Loading...Now that I have provided some posts on the book of Revelation “in a nutshell,” including discussions of who wrote it, when, and why — along with how it is commonly misinterpreted by readers (those who read it!) today — I can give a quick summary, of Revelation at a Glance, along with three questions to spur your own thinking further.
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
In your recent Zombie podcast you distinguished between resurrection and resuscitation particularly mentioning Lazarus. You said that with Lazarus’ resuscitation he was expected to die again and you commented ‘and he did’. Please can you cite the verse/passage where his subsequent death is narrated?
I don’t believe I indicated it is narrated in the New Testament. It may be foreshadowed in John 12:10, but there is no account of it. My sense is that the followers of Jesus did not expect he would live forever or that, say, centuries later, they thought he was still alive.
Prof. Ehrman, your conclusions ignore key covenantal and audience-relevant features that radically change what the book actually says.
Revelation does not depict the annihilation of the physical universe. Its “heaven and earth” language is covenantal, echoing the prophets (Isa 51:15–16; Isa 65:17; Deut 31:28–30). The “old heaven and earth” was Israel’s temple world—the Mosaic order with its priesthood, sacrifices, and law. The “new heaven and earth” was the New Covenant community replacing it (Rev 21:1–3). What ended was not creation but Old Covenant Israel’s age.
The author was Jewish. He wrote to seven real congregations in Asia Minor (Rev 1:4, 11) made up of Israelites, proselytes, and diaspora Jews navigating persecution before the temple’s fall.
In short: Revelation is not a future global apocalypse but a first-century covenant drama—the story of Israel’s last days, her judgment, and the rise of the New Covenant kingdom that replaced her.
Its “cataclysm” was the end of Israel’s old world, not the end of the planet. It was penned to show late 1st century and early 2nd century Hellenized Jews that Jesus and his cult of restored, new covenant Israelites were the victors and the Jews who persecuted them and rejected Christ’s new covenant were the losers.
I do not ever say that Revelation predicted the destruction of the physical universe. It clearly does not — since the whole point at the end is that the followers of Jesus are living on earth in the New Jerusalem.
As a non-scholar I greatly appreciate these “in-briefs.” They aid me with reading the source documents.
Bart, you say, “Portions of the book were evidently written in the early 60s under Emperor Nero (who appears to be the Antichrist, 666), but it was probably put into final form later, under the Emperor Domitian (around 95 C.E.).” I’m confused by this statement. Are you saying “John” was the final redactor who ran with someone else’s seminal work? Or did it take “John” thirty years to finish it?
It appears *either* that the author has combined various sources written at different times (by various people) into his account *or* that he compiled his account over a long period of time. Scholars disagree on these options.
Re: #6
Are you sympathetic at all to the idea that the “early” portion of the book might have begun as a Jewish apocalypse that was subsequently “Christianized”?
thanks
No, ‘fraid not. I think that idea’s not widely held any more. (It was, though, the view of D. H. Lawrence in teh final book he wrote in his life — as almost no one knows: an account of the Apocalypse of John, a book he thoroughly despised!)
I recently listened to your conversation with Goodacre on John/Synoptics. I think Goodacre presents a strong case, though I think your points were stronger. That said, I’d like to hear your thoughts on external evidence that could tip the balance in Goodacre’s favor:
Given the early church’s small size, interconnectedness, and reverence for Jesus, it’s implausible that John was unaware of the Synoptics.
By the mid-first century, the Church was a small yet networked community. Apostles traveled constantly between assemblies carrying letters/teachings/reports. Paul’s letters show rapid information flow: churches he’d never visited already knew his story (Gal. 1:23–24), and Jerusalem leaders sent out missionaries (Gal. 2:9). By the time John wrote the network would’ve been more established/literate. The creation of a written Gospel would have been a monumental communal event, not an obscure act of private devotion. The cost and skill required to produce such a text were justified by the overwhelming desire to know/preserve the life of Jesus. The magnitude of the Synoptics as literary/theological works would have been magnetic.
If Mark was written around 65 and John around 90, there’s ample time for the Gospels to circulate widely through the established missionary and letter networks of the early church.
I actually don’t think that all the literature being produced by the early Christians was widely known throughout Christendom. In fact, I think quite the opposite. Some things were widely known. But book / writing distribution was HUGELY different in antiquity from today; it’s just hard for us to get our mind around what it’s like not to yave mass transportation systems or postal networks, etc.
