Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus had shown Peter how he would die. And then Peter asks Jesus about how John would die. Jesus replied, 'If I want him to remain till I come, what is that to you?' This is a clear indication that John would not die until, at earliest, the beginning of the coming of Christ in his kingdom.

John lives to see Christ coming in the clouds, for in chapter 1 of Revelation he writes, Behold, he is coming on the clouds...' So yes, it is clear that John remained till the siege of Jerusalem. However, it was only necessary for John to remain until he saw Christ coming. He didn't need to remain throughout the entire siege. So, I just have an idea that John was gone by late 69. Whatever the case may be, it is clearly indicated by Christ that John would be taken sometime around the time of the coming judgment against Jerusalem when Christ began his coming. So John is gone by AD 70 at very latest.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I don't think you've understood his argument: he assumes that the 'coming' referred to is the fall of Jerusalem, which he views as having taken place over the period 66-70. Therefore John 'did' live to see the coming, according to michael. Of course the deaths of Peter and Paul are usually placed in 66 (not 64), so they also lived to see it, following this reasoning. For some reason he doesn't want John to have lived to see the actual overthrow of Jerusalem (which would be the logical interpretation if the 'coming' referred to here is in fact AD 70). Michael, I'm not sure your reasons for not wanting John to have lived to AD 70 or beyond--perhaps you could explain.

Actually John lived into the reign of Trajan, but whatever.
I understood his argument. I was just showing how it contradicred scripture. But he will not listen to any amount of historical evidence you can give for what you said (even thugh it is correct.) For he is so certain he has correctly interpreted the scriptures that in his mind, his interpretation carries more weight than all the historical evidence you can quote. (And there is plenty of it.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rev20

Partial Preterist
Jun 16, 2014
1,988
71
✟13,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think you've understood his argument: he assumes that the 'coming' referred to is the fall of Jerusalem, which he views as having taken place over the period 66-70. Therefore John 'did' live to see the coming, according to michael. Of course the deaths of Peter and Paul are usually placed in 66 (not 64), so they also lived to see it, following this reasoning. For some reason he doesn't want John to have lived to see the actual overthrow of Jerusalem (which would be the logical interpretation if the 'coming' referred to here is in fact AD 70). Michael, I'm not sure your reasons for not wanting John to have lived to AD 70 or beyond--perhaps you could explain.

Actually John lived into the reign of Trajan, but whatever.

There is no evidence that John lived beyond AD70.

:)
 
Upvote 0

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I understood his argument. I was just showing hoe=w it contradicred scripture. But he will not listen to any amount of historical evidence you can give for what you said (even thugh it is correct.) For he is so certain he has correctly interpreted the scriptures that in his mind, his interpretation carries more weight than all the historical evidence you can quote. (And there is plenty of it.)

  • 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - Matt. 24:30-34

  • 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. -- Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich That shall be saved? XLII

  • 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. -- Clement of Alexandria, the Stromata, Book VII, Chap. XVII

  • 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. - Rev. 17:10

  • 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. - John 21:20-22

  • 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. - Matt. 16:28

  • Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. - Rev. 1:7
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
There is no evidence that John lived beyond AD70.

:)

"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." (Appendix to the Works of Hyppolytus, 49.3. - Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5.)

"St. John, surviving the cruelty of Domitian, lived and died under Trajan."
Fragments from the writings of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria - The Roman Emperors, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6)

"
1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.
2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: “And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.”
4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words: “But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.”
5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable" (The Church History of Eusebius, Book III, chapyter XIII, Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, volume 1.)

"

John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord’s passion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true, but that they had given the history of only one year, the one, that is, which follows the imprisonment of John and in which he was put to death. So passing by this year the events of which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between John and the others. He wrote also one Epistle which begins as follows “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of life” which is esteemed of by all men who are interested in the church or in learning. The other two of which the first is “The elder to the elect lady and her children” and the other “The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth,” are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist. We shall treat of this matter in its turn when we come to Papias his disciple. 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 IX, Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, vol. 3)

"And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask, he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen, they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross, Peter said, “Lord what shall this man do?” being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, “What is that to thee if I wish him so to be?” Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” and, “He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all,” would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men." (Against Jovianius, by Jerome, Book I, section 26, from Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, vol. 6.)
 
