Antichrist and Nero

[branchofthevine]

It's true that this is the generally accepted date of composition, but why is this so?
I know I certainly take a minority position on this, but I think there's good reason to believe that Revelation was written c. AD 70.

I'm no expert myself on the subject on when it was written, but during a New Testament class this year I got access to a website from a Professor who is an expert on the historical dating and all that.

The site basically says that since there is no internal evidence for dating, it is hard to date it. Some date it to Nero (6th emporer counting from Julius Cesaer, and his title equaling 666) or Galba (6th from Augustus)

From external Christian evidence,

Ireneaus dated it towards the end of Domitian's reign (81-96)

However, some Syriac versions of Revelation do date to Nero's reign (54-68)
Christians were persecuted under both rulers, but how bad they were and how wide spreading they were are largely unknown.

Some also date Revelation to Claudius' reign (41-54) and Trajan's reign (98-117) but generally these are regarded as too early or too late to actually be true.

The evidence suggests it was probably written during Domitian's reign, but the possibility of it being written during Nero's reign is not ruled out completely. The truth however, is that we simply do not know the date it was written.

I personally do not think the Revelation of Jesus Christ refers the "Anti-Christ" (that word never actually appears in the Revelation) to Nero.

However, if you ask me for my opinion I must simply and truthfully say "I don't know"
P.S. I don't know if you can access this site, but this is my source for this post
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Rev.htm

 

[Epiphoskei]

The site basically says that since there is no internal evidence for dating, it is hard to date it.

That requires a very narrow definition of internal evidence. It's true the book doesn't date itself or make explicit reference to datable events, at least not in non-cryptic language, but internal evidence also encompasses the style of language used. Revelation uses at least one or two Christian idioms that aren't otherwise attested before the second century: the use of "The Lord's Day" for Sunday is the clear example, and it's probable that the word witness, or "Martyr" if you transliterate the Greek word, when used in one of the letters to the churches, is being used in the modern sense of one who died because of the faith. This use isn't attested elsewhere in scripture, but does begin showing up in second century works. That constitutes internal evidence for a late date.

 

[dcyates]

I know this more than a little lengthy, but please indulge me. I'm posting here a significant portion of a research paper I wrote years ago, which happens to deal with this subject. I've tried to adapt it to our purposes here, but may have missed something here or there -- please excuse them. And hopefully anyone who bothers to read this will have found it not a complete waste of their time.

I'm no expert myself on the subject on when it was written...

The book of Revelation is believed to have been written at some point between AD 69 and 96 in order to encourage these believers with the assurance that, despite all the forces marshalled against them, ultimate victory was theirs so long as they remained loyal to Christ. Some scholars have identified the persecutions alluded to in the writing as originating with the Emperor Nero (AD 54-68), but it is also suggested that it is more likely that the book reflects conditions prevalent during the latter years of the reign of the Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) near the close of the first century.

It is reasoned that prior to Domitian the state had yet to specifically target those of the Christian faith for discrimination. It is argued that Nero’s use of Christians as scapegoats, wherein he falsely accused them of arson with regard to the fire of AD 64 that destroyed a large portion of the city of Rome—and thus becoming the Church’s first imperial persecutor—was restricted to that city and had nothing to do with the issue of worship. The first emperor, however, who allegedly tried to forcibly compel Christians to participate in Caesar worship was Domitian, about whom it is said that toward the end of his reign he became so overweening in his pride and arrogance that he demanded people address him as “our lord and god,” or dominus et deus noster in Latin (Suet. Dom. 13; Mart. Epig. 9.56.3). This would, of course, have presented a distinct problem for faithful Christians who, because of their devotion to Christ, would refuse to recognize any human being other than Jesus as lord and god, and would thus forbid them to participate in offering incense to these pseudo-gods in temples built in their honour. The Jews had earlier been granted immunity from such obligations, and could therefore legally abstain from these pagan rituals. This was largely due to the fact that, in the ancient Greco-Roman world, the phrase “new and improved” was a completely alien and, moreover, specious concept. To them, only those things which had stood the test of time was worthy of their trust and respect. As a result, it was that which could claim some measure of antiquity that was held in high regard. Since the Jews could trace their origins back to a time that predated even the Greeks, they were afforded special status within the Roman Empire. Initially, it is argued, while Christians were considered by the authorities to constitute merely a variant sect within Judaism, this privileged status had been extended to them as well. However, it is thought that toward the close of the first century it became more and more evident to imperial officials that Christian churches in fact comprised a distinct entity from that of the Jewish synagogue; therefore, Christians who refused to participate in the imperial cult exposed themselves to the charge not only of being unpatriotic, but also of being subversive and enemies of the state. Consequently, at various times and places they suffered persecution because of their faith.

