Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[stillwaters45]

That's interesting. I'm also fully persuaded of a 65 dating of Revelation. I know how I came to that conclusion. It was the only window of opportunity for John to have been exiled to Patmos after the fire of Rome in the summer of 64, at Nero's first persecution of Christians, and before the first musterings of the siege of Jerusalem in late 66. So some time in 65, probably around the Feast of Trumpets, is where I put the Revelation. John would have been somewhere in his 60s at this time. Both Peter and Paul were slain by Nero during this persecution.

Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." -- Matt. 16:28
​

John was among those few apostles who lived to see the son of man coming on the clouds of Heaven in his kingdom.

What I'm wondering, though, is how you came to a 65 dating.

The two big things for me were 1) the realization that Eusebius constructed the Domitianic persecution and banishment of John by piecing together vague statements from fathers and Roman historians; and 2) an examination of Irenaeus' statement and the conclusion that he could only have referred to 'John'.

I am not a preterist (partial or full) so theology was not an issue for me.

There were other things too, but those were two that stand out. I think the 666/616 variation is strong evidence also.

 

[stillwaters45]

Barry, please take your discussion about the LXX elsewhere--this is a thread on the date of Revelation and it is rude to try to take it off at a tangent in this way.

 

[1michael1]

OK. Well that's a good little history of the Septuagint.

Also note that Daniel wasn't one of the books excluded from the Jewish canon as it is listed among the Jewish canon of Josephus.

 

[stillwaters45]

I cited Irenaeus and Victorinus, but also five others, including evidence that, contrary to the claim that all the later writers were depending on Irenaeus, the later writers were depending on a minimum of three (now lost) sources, other than the ststement by Irenaeus.

You've mentioned Irenaeus, Victorinus, the Acts of John, Jerome, and Hippolytus.

Irenaeus is ambiguous--the subject could be John or the vision. The Latin translation (translated between the second and fourth century) supports 'John' as the subject. Eusebius read it as the vision, and Jerome follows him in his Lives. Irenaeus is therefore not unambiguous evidence for the Domitianic date.

Victorinus--yes, he argued for a Domitianic dating, though there are a number of problems with his evidence. First, there were no mines on Patmos. Second, if John was banished there in the 90s, as Eusebius claimed, then he did not grow into an old man while in banishment, as Victorinus states. Lastly, John wrote to the seven churches while on Patmos, not when he returned. Victorinus makes three historical mistakes in this short passage. That is your only independent ancient evidence, and the Muratorian Canon beats it by nearly a century.

The Acts of John. You have actually referred to The Acts of John at Rome, a separate sixth-century work (see for example Elliott, The Apocryphal NT, 347). The beginning of the Acts of John is not extant. Perhaps it was similar to the beginning of the Syriac History of John, which had John banished by Nero.

Jerome followed Eusebius for much of the material in his Lives. 'Pertinax' is an alternative name for Nerva (Culpepper, John son of Zebedee, 162).Elsewhere he says that John was banished to Patmos by Nero, so he apparently knew another, non-Eusebian tradition as well. That being the case, he is no more supportive of the late date than the early one.

Hippolytus: you quote a tenth- or eleventh-century spurious work attributed to Hippolytus, not Hippolytus himself.

This leaves you with one source--Victorinus, who makes at least three historical blunders in the one passage you cite. He doesn't really support you anyway as he places the banishment early in Domitian's reign (as, incidentally, the Acts of John at Rome which you refer to does).

I also find it interesting that the same people that claim the statement by Irenaeus was inconclusive, also claim that all the other ancient writers (who natively spoke the same language as Irenaeus) were basing the Dominiac date on Irenaeus.

It is Eusebius' interpretation of Irenaeus that is being referred to.

As to the difference in my handling of Irenaeus and the muratorian cannon, the writings of Isrnaeus were widely circulated, and there are many ancient copies, while the Muratorian cannon was part of a single document that had no parallel document for a long time afterward.

