Short answer. In the Greek East, effectively yes, and in one sense it still is. Revelation is the only book of the New Testament whose canonical fight was regionally structured: across twenty surviving witnesses, 9 of 9 Western sources accept it against 3 of 11 Eastern, a split no other disputed book comes close to showing. It is absent from Cyril of Jerusalem's canon list, from the Council of Laodicea's, from Gregory Nazianzus's, and from the Syriac Peshitta. Amphilochius of Iconium reported that most rejected it. And it is still never appointed for liturgical reading in the Orthodox church.
Tier: Bedrock on the canon lists, which are published documents anyone can check. The regional measurement below is our own, from a dataset we publish.
The book that never settled
Every list of accepted books that survives from the first five centuries is an argument, not a report. Most of the New Testament appears on all of them. Seven books do not, and are grouped by Eusebius under a heading he translates roughly as disputed: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
What makes Revelation different is not that it was doubted. It is who doubted it, and for how long.
Eusebius does something with this book he does not do with any other: he files it under both the recognized and the rejected, in the same passage, with a shrug that amounts to if it seem right. An unresolved verdict, preserved in the text of the church's first historian.
The split, measured
We coded twenty surviving witnesses (canon lists, codices, church fathers and versions) for whether each accepts, disputes or omits each disputed book, and tested whether the disagreement is regionally structured. For six of the seven disputed books it is not: they were doubted more or less evenly, East and West.
For Revelation it is. Nine of nine Western witnesses accept it. Three of eleven Eastern witnesses do. A two-sided exact test puts that at p = 0.0014, and no other book in the dataset shows a significant regional effect. Four control books that nobody disputed (Matthew, Romans, 1 Peter, 1 John) come back at zero contest and no regional signal, which is how you know the method is not manufacturing splits.
Jerome, writing around 394, states the situation as a plain contemporary fact: the Greeks doubt Revelation and the Latins doubt Hebrews. He is describing the same pattern from inside it.
Dionysius saw it in 250
The sharpest argument against Revelation's apostolic authorship is not modern. Around the year 250, Dionysius of Alexandria compared the Greek of Revelation with the Greek of the Fourth Gospel and concluded they could not be the same writer. He worked from vocabulary, from style, and from grammar: noting that the author of Revelation writes solecisms the evangelist does not.
That is literary criticism of a kind the field would not systematize for another sixteen centuries, and it survives because Eusebius quoted it. Note also what Dionysius did not do: he kept the book. He denied its authorship and retained it as inspired, which is a distinction worth preserving.
Luther reached a blunter version in 1522: I hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. He put it at the back of his New Testament, unnumbered.
What the East still does
Here is the fact that settles the tone of the whole question. Revelation is in the Orthodox canon. It is also the only New Testament book never appointed for public reading in the Byzantine lectionary.
The Catholic Epistles (equally contested in the early lists) are read. Revelation is not. An Orthodox Christian attending every liturgy of the entire church year will never hear it.
Eastern reception of this book did not complete. It has still not completed, seventeen centuries later.
And now the part that runs backwards
There is a popular claim that the church put Revelation in the Bible to control people through fear. Half of that is well supported and the other half is the opposite of what happened.
If an imperial church had manufactured this book as an instrument of control, its acceptance should be early and uniform. It is neither. Half the Greek-speaking world spent four centuries declining to read it and the Byzantine rite still declines.
And the book itself is anti-imperial. Babylon is Rome, about as plainly as a writer in danger can say it, the city on seven hills, the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth. The beast's number is most probably Nero; the variant reading 616 works for the Latin spelling of the same name, which is what a real cipher looks like when it is copied across languages.
It was written against the empire, by someone in trouble with it. The empire's church was reluctant about it for centuries.
Where the fear machine actually comes from
The apparatus most people mean when they say Revelation was used to frighten them (the timetable, the rapture, the charts, the countdown to a dated end) is not ancient. It is roughly two hundred years old.
John Nelson Darby assembled it around 1830. The Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 printed it in the margins beside the text, where generations of readers took it for the text. That is a machine with a date on it and a name attached, which makes it a better story than a vague ancient conspiracy, and unlike the vague version, it can be documented.
See Where did the rapture come from? for that history at length.
What this does not show
Revelation is not "the most disputed book in the Bible." By raw contest rate it ties 2 Peter at 40%, and all seven disputed books sit in a narrow band between 28% and 40%. Anyone arguing the "most disputed" framing can be refuted with a single counterexample, and should stop using it.
What distinguishes Revelation is not how much it was contested. It is by whom, and that is the finding.
The dataset behind these numbers is twenty witnesses, coded by an explicit rule fixed before the counting, with indeterminate cases excluded rather than guessed. Codex Vaticanus breaks off in Hebrews, so its silence about Revelation is a damaged manuscript and not a verdict; it is coded as unknown.
Common questions
Is Revelation in the Orthodox Bible?
Yes. It is in the canon and has been for centuries. It is simply never appointed for liturgical reading, which is why an Orthodox Christian may attend every service of the church year without hearing it.
Who wrote Revelation?
Someone named John, on Patmos, who never claims to be an apostle. Dionysius of Alexandria argued around 250 (from vocabulary, style and grammar) that he cannot be the author of the Fourth Gospel, and most critical scholars have agreed since.
Why did the Eastern church resist it?
Partly the authorship problem Dionysius raised, and partly its use by millenarian groups whose literal thousand-year kingdom the Greek theological tradition found embarrassing.
Is the number of the beast really Nero?
It is the strongest candidate. The Hebrew letters of Neron Caesar total 666, and the variant reading 616 found in some manuscripts works for the Latin spelling of the same name, a coincidence that is very hard to arrange by accident.
Does this mean Revelation should be removed?
That is a theological judgment and this page does not make it. What the evidence supports is narrower: the book's place was genuinely contested for centuries, the contest was regional in a way no other book's was, and in the East it has never entirely ended.
Sources
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.25 and 7.25 (preserving Dionysius of Alexandria) · Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.36 · Council of Laodicea, canon 60 · Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter (367) · Gregory Nazianzus and Amphilochius of Iconium, verse canon lists · the Syriac Peshitta · Jerome, Epistula 129 · Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament · Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon · Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis · Elaine Pagels, Revelations · Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism · the twenty-witness dataset behind the regional measurement is published with its coding rule and its indeterminate cases marked.