Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[precepts]

Actually, the historical records say that he continued to preach for a long time after the death of Domatian. But in the Greek text of Revelation 10:11, which you are referring to, John was told he would prophesy again epi, which literally translates as on many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. So he was told that he must again prophesy about, not to, many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. as this this was done in the rest of the book, it was a reference to that, not to future work after the book was finished.

That's not the point. The point is how old would John have been in 98 ad? That's the point. Plus, you didn't address my other post on the beasts being kings.

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

My statement was not based on interpretation, but on a principle unquestionably used by the Holy Spirit in previous prophecies.

In Daniel 7, the prophet was shown a vision of four beasts. And then in verse 17 he was explicitly told that "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth." But then, in verses 23 and 24, he was just as explicitly told that "The fourth beast shall be A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms, And shall devour the whole earth, Trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom." (Daniel 7:23-24)
So here the scripture plainly says both that this beast is a king and also that it is a kingdom.

Yet you still interpret them to be kingdoms and not kings, which is one-sided. What would be the logical explanation for the beasts being called both kings and kingdoms? Not that in each beast kingdom there's a king that's a beast that represent the whole kingdom? sorta like the "Prince of Persia" Gabriel had to fight with before he fought with the "Prince of Grecia?"

The 4-5 beast kingdoms are the 4-5 fallen angels in Revelation, the 4-5 horsemen.

 

[Biblewriter]

That's not the point. The point is how old would John have been in 98 ad? That's the point. Plus, you didn't address my other post on the beasts being kings.

I already gave a two pointed answer to this. The first point was that the prophecy did not say he would preach again to kings, etc. It said he would prophesy again about kings, etc., which is exactly what he did in the rest of the book.

And the second point was that history indeed says that John continued to preach for a long time after the reign of Domatian, which would have made him over a hundred years old. But it also says that as he preached, he appealed to the weakness of his great age.

And I also answered your complaint about kings vs kingdoms by pointing that the scriptures themselves equate these two terms, as far as prophecy is concerned.

 

[precepts]

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

I already gave a two pointed answer to this. The first point was that the prophecy did not say he would preach again to kings, etc. It said he would prophesy again about kings, etc., which is exactly what he did in the rest of the book.

And the second point was that history indeed says that John continued to preach for a long time after the reign of Domatian, which would have made him over a hundred years old. But it also says that as he preached, he appealed to the weakness of his great age.

It's ridiculous to think John lived to over a hundred. Those sources are fabrications. "Five are fallen, one is, and one is to come" is the key to Revelation's timeline.

Originally Posted by Biblewriter

And I also answered your complaint about kings vs kingdoms by pointing that the scriptures themselves equate these two terms, as far as prophecy is concerned.

I asked you why would the scriptures equate the two terms? If not because these 4 kings are beast within each beast kingdom like the "Prince of Persia" Gabriel had to fight with? Can't you see the difference?

 

[Biblewriter]

It's ridiculous to think John lived to over a hundred. Those sources are fabrications. "Five are fallen, one is, and one is to come" is the key to Revelation's timeline.

From our point in time, there is no way to judge the truthfulness of ancient historical records, other than whether or not they agree with each other. And there is no historical statement denying that John indeed lived that long.

I asked you why would the scriptures equate the two terms? If not because these 4 kings are beast within each beast kingdom like the "Prince of Persia" Gabriel had to fight with? Can't you see the difference?

I do not theorize about the "why" of what God said, only point out "what" He said.

 

[precepts]

From our point in time, there is no way to judge the truthfulness of ancient historical records, other than whether or not they agree with each other. And there is no historical statement denying that John indeed lived that long.

Historical records agreeing doesn't necessarily mean they are true. Plus, scriptural truth proves your historical records to be a conspiracy, why they would agree.

Agreeing with history is another factor, but I think if John lived to be over a hundred, so would the other disciples. It's ridiculous to think John wrote Revelation in 98 ad and didn't mention Shalem's destruction.

I do not theorize about the "why" of what God said, only point out "what" He said.

Then you don't interpret scripture. But you do, because you claim the 7 kings in Revelation are kingdoms and not kings. Go figure.

