I've been rummaging around on Bart Ehrman's blog and such and managed to distill six cogent views about
the Book of Revelation, I thought I share for whatever it is worth. (ehrmanblog.org/)
1. Parts of the book of Revelation could scarcely be explained if it were written by Jesus’ own disciple, John.
The author, for example, occasionally mentions “the apostles,” but he never indicates that he is one of them (e.g., 21:14). Even more intriguingly, at one point of the narrative the prophet sees twenty-four elders around the throne of God (chap. 4). Most interpreters understand these figures to represent the twelve Jewish Patriarchs and the twelve apostles of Jesus (cf. 21:12, 14); among them, of course, would be the two sons of Zebedee. But the author gives no indication that he is seeing himself! It appears then that the book was written by some other Christian named John, a prophet who was known to several of the churches of Asia Minor.
2, On the basis of a detailed study of all such clues in the text, most investigators think that parts of the book were written during the sixties of the Common Era, soon after the persecution of the Christians under Nero. If one begins counting with Julius Caesar, Nero happens to have been the sixth ruler of Rome. He was also one of the author’s chief enemies. The book was evidently not completed, however, until some thirty years or so later, probably around 95 CE during the reign of Domitian.
3. The use of a pseudonym made particularly good sense for apocalypses of the “historical sketch” type. For by pretending to be someone living in the distant past, an author could “predict” the future with remarkable accuracy: he was, after all, living after the events that he “predicted”! A typical ploy, then, was to write in the name of a prophet from ancient times who revealed a number of events that were to take place. When the author then continued to predict what was soon to happen in his own day — the reader didn’t know when this was, of course, since the author claimed to be writing from the distant past — he was naturally granted the benefit of the doubt. That is to say, these “future” events (from the time of the reader) were just as certain to occur as those that had already happened. The prophet had been right about everything else; surely he was also right about what would come next!
Note: The first apocalypse known to use this ploy came to be included in the Hebrew Bible. It is the book of Daniel, allegedly written by the great wise man of the sixth century BCE during the days of the Babylonian captivity, but actually written, in the judgment of almost all critical scholars, sometime during the period of suffering associated with the Maccabean revolt, some 400 years later. No wonder “Daniel” could predict the rise of the Persians and the Greeks, and even more accurately detail events that were to transpire near the time of the Jewish uprising. The author of these “prophecies” lived after they had taken place.
4. The “great city” that ruled the world in John’s day was obviously Rome, commonly called the city “built on seven hills” (hence the beast’s seven heads). Thus this vision is about the city of Rome, which was supported by the Devil himself, a city that had corrupted the nations (the whore who fornicates with the kings of earth), that exploited the peoples of earth (she is bedecked in fine clothing and jewelry), and that persecuted the Christians (she is drunk with the blood of the martyrs). Why is she called Babylon? This symbol too is clear for those who know the Old Testament, where Babylon is portrayed as the archenemy of God, the city whose armies devastated Judah, leveled Jerusalem, and destroyed the Temple in 587 BCE. In Revelation, then, “Babylon” is a code name for the city opposed to God — Rome, God’s principal enemy. Like Babylon of old, Rome too will be destroyed (v. 16). Indeed, this is the point of much of the entire book. The enemy of the Christians, Rome of the first century, would soon be destroyed in a cataclysmic display of divine power.
5. My sense is that once the book was being read outside of the community in which it was written, the original interpretation of it came to be lost. (But I should also say that lots of early church fathers were not in favor of including it in the canon.)
6. Does anyone think the early Christians living in 95-105 AD could understand more than the general message? Less than 5% of the population in the first century was able to read and write. Nobody can remember half the imagery, time spans, vials/wrath and chronology after someone has read Revelation to them one time - Impossible. The illiterate Christian living in the first/second centuries could not have grasped and understood the chart data. This leads me to an important rule in biblical exegesis: The text cannot mean to us what it could NOT have meant to the original audience.
This is not a very popular rule. Eusebius (who was far more skeptical) cites Dionysius of Alexandria, from his work "On the Promises," as saying about the Revelation: