IV. DATE
IV. DATE
There appear to be two dates only which can be supported by any considerable arguments: the time of the Emperor Domitian and the time (or just after the time) of Nero. The early tradition of the church strongly favours Domitian’s reign, i.e. C.90-95.59
The principal reason for dating the book during this reign is the fact that it seems to indicate that emperor-worship was practised, and this is thought to have become widespread in Domitian’s day. The most important passages are those in which the beast, who is held to represent the Roman emperor, demands that all worship him (13:4,12,15-16; 14:9,11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). This seems reasonably clear. It is difficult to think that these passages do not refer to the demand for worship of the emperor.
But dating this accurately is more difficult. Thus Julius Caesar had been worshipped as a god during his lifetime, and, while Augustus was more cautious, there were temples in his honour in some of the provinces. Tiberius actively discouraged the practice, but Caligula went to the other extreme with the demand that his statue be worshipped (though there is not much evidence of any real attempt to enforce this). In any case Claudius, his successor, completely reversed this policy. Nero persecuted the Christians, but this was because he wanted a scapegoat for the great fire in Rome, not because he claimed to be divine. Neither in his reign nor in that of his immediate successors was emperor-worship promoted. Galba, Otho and Vitellius reigned so briefly that the question cannot be said to have been a real one for them, while Vespasian and Titus were practical men who did not concern themselves with being worshipped. It is true that, from the time of Nero, the cult tended to grow in some areas and it is barely possible that the references in Revelation could be understood of some period under or after Nero.
But all are agreed that the significant advance in emperor-worship took place in the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96). Whereas the earlier emperors had at best accepted emperor-worship, and at worst actively discouraged it, Domitian seems really to have regarded himself as a god.60 On the score of emperor-worship Domitian’s reign is the most probable by far. It was Domitian above all who demanded worship from his subjects. A difficulty is that we do not know what method he adopted to bring it about. Specifically there is no record of his having executed or imprisoned those who refused to worship him.61
Next we should consider the indications that Revelation was written in a time of persecution. There are some indications that persecution had already begun, for Antipas had been killed (2:13), and John himself appears to have been exiled to Patmos (1:9). But there are more indications of approaching trouble, and the situation seems to be that what had already taken place was seen by John as the harbinger of worse to follow. The church at Smyrna was about to suffer and her sufferings would include some imprisonment (2:10), and the church at Philadelphia is warned of ‘the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth’ (3:10). The visions have references to ’the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained’ (6:9), and to the woman ‘drunk with the blood of the saints’ (17:6; cf. 16:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4).
We may take it, then, that there had been some persecution of Christians, and that the indications were that much worse was in store. This, it is said, does not fit the time of Nero, for his outburst against the Christians appears to have been local and brief, though fierce. It is said to accord much better with Domitian. But it is very difficult to find evidence that Domitian did in fact persecute people outside Rome. There is evidence of his having certain people executed there, such as Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla. The reason given was ‘atheism’, which suggests to most students Christianity (the Christian denial of the Roman gods was often seen as atheism, their belief in one God not being seen as sufficient). While later Christians sometimes speak of a persecution under Domitian62 the evidence is not easy to find. Of course, if it be held on other grounds that this writing is to be dated during Domitian’s reign, then it will itself be evidence of such persecution. But as far as establishing the date of the book goes, all that we can say from the evidence of persecution is that it accords with all that we know of Domitian that there should have been such persecution, and that there is no other period in the first century which fits nearly as well.
Again, it is urged that Revelation shows evidence of knowledge of the Nero redivivus myth (e.g. 17:8,11). After Nero’s death it was thought in some circles that he would return. At first this appears to have been a refusal to believe that he was actually dead.63 Later it took the form of a belief that he would come to life again. This took time to develop and Domitian’s reign is about as early as we can expect it.
