From its beginning, the Apocalypse, more than any other New Testament book enjoyed recognition, acknowledgement and a wide distribution.[1] The book received great attention from scholars and laymen. Numerous commentaries on the Apocalypse were written in the early church and throughout the Middle Ages. Theologians and scholars from various parts of Europe wrote commentaries on the Apocalypse. Louis A. Brighton makes a list with the names of all the most important scholars who wrote about Revelation, and in this list appear the names of: Hippolytus of Rome, Melito of Sardis (around 165 A.D.), Oecumenius, Primasius, Victorinus, Arethas, Andreas, Tyconius, Venerable Bede, Alcuin, and Anselm of Laon.[2]
The Apocalypse still receives attention, and it has received attention especially in the last sixty years which has caused resurgence in interest in the book of Revelation. Today there is a revival in interest in Revelation among theologians, historians, and biblical scholars, and this thing could be seen in the release of so many commentaries on Revelation.[3]
1.1. Purpose of the study
Due to the fact that in twenty first century there are so many questions and two main options regarding the date of the composition of the book of Revelation, this phenomenon make necessary an investigation of historical evidences regarding the historical date of the composition of Revelation.[4]
Commentators of Revelation propose two main dates for its composition: a Neronic date[5] (64-68 A.D.) and a Domitianic date (95-96 A.D.).[6] During the twentieth century, most scholars have favoured a date during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.) A significant minority ties Revelation to the reign of Nero (54-68 A.D).[7] In this paper I will try to establish with historical arguments that the date of the composition of Revelation is 95 A.D.
1.2. Justification of the study
The justification and motivation of this study starts with the awareness that the interpretation of Revelation is dependent and based on the date of the composition of the book.
When the interpretation depends upon the date, the interpretation can never be more certain than the date itself—if the date is wrong, then, of necessity the interpretation is wrong. The whole business of making the interpretation depend upon the date is there-fore built upon a sandy foundation…But if the late date is correct, the whole approach that assigns Revelation as a prophecy fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem is false and must be totally rejected.[8]
The entire apocalyptic interpretation process rises or falls on the early date, or late date of Revelation. The difference of dating could alter the interpretation of the book, since the occasion prompting John to write might be different in each case. Therefore, I consider necessary such a study, which will determine the way we interpret Revelation.
The answers, arguments and conclusions of this study are important for various branches of apocalyptic research, because the answers provided will shape many aspects of eschatological and theological understanding of Revelation.
2. Historical evidences for the domitianic date of revelation
In establishing an accurate date for the composition of the book of Revelation we find external evidences, which are historical evidences. Most of the evidences are to be found in patristic literature of the first centuries of Christianity.
2.1. Irenaeus – Bishop of Lyons (120-202 A.D.)[9]
Without doubt, Irenaeus is the most important witness for a Domitianic/late date of Revelation. He ministered as a bishop in Lyon, southern France.[10] Historical evidences tell us that he lived in Smyrna, where Revelation circulated for the first time. Irenaeus was a disciple of a very well known Christian martyr called Polycarp,[11] who in turn was a disciple of John. Thus, there is a personal link between the author of Revelation and Irenaeus.
Irenaeus’ statement concerning the date of Revelation was written in Greek, probably about 180 A.D., then it was translated in Latin, and now it is to be found in Ecclesiastical History 3.18.3.[12]
It is clear in his statement that the book of Revelation/the Apocalypse was seen toward the end of the Domitian’s reign, that is, 95-96 A.D. since Domitian was assassinated in Rome on September 96 A.D.
But if it had been necessary to announce his name plainly at the present time, it would have been spoken by him who saw the apocalypse. For it was not seen long ago, but almost in our time, at the end of the reign of Domitian.[13]
Exploring the context in the writing of Irenaeus we could see that it supports the idea that Irenaeus had Revelation in mind not John, as some preterist commentators suppose. In fact Irenaeus devoted a whole chapter of Against Heresies to the number and name of the future Antichrist from Revelation 13:18.
It is also interestingly to note the precision of Irenaeus’ statement concerning the date of Revelation because this inspires confidence in his testimony. Irenaeus not only says in whose reign the Revelation was seen, but fixes the precise period of his reign.[14] In a plain and clear way he states that the Revelation was seen “at the end of Domitian’s reign.” This peculiar dating of Revelation suggests that Irenaeus had special knowledge of the timing and circumstances under which the book of Revelation was written.
