I have still not found any good answer to this question. But I post some hints that have been helpful to me. Hoping that it might be helpful for someone else and maybe intriguing to give a better answer. The following is a quotation from Steve Gregg, Revelation - four views, 1997, p. 33-34.
The contemporary conservative protestant scene
Conservative Protestants commentaries (those that not follow the
literary-critical approach) in the 19th and 20th centuries have been
The historicist approach continued into the 19th century in
the writings of E. B. Elliott (Horae Apocalypticae, 1847), A. J.
Gordon, Albert Barnes, and others. To my knowledge, the only modern
commentaries that espouse this view have not come from recognized
scholars (not that this fact should condemn them), but from
essentially self-published authors who are desirous to reintroduce
this viewpoint to a modern readership. Eugene Boring would seem to be
correct when he writes, "Although widely held by Protestant
interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no
critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view." The
preterist approach was followed in the 19th century by Moses Stuart (1845), and in the early 20th century by James Snowden (1919).
Preterism has had a recent resurgence in the writings of Christian
Reconstructionists like David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry. On of the
first popular presentations of the futurist approach, and the most
influential, was that of J. A. Seiss (Lectures on the Apocalypse,
1909). In the 20th century, the futurist approach to Revelation has
become most common - especially since the publication of the
phenomenally successful The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey
- having its place almost in the very common stock of American pop culture. Futurism has been advocated by sound scholars, such as
Walvoord, Mounce, and Ladd, as well as by innumerable cranks and
eschatelogical faddists, who have often given it a bad name by their
repeated speculations concerning the date of the Second Coming and
their assigning of correspondences between the symbolic visions and
specific developments in an ever-changing modern political milieu.
The spiritual approach has received wide acceptance in modern
commentaries, though various labels have been attached to it. Since
Eichhorn, in the 18th century the dramatic nature of the book has
intrigues many students of the book. In 1939, William Hendriksen
popularized this view in his book, More Than Conquerors, though it
was found in a number of works earlier in the 20th century as well. As
I write, there appear to be more new commentaries published advocating
a dramatico-spiritual approach to Revelation than there are
advocating any of the other conservative approaches.
Authors emphasis. All spelling mistakes are (probably) mine. I do, by the way, highly recommend this book (even though I only started).