Yes, but the MC represents the large and prominent church of Rome, so the evidence cannot be dismissed so lightly. Irenaeus wrote works that have not survived, as did every major church writer.

And you will also remember that I pointed out that The Muratorian cannon comes from a manuscript that is so bad that Wescott, a well known early dater, said of it that:

This is incorrect--the statement about Paul following the example of his predecessor John by writing to seven churches is attested in three other manuscripts which do not exhibit the carelessness of the main manuscript--see Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment, 9. The MC is therefore the earliest evidence--earlier than anything you have brought forth--for the early writing of Revelation.

Why would any reasonable scholar base important conclusions on the testimony of such a document as this?

Because scholars have reconstructed the text to a comfortable degree, and because parts of it (including the part under discussion) are preserved in other manuscripts, as any good scholar would know.

 

[barryatlake]

stillwaters45, I apologize, wrong thread.

 

[stillwaters45]

Thanks Barry, I appreciate it!

 

[Rev20]

While I am fully persuaded of a c. 65 dating of Revelation, there are some statements in your post which I think need some correcting or qualification.

1. He is not generally considered the first to have written about it; his discussion of the name of the beast is generally understood as being derived from Papias' writings.

Do you have a reference to the writings of Papias? If not, then which works prior to Irenaeus can you provide a reference to that also mentions the subject in question, that is, the dating of the Revelation?
.

2. Irenaeus was a native educated Greek speaker; I'm not sure how one would define 'Greek scholar' in the second century, but he was not in any way deficient.
. . .

3. You're no doubt referring to his reference to Jesus being 50. His mistake was exegetical rather than chronological.

You are assuming that is what I intended; but since you brought it up, that claim by Irenaeus by no means enhances his reputation as a scholar.
.

4. He was born and brought up in Asia Minor, spending decades of his life there. He is therefore a legitimate repository of the Asian local tradition, much of which he gained from listening to Polycarp and by reading the (lost) works of Papias, the disciple of John.

Where can I find a reference that Papias was a disciple of John? Eusebius wrote that Papias was NOT a disciple of John, and did not claim he was:

There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenseus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These (those) are the words of Irenaeus. But Papias himselfin the preface to his discourses by no means declaresthat he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.'' He [Papias] says: 'But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, —what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.'​

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings." [Philip Schaff, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 2 Vol 01." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904, III.39, Rev 1:1, pp.170-71]​

The premise of my interpretation of these writers is that there is no proof that the "John" Irenaeus wrote about was anything other than an imposter, if he existed at all; and, of course, provided their understanding of him was accurately transmitted, rather than derived from embellishment. I am in no way denying that Polycarp may have thought he a disciple (of sorts) of John. But Polycarp was not born until about AD70, which means John would have been about, or even at least, 80 when Polycarp supposedly met him for the first time. Besides, I simply do not believe John was anywhere on earth past the gathering of the elect around AD70; but was rather one of those Paul spoke of as, "we which are alive and remain" (1 Thess 4:15-18.)
.

Biblewriter does not appear to be aware that historical scholarship has largely abandoned the view that Domitian initiated a persecution against Christians. I'm not sure where he came up with the idea that most historians hold that John was banished by him.

There is no direct historical evidence that Nero's persecution lasted for 42 months. We know it began after the fire of Rome (July 64), but scholars have to backdate the 42 months from Nero's death in order to arrive at November 64 as the month in which the persecutions began. It may or may not have begun in that month. To refer to the 42 months of persecution under Nero is to make an interpretation of chronology based upon exegesis (the very thing Irenaeus did).

True. My analysis was simply a logical extension of the factors presented:

1. He reigned over all nations (the Roman Empire, in those days.)
2. He persecuted the Saints (I believe there have been no saints since the first century.)
3. The length of the persecution was written as 42 months.
4. He was the sixth in a line of kings, . . . , etc..

