Back To Welcome
Witchcraft
& Fork Lore Categories
Fork
Lore Remedies & Myths
Back To Categories
Four Horseman
[edit] Naming
The book is frequently called "Revelation"; however, the title found
on some of the earliest manuscripts is "The Apocalypse of John"
(?p???????? ???????), and the most common title found on later manuscripts is
"The Apocalypse of the theologian" (?????????S ??? T????G??). (In
English, apocalypse is often rendered as revelation and the literal meaning of
the Greek word is "unveiling".)[1]
Introduction
After a short introduction (ch. 1:1–10)[2], the book presents a brief account
of the author. The first vision (1:11–3:22), related by "one like unto
the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps
with a golden girdle", speaking with "a great voice, as of a
trumpet", is a statement addressed to the seven churches of Asia. The
second vision, which makes up the rest of the book (chs. 4–22)[3], begins with
"a door … opened in the sky" and describes what some might call the
end of the world— or more properly, the end of the age, in which Satan's rule
through Man is destroyed by the Messiah. These events are foreseen: the Great
Tribulation, the Campaign of Armageddon, the Second Coming of the Messiah with
the restoration of peace to the world and His 1,000 year reign, the imprisonment
of Satan (portrayed as a dragon) until he is 'loosed' for the final rebellion,
God's final judgment over Satan, the Great White throne judgment, and the
ushering in of the New Heavens and New Earth. Alternatively, according to the
Preterist theory, the events of the latter part of the Apocalypse of John are
interpreted as being fulfilled by events in the 1st century.
Revelation is considered by some to be one of the most controversial and
difficult books of the Bible, with many diverse interpretations of the meanings
of the various names and events in the account. Protestant founder Martin Luther
at first considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic"
and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it",[4] and
placed it in his Antilegomena. John Calvin believed the book to be canonical,
yet it was the only New Testament book on which he did not write a
commentary.[5]
In the 4th century, St. John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against
including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the
difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse.[citation needed]
Christians in Syria also reject it because of the Montanists' heavy reliance on
it.[6] In the 9th century, it was included with the Apocalypse of Peter among
"disputed" books in the Stichometry of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of
Constantinople.[citation needed] In the end it was included in the accepted
canon, although it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read
within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. See Biblical canon for
details.
Traditional view
The author of Revelation identifies himself several times as "John"
(1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). The author also states that he was in exile on the island of
Patmos when he received his first vision (1:9; 4:1–2). As a result, the author
of Revelation is referred to as John of Patmos. John explicitly addresses
Revelation to seven churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira,
Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11). All of these sites are located in
what is now Turkey.
The traditional view holds that John the Apostle—considered to have written
the Gospel and epistles by the same name—was exiled on Patmos in the Aegean
archipelago during the reign of Emperor Domitian, and wrote the Revelation
there. Those in favor of a single common author point to similarities between
the Gospel and Revelation. For example, both works are soteriological (e.g.,
referring to Jesus as a lamb) and possess a high Christology, stressing Jesus'
divine side as opposed to the human side stressed by the Synoptic Gospels. In
the Gospel of John and in Revelation, Jesus is referred to as "the Word of
God" (? ????? t?? Te??). Explanations of the differences between John's
work by proponents of the single-author view include factoring in underlying
motifs and purposes, authorial target audience, the author's collaboration with
or utilization of different scribes and the advanced age of John the Apostle
when he wrote Revelation.
A natural reading of the text would reveal that John is writing literally as he
sees the vision (Rev 1:11; 10:4; 14:3; 19:9; 21:5) and that he is warned by an
angel not to alter the text through a subsequent edit (Rev 22:18-19), in order
to maintain the textual integrity of the book.[7]
Early views
A number of Church Fathers weighed in on the authorship of Revelation. Justin
Martyr avows his belief in its apostolic origin. Irenaeus (178) assumes it as a
conceded point. At the end of the 2nd century, we find it accepted at Antioch,
by Theophilus, and in Africa by Tertullian. At the beginning of the 3rd century,
it is adopted by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, later by Methodius,
Cyprian, and Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria (247) rejected it, upon
doctrinal rather than critical grounds. Eusebius (315) suspended his judgment,
hesitating between the external and internal evidence; see also Antilegomena.