Wouldn’t you agree that virtually every 1st Century Christian text shows some degree of mutual awareness by quoting/echoing/responding to one another?
By the end of the first century Paul’s letters were known/quoted across regions: 1 Clement cites Romans, Corinthians, and even Hebrews; Ignatius echoes Pauline themes and mentions him; Polycarp quotes numerous Pauline letters.
1Peter mirrors Paul, indicating familiarity. 2Peter explicitly mentions Paul’s letters.
Even Deutero-Pauline letters demonstrate early Christian communities were already familiar with his writings.
James addresses believers misusing “faith-apart-from-works”, showing Paul’s ideas were widespread and debated.
The Didache reflects written Gospel material.
1 John clearly depends on the Gospel of John, and 2 and 3 John reference prior correspondence within that community.
The Synoptics demonstrate direct literary dependence.
Acts displays knowledge of Paul’s ministry and wider apostolic network.
By the second century, Justin Martyr (Rome), draws on sources from Syria/Asia Minor. Irenaeus (Gaul) knows Justin’s writings. Tertullian (North Africa), is familiar with both Irenaeus and 1 Clement. Clement of Alexandria and Origen also know Irenaeus. Despite the church’s expansion by the second century, its surviving texts reveal a remarkable literary interconnectedness. This makes it all the more plausible that John knew the Synoptics- written when the church was smaller, more centralized, and less dispersed.
No, I don’t think I’d say that. The first Christian text, for example, couldn’t be aware of referring to another. Plenty of Christian writings are simply people writing what’s in their head.
According to Revelation 14:9-11 people who took the mark of the beast “will be tormented with fire and sulfur . . . and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those . . .”. Good people may have taken the mark because that was the only way they could buy food to feed their family. This unknown author of Revelation was a really vicious character! He didn’t obey the teaching of Jesus about loving your enemy.
Yup, that’s one of my concluding points in mny book Armageddon. In what sense is this author a follower of Jesus?
Premise: Revelation shows what’s happening.
The Book of Revelation, particularly Chapter 17, offers a profound observation of human sociology, not just prophecy. The vision of the woman (the great harlot) sitting on many waters describes a cycle of corruption we see today.
The angel provides the key: the “waters” are “peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages” (Rev 17:15). This symbolizes the global population.
The “Beast” represents the political and military power of an ungodly government.
The “Harlot” (Rev 17:6), rather than a specific institution, is best understood as corrupt ideology or “bad doctrine.” This ideology, dressed in worldly splendor, intoxicates the masses and rides the state—meaning it guides and directs the political power of the Beast.
The result is devastating: this bad doctrine causes people to demonize, dehumanize, and ignore violence toward minority groups, granting popular support to a destructive government. As the scripture states, the Harlot becomes “drunk with the blood of the saints” (Rev 17:6), vividly describing the brutal outcome of a corrupt ideology controlling state power. This timeless dynamic accurately reflects the persecution and divisions in our world from ancient times to this very day.
Note: Good Doctrine is 1 Cor 13 and Hebrews 12:14, Live in Love and Peace
The concept I was going for is that Revelations functions as a socio-political commentary. This interpretation is similar to the Preterist-Idealist tradition.
The view is that the author, John, leveraged well-established philosophical critiques of human society. For instance, the concept of the populace preferring a comforting falsehood over a difficult truth was solidified by Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, which showed that people cling to their “shadows” and reject the “truth-teller.”
Revelation’s novelty is to give this secular critique a spiritual and ethical intensity. My view is that the Harlot’s foundational concept is not an institution, but the corrupting principle of “bad doctrine”—the ultimate expression of this ancient lie. This doctrine intoxicates the masses with the “wine of her fornication” (Rev. 17:2), causing them to demonize others and surrender moral judgment to the Beast (the government’s power).
Because John expected these events to “shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1), the book was meant to be an immediate warning. The text is seen as coded resistance literature aimed at the 1st-century Roman Empire. The fact that 2,000 years have passed means it now functions as a timeless Idealist template, confirming that humanity tragically repeats the moral failure of embracing lies across all ages. Thoughts?
