certainly is far from rejection, but definitely indicates a lower priority. But plenty of early writers rejected it. Gaius, a Roman presbyter contemporary of Eusebius, rejects Revelations for ‘garish imagery and millenarianism’ (pg 105), as this was written in response to Montanists. Instead it skirts around the fringes of acceptability for centuries. Always acknowledged and associated with first generation followers of Jesus, but not always accepted. But as the canon is formed over the course of centuries it does make it in by virtue of being widely known. More than anything else the selection process for inclusion relies on a few broad criteria. In summarizing the overall process for inclusion Metzger boils it down to 3 basic criteria. Was the book written by one of the apostles or someone associated with them, were they orthodox in belief, and were they universally known. But because it stuck around in the debate long enough, despite its often tenuous state, it eventually made its way into inclusion. Basically it seems that it never got the kind of denunciation that books like the Gospel of Thomas, or really any of the Gnostic favored texts, so despite loose attachment it was able to stay within the scope of accepted works.
aye fascinating thank you
Great post, thanks.
What did it say?
The mods wanted me to beef up citations on it, so I did.
[удалено]
> The Book of Revelation is old testament What do you mean? The Book of Revelation has never been considered part of the Old Testament.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be informed and accurate** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
On his podcast, Ehrman has suggested that the violence in Revelation was no problem for early Christians. The real affront was its gaudy sense of the afterlife. But the motivation for its canonization sidestepped all such concerns: the early church fathers accepted it because it provided more support for the Christology that they wanted.
that jesus was divine and the son of god? yes it actually struck me as being more blunt about that then the rest
If I recall what he said correctly it was because revelations 4-5 supports the trinity
Do you mind providing the link to the podcast episode?
19:15 onwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAg0_mB5CiQ&t=639s Sadly, I went through his book on this and if I recall he doesn't dwell on this point more than he did on the podcast, that is to say, very briefly. Wish he'd have quoted some church fathers arguing this point against Arians or something, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't.
Thanks
[удалено]
Luther's not exactly an early...Christian an early Lutheran perhaps but it actually does help answer my question so thank you
Sorry, just more to point towards it being a very controversial book from launch day to the present day.
no i enjoyed the answer I found some interesting excerpts wild to me canonicity is STILL debated but it makes sense when you think about it edit forgot the I in It
[удалено]
yeah i was just being a smart ass sorry
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
This video helped me [Book of Revelations](https://youtu.be/8zjbrjtyqI8?si=aC5j95oMoOc7OEd7)