Some Thoughts on the Dating of The Book of Revelation (Part Three)

Traditional Site of John’s Tomb in Ephesus

Arguments in Favor of a Post-A.D. 70 Dating

1). The most important reason for dating The Book of Revelation after A.D. 70 is evidence of the presence of emperor worship and the imperial cult underlying much of what takes place throughout John’s vision.

A number of texts such as Revelation 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, all indicate that Christians were being forced to participate in the emperor cult in ways which violated their consciences. As Moffat once put it, whether persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, “the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) were enough to warn [John] of the storm rolling up on the horizon, though as yet only one or two drops had actually fallen.”[1] While the persecution of Christians in Rome was already beginning during the reign of Nero, it was not widespread until the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or even later. As several recent studies of Nero have demonstrated, the evidence shows that persecution of Christians in Rome (and not in Asia Minor, where John was) began under Nero because he used them as scapegoats for the great fire which destroyed much of Rome, not because they refused to worship him.[2]

Important studies of the historical background of Asia Minor during this time, such as those by Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), indicate that by the time of Domitian’s reign the imperial cult and emperor worship was in full-flower.[3] Although Thompson admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception,[4] nevertheless he proceeds to argue that persecution of Christians under Domitian’s reign was actually quite isolated and Domitian may not be the monster Roman historians made him out to be. Yet, as Thompson goes on to state, if the imperial cult preceded Domitian by “many reigns” it also continued long after Domitian was gone.[5]

The only truly firm date we have is 113 A.D., when Pliny the Younger (a Roman author and senator) wrote to Trajan (the emperor who came after Domitian) with a question about what to do with Christians who refuse to worship the emperor. Trajan replied that Christians were not to be sought out and executed, but if they did not worship the emperor and were convicted by a court, then they were to be put to death.[6] This indicates that the conditions depicted in Revelation fit much better with a later date (the reign of Domitian in the mid-90s) rather than an earlier one (before A.D. 70). What was then the practice (whether “official” or otherwise) in the time of Trajan (A.D. 113), most likely began in the time of Domitian, which many Romans considered the most volatile period in Roman history.[7] Sadly, in Pliny’s “Letter,” he refers to Christians who had “apostatized” from the faith as long ago as twenty-five years–clear evidence of persecution of believers being quite intense about A.D. 90. The fact that people renounced their faith clearly points to a date in the time of Domitian, when the pressure on the part of Christians to avoid persecution would be the greatest. That being said, surely the seeds of this persecution were sown during the reign of Nero, nearly thirty-years earlier. As Beale puts it, “a date during the time of Nero is possible for Revelation, but the later setting under Domitian is more probable in the light of the evidence in the book for an expected escalation of emperor worship in the near future and especially the widespread, programmatic legal persecution portrayed as imminent or already occurring in Revelation 13.”[8]

Response:

The early date counter-argument to this is that the evidence fits better with Nero (See Part Two).

2). The historical situation facing the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3 seems to fit much better with circumstances after A.D. 70 than does a date before the destruction of the temple.

In Colin Hemer’s important work, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (1989), Hemer argues that the situation of the churches we see in Revelation chapters 2-3 most likely fits the time of Domitian. This includes evidence of persecution in particular provinces from local authorities–which explains why only three of the churches, Smyrna, Pergamum, and Philadelphia were experiencing persecution. There is also evidence of Jews living in these areas who, in order to avoid the wrath of the imperial cult, were willing to pay high taxes and point out Christians to local authorities. Those targeted for arrest were people who were no longer members of the synagogue or who were debating Jews about Christian truth claims.[9]

3. There are a number of other historical factors regarding the condition of the churches which support a later date.

The spiritual lethargy of the Church of Ephesus, which is depicted in Revelation 2:1-7 as losing its first love, seems to presuppose a time well after its establishment in the mid-fifties of the first century.[10] It is hard to imagine a church probably established in the 50's, (cf. Acts 19:1 ff)[11] so quickly losing its first love (i.e. if Revelation was written before A.D. 70) that it was in danger of losing its identity as a church if the people did not “repent, and do the things they did at first” (v. 5). The church of Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) is described as wealthy–but a huge earthquake decimated the entire region in A.D. 61. A recovery to the wealthy conditions described by John and known to historians would seemingly take decades, not the three or four years required by a pre-A.D. 70 date.[12] The church in Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) had been home to a certain Antipas, who, apparently, had been put to death as a martyr for Christ much earlier (v. 13). That such persecution broke out years before, and John now speaks of Anitpas’ death as well in the past, certainly supports a later date.[13]

According to Beale, there is no evidence that Nero’s persecution of Christians after the great fire in the city of Rome, was ever extended into Asia Minor (Turkey), where the seven churches of Revelation were located. This also fits better with John’s exile to the Island of Patmos.[14] It is much more likely for someone like John (who lived in Ephesus) to be exiled under Domitian than Nero.[15] As Price points out, the imperial cult of Domitian which was well established in Ephesus (along with the colossal statue) is probably what is in the background of Revelation 13, when John speaks of believers being put to death for not worshiping the beast or his image.[16] All of this supports a late date.

