Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[Spiritual Jew]

Hitler, Stalin, and other evil men deserve something akin to hell. Is Dante's inferno biblical at all with degrees of hell or is it pure fiction?

There are indications in scripture of varying levels of punishment for the lost. Such as these:

Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Luke 12:47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked

Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

There are indications in scripture of varying levels of punishment for the lost. Such as these:

Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Luke 12:47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked

Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Excellent post!

 

[timtams]

We are still studying Revelation in depth and debating the Preterist, Futurist, Idealist, and Historicist points of view. The preterist viewpoint seems to hinge on an earlier date of Revelation, written during John's exile on Patmos. What is the evidence for John's exile during Nero's (67-68 AD) vs. Domitian's reign (AD 95 or so)?

Evidence for early date (Nero):
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria
Irenaeus
Acts of John
Syriac History of John

Evidence for Late Date (c. 95)
Eusebius

 

[timtams]

External Evidence for dating Revelation.

1.) It is true that Irenaeus' qoute in the greek is ambiguos when it comes "it was seen". This verb can refer to John "was seen" or the Vision "was seen". However, when Eusebius translated the quote into the latin, the "it was seen" refers to the Vision, and not John, thus seemingly confirming a post 70ad dating.

You've got all your facts confused. Eusebius never translated anything into Latin. We don't even know if he knew Latin.

The Latin text of Irenaeus does not refer to the vision as that which "was seen."

However, this did not stop Eusebius from believing the New heavens and New Earth and New Jerusalem were realized on earth in 70ad. And it most likely won't change the mind of preterists either, due to internal evidence.

Eusebius didn't believe they were fulfilled in AD 70. He believed they were fulfilled in the fourth century with the Christian rebuilding of Jerusalem and Christianization of the empire.

 

[timtams]

In an attempt to try to get back to date of authorship of Revelation - I am seeking help concerning Orthodox knowledge of Antipas - a martyred bishop of Pergamum

The best article I've seen was taken down by the author. I was able to find it on the wayback machine. This should answer your question.

The Martyrdom of Antipas and the Dating of Revelation

 

[claninja]

You've got all your facts confused. Eusebius never translated anything into Latin. We don't even know if he knew Latin.

The Latin text of Irenaeus does not refer to the vision as that which "was seen."

my apologies, you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I edited to improve clarity. Eusebius wrote in Greek, but the Latin translation of it “seemingly” confirms the “it was seen” refers to the vision.

 

[sovereigngrace]

my apologies, you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I edited to improve clarity. Eusebius wrote in Greek, but the Latin translation of it “seemingly” confirms the “it was seen” refers to the vision.

... but who cares what the Latin translation of the Greek says?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Historically, though, the early-date option was not the dominant position of the church. As David Aune points out, “From the late second century AD until the nineteenth century, and again (after the interval of a century of criticism) in the twentieth century, the prevailing opinion has been that Revelation was written toward the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian.”6 Indeed, the vast majority of modern scholars date Revelation’s composition in the final years of Domitian’s reign, between 92–96 CE.

4 The Date of the Book of Revelation pt. 1: The External and Internal Evidence in: The Alter-Imperial Paradigm

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Dating of the Book of Revelation - Majority view:

Many of the Church Fathers and Church historians who agreed that St. John the Apostle wrote down the visions given to him by Christ in the New Testament book of the Apocalypse/Revelation could not come to agreement on which Roman emperor had banished him to the island of Patmos. Bishop Apringius, who wrote a sixth century commentary on Revelation, maintained that it was the Emperor Claudius (died 54 AD) who banished St. John, while the Venerable Bede, relying on the testimony of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea quoting St. Irenaeus, believed it was the Emperor Domitian (see the quotes above). Others testified that it was Claudius' successor, the vicious Emperor Nero who banished St. John to Patmos. Most modern Biblical scholars hold the view that Revelation was written during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian who ruled from 81-96 AD. This view is based solely on a passage written by St. Irenaeus (died c. 200 AD) in his book Against Heresies 5:30:3. Irenaeus discussing the "Beast" passages in Revelation wrote: 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.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ to His Servant John - Introduction Part 2

 

[timtams]

Historically, though, the early-date option was not the dominant position of the church. As David Aune points out, “From the late second century AD until the nineteenth century, and again (after the interval of a century of criticism) in the twentieth century, the prevailing opinion has been that Revelation was written toward the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian.”6 Indeed, the vast majority of modern scholars date Revelation’s composition in the final years of Domitian’s reign, between 92–96 CE.

4 The Date of the Book of Revelation pt. 1: The External and Internal Evidence in: The Alter-Imperial Paradigm

Here's a summary of a recent book that has endorsements from some leading Johannine scholars. It tells a different story. Eusebius was the first to come up with an exile in the 90s.