Upvote 0

stillwaters45

Junior Member
Jan 15, 2015
78
10
✟8,920.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Biblewriter--while I agree that John lived until the reign of Trajan, your evidence here basically boils down to Irenaeus.

As I mentioned in a previous post, in which I attempted to show that your five independent early sources were in fact only one independent source (Victorinus), the 'Hippolytus' you refer to is in a spurious work, probably written by Hippolytus of Thebes in the eleventh century.

The fragments of Peter of Alexandria are said to include spurious ones also, though he could have got this from Victorinus.

Eusebius is following Irenaeus and Clement.

Jerome is following Eusebius and Irenaeus.

I agree with you that Clement suggests that John lived many years after the death of the 'tyrant' (Nero in my opinion), but it would be difficult to prove he didn't do all his traveling around the churches in a year (without teaching of course!).

That leaves just Irenaeus out of the evidence you have presented (though there is a lot more).
 
Upvote 0

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There's a lot of inter-textual Biblical witness that John did not live past the siege of Jerusalem.

And yes, after checking my copies of the the church fathers and the introductory note, Victorianus seems to be the only original non-spurious source. Eusebius and Jerome are simply writing down the tradition that had been passed to them. And all that tradition seems to be a misreading of Clement.

It basically comes down to either believing Clement or Victorianus when we're dealing with extra-biblical texts. And Clement never suggests that John lived many years after his release from Patmos.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stillwaters45

Junior Member
Jan 15, 2015
78
10
✟8,920.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a lot to compress into a year:

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.
Having come to one of the cities not far off, and having put the brethren to rest in other matters, at last, looking to the bishop appointed, and seeing a youth, powerful in body, comely in appearance, and ardent, said, “This (youth) I commit to you in all earnestness, in the presence of the Church, and with Christ as witness.” And on his accepting and promising all, he gave the same injunction and testimony. And he set out for Ephesus. And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and guardianship, under the idea that the seal of the Lord he had set on him was a complete protection to him. But on his obtaining premature freedom, some youths of his age, idle, dissolute, and adepts in evil courses, corrupt him. First they entice him by many costly entertainments; then afterwards by night issuing forth for highway robbery, they take him along with them. Then they dared to execute together something greater. And he by degrees got accustomed; and from greatness of nature, when he had gone aside from the right path, and like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, had taken the bit between his teeth, rushed with all the more force down into the depths. And having entirely despaired of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having perpetrated some great exploit, now that he was once lost, he made up his mind to a like fate with the rest. Taking them and forming a band of robbers, he was the prompt captain of the bandits, the fiercest, the bloodiest, the cruelest.

Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, “Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness.” The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said “I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother,” the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, “He is dead.” “How and what kind of death?” “He is dead,” he said, “to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him.” Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, “It was a fine guard of a brother’s soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way.” He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers’ outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, “It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;” who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognized John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.”

And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and falling on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church. Then by supplicating with copious prayers, and striving along with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances of words, did not depart, as they say, till he restored him to the Church, presenting in him a great example of true repentance and a great token of regeneration, a trophy of the resurrection for which we hope.
 
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus had shown Peter how he would die. And then Peter asks Jesus about how John would die. Jesus replied, 'If I want him to remain till I come, what is that to you?' This is a clear indication that John would not die until, at earliest, the beginning of the coming of Christ in his kingdom.

