I really don't understand your "historical view." Rev. 4:1 is a good example. The following article makes sense to me:
Most commentaries do not tackle the theological or prophetic question, but assume a historical interpretation. Theologically, this is based on the view that biblical prophecies always have concrete, contemporary significance; indeed, R. Schütz takes the view that prophecy in Revelation is written at the time when the author thinks the great turning point must come. Historically such an interpretation is based on the suggestion that apocalyptic literature is always written with contemporary reference at times when some turning point was expected in view of the urgency of the need.
NT prophecy has permanent significance because no one knows the hour and the mystery of iniquity is already at work, as expressed in Revelation by the fact that Babylon sits on the beast, i.e., has a lasting connection with it which is not dependent on the manifestation of the beast. The historical argument for the contemporary interpretation of Revelation, and especially of the beasts, namely, that apocalyptic literature demands such an interpretation, rests on the petitio principii that Revelation is to be interpreted in terms of this literature. It is well known to what difficulties application of this interpretation leads.
Similarly, the view of Schütz (464) that the images of Revelation could be known to the author only, from apocalyptic literature is another petitio principii. Every page of Revelation shows how immersed its speech and imagery are in the OT. Every page shows also how free the author is from the letter of the OT and from any attested apocalyptic tradition. This is why the question of the theological and prophetic significance of the images must be raised.
See G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, G. Friedrich
(Eds.). (1964–). Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 3, pp. 135, 136, footnote 11).
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.