Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Biblewriter]

In recent years there has come to be a considerable amount of debate about when the Revelation, or the Apocalypse, as it is sometimes called, was given. Essentially all of this debate has been driven by arguments advanced by the Preterists. These people insist that all (but some of them only say most) of the events prophesied in the Bible have already taken place. As a part of this doctrine, they insist that the main subject of the Revelation was the destruction of Jerusalem, which is believed to have taken place in the year 70 A.D. Thus, it is absolutely critical for a Preterist to insist that the Revelation was written before that time. The Preterists use the term “Futurists” to refer to those who believe that at least most of these prophesies remain to fulfilled in the future. They claim that only futurists think the Revelation was written after Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this is simply incorrect.

Futurists really could care less when the Revelation was written, for to them that date is completely irrelevant. To them, its meaning is exactly the same whether it was written before or after Jerusalem was destroyed. The same is true of secular historians. Their entire interest in when any event took place is historical accuracy. They could care less what the date was. They only want to correctly determine that date, whenever it was. So why, then, do essentially all scholars who are not Preterists agree that the Revelation was written more than twenty years after Jerusalem was destroyed?

This is so widely accepted among essentially all unprejudiced historians because an overwhelming majority of the earlier Christian writers, those called the “Church Fathers” were in agreement about information that indicates that the Revelation was given a few years after A.D. 90.

The earliest such comment we know about is one by Irenaeus, who wrote, “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, paragraph 3. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1996, vol 1.) This is thought to have been written between 186 and 188 A.D.

Preterists claim that the words “That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domation’s reign.” Refer to John, rather than to his vision. But when we consider the point Irenaeus was making, we see that this cannot be correct. He told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in “the apocalyptic vision.” Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, “for he was seen no very long time since...” He said “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.” using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.

Some of the more radical Preterists, determined to reject this testimony of Irenaeus, claim that his words "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day..." cannot refer to "the apocalyptic vision," because they claim that Irenaeus usually used the word "seen" with reference to persons, but not for things (like visions.) But this is clearly incorrect. For in this same "Against Heresies," Irenaeus repeatedly used the word "seen" with reference both to visions and to things seen in visions. He used it in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 10, saying, "This, too, was made still clearer by Ezekiel, that the prophets saw the dispensations of God in part, but not actually God Himself. For when this man had seen the vision of God, and the cherubim, and their wheels..." He used it again in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 12, saying, "However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might prefigure and show forth future events beforehand." He used it again in book 5, chapter 26, paragraph 1, saying, "He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: ‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast.'" He used it again in the same paragraph, saying, "Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar..." He used it again in book 5, chapter 28, paragraph 2 of this work, saying, "John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' "(All of these comments can be found in the same volume 1 of "Ante-Nicene Fathers" that was previously cited for "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus.) So, contrary to the claim made by these Preterists, Irenaeus often used the word "seen" in regard to things (like visions.)

 

[Biblewriter]

But after claiming that Irenaeus did not say that the Revelation was seen “towards the end of Domatian’s reign,” Preterists then claim that all other ancient writers that say the Revelation was given in the reign of Domitian were simply relying on the word of Irenaeus. They do not even seem to notice the logical contradiction of claiming that this is not what Irenaeus said, and also claiming that everyone else who said the same thing was simply relying on his word. But aside from the logical contradiction, this claim is demonstrably incorrect.

For Victornius wrote, “‘And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.’ He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Cæsar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.” (“Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 10:11, translated by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1994 vol 7.) This is thought to have been written in the late third century.

We need to notice two details in this statement. Victorinus said that “when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Cæsar Domitian,” and that “John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse.” Since Irenaeus did not state either of these details, they are conclusive proof that this statement by Victorinus was based on information other than the statement by Irenaeus.

Again, the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John” gives a long and detailed account of John’s arrest and trial, including the fact that Domitian was the son of Vespasian and reigned after him. And then it says, “And when all were glorifying God, and wondering at the faith of John, Domitian said to him: I have put forth a decree of the senate, that all such persons should be summarily dealt with, without trial; but since I find from thee that they are innocent, and that their religion is rather beneficial, I banish thee to an island, that I may not seem myself to do away with my own decrees.” (“Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John,” author unknown, translated by Alexander Walker, Esq. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1994, vol 8.) This is thought to have been written sometime during the second century.

