When was the Book of Revelation Written? (Part 2 of 2)

Emperor Worship

Christians in the book of Revelation were being pressured to worship the secular ruling power (13:4, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). The seeds of emperor worship were to some degree evident in Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Caligula, but it was not until Domitian that the Imperial Cult was enforced.

When Domitian revived the Imperial Cult, he required his subjects to address him as dominus et dues noster (“our lord and god”).¹ The first Imperial Cult temple in Ephesus was established in the year 89 under Domitian’s rule. In fact, it was during this period that “in some areas – especially in Asia Minor – governors and other local officials demanded public participation in the cult as evidence of citizens’ loyalty and patriotism.”²

Condition of the Churches 

A Christian named Antipas had already suffered martyrdom in Pergamum (2:13) and members of the church at Smyrna were soon to face imprisonment and potentially the death penalty (2:10). Spiritual stagnation was a problem in many of the Asian congregations (2:4, 5; 3:1-3, 15-17), and the church of Laodicea was wealthy at the time (3:17). These conditions are more conducive to the period of Domitian’s reign.

If Revelation had been written during Nero’s reign (54-68) and prior to the Jewish war that led to Jerusalem’s destruction (66-70), it approximates the time period of Paul’s letters to Timothy (also sent to Ephesus). But the respective situations addressed by John and by Paul are very different. 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: charge some not to teach any other doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3-4; 6:3-5); to Ephesus of John’s day: you are standing against evil, false apostles, and deeds of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:1-7). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: pray “for kings and all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Tim. 2:1-2);³  to Ephesus of John’s day: governing authorities are disrupting our quiet and peaceable life (Rev. 1:9; 17:1-6; 18:21-24; 19:1-2; 20:4). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: perilous times are coming (2 Tim. 3:1); to Ephesus of John’s day: perilous times are here (Rev. 1:9; 6:9-11). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: “all desiring to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted [future tense]” (2 Tim. 3:12); to Ephesus of John’s day: persecution is now happening and will get worse (Rev. 1:9; 6:9-11; 16:6; 17:6; 20:4). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: “There will be a time [in the future] they will not endure sound teaching …” (2 Tim. 4:3a); to Ephesus of John’s day: you are resisting false teachings and practices (Rev. 2:1-7). 

o   To Ephesus of Paul’s day: only “some” [τινες] have turned away from apostolic instruction and purity of love [ἀγάπη] (1 Tim. 1:5-6); to Ephesus of John’s day: you (collectively) have abandoned your first love [ἀγάπη] (Rev. 2:4). 

At the end of 2 Timothy, Paul names seventeen coworkers that would have been known by Timothy and the Ephesian brethren, but he does not mention John. Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155) was personally acquainted with John⁴ but knew of Paul only through Paul’s writings. In Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (dated ca. 110), he indicates that when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippi saints around 62, the church did not even exist in Smyrna as it did later in John’s day (11.3).

Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 (cf. Tacitus, Annals 14.26-27), and a couple of years later, when Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians, the nearby Laodicea church appears to have been spiritually healthy and thriving (Col. 2:1-2; 4:13-16). But by the time Revelation was written, the Christians in Laodicea were financially prosperous with no financial needs, while spiritually lukewarm and in danger of divine expulsion (Rev. 3:14-22).

The Temple of God

John is called upon to measure “the temple of God and the altar and worshipers,” while the “holy city” is trampled for “forty-two months” (Rev. 11:1-2). If this is taken as a reference to the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem, a date before mid-70 would be implied. However, since the book of Revelation is filled with signs and symbols, the most natural interpretation of this passage is metaphoric, not literal (note 3:12; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). If the physical temple in Jerusalem was still standing and was to be measured by John, how could he have accomplished this while banished on an island in the Aegean Sea over 600 miles away? Moreover, how else could worshipers be “measured” other than spiritually? This is a vision of the future. In the sixth century BC, when Ezekiel saw his vision of the temple being measured (Ezek. 40:1–42:20), the literal temple and city had already been destroyed by the Babylonians fourteen years earlier (Ezek. 40:1).