But my analysis, like every other analysis of the Revelation over the centuries, is, at best, a guess, despite the dogmatic pretense(s) of others.
.

The academic level of his book would hardly register at a Master's level in any rigorous program of study: it is the amateur "let's downplay the contrary evidence and emphasize the favorable" with little attempt to synthesize the material as a whole. There is no interaction with primary sources other than through secondary interpreters, and he clearly does not understand Latin or Greek. I'm not saying the book does not have a lot of good material in it: it does. But it is not scholarly by academic scholarly standards.

There are quite a few who disagree with you on the scholarship of both Irenaeus and Gentry. Admittedly, Gentry had far more material available, than Irenaeus, to make his determinations; but Irenaeus's work, other than being wordy ("prolix"), is of little historical value on the matter of the Revelation.

This is also subjective, but in his book, "The Last Days According to Jesus," R.C. Sproul claims the evidence Gentry presented in his book is impressive. Sproul also mentions Gentry's book favorably in his online teaching series based on the book:

The Last Days According to Jesus Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul from Ligonier Ministries

You will find the reference to Gentry's work at 15:00 of lecture #8, found here:

Lecture 8, The Book of Revelation from The Last Days According to Jesus Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul from Ligonier Ministries

So now I have a dilemma: do I believe Sproul's understanding of Gentry's book, or yours?

 

[Rev20]

The Book of Daniel was written during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 167 and 164 B.C. at this time the Jews were suffering through one of the worst periods of Jewish history.
The Book of Revelation was also written at a time of persecution. Domitian, who ruled from 81- 96 A.D.

There is no evidence that the book of Daniel was written at that time. Rather, the internal evidence seems to indicate it was written before Alexander, and even before the "decree" of Artaxerxes and the days of Nehemiah.

 

[interpreter]

John was not exiled to the Isle of Patmos until the reign of Domitian, and some of the seven Asian churches did not exist.

 

[precepts]

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

Again, Julius Caesar was never an emperor: List of Roman emperors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The key to Revelation's timeline, the "five are fallen" phrase. Nero was the 5th Roman emperor whose death began the yr of Roman civil war, the yr of the Four Roman Emperors.

Year of the Four Emperors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[stillwaters45]

This is also subjective, but in his book, "The Last Days According to Jesus," R.C. Sproul claims the evidence Gentry presented in his book is impressive. Sproul also mentions Gentry's book favorably in his online teaching series based on the book:

I'll have to assume that you just don't read much real scholarship

I wouldn't disagree with Sproul--the book does have a lot of good material--it just all comes from the dated writers he quotes.

As mentioned before, the argumentation is linear and there is no original interaction with primary materials. It's basically just a huge cut and paste: it's useful, but it's not on a level with real academic scholarship. Real scholarship doesn't deal largely with nineteenth works in English, and it demonstrates proficiency in the necessary primary languages (in this case, Greek and Latin). Gentry's work doesn't represent real scholarship, which is why his work is rarely (if ever) cited in non-Evangelical scholarly works. Besides, real scholarship doesn't make statements about languages which a first semester student would avoid; doesn't get basic names like Epiphanius wrong; doesn't refer to the Acts of John at Rome as 'the Acts of John,' a completely different work, and so on.

Hitcock's response was just as bad. It might have been worse--he repeats Gentry's erroneous claim about the Latin (without citing Gentry, I might add, which is an academic no-no).

For real Johannine scholarship within Evangelicalism, read the work (if you haven't already) of scholars like Charles Hill--that is what it is supposed to look like: complex ideas (not two-dimensional 'let's emphasize the evidence that agrees and discredit the evidence that doesn't), original thinking, and interaction with primary sources and scholarship old and new in English, German, and French (at a minimum).

 

[stillwaters45]

Do you have a reference to the writings of Papias? If not, then which works prior to Irenaeus can you provide a reference to that also mentions the subject in question, that is, the dating of the Revelation?