John lives to see Christ coming in the clouds, for in chapter 1 of Revelation he writes, Behold, he is coming on the clouds...' So yes, it is clear that John remained till the siege of Jerusalem. However, it was only necessary for John to remain until he saw Christ coming. He didn't need to remain throughout the entire siege. So, I just have an idea that John was gone by late 69. Whatever the case may be, it is clearly indicated by Christ that John would be taken sometime around the time of the coming judgment against Jerusalem when Christ began his coming. So John is gone by AD 70 at very latest.

You are reading into that passage from a Premise that is obviously your own.

Mark 13:

32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Acts 1:

7. And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Not even He knows the day nor the hour of His return.

What He is actually doing is not answering Peter's question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is a lot to compress into a year:

How much time do you need for all that?

30 more years or so?

Besides, it's one of those church folk tales like we have today of 'ol' brother so and so and what he used to do'.

I also know from experience in the church for more than 20 years that these little anachronistic tales tend to get embellished and changed for the need of the moment quite often.

Besides, at that time, John had become legendary. Everyone wanted to be associated by succession to John, or at least know someone who knew someone who knew the 'apostle who would never die', as it were.
 
Upvote 0

Rev20

Partial Preterist
Jun 16, 2014
1,988
71
✟13,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"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." (Appendix to the Works of Hyppolytus, 49.3. - Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5.)

"St. John, surviving the cruelty of Domitian, lived and died under Trajan." Fragments from the writings of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria - The Roman Emperors, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6)

"1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island. 2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. 3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: “And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.” 4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words: “But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.” 5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable" (The Church History of Eusebius, Book III, chapyter XIII, Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, volume 1.)

"John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord’s passion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true, but that they had given the history of only one year, the one, that is, which follows the imprisonment of John and in which he was put to death. So passing by this year the events of which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between John and the others. He wrote also one Epistle which begins as follows “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of life” which is esteemed of by all men who are interested in the church or in learning. The other two of which the first is “The elder to the elect lady and her children” and the other “The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth,” are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist. We shall treat of this matter in its turn when we come to Papias his disciple. 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 IX, Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, vol. 3)

"And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask, he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen, they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross, Peter said, “Lord what shall this man do?” being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, “What is that to thee if I wish him so to be?” Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” and, “He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all,” would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men." (Against Jovianius, by Jerome, Book I, section 26, from Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, vol. 6.)

Biblewriter, all that is hearsay, based on the fiction of Irenaeus. I repeat: there is not a shred of evidence that John lived past A.D. 70.

I will add that there is also not a shred of evidence that John was ever in Ephesus. John is seldom mentioned at all after the resurrection of Christ, with this the most notable reference:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." -- Gal 2:9 KJV

So, John, James and Peter were sent to the Jews, while Paul and Barnabas (and John surnamed Mark) were sent to the Gentiles. Does that sound like John the Apostle would be spending the next 40 years in Ephesus (when he was not on Patmos?)

That, by the way, was the only time Paul mentioned the Apostle John. If Paul had left John in Ephesus, as Irenaeus claims, why did Paul make no mention of it? This is Irenaeus' claim:

"There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book III.III.4,p.416]

Paul instructed Timothy to remain at Ephesus when Paul went to Macedonia:

"As I besought thee [Timothy] to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine," -- 1Tim 1:3 KJV

Not a whisper about John. Nor from Polycarp. Irenaeus made these claims about Polycarp:

"And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. " [Roberts & Donaldson, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book IV.33.4, p.563]

"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." [Roberts & Donaldson, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book III.3.4, p.416]

Now, one would think that there would be all sorts of records by Polycarp, and Papias, that refer to their time with the Apostles, and in particular, John. But there is not a whisper. Polycarp, in his epistle, mentions the apostle Paul four (4) times, but not John.