Some canons, especially in the Eastern Church, rejected the book, while most
others included it.
Modern views
Many modern scholars[citation needed] believe that John the Apostle, John the
Evangelist, and John of Patmos refer to three separate individuals. This can be
determined via new means of inquiry such as textual criticism. Certain lines of
evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of
John nor the Epistles of John. For one, the author of Revelation identifies
himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John
never identifies himself directly. While both works liken Jesus to a lamb, they
consistently use different words for lamb when referring to him—the Gospel
uses amnos, Revelation uses arnion.[8] Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly
flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic
abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the
Greek language as the Gospel's author.[9]
In the Anchor Bible volume on Revelation, J. Massynberde Ford contends that the
core verses of the book, in general chapters 4 through 22, are surviving records
of the prophecies of John the Baptist.[10] For example, she notes that the
images of the Lamb of God are only found in Gospel sections associated with John
the Baptist, and ties other hallmarks of Revelation to what is known of the
Baptist.
Dating
According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very
end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68
or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[11] The majority of modern
scholars also use these dates.[12] Those who are in favor of the later date
appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who
stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had
seen John face to face. He says that "it was seen no very long time since,
but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (A.H. 5.30.3),
who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book;
however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing
persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian
persecution.[13]
Some exegetes (Paul Touilleux, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet) distinguish two
dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian).
Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to
these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly
community.
Eschatology
Some Protestant theologians argue that the Gospel of John contains a
realized eschatology. This contradicts the futurist eschatology described at the
end of the Book (e.g., chs. 21–22). Contrary to this view, however, there is a
third interpretation, which says that even realized eschatology is not fully
realized eschatology, i.e. God's kingdom has been initiated but is not entirely
implemented. This view is generally called the "already but not yet"
state of God's kingdom.[14]
A differing view is held by Catholics and the Orthodox church. Both ascribe to
the idea that the Church is the visible Kingdom and Government spoken of in
Isaiah, which God set up entirely, until the end of time. Their joint view of
the historicity of the entire prophecy of both books (John and Revelation), and
also of the prophecy contained in Matthew 23, is based upon Matthew 23:36 and
Revelation 11:19-12:18. Catholics believe these verses contain information
passed from Christ to John about the spiritual meaning of the Virgin Mary's
escape from Jerusalem and eventual Coronation in Heaven, which John originally
took part in but did not understand. The narrative is considered a metaphor for
the Church and its followers, showing that God will protect them.
The "whore of Babylon" and "666" are therefore generally
considered to be apostolic code pre-Christian Rome and the Emperor Nero
respectively, each referring to events that have already come to pass.
Chronology
Main article: Chronology of Revelation
Revelation is divided into seven cycles of events. The number seven appears
frequently as a symbol within the text. The chapters of Revelation present a
series of events, full of imagery, and metaphor; which detail the chronology of
God's judgment on the world.
Exact interpretations of the chronology of Revelation vary extensively. The work
may be interpreted literally, as a chronological list of events that will occur
as the time of Revelation grows near. At the same time, the imagery can be seen
to contain symbolic commentaries on the world during the historical period in
which Revelation was written, or "pre-commentaries" on our world
today.
Schools of thought
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)
This section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or
spelling.
You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available. (September 2007)
There are several schools of thought concerning interpretations of the Book of
Revelation:
In the Biblical prophecy school of thought, the contents of Revelation
constitute a prophecy of the end times; especially when interpreted in
conjunction with the Book of Daniel and other eschatological sections of the
Bible. This school can be further subdivided into the preterist view, which
interprets the book in light of 1st-century events; the futurist view, which
interprets most of the events in the book (chapter 6 onwards) as prophecy
concerning the end times; and the historicist view, which regards the events in
the book as occurrences spanning history from the first century through the
second coming.