7 Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation--Summary

 

[timtams]

He also has an interesting theory on how the Claudian dating originated:

4 John's Claudian Exile in the Muratorian Canon and Epiphanius

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The Preterist cannot ever agree with the majority view that Revelation was written during the time of Domitian, because it means the Preterist view is not possible. No other interpretation of system of eschatology is likewise pinned down by the date of Revelation having to be prior to AD70. Further, a lot of other Scripture has to be explained away as symbolic for Preterism to hold which begs the question why it is still such an orthodox view? It seems to me to be straining so hard to hold to it when the majority of evidence is against this view. Even in Steven Gregg's book, the further we go, the more we are convinced in our study group that Preterism is having to rehash new Scripture in the same context to fit the AD70 window, and after so long of reading the same revolving logic, it just seems impossible to hold onto that view throughout all of Revelation's different prophecies that all seem unfilled by anything that happened to Israel in AD67-AD70. And Steven Gregg it turns out isn't a premillennial even, but his book does a great job of making its case despite his personal disposition of Amillenialism. I admit the man does a fantastic job of keeping his own thoughts out of his book and his study and letting the Scripture and the other interpretations make their own cases.

The fact that Christian Jews did escaped the destruction of AD70 alone seems a rather strong case for the establishing that that AD70 does not fit Revelation 4 and forward.

 

[timtams]

my apologies, you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I edited to improve clarity. Eusebius wrote in Greek, but the Latin translation of it “seemingly” confirms the “it was seen” refers to the vision.

I appreciate your willingness to be corrected.

The Latin translation of Irenaeus (there wasn't a Latin translation of Eusebius, as far as I am aware) actually has visum est, where visum is neuter. If the reference was to the vision (feminine in Latin and Greek), it would have read visa est.

John Behr in his recent book, John the Theologian and his Paschal Gospel, notes some recent research suggesting that ancient Latin had a "subject accusative" with passive verbs and that visum est could also be masculine subject accusative and translated as "he was seen."

So "the vision was seen" isn't an option but "he was seen" is.

 

[timtams]

The Preterist cannot ever agree with the majority view, because it means the Preterist view is not possible. No other interpretation of system of eschatology is likewise pinned down by the date of Revelation having to be prior to AD70. Further, a lot of other Scripture has to be dismissed or explained away as symbolic for Preterism to hold which begs the question why it is still such an orthodox view? It seems to me to be straining so hard to hold to it when the majority of evidence is against this view.

That's kinda irrelevant. Revelation could have been written in the 60s and preterism still be false. The historical evidence still seems firmly on the side of the Neronian date, as the link argues.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

yes but Preterism fails if it wasn't written prior to AD 70 is the point, and it seems rather conclusive that it wasn't so Revelation was written when John was exiled on Patmos during the reign of Domitian. End of story.

I wonder if anyone ever put together a list of assumptions required for Preterism to hold. I bet the number would range from 100 to 1000 assumptions about Scripture that require all sorts of Scriptural gymnastics to get around the fact that John wrote Revelation as it actually appears - literally.

 

[timtams]

End of story.

In other words, "don't bother me with the facts."

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

No, the facts are well laid out in Scripture, and no amount of man-made interpretation can change what the Bible tells us.

In fact, almost all of Preterism stems from the works of a Jew who never accepted Christ as best we know. Or correct me if I am wrong about Josephus, the author of WARS, on which most of Preterism is built.

 

[timtams]

No, the facts are well laid out in Scripture.

You can't get over preterism, so why make a thread about the historical evidence for the dating of Revelation? Two completely different things, but you can't seem to differentiate. One can hold an early date and not be preterist. Not sure why that is so difficult to comprehend. BTW, scripture doesn't tell us when Revelation was written.

 

[claninja]

I appreciate your willingness to be corrected.

The Latin translation of Irenaeus (there wasn't a Latin translation of Eusebius, as far as I am aware) actually has visum est, where visum is neuter. If the reference was to the vision (feminine in Latin and Greek), it would have read visa est.

John Behr in his recent book, John the Theologian and his Paschal Gospel, notes some recent research suggesting that ancient Latin had a "subject accusative" with passive verbs and that visum est could also be masculine subject accusative and translated as "he was seen."

So "the vision was seen" isn't an option but "he was seen" is.

I agree that “he was seen” makes much more sense than “vision”.

Didn’t rufinis translate it into Latin?

 

[timtams]

I agree that “he was seen” makes much more sense than “vision”.

Didn’t rufinis translate it into Latin?

Yes, now it's my turn to be corrected. I checked his Latin and he translated it revelata est, which refers to the vision as the thing seen, presumably because Eusebius understood Irenaeus to be speaking of the vision as that which was seen.