Irenaeus statement regarding the accurate date of Revelation is reliable because he had made a special study of the Apocalypse, as indicated by his reference to different manuscripts that he had read and his interpretation of various chapters in Revelation.[15]
Moreover, Irenaeus was a native of Asia and a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. He was a student of the Asia Minor School of the early church witnesses[16] and was from the geographical area where Revelation circulated for the first time. Thus, Irenaeus would have been in the most ideal position for knowing the origin of Revelation and its compositional date.[17]
In the end we can add an additional thing: Irenaeus’ information about the date of Revelation was received directly from Polycarp, and it is very clear from the writings of Irenaeus that he held Polycarp in high esteem. Thus, we can conclude that the evidences of Irenaeus concerning the date of Revelation are reliable, trustworthy and can be considered a testimony of the highest class.[18]
2.2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) was born about 155 A.D, of pagan parents and is usually known as a Church Father of Early Christianity. He was trained in great centres of learning, and in Greek language. Later, he joined the school of Pantaenus in Alexandria, where he succeeded as head of the school in about 190 A.D., and then fled Alexandria during the persecution under Septimius Severus.[19]
His testimony concerning the book of Revelation is to be found in “Quis dives salvetur?”,[20] a sermon on the Mark 10:17-31 in which he tries to explain that if material resources and belongings are used rightly is not evil. The Clement’s statement concerning the date of Revelation is the following:
And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope for salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit.[21]
In the above-mentioned text is a clear indication that John returned from the Patmos island back to Ephesus “after the death of the tyrant.” The problem with this text is that most of the preterist expositors try to see a link between “the tyrant” and the Nero. But, both Nero and Domitian were bloody tyrants in the first century of Christian era. Thus, the word “tyrant” could refer to both of them very well. The tyranny of Nero was obvious; but Domitian was described as a tyrant also. The two Roman historians Dio Cassius and Suetonius refer in their works to the “tyrannical behaviour” of Domitian.[22]
Both Nero and Domitian were tyrants, but the main issue is not who was more tyrannical, but which of these tyrants did Clement have in mind when he wrote about “the tyrant.” The interesting fact is that Clement makes a reference to a “true account of John the apostle” that has been preserved. In this point a lot of commentators agree with the fact that the tradition that had been handed down and kept was the Domitianic tradition. Clement’s clear remark to “the tyrant” implies that there was a popularly and widely known tradition concerning the identity of this Roman Emperor[23] and this was Domitian.
2.3. Quintius Septimius Florens Tertullianus (150-212 A.D.)
Tertullian, a man from a middle class family but with a good scholar training, was born in the second century of Christian era at Carthage. He is very well known as the “founder of Latin Christian doctrine.”[24] In establishing an accurate date for the composition of Revelation it is quite difficult to use Tertullian’s statements because there are only a few. However, Tertullian mentions the liberation of those who were banished by Domitian.[25] But, while he doesn’t mention the apostle John, however, there can be made a correspondence between Domitian act of banishment and the exile of John to Patmos island.[26] Another relevant aspect to be mentioned in this context is the fact that Tertullian used a Latin word for the act of banishment; the word he uses is relegaverat and the Latin verb relego is also used by Tertullian of John’s banishment to Patmos island.[27]
2.4. Origenes Adamantius (185-254 A.D.)
Origen, as a disciple of Clement of Alexandria, is recognized as one of the best scholars in the third century, and sometimes is called “the first great theologian of the Christian Church.” He was born in Alexandria, and died in Tyre. In Alexandria, his homeland, he was the leader of a catechetical school, but in 232 A.D. he was expelled from Alexandria and took up residence at Caesarea. He founded here a school and resumed his writing.[28]
Regarding the book of Revelation, Origene makes some comments on Matthew 16:6, where he says that “the King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore testimony, on account of the truth, to the isle of Patmos.”[29] In this short phrase Origen doesn’t say who he means by “the King of the Romans,” but the next few words from the same sentence – “as tradition teaches” – points to Domitian as the king, because this tradition is the same tradition to which Irenaeus alludes, or as Smith puts it “at that time there was no other tradition in the church.”[30]
Likewise, in this regard Hengstenberg affirms that “Origen is silent respecting the name, because he was generally known, and the blank was easily supplied from the tradition, to which he refers.”[31] Thus, Origen can be considered a supporter of a late date.