The Succession of Kings

In Revelation 17:9-11 eight kings are mentioned, and the one who appears to have been reigning at the time of writing was number six. If this passage is taken literally and the succession of kings begins with the first recognized emperor, an earlier date is then suggested. However, this argument is not decisive. Are the kings in this vision past, present, or future? Is the count to begin with Romulus (the first king), Julius Caesar (the first dictator), Augustus (the first emperor), or Caligula (the first persecutor)? Should the comparatively insignificant rulers, who were in power for only brief periods (68-69), be counted or not? [Note: Suetonius included Julius Caesar, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in his Lives of the Caesars]. Should the respective numbers be interpreted literally or symbolically? Whatever position one wishes to take, it can be made to fit.

If the kings represent kingdoms (cf. Dan. 7:17, 23), this could be an overview of (1) Babylonian; (2) Medo-Persian; (3) Grecian, followed by four smaller kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire divided: (4) Macedon-Greece, (5) Pergamon-Asia Minor, (6) Ptolemaic-Egypt, (7) Seleucid-Syria; then (8) Rome. If Roman emperors: (1) Augustus (30 BC–AD 14); (2) Tiberius (14-37); (3) Caligula (37-41); (4) Claudius (41-54); (5) Nero (54-68); (a) Galba (7 months); (b) Otho (3 months); (c) Vitellius (8 months); (6) Vespasian (69-79); (7) Titus (79-81); and (8) Domitian (81-96).⁵

If the numbers are used symbolically, “seven kings” represent the totality of Roman emperors, the sixth indicates the empire has not yet reached its consummation (note 666 in 13:17-18),⁶ thus seven (completion) is “not yet come,” and eight (a divine number beyond perfection) represents a regime that parodies Christ as the supreme ruler of God’s kingdom (cp. 1:8; 17:8).⁷

CONCLUSION

Internal evidence places the most probable context of Revelation toward the end of the reign of Domitian, 95-96. This conclusion is supported by the weight of early testimonies,⁸ and the vast majority of modern scholars across the wide range of theological perspectives concurs. 

 

Why does it matter? The age-old promise of Christ’s return and future judgment offers reassurance to believers and sustains hope (Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:10-11; 1 John 3:2-3), “awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (Tit. 2:13). Teaching otherwise, claiming it has already happened (hyper-preterism compelled to reject the Domitianic date), causes unnecessary apprehension and discord (2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:15-18) and counters the persistent admonition to be prepared, watchful, and alert (Matt. 24:36, 44; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:1-11; 2 Pet. 3:10-18). 

May we find comfort and motivation in the Lord’s abiding promise: “The one overcoming will thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not wipe out his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels” (Rev. 3:5).

When was the Book of Revelation Written? (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction

John wrote from the Mediterranean island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9), a rugged, rocky island about 40 miles (24 kms) southwest of Ephesus in the Aegean Sea, used by the Romans as a place of exile (see Pliny, Natural History 4.23). The document was written to the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11; 2:1–3:22).

Why does it matter when the book was written? It claims to be a book of prophecy  (1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20), foretelling future events, particularly “things to happen quickly” (1:1; cf. v. 19) [Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author's own translation]. The typical preterist proposal is that the Jewish War (66-70) fulfilled most if not all of these predictions. Therefore, in order for full-preterism to sustain itself, the book of Revelation must date before Jerusalem’s destruction in the summer of 70, and as predictive prophecy, somewhat earlier. For eschatological futurists, it does not really matter other than responding to false claims.¹

The two main proposals for dating Revelation center on the respective reigns of Nero (54-68) and Domitian (81-96). Nero began his reign at age 16 when his adopted father Claudius died 13th October 54, then Nero committed suicide 9th June 68 by stabbing himself in the throat at age 31. Domitian, the month before his 30th birthday, was inaugurated emperor 14th September 81, the day after his brother Titus died of illness, and Domitian was assassinated 18th September 96, stabbed to death by assailants at age 44.²

