Yeah well, it's still interesting stuff-especially when archeology keeps unearthing oh..umm..."related incidentals".<quoted text>
A reasonable question. There isn't any evidence that John of Patmos was John the Apostle. Revelation bears no resemblance to the Gospel of John. There isn't any reasonable expectation that Rev. was divinely inspired or that John of Patmos even laid eyes on Jesus. There were many other writings in circulation by the third century that were actually held to be eyewitness accounts, and yet not only were those not included in the canonized Bible, many were deemed by the Councils to be false, irrelevant or sacrilegious and were ordered to be systematically destroyed. Revelation, on the other hand was a terrific tool to reinforce the punishment/reward doctrine of the church and as such has become indispensable. That is the only "chroniLogical" reason for its inclusion and longevity.
(and it would've been unscholarly to have placed it anywhere else within the pages of!)