The historical-critical approach, which has become dominant among scholars of
religion since the end of the 18th century, attempts to understand Revelation in
its first century historical context within the genre of Jewish and Christian
apocalyptic literature. This approach considers the text as an address to seven
historical communities in Asia Minor. Under this view, assertions that "the
time is near" are to be taken literally by those communities. Consequently
the work is viewed as a warning not to conform to contemporary Greco-Roman
society which John "unveils" as beastly, demonic, and subject to
divine judgement. There is further information on these topics in the entries on
higher criticism and apocalyptic literature.
The view of the esoteric schools is that Revelation bears multiple levels of
meaning, the lowest being the literal or "dead-letter." Those who are
instructed in esoteric knowledge enter gradually into more subtle levels of
understanding of the text. The Gnostic Kabbalist believes that Revelation (like
Genesis) is a very profound book of Kabbalistic symbolism. This view is held by
schools related to teachers such as H.P. Blavatsky, Eliphas Levi, Rudolf Steiner
and Samael Aun Weor.[citation needed]
Recently, aesthetic and literary modes of interpretation have developed, which
focus on Revelation as a work of art and imagination, viewing the imagery as
symbolic depictions of timeless truths and the victory of good over evil.
The "Patristic Interpretation", or the view held by St.
Augustine[citation needed] , Jerome[citation needed], and other early Church
Fathers, views Revelation as an attempt to describe a spiritual reality and
heavenly worship and therefore compares it to the liturgy of the Christian
Church. Although all but forgotten today, this interpretation is alluded to in
the Catechism of the Catholic Church[citation needed] and has been avidly
promoted by modern theologians such as Scott Hahn [15].
These schools of thought are not mutually exclusive, and many Christians adopt a
combination of these approaches. The Biblical Prophecy school of thought is
popular among Protestant fundamentalists and other evangelicals, as well as
Rastafarians. Members of more mainline and liberal churches tend to prefer the
historical-critical and aesthetic approaches. Roman Catholic and Orthodox
churches have also established their own specific positions on Revelation.
Schools of interpretation
There are four major schools of interpretation.
Preterist view
Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events
that were fulfilled in the 1st century.[16] Preterist interpretations generally
identify either Jerusalem or Pagan Rome as the persecutor of the Church,
"Babylon", the "Mother of Harlots", etc. They see Armageddon
as God's judgment on the Jews, carried out by the Roman army, which is
identified as "the beast". Some preterists see the second half of
Revelation as changing focus to Rome, its persecution of Christians, and the
fall of the Roman Empire. It sees the Revelation being fulfilled in 70, thereby
bringing the full presence of God to dwell with all humanity. It also holds,
especially in the Catholic belief, that the Emperor Nero, who blamed the Rome
fire on the Christians in Rome, sparking a wave of persecution, was possibly the
Antichrist mentioned in the book as his name equals 666 in Hebrew.[17] If using
the Greek spelling of Nero's name(Neron Caesar), but using the Hebrew symbols
with their assigned numeric values (an ancient method known as gematria), the
total of the numeric values equals 666. However, a few ancient manuscripts of
the Revelation say the number is 616, fifty less than the more well known
numeral. A possible method to this problem lies in early translation. In the
assumption that the Revelation was meant to be distributed among the early
Christians, it could very well be assumed that occasionally someone may have
used the Latin spelling of Nero's name(Nero Caesar), so the total value of the
gematria would be 616.[18][19] Catholics generally believe chapters 11:19 to
12:18 are the true story of the Journey to Ephesus (and then later to Heaven) of
the Virgin Mary (who they believe is the Second ark of the Covenant), and a
possible metaphor for the plight of the early church.[citation needed] All that
remains for Catholic preterists is Christ's second coming.[citation needed]
Another view of the book of Revelation is known as Partial Preterism. This view,
much like modern dispensationalism, splits end-times prophecy into multiple
parts. Whereas in some of the many varieties of dispensationalism, part of the
Book of Revelation is literal where as other parts are figurative, Partial-Preterism
does the same and holds Matthew 24 to be partially speaking of the fall of
Jerusalem in 70, where as other parts are fulfilled at the final return of
Christ.[citation needed]
Futurist view
The futurist view assigns all or most of the prophecy to the future, shortly
before the second coming. Futurist interpretations generally predict a
resurrection of the dead and a Rapture of the living, wherein all true
Christians and those who have not reached an age of accountability are gathered
to Christ at the time God's kingdom comes on earth. They also believe a Great
Tribulation will occur - a seven year period of time when believers will
experience worldwide persecution and martyrdom, and be purified and strengthened
by it. Futurists differ on when believers will be raptured ("caught
up"), but there are three primary views: 1) before the Tribulation; 2) near
or at the midpoint of the Tribulation; or 3) at the end of the Tribulation.