2.5. Eusebius Pamphili (260-340 A.D.)
Eusebius is the best known historian of the early Christian Church, Father of the Christian Church, and the composer of the great historical classical work Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius thought that the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Domitian and various scholars think that his testimony is very important and well-documented because he had a lot of literature at his disposal and access to an extensive library, and thus he could make a good research.[32] Ritchie J. Smith, in his article “The Date of the Apocalypse” states that, apparently, Eusebius was not aware of a contrary tradition to the Domitianic date.[33]
Concerning the Roman emperor Domitian, and the banishment of John to Patmos, Eusebius wrote:
At this time that very disciple whom Jesus loved, John, at once Apostle and Evangelist, still remain alive in Asia and administered the churches, for after the death of Domitian, he had returned from his banishment on the island. And that he remained alive until this very time may fully be confirmed by two witnesses, and these ought to be trustworthy for they represent the orthodoxy of the church, no less persons than Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.[34]
In this matter, Eusebius, is also in agreement with Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement who say that John returned from Patmos in the time after the death of Domitian.[35]
Thus, from the clear and unambiguous perspective of Eusebius, regarding the apostle John and the emperor Domitian, we can conclude that John’s banishment took place under Domitian, and this means that Eusebius favour a Domitianic date for the writing of Revelation.
2.6. Saint Jerome (331-420 A.D.)
Jerome was born at Stridon around 331 A.D., and was not baptized until 360, when he had gone to Rome with his friend Bonosus to pursue rhetorical and philosophical studies.[36] There Jerome learned the Greek and Latin languages.[37] He is recognized as the most learned man in the Latin-speaking church of the fourth century.[38]
Saint Jerome wrote only a few words about the apostle John and the Roman emperor Domitian, but his words are very unique and specific. In his book Lives of Illustrious Men he states:
In the fourteenth year after Nero, Domitian having raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Matyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eight year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.[39]
His words need no commentary because they are so clear and specific. Thus Saint Jerome specific statement is another argument for a late-date for Revelation.
2.7. Bedae the Venerable (672-735 A.D.)
Bede, known as Bede the Venerable, is a well known author and scholar of the 7th-8th century. Because of his famous work Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum which he completed in 731,[40] he gained the title “The Father of English History.” Oftentimes he is recognized as “the most important Christian scholar, teacher, and writer between the age of the church Fathers and Carolingian revival of learning.[41]
In his book Homilies on the Gospels, a masterpiece of monastic literature, written in 720 A.D., he wrote about John’s banishment to Patmos island:
And it is told in church history how he was put by the emperor Domitian into a tub of boiling oil, from which, since divine grace shielded him, he came out untouched, just as he had been a stranger to the corruption of fleshly concupiscence. […] He was banished in exile by the same prince to the island of Patmos, where although he was deprived of human comfort. […] Accordingly, in that very place he composed with his own hand the Apocalypse, which the Lord revealed to him concerning the present and the future state of the Church.[42]
Thus, without any doubt, Bede the Venerable supports the banishment of John by the emperor Domitian, which means that he favours a late-date for the composition of Revelation.
2.8. Arethas of Caesarea (850-944 A.D.)
Arethas, born between 850-860,[43] became Archbishop of Caesarea early in the 10th century, and is reckoned as one of the most scholarly theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church. The latest known date for his life is 932. Arethas wrote a commentary on Revelation, but his commentary was a rewriting/a revision of the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea.
Arethas agree with the fact that the apostle John was banished under Domitian,[44] and he knows this fact from the Chronicle of Eusebius. In fact, this is not his opinion, but Eusebius’. Arethas appears to have been in some confusion regarding the date of the composition of Revelation, but the last quotation is the clearest expression of his own belief.[45] Arethas is clear regarding the name of the emperor under whom John was banished, but is a little bit ambiguous for the date.
