E U G E N I A S C A R V E L I S C O N S T A N T I N O U

Banned from the Lectionary:

Excluding the Apocalypse of John
from the Orthodox
New Testament Canon
he Book of Revelation occupies a peculiar place in the New
Testament canon of Orthodox Christianity. Although it is
acknowledged as canonical, it is entirely excluded from the
lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church due to earlier controversies
surrounding it. Other books were also disputed within the canon. But
the Apocalypse of John traveled a unique road to canonical
acceptance.
Many authors and scholars continue to simplistically proclaim that
the New Testament canon was fixed in the fourth century, usually
with the publication of St. Athanasius famous Paschal Encyclical of
367. They suggest that since the great Athanasius had spoken, his
opinion trumped all others and finally settled the issue of the canon.
Indeed, it was Athanasius who provided, for the first time, the exact
list of books which would eventually comprise the New Testament
canon. But it can hardly be said that his directive to the faithful in his
jurisdiction conclusively settled the matter for the entire Church, for
the East, or even for the Church of Alexandria since variations within
the canon continued long after Athanasius, especially in the case of
Revelation.
1

In fact, Athanasius provided his opinion of the canon precisely be-
cause it remained an unsettled issue. It can only be said that by the end
of the fourth century a consensus existed in both the East and West for
the core of the canon: our present fourfold gospel corpus, Acts of the
Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul (excluding Hebrews), 1 John and 1
T
EUGENI A SCARVELI S CONSTANTI NOU


52
Peter. Other books remained contested. For Revelation, the fourth cen-
tury proved particularly disastrous. Even though Athanasius had in-
cluded it in his canon, by the time he published his famous list most
Eastern Fathers had decided against Revelation and a cloud of skepti-
cism continued to linger over the book for more than a thousand years.
In the West, Revelation had never faced serious opposition and the
canon was resolved earlier than in the East, assisted by the presence of
two respected authorities: Jerome and Augustine. Their opinions re-
garding the content of the New Testament canon held sway and the
production of the Vulgate Latin translation further contributed to more
speedily fix the canon for the West.
2
The East, on the other hand, was
laden with many notable patristic authorities who were not in agree-
ment, and who apparently perceived no need to standardize the canon
since the canon was not a doctrinal issue. It had never been raised as
an issue at any Ecumenical Council. Earlier Greek manuscripts and
lectionaries continued to be copied, preserving the status quo by litur-
gical usage,
3
and opinions about the canon continued to vary.
The manner in which the Book of Revelation finally settled into
the canon is entirely unique. With the exception of the Apocalypse of
John, books which had never faced serious opposition, having enjoyed
early and universal acceptance (the four gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline
epistles, 1 John and 1 Peter), remained undisputed and found a place in
the canon easily. Those which were disputed (such as, James and 2 Pe-
ter) slowly gained approval over time until they were eventually in-
cluded in the canon in spite of some early reluctance. It is the peculiar
phenomenon of Revelation to have experienced early and universal
recognition as an apostolic writing, then lose favor relatively quickly,
only to finally regain acceptance much later. Its rapid decline within
the Eastern Church just prior to the formation of the lectionary result-
ed in its complete exclusion.
Revelation contains exceptional characteristics. No other New Tes-
tament book demands to be treated as scripture, claims divine inspi-
ration for itself,
4
describes itself as prophecy,
5
orders that its content
be conveyed to the churches,
6
blesses those who read it, blesses those
who hear it, and curses those who tamper with it.
7
Various factors
have been cited to explain Revelations early and overwhelming ac-
ceptance: its antiquity, prophetic character,
8
encouragement in times of
persecution,
9
apostolicity,
10
its content which includes words of the
Lord
11
and finally its presentation as a letter, a genre already familiar
BANNED FROM THE LECTI ONARY