Papias actually "denied" he spent any time with an Apostle, according to Eusebius:

"There are said to be five books of Papias, which bear the title " Interpretation of our Lord's Declarations." Irenaeus also, makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following terms: "These things are attested by Papias, who was John's hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works. For he has written a work in five books." So far Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no means asserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles (as Irenaeus claims,) but informs us that he received the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends.... And the same Papias of whom we now speak professes to have received the declaration of the Apostles from those that were in company with them, and says also that he was a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. For, as he has often mentioned them by name, he also gives their statements in his own works." [C F Cruse, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus." Thomas N. Stanford, 1856, pp.124-125]

As I said earlier, there is not a shred of evidence that John lived past 70AD, nor was ever in Ephesus. I would like to add, there is not a shred of evidence that he ever conversed with either Papias or Polycarp, as Irenaeus claimed.

:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stillwaters45

Junior Member
Jan 15, 2015
78
10
✟8,920.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How much time do you need for all that?

30 more years or so?

No, but it's a lot to compress into a year. At some point after his return (maybe five, ten, twenty years later, it doesn't say) after traveling to churches, appointing elders (but not teaching!), he comes to a city and entrusts a young man to the care of the minister there. Then there is the period of training followed by his baptism. Then the relaxation of the training. Then his being led astray until he becomes an outlaw. Then John visits 'some time' later. Then there is the restoration process. But whatever--if you are convinced that John died in 69, you are either going to compress it into a year or you are going to dismiss it as just an embellished story, so there isn't much point discussing it.
 
Upvote 0

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, but it's a lot to compress into a year. At some point after his return (maybe five, ten, twenty years later, it doesn't say) after traveling to churches, appointing elders (but not teaching!), he comes to a city and entrusts a young man to the care of the minister there. Then there is the period of training followed by his baptism. Then the relaxation of the training. Then his being led astray until he becomes an outlaw. Then John visits 'some time' later. Then there is the restoration process. But whatever--if you are convinced that John died in 69, you are either going to compress it into a year or you are going to dismiss it as just an embellished story, so there isn't much point discussing it.

I'll grant you that. Personally, I find the Clement's account very inspiring. I believe something just about like that happened. Sounds like John from what we know. I simply have an idea that John went to his heavenly home in about 69. I will not say 'this is truth'. But what I will stand by is that John received the Revelation during the reign of Nero. That can actually be defended from Revelation itself. If he remained on after this till the time of Trajan, then he did. It is that sort of thing that can neither be proven, nor disproved. Accounts like this usually have a grain of truth to them, even if embellished a bit for dramatic effect.
 
Upvote 0

stillwaters45

Junior Member
Jan 15, 2015
78
10
✟8,920.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By the same token, the account argues against the late dating of Revelation--John was so old and infirm at the end of his life that he had to be carried into church. If he returned from Patmos in 96, and died in 99/100, then there is no room to fit this narrative--not if John couldn't even walk at the end of his life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
By the same token, the account argues against the late dating of Revelation--John was so old and infirm at the end of his life that he had to be carried into church. If he returned from Patmos in 96, and died in 99/100, then there is no room to fit this narrative--not if John couldn't even walk at the end of his life.

He may have remained around asia minor for quite a while. I don't know. All I know is that unless we can magically make the '6th king' Domitian in Rev. 17:10, we have some major issues with the Domitian date for Revelation.

The 'scholars' say 95. Rev. 17:10 indicates about 65.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
He may have remained around asia minor for quite a while. I don't know. All I know is that unless we can magically make the '6th king' Domitian in Rev. 17:10, we have some major issues with the Domitian date for Revelation.

The 'scholars' say 95. Rev. 17:10 indicates about 65.

This is unquestionably true, provided your interpretation is correct. I speak of your interpretation (and that is all it is) that the "seven kings" were intended to represent the rulers of Rome that called themselves "emperors."

But you can show no reliable reason for starting with Julius Caesar. Why only count those who called themselves "emperors." Why not count earlier rulers of Rome, the ones who actually called themselves "kings"? Do you even know who they were?
 
Upvote 0

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is unquestionably true, provided your interpretation is correct. I speak of your interpretation (and that is all it is) that the "seven kings" were intended to represent the rulers of Rome that called themselves "emperors."