 

[1michael1]

If Revelation was written in AD 98 during the reign of Domitian, then John would have been approximately 118-128 years old when he first began writing it. This does not include the several more years of his supposed evangelism. We would then see John the Apostle as being somewhere around 140 years old when laid to repose.

Needless to say, this is beyond absurd, and the use of the 'upon the tyrant's death' has obviously been misconstrued by some early authors as being Domitian when it is in fact referring to Nero Caesar in AD 68, which would put John the Apostle at approximately 60-70 years old when he wrote the Revelation.

Furthermore, Domitian was in no way, shape, or form ever the '6th king'. He was, in point of historical fact, the 12th Caesar of Seutonius' De vita Caesarum. There was only one 6th king of Rome, and his name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

 

[Biblewriter]

If Revelation was written in AD 98 during the reign of Domitian, then John would have been approximately 118-128 years old when he first began writing it. This does not include the several more years of his supposed evangelism. We would then see John the Apostle as being somewhere around 140 years old when laid to repose.

Needless to say, this is beyond absurd, and the use of the 'upon the tyrant's death' has obviously been misconstrued by some early authors as being Domitian when it is in fact referring to Nero Caesar in AD 68, which would put John the Apostle at approximately 60-70 years old when he wrote the Revelation.

Furthermore, Domitian was in no way, shape, or form ever the '6th king'. He was, in point of historical fact, the 12th Caesar of Seutonius' De vita Caesarum. There was only one 6th king of Rome, and his name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

If you even bothered to read the multi-part OP, you would not make such an unfounded statement about the historical evidence. And how do you come up with John writing the Revelation at such a great age? John was probably younger that his Lord, so he would have been no more than about 95-97 at most when he wrote it. I personally know a 90+ year old woman who is still writing interesting books and letters. So there is nothing unbelievable about that.

 

[1michael1]

If you even bothered to read the multi-part OP, you would not make such an unfounded statement about the historical evidence. And how do you come up with John writing the Revelation at such a great age? John was probably younger that his Lord, so he would have been no more than about 95-97 at most when he wrote it. I personally know a 90+ year old woman who is still writing interesting books and letters. So there is nothing unbelievable about that.

There is only one important issue in this whole discussion, and that is to ask one simple question:

Who was the 6th king?

And if you said 'Domitian', that's the wrong answer.

"And there are seven kings: 5 are fallen, and 1 is . . ." - Rev. 17:10

If I took the Domitian era view, I would have to change it to read, 'And there are twelve kings: 11 are fallen, and 1 is, and then there are some more minor Caesars after this.'

If you have Revelation dated to any later than June 8, AD 68, you have it too late.

List of the Twelve Caesars by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, AD 121

• 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

 

[Biblewriter]

There is only one important issue in this whole discussion, and that is to ask one simple question:

Who was the 6th king?

And if you said 'Domitian', that's the wrong answer.

"And there are seven kings: 5 are fallen, and 1 is . . ." - Rev. 17:10

If I took the Domitian era view, I would have to change it to read, 'And there are twelve kings: 11 are fallen, and 1 is, and then there are some more minor Caesars after this.'

If you have Revelation dated to any later than June 8, AD 68, you have it too late.

List of the Twelve Caesars by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, AD 121

• 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

this is absolutely correct, providing you are correct that this refers to the line of emperors starting with Julius Caesar. But it is only correct if you start with this rank assumption.

 

[precepts]

List of the Twelve Caesars by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, AD 121

• 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

I don't know where you got this list from but Julius Caesar was never an emperor. Rome's first emperor was Augustus, a historical fact.

Historically, Vespasian is the 9th, but scripturaly, he is the 8th He is the 8th Roman Emperor because he and his two sons (the Flavian dynasty), ended the Julio Caesar dynasty, the scriptural 9th and 10th Roman emperors/kings, are plucked up by the Nerva Antonine dynasty, by the scriptural 11th Roman Emperor/king.

 

[stillwaters45]

If you even bothered to read the multi-part OP, you would not make such an unfounded statement about the historical evidence.

From reading your opening post, you seem to base your evidence primarily on Irenaeus and Victorinus. Irenaeus can be understood as having said 'he was seen', not 'it was seen'.