53
to Christians in acceptable books.
12
Yet a careful examination of the
evidence establishes without a doubt that the tradition associating the
Apostle John with this Apocalypse was the sole factor which let to its
rapid and pervasive acceptance within the Church in the second centu-
ry. To dislodge it from the canon and exclude it from lectionary could
only be accomplished by disputing and destroying its reputation as an
apostolic book.
The Seconc Century: Widespread Acceptance of
Revelation
Papias of Hierapolis indirectly provides the earliest evidence of apos-
tolic authorship of Revelation in his famous book Exposition of Do-
minical Oracles composed approximately 125 CE. Although that work
is no longer extant, Andrew of Caesarea, author of the first Greek pa-
tristic commentary on Apocalypse, cited Papias among a string of wit-
nesses acknowledging apostolic authorship.
13
Justin the Martyr and
Philosopher confirmed that the early Church regarded the Apocalypse
as apostolic in his remarks during the mid-second century when he
wrote that John who authored the Apocalypse was one of the apostles
of Christ.
14
Justins comment is significant not only because of its
early date but because Justin was catechized in Asia in the early se-
cond century and would have been familiar with the traditions associ-
ated with the Apostle John. Later in the second century, the earliest
direct quotation from the Apocalypse appears, (along with five strong
allusions), in the famous letter from the Churches of Lyons and
Vienne sent to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (c. 178 CE.) describ-
ing recent martyrdoms which had occurred in Gaul.
15
The letter actual-
ly cites Revelation as scripture and, since it is addressed to
Christians in Asia, it evinces not only the high regard within the
Church in Gaul for the Apocalypse but also its acceptance by the re-
cipients in Asia.
16

Perhaps the most important second century Asian witness for opin-
ions about the Apocalypse is Irenaeus of Lyon. He had spent his youth
in Asia and stated that he had heard Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle
John.
17
Irenaeus was very familiar with the tradition of the Church, es-
pecially the Church in Asia. Although writing at the end of the second
century, Irenaeus, like Papias and Justin, preserved and passed on ear-
EUGENI A SCARVELI S CONSTANTI NOU


54
ly information from the elders of Asia Minor, including traditions
about the Apocalypse which significantly pre-date the era of Irenaeus
literary activity. When referring to the Apocalypse in his famous work,
Against Heresies, he unequivocally attributed the Apocalypse to the
Apostle John
18
and frequently cited the Apocalypse together with es-
chatological passages in acknowledged Scriptures, such as Isaiah and
Daniel.
19
Irenaeus recognized only one Apocalypse and the author of
that apocalypse was the Apostle John. Also like Justin and Papias, Ire-
naeus was a confirmed chiliast, and Revelation certainly must have
appealed to him on that basis as well.
Irenaeus correlation of false scripture (apocryphal writings) with
heresy is also noteworthy for our purposes. At this time, the discussion
about forming a New Testament canon which would stand alongside
the Jewish Scriptures had just begun. A few individuals, who would
later be referred to as the Alogoi, questioned the apostolic authorship
of the Fourth Gospel and wished to excluded it from the canon.
20

Meanwhile, the heretic Marcion called for the exclusive use of his
highly edited version of the gospel of Luke, and Tatian had created a
single large gospel in Syriac, the Diatessaron, which blended the ac-
counts from all four existing gospels.
But Irenaeus, opposing all of these movements, championed four
individual gospels in the New Testament canon. Irenaeus made his
most noteworthy use of the Apocalypse as part of his effort to promote
four gospels in the canon. Four gospels were intended by God, he ar-
gued, just as there are four creatures around the throne of God de-
scribed in Revelation chapter 4: a lion, an eagle, a man and an ox.
Irenaeus associated each one of these creatures with a different gospel,
a move which captured the imagination of Christians and remains a
popular symbolic depiction of the evangelists to this day. But careful
consideration reveals how surprising and significant his argument truly
was: Irenaeus was arguing for the acceptance of all four gospels on the
basis of the Book of Revelation. This can only indicate that Revelation
enjoyed more approval, or at least was less controversial among Chris-
tians, than all four gospels as a group.
Another peculiar departure from expectation, which also occurred
during this same period in history, supports the conclusion that Reve-
lation enjoyed widespread approval even over what we might consider
obvious candidates for the New Testament canon. The Muratorian
canon, a second century Greek canon from Rome which only survives
BANNED FROM THE LECTI ONARY


