Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts.
Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up As a source, the book of Revelation is something of an outlier for a book of the Bible that got accepted into the canonical New Testament of most branches of Christianity: it is the only explicitly eschatological work in the New Testament, its date of composition is generally taken to be far later than the other books, its content is dramatic, and its author is not certain.
From the Isle, John sent Revelation as an epistle to the seven churches under his care in Asia minor. He did not choose only large churches or only small churches. However, all seven lay along a major Roman trade route in the province of Asia Minor. If Revelation is written late, the book aims to encourage Christians during an imperial persecution.
Second, John calls Laodicia rich, but an earthquake almost leveled the city in A. Though early daters say Babylon refers to Jerusalem, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and The Sibylline Oracles all refer to Rome as Babylon.
Jews and Christians linked the cities together because both powers had sacked the holy city.
However, the style differences may be answered by the different genre or the use of a different scribe.
Furthermore, Revelation and the Gospel contain many similarities in motif, Christology, eschatology, and expressions.
Is this the full story of why it was accepted late (reaction against Montanists, doubts over its Jewishness and authorship), and what justification was there for it's final inclusion that overcame these barriers to admission to the canon?