I see that you referred specifically to the dating of Revelation--I must have missed that. Papias may (and in my opinion did) or may not have discussed the dating. In favor of my view, it is in the section on the 'elders who saw John face to face' (derived from Papias, as would be generally accepted) in which he speaks of he/it being seen in the reign of Domitian. If the subject is 'he', then it refers back to his reference to having been seen by the elders, which is certainly derived from Papias. Clement also draws from Papias, and I would suspect that his statement about the 'death of the tyrant' was drawn from him, though I can't prove it.

You are assuming that is what I intended; but since you brought it up, that claim by Irenaeus by no means enhances his reputation as a scholar.

You suggested that his Greek was deficient. It may have been prolix and not up to the standards of a skilled writer trained at a rhetorical school but he was a native and educated Greek speaker, so I'm not sure what implications you have in mind with your claim that he was not a "skilled Greek scholar."

Where can I find a reference that Papias was a disciple of John? Eusebius wrote that Papias was NOT a disciple of John

We have a number of readers of Papias--Irenaeus, Jerome, Anastasius of Sinai, the author of the medieval Latin prologue found in Vulgate mss, and Eusebius himself in his Chronicle--who either record that he was John's disciple or who claim that Papias recorded this. Of course if you think there was some big misunderstanding/conspiracy and they all got the wrong John, then this won't mean much.

Polycarp was not born until about AD70,

Says who, and on what basis?

which means John would have been about, or even at least, 80 when Polycarp supposedly met him for the first time.

If Polyarp was born c. 50, and if John settled in Ephesus after the death of Nero, then he could have known John from age 20 to 50. Polycarp didn't merely claim to be a disciple of John in a vague sense, but to have walked and talked with him.

Besides, I simply do not believe John was anywhere on earth past the gathering of the elect around AD70; but was rather one of those Paul spoke of as, "we which are alive and remain" (1 Thess 4:15-18.)

That might also make discussion of the historical evidence somewhat challenging (and pointless).

1. He reigned over all nations (the Roman Empire, in those days.)
2. He persecuted the Saints (I believe there have been no saints since the first century.)
3. The length of the persecution was written as 42 months.
4. He was the sixth in a line of kings, . . . , etc..

However, he didn't set up an image, didn't make everyone worship him, didn't generally behead people, didn't sit in the temple of God, didn't do lying signs and wonders, etc. But this is all more suitable for another thread.

 

[1michael1]

The earliest patristic testimony that we have on John's exile and release from Patmos is from Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215). It is a very important piece to answering the question of the dating of Revelation.

There are two key passages in the writings of Clement that give us clues. In the first, Clement states that John returns from exile on Patmos 'on the tyrant's death'. He never mentions by proper name who he is referring to by 'tyrant', but it must be noted that Clement in this context is speaking mostly of the persecutions of Christians under Nero. He never mentions anything in this context about Domitian.

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 Man That shall be saved? XLII
​

The second key given in the writings of Clement is that he explicitly states that the 'teaching of the Apostles', including Paul, ended with Nero. What this means is that according to Clement of Alexandria, the entire Apostolic Doctrine had been given by the end of Nero's life. That simply does not allow for any new Revelation being given nearly 20 years later in Domitian's era.

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

​

There is therefore only one conclusion that one can draw from reading Clement and that is that by 'the tyrant', Clement was referring to Nero Caesar.

All of the other accounts of John being released from banishment on Patmos after the time of Domitian into the era of Hadrian seem to have come from a misreading and misinterpretation of whom Clement meant by 'the tyrant'. He cannot have meant Domitian, because by Clement's own testimony, the entire teaching of the apostles was completed by the time of Nero's death. What this means is that according to Clement of Alexandria, the oldest patristic source on the subject, John wrote Revelation on Patmos before the death of Nero in AD 68.

 

[Rev20]

John was not exiled to the Isle of Patmos until the reign of Domitian, and some of the seven Asian churches did not exist.

Do you have any proof other than your imagination?