There is also a fourth view of multiple raptures throughout the Tribulation, but
this view does not have a mainstream following.
Pretribulationists believe that all Christians then alive will be taken up to
meet Christ before the Tribulation begins. In doing so, Christians are
"kept" from the Tribulation, much as Noah was removed before God
judged the antediluvian world. Pretribulationists believe the Dispensation of
Grace concludes when Christians are taken up. Midtribulationists believe that
the rapture of the faithful will occur approximately halfway through the
Tribulation, after it begins but before the worst part of it occurs. Some
midtribulationists, particularly those holding to a "pre-wrath
rapture" of the church, believe that God's wrath is poured out during a
"Great Tribulation" that is limited to the last 3-1/2 years of the
Tribulation, after believers have been caught up to Christ. Post-tribulationists
believe that Christians will not be taken up into Heaven, but will be received
into the Kingdom at the end of the Tribulation. (Pretribulationist Tim LaHaye
admits a post-tribulation rapture is the closest of the three views to that held
by the early church.) All three views hold that Christians will return with
Christ at the time of the Tribulation. Proponents of all three views also
generally portray Israel as unwittingly signing a seven year peace treaty with
the Antichrist, which initiates the seven year Tribulation. Many also tend to
view the Antichrist as head of a revived Roman Empire, but the geographic
location of this empire is unknown. Hal Lindsey suggests that this revived Roman
Empire will be centered in western Europe, with Rome as its capital. Tim LaHaye
promotes the belief that Babylon will be the capital of a world-wide empire.
Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat have both recently written books proposing a
revived eastern Roman Empire, which will fall with the boundaries of the Ottoman
Empire. (Istanbul also has seven hills, was a capital of the Roman Empire and is
known as the Golden Horn - notable given the eschatological references to the
"Little Horn".) There is also a variant Futuristic view that the
Tribulation can occur in any generation, meaning Satan always has an antichrist
in the wings and there is always a nation-state that can become the revived
Roman Empire. This variant view is developed by Angela Hunt in her fictional
work, The Immortal.
The futurist view was first proposed by two Catholic writers, Manuel Lacunza and
Ribera. Lacunza wrote under the pen name "Ben Ezra", and his work was
banned by the Catholic Church. It has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th
centuries, so that today it is probably most readily recognized. Books about the
"rapture" by authors like Hal Lindsey, and the more recent Left Behind
novels (by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye) and movies, have done much to
popularize this school of thought.
The Rastafarians hold a futurist view of the book of Revelation, relating it
both to 20th-century events such as the crowning of Ethiopian Emperor Haile
Selassie and the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and also to future events such as
the second coming of Selassie on the day of judgment.
The various views on tribulation are actually a subset of theological
interpretations on the Millennium, mentioned in Revelation 20. There are three
main interpretations: Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.
Premillennialism believes that Christ will return to the earth, bind Satan, and
reign for a literal thousand years on earth with Jerusalem as his capital. Thus
Christ returns before ("pre-") the thousand years mentioned in chapter
20. There are generally two subclasses of Premillennialism: Dispensational and
Historic. Some form of premillennialism is thought to be the oldest millennial
view in church history.[citation needed] Papias, believed to be a disciple of
the Apostle John, was a premillenialist, according to Eusebius.