2.8.1. Preliminary conclusions
On the basis of historical evidences we can conclude that the correct date of the composition of the book of Revelation is the late-date, the Domitianic one. Most reliable names in Christian history support this: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Quintius Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Origenes Adamantius, Eusebius Pamphili, Saint Jerome, Bedae the Venerable and Arethas. The striking fact is that all these witnesses came from different geographical regions, and from different churches. Their evidences are more valuable, weighty and reliable because there is an Irenaeus from Asia Minor where the Apocalypse first circulated and Eusebius “The Father of Church History.”
In conclusion, the words of Henry Barclay Swete are very important: “Early Christian tradition is almost unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of Domitian.”[46]
3. Internal evidences for the domitianic date of revelation
The author of Revelation does not give much clues about the particular time in which he is writing, but, however, Revelation contains internal evidences which are compatible with the Domitianic date of 95 A.D. as the time of composition of Revelation.
3.1. Banishment of the apostle John to Patmos
In Revelation 1:9, John shows his readers that he wrote his book during persecution and banishment:
I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos, because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.[47]
The ancient records indicate that both Domitian and Nero used to banish people. Nero for example, banished his wife Octavia,[48] the son of his foster mother called Tuscus[49], a group of conspirators against him[50], Isiodorus, and Datus.[51]
It is true that Nero used to banish people, but there are some hints which favour the theory that the banishment of the apostle John took place under Domitian. The first argument is that – in history – is no mention about Nero ever banishing a Christian, while Domitian did banish many Christians on many occasions, for their simple testimony as Christians.[52] Second, Nero did use banishment as means of punishment, but not so frequently as Domitian. And on the third hand, the New Testament witnesses that Paul and Peter were put to death near the end of Nero’s reign. The obvious question is: Why would Nero banish John, and put to death Paul and Peter? Those three received 2 different kinds of executions, and this seems to be inconsistent with Nero’s practices. These two different penalties argue for the fact that the three apostles were sentenced under two different emperors.
Since Domitian was the second Roman emperor after Nero to persecute Christians, notable, eminent and outstanding men, and since banishment to islands was his preferred method of punishment, the apostle John’s exile to Patmos is much more likely under Domitian than Nero.
3.2. The spiritual condition of the Churches in Asia Minor
The spiritual condition of the churches described in Revelation 2-3, when considered together, could point to a later date, rather than an earlier date. And this is a strong argument in favour of a late date.[53] First, the spiritual lethargy of Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea is so widespread and severe that each church as a whole is on the verge of losing its very identity as a church of Christ. It is plausible that such spiritual deterioration took a significant period of time to develop. For example, that Ephesus had left its “first love” could mean that the church had done so within only a few years of its establishment, but the language may fit better a longer development, perhaps so that the church was in its second generation of existence. The Laodicean church is called “wealthy,” but the city experienced a devastating earthquake in 60–61 A.D. Therefore, the natural assumption is that the city took longer than merely three or four years to recover economically. And, as suggested by many commentators, the very existence of the church at Smyrna suggests a later date, since it is possible that the church was not even established until 60–64 A.D.[54]
3.3. The church of Ephesus as an evidence for a Domitianic date
If the preterist interpretation regarding the date of the composition of Revelation is correct, than John wrote Revelation in 65 A.D. This means that John arrived in Ephesus 2 or 3 years earlier, have been settled there, and has had plenty of time to get knowledge about the culture, about believers and their spiritual condition. Robert L. Thomas adds something more: “it also means that he became an influential Christian in Ephesus, that required exile, and to put an end to his influential power.”[55]
From the biblical point of view there are many inconstancies and gaps in the above-mentioned preterist presuppositions. In the first place, it would mean that the duties of Paul and John coincided. In 62, after his imprisonment Paul visited the church in Ephesus and put Timothy in charge of the church (1Timothy 1:3). Then, why would Paul visited the church in Ephesus and put Timothy in charge if John was already there?
Second, according to the preterist interpretation the epistle of Paul, 1Timoty, was written in the same year/years that John was writing the book of Revelation, and yet, Paul make no mention to the work of John, neither to his influence or his banishment.[56]
As a conclusion, Colin J. Hemer affirms that “the Neronic date of Revelation fails to account for its necessary overlapping of the ministries of John and Paul in Ephesus.”[57] Surely, a late date for Revelation can better explain why Paul doesn’t name or allude to John in his letters to Timothy.