The extreme detail of this account is proof that it is not based on either of the other two statements linking John’s time in Patmos with Domatian. But this account does not mention the fact that John was condemned to work in the mines or the fact that he published the Revelation after he was released, as stated by Victornius. So even as the statements of Victornius have to be based on a source other than Irenaeus, they also have to be based on a source other than the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John.” Thus there are at least three independent ante-Nicene sources that all say either that John was exiled “to an island” by Domitian, or that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian.

In addition to this, in the Post-Nicene period Jerome said concerning John that “In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus 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-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.” (“Lives of Illustrious Men,” by Jerome, chapter 9. - From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol.3.) We must notice that none of the three earlier accounts mentioned John returning to Ephesus under Pertinax. Thus, Jerome’s account was based, at least in part, on information that did not come from any of the three ante-Nicene accounts we have examined. So now we have the same information from four ancient sources, every one of which included at least some details that none of the others contained. (None of the other accounts also mentioned Domatian’s acts having been annulled by the senate or his excessive cruelty, but as these were commonly known facts of history, they would not have needed to come from information specifically about John.)

So, contrary to the claims of Preterists, there were at least four independent ancient sources that indicated that the Revelation was written during the reign of Domatian. These four accounts have been presented together to demonstrate that every one of them contained at least some information that was not included in any of the others. But in addition to these four independent statements, there were also numerous other such statements made by these and other early Christian writers.

 

[Biblewriter]

In addition to the statement alreadyquoted, Victorinus also wrote, “‘And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he is come, he will be for a short time.’] The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit. ‘The other has not yet come,’ speaks of Nerva; ‘and when he is come, he will be for a short time,’ for he did not complete the period of two years.” (“Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 17:10, tran. by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1994 vol 7.)

Likewise, after the statement already given, Jerome also said, “John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in.” (“Against Jovinianus,” by Jerome, Book I, chapter 26. From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 6.)

A work attributed to Hyppolytus, who wrote shortly after Irenaeus, said, “John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.” (From “Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, Containing Dubious and Spurious Pieces,” item 49, section 3. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. by Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 5.)

Again, Sulpitius Severus said, “Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.” (“The Sacred History Of Sulpitius Severus,” book 2, chapter 31. - From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 11.)

We need to notice that none of these quotations contained any reference whatsoever to the statement of Irenaeus that is alleged to be the source of all of them. In actual fact, the only other source (from this general time period) that even mentioned that statement by Irenaeus was the famous church historian Eusebius, who wrote:

“Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
“Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:
“‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’” (“Church History,” by Eusebius, book 3, chapters 17 and 18. From “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D., vol. 1.)

 

[Biblewriter]

There is only one source that is unquestionably previous to the sixth century and clearly said the Revelation was written before the reign of Domatian. That was Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote a series of books called the Panarion, which are thought to date from between 374 and 377. In this work Epiphanius first said, "Later, therefore, though from caution and humility he had declined to be an evangelist, the Holy Spirit compelled John to issue the Gospel in his old age when he was past ninety, after his return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar, and several years of his residence in Asia." (“The Panarion,” by Epiphanius, Section IV, paragraph 12.2, from “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salmis, Books II and III, tran. by Frank Williams, ed. by J. M. Robinson and H. J. Klimkeit, pub. by E. J. Brill, 1994, pg 36. Available online at: http://www.ebooks-share.net/the-panarion-of-epiphanius-of-salamis-books-ii-and-iii-de-fide-nag-hammadi-and-manichaean-studies/) Further on in the same volume, he also wrote, “St. John, who prophesied before his falling asleep, during the time of Claudius Caesar and earlier, when he was on the isle of Patmos." (“The Panarion,” by Epiphanius, Section IV, paragraph 33.8, from pg. 66 in the volume previously cited.)

