All the current interpretations may be classified under one or other of the above heads, yet in the hands of individual interpreters they are often modified and blend into each other in their application—a manifest recognition of the fact that there is an element of truth underlying each view, which we may perhaps say has been unduly emphasized, for all agree that the interpretation is somehow and somewhere to be found in human life and history.
What might be called still another method of interpretation is the Apocalyptic‐Traditional (or Tradition‐Historical) view of late critical writers on the Apocalypse already referred to, which approaches the question from the viewpoint of literary origin, and attributes certain portions of the book to the introduction of traditional Jewish or Jewish‐ Christian Apocalyptic fragments that have been utilized by the author and applied to the historical conditions of his time, adapting them to a new meaning. This, however, is not so much a separate method of interpretation as it is a corollary of the present Literary‐Critical method of dealing with the book, which regards it as an early Christian work in successive editions that has taken into itself certain Jewish elements. With this origin assumed the interpretation does not differ materially from the Preterist view except, perhaps, that it is less rigorous in its application to current events, and recognizes more fully the idealism of the author; for the historical outlook has measurably lost its value except as an indication of the date of writing, and for most who hold this view the book has no longer any distinctive prophetic message for the church; it has become chiefly a fantastic dream, a pious dream it is true, but only a dream of the far past.
The principal question of interpretation, as will be seen by a consideration of the current views, relates not only to the view‐point, but also to the aim or design of the Revelation. The Historical method centers the chief aim of the book in a _predictive_‐prophetic element which it finds throughout and regards as pointing to specific events in particular periods of history that are designed to teach important spiritual lessons. With this idea of the didactic purpose, it yet presents the widest variation of opinion concerning the viewpoint of the book, and includes upon the one hand the extreme rationalist who considers it a purely human writing, a Jewish apocalypse that has been revamped to include Christian ideas, which blends history with prediction and reflects only the horizon of the first century; and on the other hand the devout mystic who accepts its message as chiefly predictive prophecy of the far future, and interprets it well nigh literally as a prophetic account of the world’s ending amid terror and blood. The Symbolist method, with a quite different conception, centers the aim of the book in an _interpretative_‐prophetic element which it finds in every part, and regards as setting forth the principles of the divine government, and pointing to their exemplification in multiple events occurring in different periods of history that are working together toward the final consummation. According to this method of interpretation the viewpoint is idealistic, universal, and timeless, and the scope of the visions correspondingly wide.