But you can show no reliable reason for starting with Julius Caesar. Why only count those who called themselves "emperors." Why not count earlier rulers of Rome, the ones who actually called themselves "kings"? Do you even know who they were?

I've already shown 4 major authors who begin the count with Julius. This is a majority of ancient authors on the subject. I've shown every 'reliable reason', just not any that you are willing to accept. And even if you were to start with Augustus, that still doesn't get you past 69 with Galba. However, there is every good reason to start with Julius.

And you have audacity to accuse me of being arbitrary when you don't even begin the count until Nero? Why don't you try to demonstrate that historically? I've already shown that I'm not being arbitrary, but rather historical. John's natural order, as Josephus, would have been to begin with Julius as first king.

Order of Roman Emperors from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Clement of Alexandria, Titus Flavius Josephus, and Theophilus of Antioch

1 Julius Caesar
2 Augustus
3 Tiberius
4 Caligula
5 Claudius
6 Nero [1 is; AD 54-68]
7 Galba
8 Otho
9 Vitellius
10 Vespasian
11 Titus
12 Domitian

Afterwards those who are called emperors began in this order: first, Caius Julius, who reigned 3 years 4 months 6 days; then Augustus, 56 years 4 months 1 day; Tiberius, 22 years; then another Caius, 3 years 8 months 7 days; Claudius, 23 years 8 months 24 days; Nero, 13 years 6 months 58 days; Galba, 2 years 7 months 6 days; Otho, 3 months 5 days; Vitellius, 6 months 22 days; Vespasian, 9 years 11 months 22 days; Titus, 2 years 22 days; Domitian, 15 years 5 months 6 days; Nerva, 1 year 4 months 10 days; Trajan, 19 years 6 months 16 days; Adrian, 20 years 10 months 28 days; Antoninus, 22 years 7 months 6 days; Verus, 19 years 10 days. -- Theophilus of Antioch T Autolycus, Book 3, Chap. XXVII

After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death TiberiusNero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. -- Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Chap. 2, Sec. 2


Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus:--
Caius Julius Cæsar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days. He was succeeded by Caius Cæsar, who reigned three years, ten months, eight days; and he by Claudius for thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days. Nero reigned thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days; Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian, eleven years, eleven months, twenty-two days; Titus, two years, two months; Domitian, fifteen years, eight months, five days; Nerva, one year, four months, ten days; Trajan, nineteen years, seven months, ten days; Adrian, twenty years, ten months, twenty-eight days. Antoninus, twenty-two years, three months, and seven days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, nineteen years, eleven days; Commodus, twelve years, nine months, fourteen days. -- Clement of Alexandria, the Stromata, Book 1, Chap. XXI
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
1michael1 said:
I've already shown 4 major authors who begin the count with Julius. This is a majority of ancient authors on the subject. I've shown every 'reliable reason', just not any that you are willing to accept. And even if you were to start with Augustus, that still doesn't get you past 69 with Galba. However, there is every good reason to start with Julius.

And you have audacity to accuse me of being arbitrary when you don't even begin the count until Nero? Why don't you try to demonstrate that historically? I've already shown that I'm not being arbitrary, but rather historical. John's natural order, as Josephus, would have been to begin with Julius as first king.

Order of Roman Emperors from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Clement of Alexandria, Titus Flavius Josephus, and Theophilus of Antioch

1 Julius Caesar
2 Augustus
3 Tiberius
4 Caligula
5 Claudius
6 Nero [1 is; AD 54-68]
7 Galba
8 Otho
9 Vitellius
10 Vespasian
11 Titus
12 Domitian