There is one other matter which relates to the historical situation of the churches. According to some commentators, the existence of a church at Smyrna itself points toward a later date, since it is likely that this church was not even founded until after A.D. 60.[17] We do need to note that Hemer, the leading authority on such matters, puts the date of founding of this congregation much earlier, c. 50-55.[18]

Response:

The early date response to the situation of the churches just set forth is to offer a number of alternative explanations, some of which are quite plausible, as Beale admits.[19] Ken Gentry contends that these arguments (even if true) do “not carry sufficient weight to serve as an anchor for the late date theory.”[20] But given the state of the churches depicted in Revelation 2-3, especially in light of the known situation throughout the larger Roman Empire during the time of Domitian, the arguments for a later date are much more compelling, since so much of the evidence leads in this direction, confirming the evidence of a late date within the book itself.

4). As mentioned earlier, the reference to “Babylon” (the spiritual name for the city of Rome) in Revelation 18 is perhaps the strongest internal evidence of a later date.

In all known Jewish literature written after A.D. 70 and the destruction of the temple, Rome is universally described as “Babylon,” because like the ancient Babylonians, Rome had sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. Since John is writing to churches throughout Asia Minor, many of which had significant numbers of converted Jews among their members, this reference would make no sense whatsoever (without explanation) if John is using the term to refer to Jerusalem and not Rome.[21]

Response:

The response on the part of those who hold to an early date is to counter by trying to prove that Babylon was a reference to Jerusalem, an argument which we have discussed previously, and seems to be without much merit.

5). The testimony of the church fathers is virtually unanimous in affirming the later date.

Clement, Eusebius, Origen and Irenaeus (among others), all state that the book was written by John during the latter part of the reign of Domitian. Certainly, they all might be mistaken.[22] But there is no evidence for anyone arguing for a pre-A.D. 70 date of authorship. According to Irenaeus, the identity of the Antichrist “would have been announced by him who beheld the Apocalypse. For it was seen not very long ago in our day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.”[23] This is most often taken to mean that John wrote Revelation as an old man exiled on Patmos before Domitian died in A.D. 96. The traditional post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation largely stems from the comments of Irenaeus, although the internal and external evidence is now seen to support Irenaeus’ contention.

Response:

Gentry, on the other hand, contends that the verb, “was seen” refers to John, “who was seen” during Domitian’s reign, not to the Apocalypse, which was written during the reign of Domitian.[24] But Robinson, who agrees with Gentry’s dating, nevertheless accepts the traditional reading of Irenaeus’ comments.[25] Beale points out that the “Apocalypse” is properly the antecedent of the verb “was seen” (not John), which is why virtually all of Irenaeus’ ancient readers agreed without question that Irenaeus was referring to the date of Revelation and not to the Apostle. Furthermore, it is important to notice that when discussing the beast and his number, Irenaeus makes no reference to Nero, but refers to Lateinos, and the current Roman Empire.

Conclusion:

Therefore, both the internal and external evidence supports a late date for the writing of the Book of Revelation. One wonders if preterist arguments for an early date are based more upon theological necessity, than grounded in the aggregate of the internal and external evidence for a post-A.D. 70 date of composition.

** This material is taken from the appendix of my book, The Man of Sin (Baker, 2006) and revised for publication here

__________________________________

[1] Cited in Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, xxxvii

[2] Griffin, Nero: The End of A Dynasty, 15; Champlin, Nero, 121.

[3] S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 196-198. See also Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation, Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 13-17. Thompson writes that “some scholars still argue for dating the book shortly after Nero’s death when several people were vying to be emperor; but when the weight of internal and external evidence is taken together, we may conclude with most scholars that Revelation was written sometime in the latter years of Domitian’s reign, that is, 92-96 CE” (15).

[4] Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 97.

[5] Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 104.

[6] Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96-97.

[7] Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 96-101.

[8] Beale, Revelation, 9.

[9] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (Eerdmans, 1989), 11.

[10] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 35-56.

[11] See the discussion in F. F. Bruce, Paul, The Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 286-299.

[12] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 178-209.

[13] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 78-105.

[14] Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 12.

[15] Beale, Revelation, 12.

[16] Price, Rituals and Power, 197-198. See also, Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 35-56.

[17] Beale, Revelation, 17.

[18] Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 66.

[19] Beale, Revelation, 17, n. 89.

[20] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 320.

[21] Beale, Revelation, 18-19.

[22] Cited in Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, xxxvii.

[23] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.xxx

[24] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 46-67.

[25] Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 221.