Amillennialism, the traditional view for Roman Catholicism, believes that the
thousand years mentioned are not ("a-") a literal thousand years, but
is figurative for what is now the church age, usually, the time between Christ's
first ascension and second coming. This view is often associated with Augustine
of Hippo. Amillennialists differ on the time frame of the millennium as some say
it started with Pentecost, others say it started with the fulfillment of Jesus'
prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70), and other
starting points have also been proposed. Whether this eschatology is the result
of caesaropapism, which may have also been the reason that premillennialism was
condemned, is sharply disputed.
Postmillennialism believes that Christ will return after ("post-") a
literal/figurative thousand years, in which the world will have essentially
become a Christendom. This view was held by Jonathan Edwards. This view gained
momentum through the nineteenth century, but World Wars I and II dealt a setback
to this approach.
Historicist view
The historicist view regards the prophecy as spanning the time from the end of
the first century through the second coming of Christ.
Politically, historicist interpretations apply the symbols of Revelation to the
gradual division and collapse of the Roman Empire, the emergence of a divided
Europe in the West and a Muslim empire in the East, and the collapse of the
Eastern Empire while Europe attempts to reunite and recreate the Roman Empire.
Ecclesiastically, historicist interpretations see Revelation as teaching that
the Church would expand, despite persecution, until it "conquered" the
whole world—but in the process, would gradually evolve into an apostate system
within which true Christians would be a persecuted minority. The apostate Church
is associated with the symbols of the "Mother of Harlots" and with
"Babylon". It is seen as an "Antichrist system" which exists
for much of history rather than expecting a single "Antichrist" in the
last days, as futurist interpretations do.
The exact constitution of this confederacy differs between interpretations: in
some it is mainly composed of Eastern European countries, notably Russia; in
others, Western European; some include Britain, while others suggest that
Britain and former Commonwealth nations will oppose the confederacy. In all
historicist interpretations, Christ defeats this confederacy, rescues Israel
from certain destruction, judges apostate Christianity and vindicates the true
believers, and sets up a kingdom on earth.
The earliest Christian writers adopted a historicist viewpoint, though at such
an early date, the distinction between historicist and futurist views was less
pronounced. Historicist interpretations tend to be millenarian, emphasizing the
literal reign of Christ on earth, and as that doctrine receded in importance, so
too did the historicist focus in interpretation. Today, historicist
interpretations are favored in the most ardently millenarian sects.
Some Protestant writers today use this school of interpretation as the
foundation for an anti-Catholic polemic, but it should be noted that such is not
an inherent property of historical interpretations. Many Catholic writers in the
fourth and fifth centuries applied the notion of future apostasy to their own
church, in various ways. Some argued that an apostasy would arise within the
church. Others argued that this had already happened, and cited one or another
sect which arose over some theological dispute. What differs between
interpretations is the identity of the apostasy.
Spiritual or idealist view
The Spiritual view (also called Idealist by some writers) does not see the book
of Revelation as predicting specific events in history. Rather it sees the
visions as expressing eternal spiritual truths that find expression throughout
history. Only in the last few chapters are specifically predictive
eschatological issues taken up. An example of this view can be found in
Revelation: The Road to Overcoming by Charles A. Neal, which in turn is based on
the work of Charles Fillmore.
Interpretations
Eastern Orthodox view
Eastern Orthodoxy has an interpretation that does not fit well into any of
the above classifications. It treats the text as simultaneously describing
contemporaneous events and as prophecy of events to come, for which the
contemporaneous events were a form of foreshadow. It rejects attempts to
determine, before the fact, if the events of Revelation are occurring by mapping
them onto present-day events, taking to heart the Scriptural warning against
those who proclaim "He is here!" prematurely. Instead, the book is
seen as a warning to be spiritually and morally ready for the end times,
whenever they may come ("as a thief in the night"), but they will come
at the time of God's choosing, not something that can be precipitated nor
trivially deduced by mortals.[20]
The Book of Revelation is the only book of the New Testament that is not read
during services by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Anglican view
The Anglican/Episcopal view is that this book should be seen as a book of hope
and also a book of warning. It gives hope to those Christians who are being
persecuted, assuring them that their suffering is not in vain. It also warns
those non-Christians of the coming events and what will happen to them.