55
in a bad Latin translation, uses Revelation to argue for inclusion of St.
Pauls epistles. The anonymous author of this list reveals that his crite-
rion for canonicity is apostolicity when he advocates for books in the
New Testament by linking them to apostles. Revelation is held to be
composed by the Apostle John, and the author of the Muratorian canon
argues for the acceptance of Pauls epistles on the basis that they were
addressed to seven churches, just as the Apocalypse of John was ad-
dressed to seven churches. The Apocalypse of John surprisingly serves
in the Muratorian canon as an archetype which permits the acceptance
of Pauls letters because they conform in some manner to Revelation.
The author of the Muratorian Canon actually includes two apocalypses
on his list, the other being the Apocalypse of Peter. This detail pro-
vides yet another important piece of evidence for the universal ac-
ceptance of Revelation. The Muratorian Canon comments that some
do not accept the Apocalypse of Peter, strongly implying that no disa-
greement existed with regard to the apostolic authorship of the Apoca-
lypse of John.
In the late second century, the Montanist movement had spread. It
heavily utilized the writings of John, and anticipated the descent of a
heavenly Jerusalem as part of its eschatological expectations. Mon-
tanist appeal to passages in Revelation shows that the book was ac-
cepted as an authoritative and apostolic text at that time. But the
Montanist claim that the end was near proved untrue and even before
the movement was entirely discredited, Montanism raised questions
within the Church about the nature of prophecy and the prophetic gifts.
Although it appears that Eastern Christians did not quickly reject the
Apocalypse on the basis of Montanist use, it was in this context that
the book began to initially suffer harm to its reputation by an unfortu-
nate association with controversy and schism. Zealous anti-Montanists
concluded that the most expedient way to discredit Montanism was to
discredit the Johannine writings upon which the Montanists greatly
depended.
21
Leading this effort in the late second/early third centuries
was a cleric named Gaius
22
and his group would later be described as
the Alogoi.
23
Irenaeus balanced respect for the apostolicity of the
Johannine writings and support for Christian prophecy while still
denying Montanist claims. But in the third century others were willing
to sacrifice Revelation and destroy its reputation to discredit fringe
groups such as Montanists and chiliasts.
EUGENI A SCARVELI S CONSTANTI NOU


56
The evidence strongly indicates that Revelation faced no real op-
position in the second century, whether in Asia or elsewhere. No or-
thodox group can be found which challenged or questioned its
apostolic authorship with the exception of a few over-reaching anti-
Montanists. Since it appears to have been held in such high esteem, we
might have expected Revelation to easily secure a place in the New
Testament canon. But it did not. In the third century it would face a se-
rious attack, which by the fourth century would be effectively em-
ployed to destroy its reputation.
The Revelation of John in the Third Century:
A Mixed Reception
Revelation continued to enjoy broad support throughout the third cen-
tury. Hippolytus accepted it as apostolic, calling John apostle and
disciple,
24
and introducing quotes from Revelation equally alongside
Daniel and Isaiah as scripture. He considered the Apocalypse inspired
by the Holy Spirit.
25
Origen, the greatest mind of the early Church, di-
vided Christian writings into two groups: those acknowledged by all as
genuine (homologoumena) and those which were disputed. Origen re-
ported that John wrote the gospel, the Apocalypse, an epistle, and
maybe two additional epistles, although some say those are not genu-
ine.
26
This comment reflects the typical attitude toward the Apoca-
lypse in the third century: except for 2 and 3 John, all of the Johannine
writings were universally accepted, including Revelation. Origen had
extensive contacts, travel and education, all of which had exposed him
to broad and diverse opinions within the Church. He did not class
Revelation among the disputed books but with those books accepted
by all.
Perhaps Origens most important contribution to the Apocalypse
was that he wrenched it away from the chiliasts who depended on a
literal interpretation of Rev. 20:4 to promote their expectation of a
thousand year earthly reign of Christ. Origen offered a sound, spiritual
interpretation as an alternative explanation, exactly what the Church
needed to respond to the carnal reading of the book. Origens interpre-
tation directly opposed those who expected a materialistic kingdom
and sounded the first death-knell for chiliasm.
27
Recognition of the
highly symbolic character of Revelation might seem obvious, yet
BANNED FROM THE LECTI ONARY


57
many Christians had interpreted the book quite literally, even crudely.
These crass interpretations had themselves begun to raise suspicions
about Revelation among many the Church.
A distinguished pupil of Origen and highly influential bishop, Di-
onysios of Alexandria (bishop from 248264), made the first serious
attack on the apostolicity of Revelation. Dionysios, like Origen, had
interpreted eschatological prophecies in the Old and New Testaments
allegorically. His position was criticized by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos
of Arsinoe, the author of a treatise entitled Refutation of the Allego-
rists, which supported a literal interpretation of prophecy, especially
the Apocalypse. Nepos and other literalists were enthusiastic chiliasts.
Dionysios visited Nepos and held a three day meeting to discuss the
literal interpretation of prophecy. The event was a complete success,
according to Eusebius, and Dionysios convinced the attendees that es-
chatological prophecy cannot be interpreted literally.
28
While Dionysi-
os did not reject the Apocalypse completely because many of the
brethren take it seriously, he concluded that due to the great differ-
ences in language and style between the two books, Revelation could
not have been written by the author of the Fourth Gospel.
29