Afterwards those who are called emperors began in this order: first, Caius Julius, who reigned 3 years 4 months 6 days; then Augustus, 56 years 4 months 1 day; Tiberius, 22 years; then another Caius, 3 years 8 months 7 days; Claudius, 23 years 8 months 24 days; Nero, 13 years 6 months 58 days; Galba, 2 years 7 months 6 days; Otho, 3 months 5 days; Vitellius, 6 months 22 days; Vespasian, 9 years 11 months 22 days; Titus, 2 years 22 days; Domitian, 15 years 5 months 6 days; Nerva, 1 year 4 months 10 days; Trajan, 19 years 6 months 16 days; Adrian, 20 years 10 months 28 days; Antoninus, 22 years 7 months 6 days; Verus, 19 years 10 days. -- Theophilus of Antioch T Autolycus, Book 3, Chap. XXVII

After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death TiberiusNero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. -- Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Chap. 2, Sec. 2


Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus:--
Caius Julius Cæsar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days. He was succeeded by Caius Cæsar, who reigned three years, ten months, eight days; and he by Claudius for thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days. Nero reigned thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days; Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian, eleven years, eleven months, twenty-two days; Titus, two years, two months; Domitian, fifteen years, eight months, five days; Nerva, one year, four months, ten days; Trajan, nineteen years, seven months, ten days; Adrian, twenty years, ten months, twenty-eight days. Antoninus, twenty-two years, three months, and seven days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, nineteen years, eleven days; Commodus, twelve years, nine months, fourteen days. -- Clement of Alexandria, the Stromata, Book 1, Chap. XXI

Where did you get the idea that I started with Nero? I start with Romulus and Rhemus.

Footnote 13, on page 36 of my award-wonning book, "Keys to Bible Prophecy," says:

"Rome was first ruled by kings, then by consuls; followed by decemvirs and then by consular tribunes. (See “The History of Rome,” by Livy, book 5, chapter 2. And “the Annals of Imperial Rome,” by Tacitus, book 1, chapter 1.) During these governments, the ·Roman Senate had occasionally appointed dictators in extreme emergencies. These had always been given power for only six months or until the emergency was over. But Rome’s fifth form of government was different. One after another, military commanders began to violently seize dictatorial power by force of arms, as recorded by the ancient historian Appian in a book called “The Civil Wars.” This continued for a period of about a hundred years, finally ending when the Senate granted absolute power to Augustus Caesar, thus establishing Rome’s sixth government, the line of emperors called Caesars. This government was in power when the Revelation was given and lasted until the fall of the ·Roman empire. So the one which “has not yet come” has to be future."

This is an explanation of my words:

"This will take place in two stages.“There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.” (Revelation 17:10-11) At the time this was said, five previous governments of Rome had already fallen, and she now had a sixth.

John was told that Rome would have another government after this one, followed by “the beast that was, and is not.” This last ruler, the eighth, is not one of the ten kings, but another to whom the ten “will give their power and authority.” This parallels the little horn of Daniel’s fourth beast, who first overthrows three of the first ten and then assumes power over them all. (Daniel 7:24) The statement that he “is of the seven” again shows that this eighth king rules over the revived ·Roman Empire."

In the past you have mocked the concept of reading the word "king" to mean "kingdom." But this is not just something that I made up. It is a concept clearly used in the prophetic scriptures. In Daniel 7, the fourth beast is interpreted as a king in verse 17 and as a kingdom in verses 23 and 24. This application of the word king to a kingdom is common in Bible prophecy. Thus, in Daniel 2, the various parts of the image are interpreted as kingdoms in verse 39 and as kings in verse 44. Again, in Daniel 11:5-34 the terms “king of the South” and “king of the North” are applied over a number of generations spanning about 130 years.

So yes, you are being arbitrary in starting with the emperors in counting the seven kings. There is only one starting point that is not arbitrary, and that point is the beginning of Rome itself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1michael1

Active Member
Jan 14, 2015
152
2
47
✟317.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So you change the word king into meaning kingdom, but then use references to Domitian against Revelation being written before AD 70 even though you don't believe that it says anything about the current king, but about the current kingdom?

This is the award-winning book I missed? I would give a special award too. It wins the double-talking jive award.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0