Revelation is an example of typical Jewish Apocalyptic literature. It uses
symbolic imagery to communicate hope to those in the midst of persecution.
Paschal Liturgical view
This view, which has found expression among both Catholic and Protestant
theologians, considers the liturgical worship, particularly the Easter rites, of
early Christianity as background and context for understanding the Book of
Revelation's structure and significance. This perspective is explained in The
Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse (new edition, 2004) by Massey H. Shepherd, an
Episcopal scholar, and in Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on
Earth, in which he states that Revelation in form, is structured after creation,
fall, judgment and redemption. Those who hold this view say that the Temple’s
destruction (A.D. 70) had a profound effect on the Jewish people, not only in
Jerusalem but among the Greek-speaking Jews of the Mediterranean. They believe
The Book of Revelation provides insight into the early Eucharist, saying that it
is the new Temple worship in the New Heaven and Earth. The idea of the Eucharist
as a foretaste of the heavenly banquet is also explored by British Methodist
Geoffrey Wainwright in his book Eucharist and Eschatology (Oxford University
Press, 1980).
Esoteric view
The esoterist views the Book as delivering both a series of warnings for
humanity and a detailed account of internal, spiritual processes of the
individual soul. The seven seals are the seven chakras and the consequence of
opening them is the unleashing of the physiological forces that reside there.
The Second Coming is thus a personal event, the integration of your spiritual
self with your animal self, resulting in a fully conscious human.[21]
Some scholars have noted the rider on a white horse as being similar to the
Buddhist and Hindu myths of Kalki who is considered the last avatar in the cycle
of ages and is also associated with the end of time.[22]
The esoteric view also presents the Book as the Christian yoga (union) practices
text on death and rebirth in Christ. The four horsemen are described as the four
elemental forces (fire, water, air, earth) and are used in the spiritual
purification of the body and mind. The characters of Revelation are considered
anthropomorphized aspects of human consciousness. [23]
Edgar Cayce had a similar interpretation.[24]
Radical discipleship
The radical discipleship view asserts that the Book of Revelation is best
understood as a handbook for radical discipleship; i.e. how to remain faithful
to the spirit and teachings of Jesus and avoid simply assimilating to
surrounding society. In this view, the primary agenda of the book is to expose
the worldly powers as impostors which seek to oppose the ways of God. The chief
temptation for Christians in the 1st Century, and today, is to fail to hold fast
to the teachings of Jesus and instead be lured into unquestioning adoption of
national or cultural values, imperialism being the most dangerous and insidious.
This perspective (closely related to Liberation theology) draws on the approach
of radical Bible scholars such as Ched Myers, William Stringfellow, and Daniel
Berrigan.[25]
The historical-critical method
The historical-critical method treats Revelation as a text which is located in a
specific historical context.
The acceptance of Revelation into the canon is itself the result of a historical
process, essentially no different from the career of other texts. The eventual
exclusion of other contemporary apocalyptic literature from the canon may throw
light on the unfolding historical processes of what was officially considered
orthodox, what was heterodox, what was even heretical. Interpretation of
meanings and imagery are anchored in what the historical author intended and
what his contemporary audience inferred; a message to Christians not to
assimilate into the Roman Imperial Culture was John's central message. Thus, his
letter (written in the apocalyptic genre) is pastoral in nature, and the
symbolism of Revelation is to be understood entirely within its historical,
literary and social context. Critics study the conventions of apocalyptic
literature and events of the 1st century to make sense of what the author may
have intended.
During a discussion about Revelation on 23 August 2006, Pope Benedict XVI
remarked: "The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a
series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions
and trials of the end of the first century."[26]
Dismissal
Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the
insanest of all books".[27] Thomas Jefferson omitted it entirely from the
Bible he edited, and wrote that he "considered it as merely the ravings of
a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our
own nightly dreams".[28] "Martin Luther found it an offensive piece of
work" and "John Calvin had grave doubts about its value."[29]