Adoption Into The Canon
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Revelation may be alluded to by Ignatius (A.D. 110-117) and Barnabas (before 135) and is probably used by the author of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150). 67 As we noted above in the section Author, Revelation is quoted as authoritative by (perhaps) Papias (d. 130), Justin (middle of the second century), Ireneus (180), and is found in the Muratorian Canon (end of the second century). Marcion rejected Revelation from his canon (see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.5), but this is not surprising, since he rejected any New Testament book that smacked of the Old Testament or Judaism—and Revelation is filled with Old Testament allusions. Eusebius also mentions that Revelation was rejected by a Gaius, a church official in Rome at the beginning of the second century (H.E. 3.27.1-2). His reason was probably the use to which the Montanists, a Christian sect that stressed prophecy and the nearness of the eschaton, were putting Revelation. By denying canonical status to one of their most important books, Gaius could hope to discredit the movement. 68 The same reason probably lies behind the rejection of Revelation on the part of the group known as the Alogoi. In any case, these scattered rejections of Revelation in the Western church did not affect its canonicity, and from this point forward there is no hint of doubt about Revelation’s full canonical status in the West.
The situation in the East was quite different. The authority accorded to Revelation by Papias and Justin was seconded by third-century scholars such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. But the Egyptian bishop Dionysius disagreed. As we have seen, he questioned the apostolic authorship of the book in an effort to minimize its authority. His questions led other churchmen in the East to question its canonicity, among them Eusebius, who says that many in his day questioned its status (H.E. 3.25.1-4). The Council of Laodicea (360) did not recognize it as canonical, and it is omitted from the earliest editions of the Syriac Peshitta.
At first sight, these doubts about Revelation seem somewhat disturbing. But on closer examination, they can be seen to be somewhat extraneous to the issue of canonicity.
As Maier has shown in great detail, the doubts about Revelation stemmed from no considered argument or historical knowledge, but were the result of distaste for the eschatology of the book. 69 Revelation seemed to teach, and was interpreted by many in the early church to teach, a doctrine of the last things that was too earthly focused, too materialistic, for many of the Eastern fathers. We should not, then, be much influenced by them in our assessment of the canonicity of the book. A similar point must be made about latter-day critics of the Revelation. Luther, for instance, relegated it to a secondary status in his New Testament, saying, "My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. There is one sufficient reason for the small esteem in which I hold it—that Christ is neither taught nor recognized.” 70 One might wonder at this point if Luther was reading the same book that we have in our Bibles, the book that makes "the Lamb that was slain” the linchpin in God’s plan for history and the end of history. At any rate, such theological prejudice should not be allowed to affect our judgments about the book’s rightful place in the canon.