The churches of Revelation seem to have a period of development behind them. This would scarcely have been possible at the time of the Neronic persecution, the only serious alternative to the reign of Domitian. Thus we are told that the church in Laodicea could say ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing’ (3:17). As that city was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 60/61 this must have been considerably later.64 Again, the church at Smyrna does not seem to have been in existence in the time of Paul.65 All the churches in chapters 2 and 3 appear to have had a period of history. Especially is this the case with those of whom things could be said like ’You have forsaken your first love’ (2:4), or ‘you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead’ (3:1). Some have drawn a similar conclusion from the mention of the Nicolaitans. That they are referred to simply by name and with no reference to what they taught or did seems to indicate that they were an established group, perhaps even a sect or heresy. This, too, would take time to develop.
The argument for a date in the time of Nero assumes that the references to emperor-worship and to persecution will fit his reign. It also holds that the ‘number of the beast’ is to be understood by taking 666 as a reference to Nero (see the commentary on 13:18 for the reasons for this identification and also for the legitimate doubts that are raised). But the reference is by no means sure. Irenaeus, for example, discussed the passage, and put forward a number of views of what the 666 means, but he did not even include Nero among the possibilities, let alone see him as a likely candidate.66 Indeed, Zahn maintains that the view that Nero is in mind was not thought of by anyone until 1831 when Fritzsche put it forward.67 The number of the beast cannot be said to give strong support.
Another passage which is said to support this dating is that which refers to seven kings of whom ‘Five have fallen, one is’ (17:10). Counting from Augustus, Nero was the fifth emperor, and the argument runs that Revelation dates from the end of Nero’s reign and the beginning of the following. This view runs into difficulties in determining who is the eighth king (17:11). If we omit Galba, Otho and Vitellius (none of whom was ever secure and whose reigns together occupied less than a year) we come to Domitian as the eighth. If we include them, it is Vitellius, but his reign was so short that it rules him out, for the eighth is called ’the beast who once was, and now is not’ and is clearly cast for an important role.
Either way there are difficulties. Hort was impressed by two things. The first is the way the book fits in with the last days of Nero and the impression Nero made on his contemporaries: ‘Nero affected the imagination of the world as Domitian, as far as we know, never did.’ The second is that the book ‘breathes the atmosphere of a time of wild commotion’.68 But there is evidence that the impression made by Nero was lasting. There is no reason for holding that it had faded away by the time of Domitian. And the second point is subjective. There is no valid reason for holding that it points to Nero rather than Domitian. The evidence for the Neronic date cannot be said to be conclusive. 69
A further consideration sometimes urged is that, if John the apostle wrote both the Fourth Gospel and Revelation, then, in view of the linguistic differences between the two writings, there must be a big difference in the dates. It is suggested accordingly that Revelation was written comparatively early, when the author’s knowledge of Greek was very imperfect, and the Gospel some years later, when he had had time to become master of his new language.
But this view will scarcely stand. The date of the Gospel is far from certain and there are some grounds for holding that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But the decisive thing is that the language of Revelation is not that of a raw beginner in Greek. It is not that the writer does not know the rules of Greek grammar, but that he decides for himself which he will keep. This view also disregards the possibility of the use of an amanuensis for one of these writings. If this was done (and it seems to me the only way in which common authorship of the two writings can be defended) nothing can be concluded from the standard of Greek as to the dates of the two writings.70
Some statements in the book are held to point to an early date. When, for example, the Seer is given a rod and told to measure the Temple (11:1) it seems a reasonable inference that the Temple was standing at the time, which would put the date before AD 70.71
Sometimes other dates are suggested. A few people have thought, for example, of a date in the time of Vespasian.72 The principal reason is that Vespasian appears to be the emperor in mind in 17:10, which speaks of five kings as having fallen while ‘one is’. This certainly looks like Vespasian, but does not pre- clude us from thinking of a vision originally seen in the reign of that emperor and later incorporated into the book. But, while the evidence is far from being so conclusive that no other view is possible, on the whole it seems that a date in the time of Domitian, i.e. C.AD 90-95, best suits the facts.