Contemporary Discussion
Contemporary Discussion
As can be seen from table 7, a date for Revelation in the reign of Domitian, and probably toward the end of that reign (say, 95-96), receives the most support from the early Fathers. Ireneus, who is a key source for this tradition, was in the position, as we noted above, to have direct information about the matter. Most scholars have been inclined to follow Ireneus in his dating of Revelation at the close of the reign of Domitian. Dates in the reign of Claudius or Trajan are, respectively, too early and too late, and have attracted virtually no adherents. A date shortly after the reign of Nero (68-69), however, has considerable support and is the main alternative to the Domitianic date. 35 There are six key areas of evidence to consider in coming to a decision.
The persecution of Christians. While there are some dissenting voices, 36 the majority of scholars agree that Revelation was written at a time when Christians were being persecuted in an unusually strong way (see, e.g., Rev. 1:9; 2:13; 3:10; 6:9; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Advocates of the Domitianic date have generally appealed to the early Christian tradition that pictured the years 95-96 as a period of intense persecution. Advocates of the earlier date, for their part, point out that the evidence for this persecution is quite slim. The clearest evidence comes from later writers (Orosius, Eusebius, Sulpicius Severus), while those more contemporary to Domitian’s time, both Christian and pagan, say nothing about a systematic persecution of Christians. In contrast, evidence for a persecution of Christians under Nero is clear and irrefutable.
We have no evidence that Nero’s persecution extended beyond Rome, but if we are looking for a period when Christians in Asia Minor were likely to be persecuted, a time during which Christians were being persecuted elsewhere is more likely than a time when we are not sure that they were being persecuted at all.
Advocates of an early date have a point: many scholars have exaggerated the evidence for a persecution of Christians under Domitian. The evidence suggests rather that Domitian in the last years of his reign instituted a purge of Roman aristocrats who might challenge his power. The wife of one of those purged, Domitilla, whose husband, Flavius Clemens, was executed, was probably a Christian, but it does not seem that either she or her husband were singled out because of her faith. 37 There is little evidence, however, that the Neronian persecution of Christians in Rome had lasting effects or spread to the provinces. Advocates of neither date, then, can appeal to solid evidence for persecution in Asia Minor. We are shut up to assumptions, and the assumption of persecution of Christians in Asia Minor under Nero has no more to be said for it than a similar persecution under Domitian (see the next point).
Worship of the emperor. The conclusion just reached must be modified in light of another consideration: the assumption within Revelation that worship of the emperor had become an issue for Christians (see Rev. 13:4, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). 38 We have no solid evidence for the date at which the emperors made worship of their own person a requirement, but there is clear evidence that Domitian stressed his deity, ordering that he be addressed as dominus et deus ("lord and god”). 39 Domitian apparently made this confession a test of loyalty. It is possible, indeed, that some Christians tried to avoid the predicament this placed them in by taking refuge in the synagogue, where some of the traditional legal exceptions granted Jews in this regard still applied. This may help explain the tensions between Jews and Christians evident in the letters to the seven churches. 40 In response to this reasoning, advocates of the earlier date appeal to the fact that emperors since Augustus (d. A.D. 14) had made claims to deity and that it is quite possible, granted Nero’s character, that he could have stressed such claims. But the fact remains that our hard evidence points to the last years of Domitian as being the time when Christians would most likely have collided with the claims of the emperor cult.
The conditions of the churches. Several elements in the letters to the seven churches are said to be much more compatible with a date in the nineties than one in the sixties: the spiritual stagnation in several of the churches; the wealth of the Laodicean church (the city was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60-61); the existence of the church at Smyrna (the church may not have existed until 60-64); the lack of any mention of Paul, who had labored in Ephesus for so long, and perhaps as late at 64. Not all these points are equally persuasive, 41 but Colin Hemer, after an exhaustive study of the local settings of the churches, claims that his findings generally confirm the Domitianic date.
The existence of a Nero myth. Popular hatred and fear of Nero led to stories circulating after his death to the effect that he would return to Rome leading a Parthian army. Passages in Revelation that speak of the beast recovering from a mortal wound (e.g., Rev. 13:3-4), it is argued, allude to a Nero-redivivus myth, and it must have taken time for the myth to circulate and become known. However, the Nero myth is not really very close to what is actually said of the beast in the Revelation, so the argument carries little weight. Moreover, many of those who argue that the number 666 in 13:18 is a cryptic reference to Nero hold that this link is entirely independent of such a myth.
The existence of the Jerusalem temple. Revelation 11:1-2, it is argued, presumes that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing at the time Revelation was written. 43 This argument is not without force, but it is mitigated by two considerations: the possibility that John is using a source and, more important, the possibility that John refers to a rebuilt or metaphoric temple rather than to the temple of Jesus’ day.
Revelation 17:9-11. This passage enumerates seven kings, who are apparently to be taken as emperors of Rome (the allusion to the seven hills in v. 9 is unmistakably a reference to Rome). "Five,” says John, "have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.” The assumption of the text is that the sixth king in the sequence is now in power. Taking these data, and beginning with the first of the Roman emperors, Augustus, brings us to Galba, who reigned only a short time after the death of Nero. Here, then, is what appears to be a relatively objective indication that Revelation was written in A.D. 68-69.
This argument carries some weight, but it is not decisive, because the text is not entirely clear. Is it referring to emperors in John’s day or to future kings? Should we start counting the emperors from Augustus or from Julius Caesar, who first claimed imperial rights, or perhaps from Caligula, the first persecuting emperor? 45 should we include the three minor emperors, who reigned for only very brief periods in 68-69? None of these questions can be answered certainly. 46