It is unreasonable to argue that this is even close to a reliable witness, for Epiphanius has John having prophesied not only during the time of Claudius, but even earlier, and has him returning from Patmos “under Claudius Caesar.” The Christian Classics Ethereal Library says of Epiphanius, “He was lacking in knowledge of the world and of men, in sound judgment, and in critical discernment. He was possessed of a boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings.” History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library Even the Preterist website Bible.org says of these statements by Epiphanius, “Unfortunately, Ephiphanius is also another example of inconsistent credibility in historical matters, in one place, for instance, making the unusual claim that Priscilla was a man! Therefore, this witness, too, must be taken with a grain of salt.” https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-3-dating-apocalypse So this lone voice of any writer provable to be previous to the sixth century is widely recognized as historically unreliable.

 

[Biblewriter]

Preterists make much of one other ancient document which includes a statement that, if it were correct, would prove the Revelation was written very early, even though it does not say that. This is called the Muratorian Canon, and says, “the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown—i.e., by this sevenfold writing— that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all.” (“Canon Muratorianus,” author unknown, paragraph 3. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 5.) As the last of Paul’s epistles are thought to have been written around A.D. 64, this implies that the Revelation was written before A. D. 64.

This document is usually dated to the late second century because its fourth paragraph said, “The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.” But what do we actually know about the Muratorian Canon? It is actually a single sheet from a codex style manuscript. As this single sheet obviously does not contain the entirety of the original document, it is called the Muratorian Fragment. And the codex in which it is found is called Codex Muratorius, or sometimes the Muratorian Manuscript. In the nineteenth century this manuscript was examined in detail by Brooke Faust Wescott. This is the same Wescott of Wescott and Hort fame, who has pronounced favorably on manuscripts that numerous others, including the writer of this paper, completely reject. But here his judgment was exactly the opposite. He wrote concerning the “Muratorian Fragment:”

“The fragment from Ambrose (De Abrahamo, 1. 3. 15) which follows the Fragment on the Canon furnishes a fair criterion of the accuracy to be expected from the scribe. And by a remarkable accident the piece is more than usually instructive, for the whole fragment is repeated. Thus we have two copies of the same original and their divergence is a certain index of the inaccuracy of the transcriber which cannot be gainsaid. The second copy differs from the first in the following places:... [Here Wescott gave a line by line list of the differences in these fragments.]
“Thus in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, (p. 11b 29), two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 12a 11 merito, I9 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive of the sense (p. 12a 9 decem et octo for &#964, and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words...
“On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken. But these errors are such as in several cases could not be rectified without other authorities for comparison.
“In the sheet which precedes the Fragment on the Canon the same phenomena appear. There is in that also the same ignorance of construction: the same false criticism: the same confusion of letters and terminations. If we now apply the results gained from the examination of the context to the Fragment on the Canon, part of it at least can be restored with complete certainty; and part may be pronounced hopelessly corrupt. It has been shown that a fragment of thirty lines contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long. Other evidence shows that conjecture would have been unable to supply what is wanting or satisfactorily correct what is wrong in the one case, and there is no reason to hope it would be happier in the other.” (“A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament,” by Brooke Faust Wescott D.D., London, Macmillian and Company, 1866, 4th ed., 1875, pp. 522-524. - original not highlighted as shown here) The entirety of this book can be viewed online at: A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament

So we see that the famous textural critic, Wescott, who has been widely criticized for accepting questionable manuscripts, concluded that the scribe who copied out the Muratorian Canon was “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him,” and that the known errors in the Manuscript “are such as in several cases could not be rectified without other authorities for comparison.”

But what “other authorities” do we have for comparison? The only known other copies of any portion of this Canon are twenty-four of its eighty-five lines included in a Prologue to the Epistles of Paul. This Prologue is contained in three eleventh century and one twelfth century manuscript of the Corpus Paulinum at the Benedictine monastery on Monte Cassino, and was first published in Miscellanea Cassinese, ii (1897). These can be found in “The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” by Geoffery Mark Hahneman, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1992, pp. 9-10. Unfortunately, this book has not been published online, but it can be purchased online at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198263414/peterkirby

The actual facts about the Muratorian Manuscript were cited by Wescott as: “The Manuscript (Bibl. Ambros. Cod 101 ) in which the Canon is contained was brought from Columban’s famous monastery at Bibbo. It may therefore probably be of Irish origin or descent, though there is nothing in the Manuscript itself, as far as I could observe, which proves this to be the case. It was written probably in the eighth (or seventh) century, and contains a miscellaneous collection of Latin fragments, including passages from Eucherius, Ambrose, translations from Chrystosom, and brief expositions of the Catholic Creed.” (pp. 514-515 of the volume previously cited.)