There were seven Churches in Asia with the names of those in the Revelation in the early AD 60's. In fact, after the earthquake of AD 60-61, Laodicea quickly rebuilt, leaving the seven named as the only Churches in Asia. That would place the dating of the Revelation about AD 63-64, and shortly before Nero went on his murderous rampage against the saints.

"Another point is that if John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (Revelation 1:4). The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked (even though it has been by many scholars). There is only one small window of time in which there were only seven churches in Asia. The early AD 60's. The apostle Paul established nine churches in that area, but only seven were addressed in Revelation. The reason for this is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, were all destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, but the other two cities were not. This left only seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war." [Denis Callaghan, The Seven Churches in Asia, "What You Were Never Told About the Book of Revelation." Academia.edu, Rev 1:11]​

"In the course of the same year [that Ummidius Quadratus died, AD60-61,] Laodicea, a celebrated city in Asia, was destroyed by an earthquake; and though Rome in so great a calamity contributed no kind of aid, it was soon rebuilt, and, by the internal resources of the inhabitants, recovered its former splendor." [Arthur Murphy, "Tacitus Vol III." Henry Colburn & Richard Bentley, 1830, Book XIV.xxvii, p.30] For date info see: Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo - Livius​

As Callaghan implied in his commentary, the Revelation never presents the number of Churches as "open-ended," but rather as "THE seven Churches in Asia." That is, you do not see, "Seven OF THE Churches," but in all four instances it is presented as "THE SEVEN":

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;" -- Rev 1:4​

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." -- Rev 1:11​

"The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." -- Rev 1:20 KJV​

Literalists should be all over that one, demanding there there were exactly seven churches in Asia when John wrote the Revelation.

 

[Rev20]

I'll have to assume that you just don't read much real scholarship

I wouldn't disagree with Sproul--the book does have a lot of good material--it just all comes from the dated writers he quotes.

As mentioned before, the argumentation is linear and there is no original interaction with primary materials. It's basically just a huge cut and paste: it's useful, but it's not on a level with real academic scholarship. Real scholarship doesn't deal largely with nineteenth works in English, and it demonstrates proficiency in the necessary primary languages (in this case, Greek and Latin). Gentry's work doesn't represent real scholarship, which is why his work is rarely (if ever) cited in non-Evangelical scholarly works. Besides, real scholarship doesn't make statements about languages which a first semester student would avoid; doesn't get basic names like Epiphanius wrong; doesn't refer to the Acts of John at Rome as 'the Acts of John,' a completely different work, and so on.

Hitcock's response was just as bad. It might have been worse--he repeats Gentry's erroneous claim about the Latin (without citing Gentry, I might add, which is an academic no-no).

For real Johannine scholarship within Evangelicalism, read the work (if you haven't already) of scholars like Charles Hill--that is what it is supposed to look like: complex ideas (not two-dimensional 'let's emphasize the evidence that agrees and discredit the evidence that doesn't), original thinking, and interaction with primary sources and scholarship old and new in English, German, and French (at a minimum).

I have read some of Hill's work, and quoted him recently on this forum, as follows:

"But it was not these “faults” alone that fatally injured chiliasm. It might have lasted longer if there had not always existed in the Church another, more fully “Christian,” eschatology sustaining the Church throughout the whole period. That eschatology, revealed in the New Testament writings, proclaimed Jesus Christ’s present reign over all things from heaven, where his saints were “with him” (Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8). It saw the culmination of that reign not in a future, limited, and provisional kingdom on earth where perfection mingled once again with imperfection, but rather in the full arrival of the perfect (Rom. 8:21; 1 Cor. 13:10) and the replacement of the present heaven and earth with a heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21-22). Evidence of this eschatology runs throughout the post New Testament period, from Clement of Rome to Augustine." [Charles E Hill, "Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism." Modern Reformation, 1996, Jan/Feb 1996]​