Also favouring nearer the end of the first century as the time of composition for Revelation is that, implicit in the testimony of 2.8-11, the church in Smyrna had been persevering under adversity for some while. Yet, according to Polycarp, who had been the bishop of Smyrna during the first half of the second century, the church there did not exist until after the time of Paul (i.e., sometime in the mid- to late-60s). Moreover, in 3.17 the church in Laodicea is described as being rich. However this city had been almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in AD 61. Given that Paul had extended his favourable greetings to the church of Laodicea in his epistle to the Colossians, coupled with the fact that we must allow the Laodicean church sufficient time to have deteriorated from her former devotion, it would seem to appear more likely that the letter was written later rather than earlier.

That Revelation’s recipients were churches situated in the Roman province of Asia is of particular significance in that adherence to the imperial cult was especially adopted there with a considerable degree of enthusiasm, possibly more so than in other regions of the Empire. Many cities, including each of the seven cities listed in the letter, bore imperial temples and held annual festivals in honour of the emperor, in particular on the given emperor’s birthday.

It is now thought by some, however, that the importance of emperor worship vis-à-vis the early Church has been overly exaggerated. Rather, it is speculated that instead of pressure coming from the imperial authorities with the intent of compelling the early Christians to submit to the practice of emperor worship, rather the coercion was coming from their fellow civic residents, and not only having to do with the imperial cult but also with their general participation in traditional religious rituals as well. The Romans, after all, ascribed their success not to the fighting prowess and discipline of their legions, or to the military genius of their generals, but rather to the level of their piety in their religious observances. The Roman statesman and orator Cicero commented in his Concerning the Response of the Soothsayers:
“We (Romans) have excelled neither Spain in population, nor Gaul in vigour, nor Carthage in versatility, nor Greece in art, nor, indeed, Italy and Latium in the innate sensibility characteristic of this land and its peoples, but in piety, in devotion to religion … we have excelled every race and nation.” (9.19)
And further:
“If we care to compare our national characteristics with those of foreign peoples, we shall find that, while in all other respects we are only the equals or even the inferior of others, yet in the sense of religion—that is, in the worship of the gods—we are far superior.” (Nat. D. 2.8)

As well, it should be noted that religion in the ancient world was not regarded as a mere personal matter—that is, something predominantly between an individual and his or her god—but as a necessarily corporate activity. Additionally, in this regard their primary focus was not so much upon moral issues as on purity in ceremonial rituals via precisely carrying out their cultic rites. Consequently, in contrast to the polytheism and pragmatic policy of inclusiveness within the greater Roman Empire, the strict monotheism, their emphasis on morally upright behaviour, and the relative exclusivity of the Jews and Christians resulted in Romans accusing them of atheism. As mentioned above, due to their antiquity the Jews were granted special dispensation, allowing them to refrain from pagan practices, but as Christianity came to be seen as a religion separate and distinct from Judaism, and consequently regarded as instead constituting something new, their refusal to participate in the civic worship of the traditional Greco-Roman pantheon—not only, or even predominantly, their compliance in terms of emperor worship—might not only have been regarded as downright un-neighbourly, but as even jeopardizing the well-order and security of the wider society in which they lived. Hence, the considerable persecution and pressure visited upon them to conform and to comply with traditional modes of Greco-Roman worship.