External Evidence

Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) was originally from Smyrna in the province of Asia, the location of one of the seven churches of Revelation. He was a disciple of Polycarp, also from Smyrna, who was discipled by the apostle John himself.³ Irenaeus’ literary work was originally in Greek under the title Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (“On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis”), written around 180. It has been preserved in Latin translation under the title Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies”). In book 5, Irenaeus devotes chap. 30 to the number of the beast in Rev. 13:18, which Eusebius (ca. 260-339) has preserved in the original Greek in his Ecclesiastical History (3.18.1-3; 5.8.6). Eusebius reports: “In this persecution … the apostle and evangelist John … condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, in his fifth book against heresies [Adv. haer. 5.30.3] … in the above-mentioned revelation of John …. [quote] ‘declared by him who saw [ἑορακότος] the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen [ἑωράθη], but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign’” (Eccl. Hist. 3.18.1-3, trans. C. F. Cruse).

The question is whether Irenaeus’ use of the third person singular verb ἑωράθη is to be understood as masculine (“he was seen”) in reference to John, or neuter (“it was seen”) in reference to what John saw. If the former, nothing can be deduced either way about the dating of Revelation. However, contextually the preceding use of ὁράω (“he saw” - ἑορακότος) concerns what John saw, not John having been seen. In fact, the subject of the chapter is the revelation of John, and the verbal ὁράω is consistently used in Revelation of what John saw (cf. 1:2; 4:1; 5:1-2, 5-6, 11; 6:1-2, 5, 7-8, 12; 7:1-2; 12:1, 3; 17:6; et al.). Irenaeus had already reported that John lived into the reign of Trajan (98-117) (Adv. haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.3-4), so why point out that he was living at an earlier time? No reputable translation of Irenaeus’ words has rendered this as a reference to John having been seen, and the Latin version is not ambiguous at all. 

The Domitianic date was almost universally accepted throughout most of church history, and nothing in the book of Revelation contradicts it. No other tradition relevant to dating was proposed in the region where the document was originally sent. Significantly later, in the sixth and seventh centuries in different places, other traditions developed but not in Asia Minor.⁴

Internal Evidence

The key pieces of evidence involve (a) persecution of Christians; (b) emperor worship; (c) condition of the churches; (d) the temple of God; (e) succession of kings (7:9-11).

Persecution of Christians

The Christians to whom Revelation is addressed were apparently suffering severe and widespread persecution that would eventually worsen (1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:10; 6:9; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Nero’s persecution is well documented and lasted from mid-64 to mid-68, but it was primarily confined to the city of Rome. In fact, there is no record of a Neronian persecution outside of Rome. 

Is there evidence that Domitian persecuted Christians? No extant secular writings of antiquity explicitly accuse Domitian of widespread hostilities against Christians, leading a number of modern critics to claim it never happened.⁵ Domitian’s persecutions, reportedly most intense near the end of his regime (95-96), are primarily attested by later Christian writers,⁶  although the imposition of emperor worship during this time (see next post) adds more credence to this potential setting than do the alternatives.

Domitian was far less popular than his father Vespasian and brother Titus, who ruled before him. He sought to establish himself as absolute monarch, which ultimately led to his assassination in September 96.⁷ After he was killed, the Senate immediately passed the motion of damnatio memoriae (“condemnation of memory”) to remove him from official accounts.⁸  Accordingly, the silence of secular historians provides no solid basis for what Domitian may or may not have done.

At the time Revelation was composed, John was exiled on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9). Nero’s reaction to Christians involved violent executions (Tacitus, Annals 15.44) that purportedly included the deaths of the apostles Paul and Peter.⁹ There is no evidence that Nero ever banished Christians, so if John’s punishment was under his rule, we have to wonder why John was exiled rather than killed? Banishment of alleged dissidents was much more common during Domitian’s reign.¹⁰

Both Tacitus (ca. 56-120) and Suetonius (ca. 69-122) describe Domitian’s final years as a reign of terror, and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) calls him a “tyrant.”¹¹ Those who opposed Domitian were either exiled or executed and their properties confiscated; the names of at least twenty political foes who were killed by Domitian have been preserved.¹²

Not only did Domitian suppress political opponents, he condemned those charged with the crime of atheism, i.e., rejecting the Roman pantheon, including the Imperial Cult.¹³ Justin Martyr wrote, “Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God …” (I Apology 6, trans. P. Schaff). In 110 Pliny the Younger examined those charged with being Christians in Asia Minor, some of whom had recanted their faith two decades earlier (Epistles 10.96.6), implying oppression during Domitian’s reign. 