It is scholarly to assume that because someone reads what you might consider an unscholarly work, that they also do not read some that you might deem scholarly? Is it scholarly to assume anything without considerably research? I also made note that part of your complaint against Gentry was that his dissertation was not up to the standards of the Spelling Police at, say, Cambridge. (Of, course, the proof readers at Cambridge are not always perfect, and they do that for a living. LOL! )

I personally have found no major errors in Gentry's work, and I certainly have no problem with the "dead writers" he quoted, even though in "English." If you can ever get past your nitpickiness, you might be more inclined toward the position of R.C. Sproul, whom I have found to be (among his other scholarly traits) thorough. I cannot say that for anyone, to date, who has criticized Gentry on this forum, including you.

 

[stillwaters45]

I'll assume you were concluding the discussion with that post (which is probably a good thing, since I think your view that the historical 'John' was an impostor is just a bit too far fetched for a serious historical discussion).

 

[stillwaters45]

Michael, while I agree that Clement's tyrant is Nero, the other passage speaks about the teaching ministry, not writing, of the apostles, including Paul. Paul's we know ended by death under Nero. However, Clement says that John continued teaching and appointing bishops in the churches after the death of the tyrant. How do you reconcile these?

 

[1michael1]

Michael, while I agree that Clement's tyrant is Nero, the other passage speaks about the teaching ministry, not writing, of the apostles, including Paul. Paul's we know ended by death under Nero. However, Clement says that John continued teaching and appointing bishops in the churches after the death of the tyrant. How do you reconcile these?

I reconcile it by simply noting that Clement never says that John taught. I am not attempting to split atoms in saying this.

It can be reconciled by reading Clement's statements as that there was no new Apostolic Revelation given after the time of Nero. Peter had taught and written his letters. Paul's ministry had concluded and he had written his letters. John's revelations had concluded his letters and apocalypse were written.

Clement does not say 'that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul (except for John), ends with Nero.'

John does appear to have done more ordaining and ordering of churches after his exile at Patmos. But there is no indication that he was actively receiving Revelation after this time. In fact, it more likely appears that he was laid to repose not long after his release from Patmos. He may have lived through the siege of Jerusalem, but not long afterward. John was most likely in his very late 60s or mid 70s by the time of the siege of Jerusalem.

 

[1michael1]

There are two persistent problems that are insurmountable for that group that wishes to date Revelation from 95 to 98.

1. You first have the earliest witness of Clement of Alexandria that names the king under whom the teaching of the Apostles was completed - Nero.
2. And you have the angel in the book of Revelation who numbers him - 6. (Rev. 17:10)

Clement does not allow for Domitian by explicit naming.

The angel does not allow for Domitian by explicit numbering.

That's two witnesses.

And one of them is given as a direct divine Revelation.

 

[Rev20]

I see that you referred specifically to the dating of Revelation--I must have missed that. Papias may (and in my opinion did) or may not have discussed the dating. In favor of my view, it is in the section on the 'elders who saw John face to face' (derived from Papias, as would be generally accepted) in which he speaks of he/it being seen in the reign of Domitian. If the subject is 'he', then it refers back to his reference to having been seen by the elders, which is certainly derived from Papias. Clement also draws from Papias, and I would suspect that his statement about the 'death of the tyrant' was drawn from him, though I can't prove it.

Clement never named "the tyrant;" but in what I have read by him, he points to Nero. He even presents Nero as the one who places the abomination of desolation:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria (150-220), The Stromata or Miscellanies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book I.XXI, p.329]​

"We have still to add to our chronology the following,— I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him. Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata or Miscellanies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book I.XXI, pp.333-334]​

Okay, his "timing" wasn't pretty, but you get the picture. Clement also wrote of John chasing an young apostate on horseback, years after his release from Patmos. That would be a pretty neat trick for a man in his 90's (or maybe over 100!) LOL! Clement also wrote this:

"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, end with Nero." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata or Miscellanies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book VII.17, p.554-555]​

We could hee and haw and pretend Clement did not mean John and his apocalypse, but there is no evidence other than those words.
.