These alternative theories have been posited due to studies conducted by L.L. Thompson, in which he researched the putative claims of Domitian being a self-deifying, megalomaniacal monster and found them to be not as conclusive as is commonly thought. This potentially misleading portrait of the Emperor Domitian was apparently drawn some years after his death by a circle of writers surrounding Pliny the Younger and which included such luminaries as Tacitus, Dio Chrysostom, and Suetonius. Observation has shown that after Domitian’s assassination and Nerva’s relatively short two-year reign (AD 96-98), their successor, the Emperor Trajan recognized his need of patronizing accomplished and renowned writers and orators to solicit their aid in better promoting his own ideas. Pliny, et al. evidently proved willing pro-Trajan propagandists. They pursued a common policy of lauding Trajan by positively contrasting him with Domitian. Pliny, for example, wrote of the pleasure of being appointed consul during September, a month of triple rejoicing “which saw the removal of the worst of emperors [Domitian], the accession of the best [Nerva] and the birth of one even better than the best” (i.e., Trajan). Thompson further proposes that, in order to be most effective, propagandists tend to exaggerate that which they are praising—that is, “the ideal present”—over-against that which they are denigrating—for instance, “the evil past”). This possibility is strengthened where, contrary to the witness of writers like Suetonius and Martial, Statius records that at one point during one of his Saturnalia, Domitian had been hailed as Dominus by his fellow revellers and his response was to expressly forbid them from doing so any further (see Statius, Silvae 1.6, 81-84). (This is not to suggest that Domitian did not give Pliny and company good reason for their opprobrium; despite his much longer reign than that of his predecessor and father, the Emperor Titus, his accomplishments pale in comparison, and he seems to have been possessed of a decidedly autocratic temper. Toward the end of his rule he also seemed to have grown increasingly paranoid; to the extent that he had arrested large numbers of senators and other members of the Roman aristocracy whom he suspected of plotting against him.)

All this is to say, if the above persists, official imperial persecution of Christians under Domitian becomes less necessary, and a more general persecution and pressure to capitulate not only to the imperial cult but also to traditional Roman religious conventions derived from their pagan neighbours grows less unlikely as the backdrop being referred to in Revelation. Concerning the contention that early Christians were regarded as simply another sect within wider first-century Judaism and so would have been exempted, the very fact that Nero could single them out for false accusation and to subsequently persecute them horribly would seem to suggest they were distinguishable enough to warrant such special treatment. On top of this, let us note that, according to the witness of Tacitus, the Christian victims of Nero’s depredations were accused “not so much of arson as of hatred for mankind” (Annals, 15.44). Indeed, in certain histories, much is made of the relative peace and prosperity within the province of Asia during this time. Augustus had officially forgiven the region of all its debts to Rome and the imperial policy toward this valuable piece of real estate was to retain the existing provincial elite in authority. Unlike the provinces of Syria and Palestine, there were not even any legions stationed in Asia at this period. Under such circumstances it is easy to see how doing everything to maintain the status quo would be the order of the day.
Furthermore, looking at the imagery utilized in Revelation 17.9-11 regarding the seven heads of the beast, where the ancient saga of a seven-headed monster of watery chaos stands opposed to the powers of heaven is applied to their current situation, John also describes these as constituting “seven kings” and so are believed to also represent the emperors of Rome, which, up to Domitian are: Julius Caesar (who, while not technically an emperor, most likely would have been thought of as such), Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitelius, Vespasian, Titus and then Domitian. Of these John says that “five have fallen, one is [the sixth, Nero] and the other is yet to come” (but for only a short while; v. 10), and the “beast… is an eighth king; it comes from the seven and is on its way to destruction” (v. 11). Given that the number ‘eight’ symbolizes a new beginning, that Vespasian brought a renewed and much-welcomed stability to the imperial throne after the chaos that ensued after Nero’s mysterious death, that he was of the Flavian dynasty begun by the short-lived Emperor Galba, the seventh “king,” and the equally short reign of the Emperor Otho—which succeeded the old Julio-Claudian line—and moreover was the general in charge of destroying Jerusalem (“on its way to destruction”), it becomes increasingly plausible that the date of John’s authoring of the book of Revelation lies at some point after Nero’s mysterious demise (at least ‘mysterious’ as perceived by the people of that day) and sometime prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This supposition is potentially supported by the seeming importance of Jesus’ repeated prophesying concerning the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. If the testimony of all four Gospels is any indication, its eventual fulfilment would presumably be an event well worthwhile noting. Since there exists no clear reference to the temple having been destroyed in Revelation, but instead conspicuous suggestions that this event was indeed imminent, if not even inevitable (see Rev. 11.2), in my humble opinion, all this points toward a date of composition preceding the temple’s destruction as opposed to a date anytime after it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by branchofthevine does anyone realize Nero was dead years before Revelation was written, or at least the accepted date of which is it was written (around 90AD).