So, although many conclude that the Muratorian Canon was written in the late second century, all we really know about its date is that other than a manuscript copied out by an ignorant and careless scribe “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him,” the earliest known example was supposedly copied out in the seventh or eighth century. That is, it came out of the third or fourth century of the Medieval period of ignorance, long after the facts of history had been forgotten, and myth and superstition reigned supreme. As this was around five or six hundred years after the assumed date of the original, any amount of corruption of the original text was possible. No other scribe copied out any portion of this account until three or four hundred more years of this same Medieval darkness, although four copies of that work were made. So the Muratorian Canon cannot rationally be considered historically reliable as evidence for when the Revelation was given.

 

[Biblewriter]

Again, Preterists claim that the writings of Clement of Alexandria prove that the Revelation was written in the time of Nero, not Domitian. But what did Clement actually say?

“For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.
“And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.” (“The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” by Clement of Alexandria, book 7, chapter 17, paragraph 4, from “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 2.) This is the only apparently reliable and provably early quotation advanced by Preterists that seems to be a denial of what the others said, but that is not necessarily the case. For Clement only explicitly said the epistles of Paul ended with Nero. And he could have been considering the Revelation to be a subsequent teaching directly from the Lord himself, (Revelation 1:1, 22:16) and that John was simply acting as a secretary who recorded what the Lord had said. (Revelation 1:11,19).

In addition to this statement by Clement, Preterist build great arguments based on another of his statements. For he also said, "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." (“Salvation of the Rich Man,” by Clement of Alexandria, chapter 42, tran. by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 2.)

Preterists claim that Clement’s words “the tyrant” in this statement have to mean Nero, claiming that it was primarily Nero who was called “the tyrant.” In defense of this claim they sometimes quote Tertullian as having said, “For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation. Domitian, too, a man of Nero’s type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.” (“The Apology,” of Tertullian,tran. by the Rev. S. Thelwall, chapter 5. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 3.) Preterists like to stress the words, “he had something of the human in him,” and the words “he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.” But among the ancient Christian writers, Tertullian stands alone in using such soft words concerning Domitian. And even in this same account, Tertullian said Domitian was “a man of Nero’s type in cruelty.” But let us examine what others said of Domitian.

Remember that Eusebius said, “Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God.” (“Church History,” by Eusebius, cited where it was quoted before.)

“The Marterdom of Ignatius” said, “When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care, having with difficulty escaped the former storms of the many persecutions under Domitian, inasmuch as, like a good pilot, by the helm of prayer and fasting, by the earnestness of his teaching, and by his [constant ] spiritual labour, he resisted the flood that rolled against him, fearing [only] lest he should lose any of those who were deficient in courage, or apt to suffer from their simplicity.”(“The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” author unknown, chapter 1. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 1.) Although the author is indeed unknown, the last chapter of this work said, “Having ourselves been eye-witnesses of these things...” (chapter 7 of the work cited above.) Again, in the portion of the account that describes their voyage to Rome, the pronoun “he” was twice changed to “we.” (Toward the end of chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6.) So the author of this account plainly represented himself to have been a compaion of Ignatius and an eyewitness of his martyrdom, and thus someone who actually experienced “the many persecutions under Domitian.”

Lactantius said, “After an interval of some years from the death of Nero, there arose another tyrant no less wicked (Domitian), who, although his government was exceedingly odious, for a very long time oppressed his subjects, and reigned in security, until at length he stretched forth his impious hands against the Lord. Having been instigated by evil demons to persecute the righteous people, he was then delivered into the power of his enemies, and suffered due punishment. To be murdered in his own palace was not vengeance ample enough: the very memory of his name was erased. For although he had erected many admirable edifices, and rebuilt the Capitol, and left other distinguished marks of his magnificence, yet the senate did so persecute his name, as to leave no remains of his statues, or traces of the inscriptions put up in honour of him; and by most solemn and severe decrees it branded him, even after death, with perpetual infamy. Thus, the commands of the tyrant having been rescinded, the Church was not only restored to her former state, but she shone forth with additional splendour, and became more and more flourishing.” (“Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died,” by Lactantius, chapter 3, tran. by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. by Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. by Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 7.)