3.4. The presence of Nicolaitans in the church of Ephesus
Most commentators agree with the fact that Paul visited Ephesus around 62 A.D. but before 65 A.D., but however he doesn’t mention the church’s loss of her first love or the presence of the Nicolaitans (a proto-gnostic sect). But in 95 A.D., the year of the composition of Revelation, the Nicolaitans are presented in Revelation 2:6. Their presence in the church of Ephesus suggest that the time John wrote the Apocalypse they were a wide-spread sect that only needed to be mentioned by name.[58] Reading the epistle 1Timothy we can conclude that there is no loss of faith in Ephesus, and also, there is no allusion to the sect of Nicolaitans.
Moreover, Craig S. Keener affirms that Jesus’ statement that the believers from Ephesus (Revelation 2:2) had guarded well against error (false apostles, wicked men, and the Nicolaitans) doesn’t fit the church in Ephesus in Nero’s time.[59]
3.5. The arguments of Professor Godet
Professor Godet presents 4 additional arguments in favour of a Domitianic date of Revelation: 1. The ecclesiastical organization presupposed by the Apocalypse. The angel is the bishop: the Apocalypse brings before us the period of transition from the primitive presbyterian constitution to the monarchic organization which is universally admitted to have prevailed in the second century. 2. This custom [of public reading and hearing] did not exist, as a received form, before the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, and consequently the Apocalypse, which implies the use of this custom, cannot have been composed in the year 68. 3. The expression, the Lord’s day (v. 10) is of purely Christian origin, belonging to the ecclesiastical and technical language of the later times, when the church had broken off all connections with the synagogue. Accordingly we find it only in the writings of the second century. The date indicated by Irennaeus is the only one compatible with the use of this expression. 4. The name given to the Jews in the Apocalypse will not allow us to suppose that this book was written before the great judgment of God upon Israel. They are called (2:9; 3:9) the synagogue of Satan. What Christian author – especially what Judaeo-Christian writer, such as the author of the Apocalypse must have been – would have allowed himself to brand with such a name the chosen people, before God had finally broken with them?… No, nothing but an event of so decisive a nature as the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation can explain so novel a manner of speech with respect to the ancient people of God.[60]
4. Final conclusions
The external and internal evidences derived from the background of the book and from the book, individually and collectively point to 90 A.D. as the time of its composition. The internal evidences are in perfect harmony with the external evidences, and both testify for a late date.[61]
[1] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, ed. Gordon D. Fee, Rev. Ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 21.
[2] Louis A. Brighton, Revelation, ed. Jonathan F. Grothe, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Company, 1999), 27-28.
[3] Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Backer Books, 2001); David Aune, Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 52a (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1997), David Aune, Revelation 6-16, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 52b (Dalass, TX: Word Books, 1998), David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 52c (Dallas, TX: Word Book, 1998); Gregory Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999); Grant Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Comentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
[4] This is a critical factor in establishing the historical setting of the book: “A decision about the date of Revelation can dramatically affect one’s view of the audience, purpose, and message of the book.” – Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 3.
[5] A Neronic date is primarily proposed by the preterist interpretation of the book. One of the main proponents of an earlier date of composition is Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: American Vision, 1998).
[6] Actually four dates for Revelation have been held throughout church history, and each of these dates is related to an early Roman emperor who reigned in the following years: Claudius (41–54 A.D.), Nero (54–68), Domitian (81–96), and Trajan (98–117). See Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2005), 707-708; A fifth view, held by several modern scholars, dates Revelation in the years immediately following Nero, about 69 A.D. See Mark Wilson, “The Early Christians in Ephesus and the Date of Revelation, Again,” Neotestamentica 39 (2005): 164; Still another view is held by David Aune, who says that the first edition of Revelation was composed during the reign of Nero while the final edition was completed toward the end of the reign of Domitian, or more likely, he says, during the early part of the reign of Trajan. See Aune, Revelation 1-5, 58.
[7] John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976), 224-225 and Arnaldo Momigliano, “Religious Opposition to the Roman Empire,” in On the Jews, Pagans, and Christian (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1987), 134-135.
[8] Howard Winters, Commentary on Revelation (Greenville, SC: Carolina Christian, 1989), 15-16.