It's true that this is the generally accepted date of composition, but why is this so?
I know I certainly take a minority position on this, but I think there's good reason to believe that Revelation was written c. AD 70.

Since there exists no clear reference to the temple having been destroyed in Revelation, but instead conspicuous suggestions that this event was indeed imminent, if not even inevitable (see Rev. 11.2), in my humble opinion, all this points toward a date of composition preceding the temple’s destruction as opposed to a date anytime after it.

I would tend to agree. I, and a lot of others, believe Revelation is showing the event of that AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

..............The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover.............

Luke 21:31 "Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these becoming, ye are knowing that NIGH/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God

Reve 1:3 Happy the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of the Prophecy and keepings in it having been Written, for the Time NIGH/egguV <1451>.
[Reve 22:6,10]
R
evelation 22:10 And he is saying to me "no thou should be sealing the Words of the Prophecy of the Scroll, this,
that the Time NIGH/egguV <1451> is" [Revelation 1:3]

1451. eggus eng-goos' from a primary verb agcho (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of 43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time):--from , at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready.

 

[dbcsf]

Context and critical analysis. The Bible isn't one book, but a collection of books, each text has context involving literary genre (epistle, gospel, apocalypse, history, proverb, poetry, etc), when it was written, where it was written, to whom it was written, who wrote it, for what reason it was written. In some cases a book may not have a single author, but instead several authors and which has come to us through redaction (the Psalms is a good example here).

The Revelation belongs to a literary genre known as apocalypse, which comes from the Greek word apokalupto meaning "unveiling" or "revelation". It was a common literary form in the 2nd Temple period and beyond, Old Testament texts which more-or-less fit the genre include at least Daniel (or rather, parts of it), other apocalyptic texts from the period include the Apocalypse of Esdras, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Peter (there are two texts which bear this title, one is a Gnostic text and one isn't, the non-Gnostic text at one point was more popular among some churches than the Apocalypse of John, which you and I usually know as the Revelation), etc.

Apocalyptic literature contains cryptic, visionary, and highly graphic imagery and material to say what it's trying to say. So when St. John writes that he sees a beast with numerous heads and diadems and a harlot riding upon a scarlet beast, or monstrous locusts ascending out from the abyss, chances are the point isn't literal multi-headed beasts or monstrous locusts. As to what John is communicating requires that we look at the text critically, examining internal and external information.

Internally the introduction to the Revelation tells us the circumstances, there is persecution and John has been sent to the island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony off the coast of Asia. John is then, still in the introductory text, told by His vision of Christ, to write concerning events currently happening and what must soon take place thereafter. Thus it is entirely fair to understand that there is an immediate context, a reason and motivation to write. We are then introduced to the intended and original readership, seven churches located in Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, et al). This makes the text an encyclical, a letter intended to be circulated among the target churches.

That internal evidence suggest that

A) John is writing on Patmos, a prisoner there because of martyrdom.

B) John is writing primarily about current and soon-to-happen events.

C) John is writing to Christians living in Asia, suffering various trials and tribulations as evidenced in the epistolary material in chapters 2 and 3.
...

-CryptoLutheran

Very wordy, but very good. You taught me something today. TY