Eusebius (ca. 260-399) more specifically reports the persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians in Domitian’s fifteenth year (96), having been documented by non-Christian writers known to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4). Melito of Sardis (ca.100-180) speaks of persecutions in Asia in his day, then recounts Nero and Domitian having been “stimulated by certain malicious persons, showed a disposition to slander our faith” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.26.3-9, trans. C. F. Cruse). Tertullian (ca. 155-220) compares Domitian’s cruelty, before he allegedly eased off, to what Nero had done to Christians (Apol. 5.4; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.20.7-9). Clement of Rome, a contemporary of Domitian, refers to “sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities that have befallen us” (I Clement 1.1, trans. F. J. A. Hort). Paulus Orosius (ca. 375-420) later reported that Domitian issued edicts for a general and cruel persecution (Hist. adv. pag. 7.10.5). 

In our next post we will consider other evidences relevant to the dating of Revelation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Preterism: What’s the Big Deal?” (Part 1), Moore Perspective (3 June 2020), <Link>.

     ² Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Nero 6.49, 57; Domitian 14.16.

     ³ Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.20.5-6; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3.4; Tertullian, De praes. haer. 32.2. 

     ⁴ “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line superscription in two Syriac versions of the New Testament in the sixth and seventh centuries. If the Neronic date were the original date of Revelation, one would expect a witness to this fact in Asia Minor, where the book of Revelation originated, and a witness much earlier than the sixth century” (M. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary [Dec. 2005] 74).

     ⁵ E.g., F. G. Downing, “Pliny’s Prosecution of Christians,” JSNT 34 (1988): 105-123; E. T. Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History 148-73.

     ⁶ See Eusebius (ca. 260-339), Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4; Sulpicius Severus (ca. 363-425), Chronicle 2.31; Paulus Orosius (ca. 375-420), Book 7 of Historiarum lib. Vii, adv. paganos (“History Against the Pagans”). Even though the most definitive information comes from Orosius in the year 417, his history is substantially based on the much earlier works of Justin and Eutropius (see M’Clintock and Strong 7:455-56), and he also had access to other documentation that is no longer extant.

     ⁷ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 14.16.

     ⁸ B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 160.

     ⁹ Cf. I Clement 5.4-5; Tertullian, De praes. haer. 36.3; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.5-8 (citing second-century Dionysius as added confirmation).

     ¹⁰ Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.3, 13, 14; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.20.7-8; 3.32.1; Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum 1.26; Victorinus, Comm. Apocalypse 10.11.

     ¹¹ Tacitus, Agricola 45; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 8.10; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.5-19.

     ¹² R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 806; B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 169, 182-88; cf. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 21.

     ¹³ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 8.15; Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.2.

*Prepared for the 2024 FHU Lectures.

Related Posts: When was Revelation Written (Part 2), Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 1), Ancient Dating Systems

Image credit: https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1208739/view/emperor-nero-statue- and https://www.thecollector.com/misjudged-roman-emperors/

The Dating of Luke-Acts and Why it Matters

St. Luke by Burne Jones

     Why do conservative scholars generally propose earlier dates for the writing of Luke-Acts, while later dates are preferred by the more liberal scholars? It depends, of course, on what assumptions are brought to the text and how the information is thus evaluated. By taking the internal textual evidence at face value rather than relying on subjective literary theory and philosophical presuppositions, what conclusions are to be drawn and how do they stand up against conflicting views from the other end of the spectrum?