Early evidence for an early date is given by the Muratorian Canon. You dismiss this based upon the late date of the manuscripts, but you are perhaps unaware that this is the case with most works--in fact, I am not aware that there are any manuscripts of Irenaeus anywhere near as early as for the Muratorian Canon, but that hasn't prevented you from referring to him as second-century evidence.

 

[stillwaters45]

Preterists claim that the words “That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domation’s reign.” Refer to John, rather than to his vision. But when we consider the point Irenaeus was making, we see that this cannot be correct. He told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in “the apocalyptic vision.”

No, he says it would have been announced by "him who saw the vision"--the emphasis is on John, not the vision, and it is John's ability to declare that is in view.

Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, “for he was seen no very long time since...” He said “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.” using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.

Irenaeus wrote Greek, not English! The subject is unexpressed and so could potentially be 'he' or 'that'. It's a matter of interpretation. Irenaeus had just said that the elders saw John face to face, so John could be the subject here, and that is how the Latin translator seems to have understood it.

 

[1michael1]

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​

 

[1michael1]

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

 

[stillwaters45]

Let's take a look at Mr. Reliable, Irenaeus, from the eyes of many scholars:

1) He was considered the first to write about it, a century after the fact!
2) He was a not a skilled Greek scholar.
3) His historical scholarship was unexceptional, in particular his chronological conception.
4) He was the Bishop of Lyon in France, far removed from Asia Minor and all the works and history of that location.​

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.

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.

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.

"The link to Domitian is an arbitrary imposition by modern commentators based on the assumption of a great Domitianic persecution, which, as we shall see, is a highly dubious supposition." - D. Ragan Ewing.​

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 are many historians that dispute the notion that Domitian was as murderous as Nero. Further, Nero's reign of terror focused primarily on Christians (42 months of terror); while Domitian's seem to have more of a political focus.

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).

I have noticed that many futurists, in particular the dispensational types, get highly defensive (and, sometimes, offensive) at the mere mention of Ken Gentry's name. I, personally, think he is an excellent scholar. Of course, none are perfect, but God.

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.

 

[Biblewriter]

From reading your opening post, you seem to base your evidence primarily on Irenaeus and Victorinus. Irenaeus can be understood as having said 'he was seen', not 'it was seen'.

Early evidence for an early date is given by the Muratorian Canon. You dismiss this based upon the late date of the manuscripts, but you are perhaps unaware that this is the case with most works--in fact, I am not aware that there are any manuscripts of Irenaeus anywhere near as early as for the Muratorian Canon, but that hasn't prevented you from referring to him as second-century evidence.

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.

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.

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. 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:

“in thirty lines there are thirty unquestionable clerical blunders including one important omission, (p. 11b 29), two other omissions which destroy the sense completely (p. 12a 11 merito, I9 dicitur), one substitution equally destructive of the sense (p. 12a 9 decem et octo for &#964, and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words..."

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

 

[1michael1]

While I am fully persuaded of a c. 65 dating of Revelation [. . .]

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.

 

[barryatlake]

I've not read all of the posts and I do not intend to, mainly because most, if not almost all, of the information is spurious.
Few Books in the bible are misinterpreted and abused as the book of Rev.

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.

 

[1michael1]

I've not read all of the posts and I do not intend to, mainly because most, if not almost all, of the information is spurious.
Few Books in the bible are misinterpreted and abused as the book of Rev.

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.

So the third year of Darius was 167 BC?

Is that when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego went into Babylonian exile?

So the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires actually came after the time of Alexander the Great during the Seleucid empire?

So Daniel prophesied of the coming of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great 150 years after Alexander lived?

 

[barryatlake]

Protestants use the Masoretic text (I use to be one), but how can I convince you to use the Septuagint ?


The Book of Daniel

At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.

Jewish opposition to the additional books of the second collection was due to the circumstances in which the Jews lived and to the spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ the Jews - because of the captivities, persecutions and antagonisms from outside nations became more and more conservative and looked with increasing suspicion on anything that was new. Since the additional books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek - the language of paganism - they naturally aroused the opposition of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this translation of the Old Testament.

Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was placed in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, but it was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.