You suggested that his Greek was deficient. It may have been prolix and not up to the standards of a skilled writer trained at a rhetorical school but he was a native and educated Greek speaker, so I'm not sure what implications you have in mind with your claim that he was not a "skilled Greek scholar."

Those were probably not the best choice of words. It would have been more accurate to state that Irenaeus was not a scholar, in any language.
.

We have a number of readers of Papias--Irenaeus, Jerome, Anastasius of Sinai, the author of the medieval Latin prologue found in Vulgate mss, and Eusebius himself in his Chronicle--who either record that he was John's disciple or who claim that Papias recorded this. Of course if you think there was some big misunderstanding/conspiracy and they all got the wrong John, then this won't mean much.

No matter. We still must consider the words of Eusebius that stated Papias, himself, seem to claim otherwise. Is it scholarly to dogmatically state a man was a disciple of John (as you did) when that man himself seemed to claim otherwise, or, where, in the best case, the evidence is contradictory? (There is that "Irenaeus" word, again. LOL!)
.

Says who, and on what basis?

[This is in response to my implication that Polycarp was born about AD 70.]

I was being "average" This "author" states he was born in 80:

Polycarp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

69:
Polycarp | Christian History

70:
http://www.theopedia.com/Polycarp

And, at the risk of being labeled as one who studies the 19th-century English works of old dead fellows, this one deduced 69 or 70:

"As important considerations depend on the date of Polycarp's birth, we are fortunate in being able to fix it within a year or two on grounds which must be regarded as satisfactory. At the time of his martyrdom he speaks of himself as having "served Christ fourscore and six years" (Mart. Polyc. 9). The expression in the original may leave some doubt whether these eighty-six years should be reckoned from his birth or from his conversion, though the former would be the more natural interpretation. But if the language is not decisive in itself, the probabilities of the case hardly leave much room for hesitation. Polycarp had paid a visit to Rome shortly before his death; and during the martyrdom itself he shows very considerable activity for a man advanced in age. This would be possible in a man of eighty-six; but we could not add even a few years to his age without transgressing the bounds of probability. As the date of his martyrdom is now shown with tolerable certainty to be about a.d. 155 or 156, he must have been born about the year 69 or 70." [Joseph Barber Lightfoot, "The Apostolic Fathers Part II Vol I - Ignatius and Polycarp." MacMillan & Co., 1889, pp.437-438]​

If Polyarp was born c. 50, and if John settled in Ephesus after the death of Nero, then he could have known John from age 20 to 50.

That is a pretty big "IF". Do you have any evidence he was born around AD 50?
.

Polycarp didn't merely claim to be a disciple of John in a vague sense, but to have walked and talked with him.

Where can I find those references in the works of Polycarp? You are claiming that Polycarp said those things, are you not?
.

That might also make discussion of the historical evidence somewhat challenging (and pointless).

How so? It cannot be pointless as long as there are those who believe Irenaeus's claim that a fellow running around ("almost in Irenaeus's day") was the Apostle John, when John himself implied in his first epistle that the day of the Lord was near and his days on earth were numbered:

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1Joh 2:18 KJV​

.

However, he didn't set up an image, didn't make everyone worship him, didn't generally behead people, didn't sit in the temple of God, didn't do lying signs and wonders, etc. But this is all more suitable for another thread.

I will take each claim or statement in order:

1. From what I have read (many times) there were images of Nero set up in the empire's pagan temples (of which there were more than a few.)

2. I understand that the people were expected to embrace Nero as a God (or else.)

3. There is no mention of the beast of the Revelation beheading anyone.

4. I don't recall any mention of the beast of the Revelation performing "lying signs and wonders."

5. If you thought these things to be "more suitable for another thread," why did you bring them up? [This is a thread on the dating of the Revelation, is it not?]