Augustin called hin “the cruel Domitian,” saying, “He who gave power to Marius gave it also to Caius Cæsar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors, the Vespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruel Domitian; and, finally, to avoid the necessity of going over them all, He who gave it to the Christian Constantine gave it also to the apostate Julian, whose gifted mind was deceived by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity, stimulated by the love of power.” (“The City of God,” by Augustin, tran. By Marcus Dodss, D.D., book 5, chapter 21. From “Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers,” First series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., vol.2.)

And Melito the Philosopher said, “Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines.” (“Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” by Melito, the Philosopher, part II. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 8.)

And the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John” says, “And when Vespasian was dead, his son Domitian, having got possession of the kingdom, along with his other wrongful acts, set himself also to make a persecution against the righteous men. For, having learned that the city was filled with Jews, remembering the orders given by his father about them, he purposed casting them all out of the city of the Romans. And some of the Jews took courage, and gave Domitian a book, in which was written as follows...
“At all this the king, being affected with rage, ordered the senate to publish a decree that they should put to death all who confessed themselves to be Christians. Those, then, who were found in the time of his rage, and who reaped the fruit of patience, and were crowned in the triumphant contest against the works of the devil, received the repose of incorruption.” (“Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John,” author unknown, translated by Alexander Walker, Esq. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 8.)

So there can be zero question that the early Christians often called Domitian a tyrant.

 

[Biblewriter]

Preterists also argue that a statement by Tertullian ties John into the persecutions under Nero, rather than Domitian. For they claim Tertullian has John persecuted at the same time as John. But that is not what Tertullian said. His words were,“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa.” (The Prescription Against Heretics,” by Tertullian, tran. by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., chapter 36. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 3.) Saying that Paul suffered the same persecution as John does not even so much as imply that these persecutions took place at the same time.

Finally, Preterists argue that in the two oldest Syriac versions of the New Testament, the title of the Revelation says, “written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.” This sounds significant, until we realize that oldest of these two versions is the Philoxenian Version, which is thought to have been made by Polycarpus of Mabug in about 508 A.D., and the other one is the Harclean version, thought to have been made by Thomas of Harkel in about 616 A.D. That is, they date from around four and five centuries after the Revelation was written! None of the older Syriac versions even contained the Revelation at all.

In conclusion, during the second through the fifth centuries at least seven Christian writers clearly stated facts that date the Revelation to within the reign of Domitian, including details that demonstrate at least four independent sources of information. Two early writers said things that could be interpreted to mean it was written earlier, but that is not a necessary conclusion from any statement made by either of them. There are only two clearly stated comments about an earlier date. One of these was made by a writer noted for historical errors. And the other comes from a text made by an ignorant and careless scribe “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him,” backed up only by an eighth or seventh century copy which could easily be descended from that faulty older one. So all solid and reliable evidence points to the Revelation having been given in the later years of Domitian.

At the time Jerusalem was destroyed, the emperor of Rome was Vespasian. About nine years later he was succeeded by his son Titus, the one who had previously conquered Jerusalem. Titus ruled from approximately A.D. 79 to 81, to be succeeded by Domitian about eleven years after Jerusalem was destroyed. Domitian ruled until approximately A.D. 96, some 26 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. “Toward the end of Domitian's reign,” as Irenaeus put it, would be a few years earlier. And that is why most scholars conclude that the Revelation was written sometime between A.D. 92 and 94, with most favoring the later date.

 

[ebedmelech]

This is a good try Biblewriter...but the fact is many historians have questioned the 95 AD date. This is in no way as settled an issue as you think and wish to purport.

Please don't come with this "futurist could care less" idea because the first thing they yell is "Revelation was written in 95 AD".