[9] “Irenaeus is the leading representative of Catholic Christianity in the last quarter of the second century, the champion of orthodoxy against Gnostic heresy, and the mediator between the Eastern and Western churches. He united a learned Greek education and philosophical penetration with practical wisdom and moderation. He is neither very original nor brilliant, but eminently sound and judicious… He is perfectly at home in the Greek Bible and in the early Christian writers. His position gives him additional weight, for he is linked by two long lives, that of his teacher and grand teacher, to the fountain-dead of Christianity” – Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols., vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’ Sons, 1979), 2:750-751. For many details, see Constance Grog De Young, “Agents of Victory: Mary and the Martyrs in the Writings of Irenaeus of Lyons” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 2000), 1-68.
[10] Philip W. Comfort, Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992), 223.
[11] John D. Woodbridge, Great Leaders of the Christian Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), 44.
[12] Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 3.
[13] Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writing of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Roberts Alexander (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 5.30.3.
[14] Arthur S. Peake, The Revelation of John (London: Holborn Publishing House, 1919), 72.
[15] Ritchie J. Smith, “The Date of the Apocalypse,” Bibliotheca sacra 45 (1888): 300. The entire thirtieth chapter of Against Heresies, where Irenaeus’ statement about the date of the Apocalypse is found, is devoted to a careful study of Revelation 13:18.; Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 5.30.1.
[16] F. L. Cross, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1960), 110.
[17] E. W. Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, trans., Patrick Fairbairn, 2 vols., vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1852), 8-9.
[18] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1:834 – Schaff is also making a reference to “the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus.” According to F. L. Cross, Irenaeus was “the most considerable Christian theologian of the 2nd century” – Cross, The Early Christian Fathers, 110. And Robinson also praises and recommends Irenaeus as a trustworthy and true witness – Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 221.
[19] Comfort, Who’s Who in Christian History, 163-164.
[20] “Who is the rich man that shall be saved?”
[21] Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved, 42. [Underlying is mine].
[22] Cassius Dio, Dio’s Roman History, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914-1927), 67.12.5; Suetonius, “Domitian,” in Lives of the Caesars, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913), 1.3.
[23] Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, 1:9.
[24] Tertullian, Apology, De Spectaculis, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 14-20.
[25] Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, 3.20.7-8; 3.32.1.
[26] Tertullian, Apology, 5.4.
[27] E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae; or a Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical; Including Also an Examination of the Chief Prophecies of Daniel, vol. 1 (London: Seeleys, 1851), 33.
[28] Woodbridge, Great Leaders, 56; For more information about Origene see the excellent dissertation written by Lisa R. Holliday, “Origen of Caesarea: Creating Christian Identity in the Third Century” (Ph.D. diss., College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky, 2006).
[29] Origen, Commentary on Matthew 16:6, ed. J. P. Migne, 161 vols., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Seu Bibliotheca Universalis Omnium Ss. Patrum, Doctorum, Scriptorumque Ecclesiasticorum, Serie Graeca (Paris: S. Barnaba ad Photium, 1857-1866), 13:1385-1386.
[30] Smith, “The Date of the Apocalypse,” 302.
[31] Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, 1:10.
[32] Comfort, Who’s Who in Christian History, 239.
[33] Smith, “The Date of the Apocalypse,” 303. Hengstenberg also states that regarding the date of the composition of Revelation, and the name of the Roman emperor during whose reign John was banished, in these two respects, there must have been perfect unanimity in the church. – Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, 1:12.
[34] Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, 3.23.1-2. In the same time, there it is to be found another citation in Eusebius’ History concerning the Roman emperor Domitian and the banishment of John – “After Domitian had reigned fifteen years, Nerva succeeded. The sentences of Domitian were annulled, and Roman senate decreed the return of those who had been unjustly banished and restoration of their property. […] At that time, too, the story of the ancient Christian relates that the Apostle John, after his banishment to the island, took up his abode at Ephesus. – Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, 3.20.8-9.
[35] It is important to observe that Eusebius relied upon the testimony of many Early Church historians (Irenaeus, Hegesipuss, Tertullian and Clement’s testimonies), not upon Irenaeus alone. It seems from his writings that Eusebius adopted a Domitianic date for the Apocalypse, and he made this relying on the harmonious testimony of his predecessors. And Eusebius surely did this because these historians were trustworthy witnesses, and he wasn’t aware of any other point of view about the date of Revelation.
[36] Megan Williams Hale, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006), 16.