I’m not completely sure I understand your view (it’s hard to express in 200 words, I know). I do think Revelation is resistance literature and that it is highy metaporical. I do not think though it is “resistance” literature in the sense that it is promoting a Christian uprising. Like other apocalyptic literature, it is providing comfort to the oppressed that God will soon intervene to destroy their enemies.
It is hard to put the thought into 200 words. Especially when I am working it out. My more basic idea is that you can gain some socio-political insights from Revelations. This is more applicable for someone who mainly knows the bible and not necessarily all other the texts and doctrines in which the writer of Revelations was enmeshed. I see parallels in the Greek times. I think the principle of the Harlot’s sins of Rev 17 could be viewed as an applicable description to Greece in the execution of Socrates and the persecution of the truth. Thank you for your thoughts.
Yes, Revelation is deeply interesting and important for socio-historical undersandings of Christianity at the time, and has often been studied (esp. in the past 40 years or so) for what it can tell us about what was happening on the ground.
Hello Dr.Bart Erman
Can the appearences of the 12 and the 500 be explained by oral tradision or they can only be explained by some sort of group hallucination like the ones that catholic report?
I don’t think that is an either/or. And I don’t think those are the only options. I would say it is certain that the story was passed along orally, if not as the way Paul heard it then at least as the way most peole heard it after Paul (since most people couldn’t read)
Hi! I’ve just joined! How exciting!
Right then…
I’ve been researching the dating of Revelation… mainly because I’ve always felt uncomfortable with some of it… eg
1. The first seven verses never flowed… and considering the complexity of the rest of the book… this never sat right with me…
2. The criteria for dating the remaining books of The Greek Scriptures (no mention of destruction of temple etc) can equally be applied to Revelation…
3. The “imminent” language, mirroring Jesus’ words throughout His ministry.
4. And that last little “aside”… in chapter 22… always felt like a coercive threat in the midst of triumph… and could only have come from a man… playing God with a little “editing”… (Athanasius)
And once I’d read Josephus’ account of AD70 and aligned Daniel and the Olivet Discourse… well… “I’ll go to the foot of our stairs…”…
By the way… Ive always loved your passion and your courage… even if sometimes I’ve felt you’ve thrown the proverbial baby out… bless your heart…
Thanks (well, except that proverbial baby bit. 🙂 ) If you’re interested in Revelation and its interpretation you may want to check out my most recent book Armageddon, which is all about that. In it I include a discussion of the dating. (Not mentioning the destruction of the temple does not provide grounds for dating a book, I’d say, since the vast majority of the Christian writings after 70 CE don’t mention the destruction of the temple.
Morning Dr Bart ☺️
I will certainly check out your book, they’re always so easy to read, even if there are times I want to call you up then and there. ☺️
I found some fascinating tales in my research on the dating, eg
1. The passage from The Muratorian Fragment, “the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, wrote to no more than seven churches by name”;
2. The “tyrant” boiling John in oil and him surviving, so he was exiled to Patmos, (although to label Domitian as this tyrant is a bit of a stretch, when compared to Nero’s antics.)
And last but not least,
3. I loved the story of the young man that John entrusted to a bishop and later rescued – post exile – tho again, not entirely consistent when one holds the conventional chronology of John’s exile, return, and death, there just wasn’t the time, especially considering the state of his health at the end.
Whatever one’s belief system, debate is crucial – your joust with Dr Craig is up there – but as I always say, none of us will know for sure until our very own, “Last Trumpet”.
Questions for readers
1.
(A) “Eschatology”, began as soon as Daniel prophesied. The difference between Daniel’s prophesy is that Daniel was told to seal up the scroll because it wasn’t yet time and John was told not to seal it up because what was written was imminent.
2.
(A) The Harlot riding The Beast is drunk on the blood of the saints and Jesus said the religious rulers would be destroyed for their role in the death of the prophets. So she is Jerusalem and Rome is The Beast. The woman who flees to the desert is symbolic of the Christians who heeded the warning to flee. The literal example I’d use would be the precious stones that make up New Jerusalem are all anisotropic, in pure light they are all the colours of the rainbow, as opposed to diamonds and rubies etc which turn black in pure light, something only recently discovered.
3.
(A) I don’t have a roommate but Revelation is unique in defining the spiritual fulfilment of all Messianic prophesy, as opposed to the physical everyone expected and still expects.
Christ did return and has been with us all along, just waiting to show us around. His Grace is enough.