Kenneth Gentry's book is yet to be refuted! This is a thorough and scholarly work and Gentry has updated the book since. This version is from 1986.

Kenneth Gentry "Before Jerusalem Fell"...this is a free .pdf book:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

 

[Interplanner]

who are "The Preterists". Are you really going to write so much and not define a key technical term in your opening paragraph?

Did you mention Van Meter's counterarguments?

 

[Interplanner]

One other question before spending time on someone who doesn't know why 'there is no difference between Jew and Gentile' matters (vs. whether it is mentioned).

Is there a discussion of John writing Rev in the 90s BUT ABOUT THE 70S?

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi Bible

Great stuff I have studied all of this before but have never put together a paper.

The preterist try and try and try to refute these facts but to no avail.

As I pointed out in the other thread if it is not around as a prophetic understanding in the first century you can say with certainty it is a doctrine of Demons.

Preterism is the greatest heresy of the last 200 years. Not only Denying the Truth of prophetic fulfillment but denying the return of the Lord period.

 

[Interplanner]

You are flat wrong JTF about denying the return, and I demand an apology. I have 3800 posts here and BW can tell you the return has NEVER been denied. You're way off.

All this material has been refuted by several scholars and the easiest to read is D. Van Meter's "The Dating Game" in SEARCHING TOGETHER abuot 5 years back, online. Never refuted?

 

[Biblewriter]

This is a good try Biblewriter...but the fact is many historians have questioned the 95 AD date. This is in no way as settled an issue as you think and wish to purport.

Please don't come with this "futurist could care less" idea because the first thing they yell is "Revelation was written in 95 AD".

Kenneth Gentry's book is yet to be refuted! This is a thorough and scholarly work and Gentry has updated the book since. This version is from 1986.

Kenneth Gentry "Before Jerusalem Fell"...this is a free .pdf book:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

The seven part Op in this thread is a complete refutation of Gentry's gross misrepresentations.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are flat wrong JTF about denying the return, and I demand an apology. I have 3800 posts here and BW can tell you the return has NEVER been denied. You're way off.

All this material has been refuted by several scholars and the easiest to read is D. Van Meter's "The Dating Game" in SEARCHING TOGETHER abuot 5 years back, online. Never refuted?

Yes, JTF, Interplanner is only a partial Preterist, and is thus allowed to post in this forum.


The material I have presented in the seven part OP is a refutation of what these "scholars" have produced. I have not based any of this on opinions about what ancient writers said, but instead in their actual words. I have proved, not alleged, but proved, that no less than seven Christian writers from before the sixth century agreed on this date, and that their writings reveal an absolute minimum of four independent sources of information.

I have also demonstrated that there is reason to doubt every allegation Preterists make about ancient writers giving the so-called "early" date.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi Inter

yes I have heard that argument too. It was written in the 90's but was about the 70's

I would agree some of what was written was historical particularly Rev 12. but it is stated as so and then goes future.

The book starts and ends with plain statements that the events are yet future. Written in 95 AD it is impossible it was about the Fall of Jerusalem.

God gives prophecy for a reason after Jerusalem fell it was important to give a prophetic book to show that all was not accomplished yet.

Revelation ties Daniel and OT prophets with the second coming of Christ which revelation clearly shows as future.

Despite preterist lies Jesus will yet return and bring his reward with him.

 

[ebedmelech]

The seven part Op in this thread is a complete refutation of Gentry's gross misrepresentations.

Surely you jest Biblewriter. You would like to think so. I doubt that you've even fully read Gentry's work.

It has persuaded many of repute to rethink the dating of Revelation. Also no one you cite is able to say that they saw John banished to Patmos...NO ONE!

You've simply compiled a theory based on the one guy futurism ties to the foundation of this late date...Iranaeus!

It really a joke because Iranaeus quote is quite ambiguous. You don't even come close to the evidence Gentry compiled!

Nothing substantive really. This is enough to refute you:
Dating the Book of Revelation

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi Inter

Partial preterist do not deny a future second coming full preterist deny this.