Then, as if to plant a seed of doubt which he knew would take root
and grow, Dionysios nonchalantly reported that he had heard that
two monuments existed in Asia bearing the name John, therefore,
the author of Revelation must have been this other John. Despite af-
firming the mystical nature of the book and making weak efforts to
appear objective, Dionysios criticisms of Revelation are clearly moti-
vated by a hope to discredit chiliasm by discrediting the Apocalypse,
especially considering the chiliastic beliefs of his disputants at the con-
ference. Dionysios misgivings bore no fruit during his lifetime. But
through Eusebius extensive reporting of the debate with Nepos, Dio-
nysios analysis of Revelation and his conclusion that the Apostle John
is not the author took root in the East during the fourth century, despite
the overwhelming early tradition of the Church which had always
maintained apostolic authorship. With the exception of anti-
Montanists and heretics such as Marcion, Dionysios appears to be the
only individual prior to the fourth century to explicitly question
whether the Apostle John was in fact the author of Revelation.
EUGENI A SCARVELI S CONSTANTI NOU


58
The Fourth Century: Erosion of Support
Eusebius of Caesarea bears the most responsibility for the exclusion of
the Apocalypse from the canon. He rejected Revelation and worked to
discredit it as often as possible, probably because he opposed chiliasm.
It is Eusebius alone who preserved and even promoted Dionysios crit-
icism of the Apocalypse, devoting an entire chapter to it in Ecclesias-
tical History.
30
Eusebius emphasized Dionysios conclusion that the
Apostle John could not have written Revelation, based on vocabulary
and stylistic differences between the gospel and the Apocalypse. Eu-
sebius was also the first to report Dionysios rumor that two tombs
with the name John could be found in Ephesus. Eusebius coupled
this with a reference by Papias to the existence of an elder named John
in Asia, which was very useful in helping to shift the weight of opin-
ion to the other John as the author of the Apocalypse.
31
Ecclesiasti-
cal History was widely read during the fourth century and immensely
influential. It is hardly surprising that Eusebius efforts inaugurate
Revelations most significant decline in status in the East.
The fourth century was an important period for the development of
the canon, and Eusebius is a valuable source of information for our
understanding of that progress. He often reported the use of scripture
by various Christian authors and their opinions about the canon. He
also discussed the state of the canon during his time and while en-
gaged in this effort he betrayed his bias against the Apocalypse. Euse-
bius classified the books in contention for a place in the New
Testament canon into three groups: universally acknowledged, disput-
ed and spurious. The universally acknowledged were those unani-
mously recognized as inspired and connected to apostles according to
a continuous Church tradition, namely, the four gospels, Acts, fourteen
Pauline epistles (including Hebrews),
32
1 John and 1 Peter. Then he
added, After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apoca-
lypse of John.
33
The disputed books were those which many ac-
cepted, but others doubted their apostolic claims, such as James and 2
Peter.
The books listed by Eusebius as spurious were those over-
whelmingly rejected as counterfeit, such as the Acts of Paul, Shepherd
of Hermas, and others, and he added lastly, the Apocalypse of John, if
it seem right.
34
Eusebius double listing of Revelation as both uni-
versally acknowledged and spurious has led to endless speculation
BANNED FROM THE LECTI ONARY