[37] Michael Walsh, Butler’s Lives of the Saints (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 307.
[38] Woodbridge, Great Leaders, 77.
[39] Jerome, “Lives of Illustrious Men,” in A Selected Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 9.6-7.
[40] Nicholas Brooks, “From British to English Christianity: Deconstructing Bede’s Interpretation of the Conversion,” in Conversion and Colonization in Anglo-Saxon England (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006), 5.
[41] Woodbridge, Great Leaders, 111.
[42] Bede the Venerable, Homilies on the Gospels, Cistercian Studies Series: No. 110 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1991), 89-90.
[43] Some historians think that Arethas lived in the sixth century, but others as Phillip Schaff, wich follows Otto and Harnack, thinks that Arethas lived in the tenth century – Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1:825.
[44] Arethas, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Seu Bibliotheca Universalis Omnium Ss. Patrum, Doctorum, Scriptorumque Ecclesiasticorum, Serie Graeca (Paris: S. Barbara ad Photium, 1857-1866), 106:513-514.
[45] Smith, “The Date of the Apocalypse,” 304.
[46] Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of John (London: Macmillan, 1906), 95. R. H. Charles also states: “The earliest authorities are practically unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of Domitian…” – R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, International Critical Commentary, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1920), 92, 94.
[47] Revelation 1:9 says that John was on the island: a. Because of the Word of God; b. Because of the testimony of Jesus. However, there are three views of the reason John was on the island: 1. John went to the island to carry out God’s commission; 2. He was sent to Patmos to receive the content of the Apocalypse; 3. John was exiled because he had been preaching the word of God. – Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford, 1990), 173. For more information on these three views, see Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 87-89.
[48] Suetonius, “Nero,” in Lives of the Caesars, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913), 35.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid., 36.
[51] Ibid., 39.
[52] Tacitus notes the propensity of Domitian toward banishment: “It was not his [Agricola’s] fate to see the Senate-house besieged, the Senate surrounded by armed men, and in the same region of terror so many consulars butchered, the flight and exile of so many honourable women.” – Tacitus, Dialogus, Agricola, Germania, Loeb Classical Mibraty (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1014), 45.1.
Likewise, Eusebius wrote that Domitian banished incalculable eminent and outstanding men with no reason: “Domitian had given many proofs of his great cruelty and had put to death without any reasonable trial no small number of men distinguished at Rome by family and career, and had punished without cause myriads of other notable men by banishment and confiscation of their property…” – Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, 3.17.
[53] Grant Osborne claims that the evidence from the seven churches is what first convinced him to change his view from the Neronic date to the Domitianic date. – “The historical references to the situation of the churches in the seven letters (chaps. 2–3) must also be considered. It is this aspect that first convinced me to change my earlier view of a Neronian date.” – Osborne, Revelation, 9.
[54] Colin Hemer, after a thorough investigation of the local conditions surrounding each church, has claimed that the cumulative results of his study confirm a date during Domitian’s reign. – Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 2-12.
Furthermore, R. H. Charles affirms: “The church of Smyrna did not exist in 60-64 A.D. – at a time when St. Paul was boasting of the Philipians in all the Churches. Cf. Polycarp (Ad Phil…). But though Polycarp’s letter tells us that the church of Smyrna was not founded in 60-64 A.D., he gives no hint as to when it was founded. Hence several years may have lapsed after that date before it was founded. When, however, we turn to Revelation 2:8-11 we find that our text presupposes a Church poor in wealth but rich in good works, with a development of apparently many years to its credit. This letter, then, may have been written in the closing years of Vespasian (75-79) but hardly earlier.” – Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 94.
[55] Robert L. Thomas, “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5 (1994): 200.
[56] Ibid. Likewise, Paul wrote his second epistle to Timothy between 67-68 A.D., and in 2Timothy 4 he list many ministers by name (Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke, Mark, Tychicus, Carpus, Alexander, Priscila, Aquila, Onesiphorus, Erastus, Trophimus, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus and Claudia), but John is not mentioned. If John were present in Ephesus when Paul wrote this epistle, he would have mentioned him.
[57] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 48-50.
[58] Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John the Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1909), 101.
[59] Craig S. Keener, Revelation, the Niv Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 26.
[60] Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on Gospel of John, vol. 1 (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1876), 6.
[61] For more details see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 597.