As I have said before partial preterism is really just a form of A-Mill doctrine. We know this doctrine was around in 150 AD. But is denied as valid by Justin Martyr and Others that where well acquainted with St John.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi

That link is just nonsense. There is so much info inside Revelation itself that shows it was not written before 70 AD. We do not need to look outside Revelation itself to prove it was written after 70 AD

Laodicea was destroyed by an massive Earthquake in 61 AD which destroyed the aquifer which brought water to the city from the river. Being to hard to rebuild a water supply from the river as it was uphill to the city they chose to take the water from a hot spring in the high country down a five mile aquifer which meant the water was Luke Warm by the time it reached the city. This Aquifer took almost 20 years to build.

So when Jesus says this

16: So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Not a single person in 65 Ad would have had a clue what was being talked about. However after 81 AD every single person would understand why you spue luke warm water from your mouth.

You need not look any further then Rev 12 for the proof of its date ..because Jesus in the Gospels tells us when some of these things happened and allows us to see through the Doctrines of men.

9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

So here we see that the Devil who has up to this point been able to go before the throne of God in Heaven and accuse mankind has been cast out of heaven down to Earth.

So when does JESUS SAY this happened.

Luke 10: 18: And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Ok so this is before Jesus is Murdered………………..so what of these 70 what happens to them………………..back to Rev 12:

10: And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.11: And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Well it says they over came the devil and loved not their lives till death………………..so they were Martyred …….like Stephen……………….

NOTICE THIS IS IN THE PAST TENSE …..not they WILL not love their lives………………but they DID NOT love their lives………lets continue

12: Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 13: And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Well Jesus is clear the Devil goes after the Woman .......which represents the True Olive Tree not the evil of Judea.....…………….so the Devil will go to Judea and Jerusalem which at this point is where the Woman is and try and destroy The Good Olive tree the history and true church of the manchild from the face of the Earth.

So the Devil will destroy Jerusalem…………….how does he do this

15: And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

So we are told that Jerusalem’s end will be with a flood that the devil will use to try and destroy the foundation of the man Child………………..Does other scripture tell us Jerusalem’s end will come with a flood. YES IT DOES

Daniel 9:26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

It is NO COINCIDENCE that JESUS………….that is the WORD……uses this term in both places this allows us to tie these two verses together so that GOD’S WORDS are the basis of our understanding.

So what does the one who reveals tell us happens next after Jerusalem is destroyed with a flood.

17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Well the Devil goes after Christianity ….and how does he do this………………….he Brings forth Rome to persecute Christianity………………Rome is the Beast of Rev 13:

You will notice that ALL OF THIS IS PAST TENSE it does not go future tense until chapter 13: verse 8:

8: And all that dwell upon the earth SHALL worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9: If any man have an ear, let him hear.

As we can plainly see this book was written after ALL OF THE SEVENTY were dead and gone and Jerusalem destroyed by Rome. There can be no doubt that this book was written as we are told by early fathers in 96 AD and as John himself states after he had been exiled to Patmos.

Jesus has revealed when this book was written it is clear and to the point ..it is the word of God …..it is true and can be trusted.

 

[Interplanner]

does anyone notice the most obvious fact (to me) that the Rev is a vision and seen in the present tense. And it said its matters were at hand, and was about things past, present and things to come.

The idea it is about the future is the least suitable choice. It is a vision; an understanding. Like other apocalyptic, it states what is beyond what is seen day to day.

 

[Biblewriter]

Surely you jest Biblewriter. You would like to think so. I doubt that you've even fully read Gentry's work.

It has persuaded many of repute to rethink the dating of Revelation. Also no one you cite is able to say that they saw John banished to Patmos...NO ONE!

You've simply compiled a theory based on the one guy futurism ties to the foundation of this late date...Iranaeus!

It really a joke because Iranaeus quote is quite ambiguous. You don't even come close to the evidence Gentry compiled!

Nothing substantive really. This is enough to refute you:
Dating the Book of Revelation

If you had even bothered to read what you are so cavilierly dismissing, you would know that I presented absolute proof that what you are saying is simply not true. That the quotations I made conclusively prove an absolute minimum of four ancient sources of information, at least three of which were ante-nicene.