Internal Evidence
     The Gospel according to Luke appears to have been completed around 59 from Jerusalem and/or Caesarea. Attention to the "we" sections in Acts reveals that the author arrived in Jerusalem with Paul in late spring 57 (Acts 20:6, 16; 21:17) and faded out of the picture for a couple of years until autumn 59 when he and Paul departed from Caesarea on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:1-9). An extended period in Jerusalem would have afforded him the ideal opportunity to gather the necessary information for his "orderly account" (Luke 1:1-4), interviewing people like Jesus’ mother (for the unique material in chaps. 1-2), personal disciples, and other eyewitnesses. If this raises questions about the role of divine inspiration, see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective.
     Luke’s Gospel was clearly produced before the book of Acts (note "the former account" of Acts 1:1), and the historical record of Acts concludes at the end of Paul’s two-year Roman imprisonment, i.e., spring of 62. The Gospel was almost certainly not written after 62-64, since Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 in his first epistle to Timothy (5:18). The only options for those who insist on a later date are: (1) deny that Luke is the source of Paul’s quotation, or (2) date 1 Timothy much later, thereby rejecting Pauline authorship.
     The most obvious explanation for the abrupt ending of Acts is that the historical account had actually reached this point. There is no mention in Acts of the fall of Jerusalem (summer of 70), which is understandable if it had not yet occurred but is rather strange if Acts were written not long after the fact, especially considering the weighty attention given to the city of Jerusalem in Luke’s writings. There is no mention of the Neronian persecution (64-68), even though the story of Acts ends in Rome. While Luke tells of the martyrdoms of both Stephen and the apostle James (Acts 7:57-60; 12:2), there is no record of the death of the Lord’s brother James (who was killed in Jerusalem in the summer of 62), even though he is a prominent figure in Acts (cf. 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). There is no information in Acts about the outcome of Paul’s trial in Rome or of his death. While none of these observations alone offers definitive proof, collectively they support the earlier date.

Flimsy Alternatives
     To accommodate a later date, alternative suggestions for the ending of Acts include: (1) Luke intended to compose a third volume but never did or it has not survived (which, of course, cannot be confirmed); and (2) he fulfilled his purpose of the gospel message having reached Rome and had no reason to take the story any further. But consider this unusual feature of Luke’s writings. Despite his long-time relationship with the apostle Paul, he betrays no knowledge of the apostle’s letters or even mentions that Paul wrote letters. While this raises some intriguing questions, the further in history Luke-Acts is chronologized the more inexplicable this becomes. Colossians 4:16 is the earliest clear reference that Paul expected his letters to be circulated rather than kept in isolation in their respective localities. It is interesting that the closing of Acts and the writing of Colossians fit into a comparable time frame (early 62). By the mid-60s the Pauline writings were recognized (at least from Asia Minor to Rome) as a well-known collection and regarded as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Anti-Conservative Bias
     Why do liberal scholars insist on dating Luke-Acts much later, postulating 75 to 110 as the compositional period? A major reason, it seems, is the detailed prophetic description of Jerusalem’s destruction (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:20-24), which, if recorded prior to mid-70, would require the divine element of predictive prophecy. If, therefore, the Lukan documents can be dated after the fact, supernatural intervention is not required.
     Another factor that influences the later-date proposals is the presumption of Luke’s dependence on the Gospel of Mark. The further along on the chronological scale Mark is believed to have appeared, the works of Luke would therefore be even later. However, the preface of Luke’s Gospel argues against this theory. Luke seems to have been dissatisfied with the previous attempts of others to narrate the life and teachings of Jesus, prompting him to draft his own "orderly account" (Luke1:1-4). Had he known of or had access to the narrative(s) of Mark and/or Matthew, this is hard to imagine (see Synoptic Problem Part 1 and Part 2).

Reasonable Conclusion
     If, within reasonable approximation, the Gospel of Luke is understood to have been completed by autumn 59 in Jerusalem and/or Caesarea and the book of Acts in Rome by spring 62, all the historical pieces fit neatly together. I am not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with this assessment and these conclusions is a theological leftist. But how should significantly different alternatives be regarded when they are based on unnecessary and less-than-convincing rationale? When subjectivism is equated with critical thinking, and the historicity of Luke-Acts is indiscriminately challenged, and untenable compilation theories override the integrity of scripture, and the pseudonymity of New Testament documents is assumed, and biblical authors are essentially portrayed as mindless redactors, and the possibility of divine influence is categorically dismissed, does it matter?
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Authorship of Luke-Acts, Luke's Audience