59
and a variety of explanations by scholars. Today, authorship of Reve-
lation would probably be described as disputed. But it could not be
placed with the disputed books at that time because opinion within the
Church was not divided: it was, in fact, universally accepted. Then
why does Eusebius classify it as both universally acknowledged and
spurious? The best explanation is that Eusebius reported the state of
the canon at that time, in which Revelation was universally accepted in
both the West and the East. However, he personally did not accept it
as genuine and preferred that it be considered counterfeit, so he placed
it into that category as well. Eusebius was not only reflecting the status
of the canon then, but he hoped to shape future Church attitude toward
Revelation by his classification and by reporting Dionysios of Alexan-
drias opinion. That is exactly what occurred.
Eusebius had highlighted the differences between the Fourth Gos-
pel and the Apocalypse, knowing that his rejection of the Apocalypse
could not prevail without undermining confidence in its apostolic
origin. As time passed and Christianity not only became legal but part
of the very fabric of the Empire, Revelations purpose to encourage
commitment to Christ during persecution had faded. Furthermore, the
fourth century was consumed by dogmatic controversies and Revela-
tion had little to offer to those mining the Scriptures for ammunition in
doctrinal debates. The book remained enigmatic and truly veiled. No
one bothered to write a Greek commentary which might provide a sen-
sible interpretation for its strange imagery and render the book more
acceptable and comprehensible. By the end of the fourth century Eu-
sebius had succeeded: opinion in the East toward Revelation had shift-
ed and it was overwhelmingly rejected as unapostolic and undeserving
of a place in the canon of Scripture.
Acceptance
Because the lectionary was formed in the fifth century, and by then
Revelation was almost entirely rejected in the East, it never found a
place in the lectionary. But it gradually found a place in the canon.
Three primary factors advanced the acceptance of the Apocalypse in
the canon of the Eastern Church. First, the composition of a commen-
tary which offered a sound, orthodox, traditional and patristic explana-
tion of Revelation and which affirmed its spiritual value in the lives of
Christians. This commentary, composed by Andrew Archbishop of
EUGENI A SCARVELI S CONSTANTI NOU


60
Caesarea, Cappadocia, in 611, is the primary reason for the eventual
acceptance of Revelation into the New Testament canon not only
among the Greeks but also for the Slavs, Georgians and Armenians.
The commentary was translated into those languages in the middle ag-
es and Revelation was accepted into their canons because of this ex-
traordinary commentary.
Secondly, Eastern Christians once more became attracted to Reve-
lation with the rise of Islam and their experience of persecution. Once
more, Christians found themselves living under a sometimes hostile
non-Christian regime, the same situation which their ancestors had
faced during the pre-Christian Roman Empire, the original historical
context for Revelation. Interest in the Apocalypse grew especially dur-
ing the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Con-
stantinople in 1453. The number of Revelation manuscripts produced
during this time increased dramatically.
35
It is also during this period
that scenes from the Apocalypse first appear on church frescoes and
icons in the East.
36

Third, the invention of the printing press influenced the canon.
Most byzantine manuscript copies of the New Testament were missing
the Apocalypse, and since it formed no part of the lectionary, there
was little reason to copy it. But during the seventeenth century,
Protestant missionaries appeared in the East promoting Calvinist doc-
trine, intent upon evangelizing the Greeks. They distributed printed
copies of the Greek New Testament which included Revelation.
37

People saw a copy of the New Testament in one volume, and that vol-
ume included the Apocalypse. By then, Eastern attitudes toward Reve-
lation had progressed since the time of Eusebius largely due to the
Apocalypse commentary of Andrew of Caesarea and the religious op-
pression which Christians were experiencing daily in the East.
Today, Revelation is accepted as canonical in a de facto situation,
rather than by synodal decision; it is canonical by consensus. No offi-
cial canon of Scripture has ever been declared by the Eastern Ortho-
dox Church in the same manner that the Council of Trent definitively
established a canon of scripture for the Catholic Church. The Council
of Trullo (681), also known as the Quinisext Council because it was
convened to complete the work of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical
Councils, is often cited as proclaiming a definitive canon for the Or-
thodox. But Trullo simply ratified the canons of earlier synods, and
BANNED FROM THE LECTI ONARY


61
those canons were not in agreement, not only with respect to Revela-
tion but other books of the Bible as well.
The lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, fixed for centuries
now, continues to exclude Revelation. In many respects, it is entirely
appropriate that Revelation received final acceptance in the Orthodox
Church by the consensus of the faithful over the course of time, since
that manner of resolving conflicts and issues is highly characteristic of
Orthodox Christianity. But the question must be posed: if a book is
never read in Church, can it truly be considered canonical? In fact, a
book is canonical if it may be read in Church; nothing requires that it
must be read in Church. Perhaps one day selections from Revelation
will be added to the lectionary. But for now, while no Orthodox Chris-
tian would dream of rejecting Apocalypse from the canon, it remains
banned from the lectionary.