The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (188 page)

This piece of evidence would seem to favor a Domitianic date. If Revelation reflects the return of Nero myth, it could not have been written until the year 69 at the very earliest. The historical sources all attest that the return of Nero legend continued and increased in popularity toward the end of the first century. The accounts of Domitian's savagery warranted a reputation similar to that of Nero beyond any of his predecessors. Hence Domitian gained a reputation as a second Nero.
⁶²
This suggests that Nero came to epitomize any tyrant.
⁶³
In light of this, a date at the time of Domitian seems more probable than a pre-70 date.

The City “Babylon”
The references to the city “Babylon” in the latter half of the book (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21) are intriguing. In 17:9, when explaining the vision of the prostitute riding atop a scarlet beast that has seven heads, the interpreting angel explains that “the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated.” Since Rome was known throughout the ancient world as the city on seven hills, “Babylon” should be equated with Rome.
⁶⁴
This represents a weighty piece of evidence supporting a post-70 date.
⁶⁵
The reason “Babylon” became a fitting code name for Rome is that both empires destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Two post-70 Jewish apocalypses use “Babylon” as a cipher for Rome (4 Ezra 3:1-2,28-31; 2 Bar 10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7).
⁶⁶
The fifth Sibylline oracle (post-AD 70) also refers to Rome as “Babylon” in the context of the return of Nero myth
(Sib. Or.
5-143, 159—60).
⁶⁷
This constitutes compelling evidence for identifying “Babylon” as Rome in Revelation, which suggests a post-70 date of composition.

The “Seven Heads”
Finally, there is the possible identification of the reigning emperor at the time of writing in 17:9—11. The seven heads represent seven kings, which some suggest corresponds to a series of Roman emperors, since the beast is associated with “Baby
lon”/Rome. In 17:10 the interpreting angel remarks that five of these kings have already fallen; one is currently on the throne; and another has not yet come.
⁶⁸
The sixth king who “is” represents the current reigning Roman emperor at the time of composition.

If the list of seven kings corresponds to a series of Roman emperors, the one who “is” is either Nero or Galba. Julius Caesar marks the foundation of the empire and therefore is the first emperor.
⁶⁹
The sixth emperor in chronological order is Nero (54—68). But Tacitus regarded Augustus as the first official emperor by distinguishing him as
princeps (Hist.
1.1;
Ann.
1.1). In this situation Galba (June 68—January 69) was the sixth emperor. In either case John would have written prior to 70. Proponents of an early date see this as conclusive evidence.
⁷⁰
But these are not the only possible reconstructions.
⁷¹

An alternative attempt omits the interregnum of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius.
⁷²
Although they were declared emperors and chronicled in the respective histories
(Sib. Or.
5.35; 4 Ezra 12:20), Suetonius viewed them as usurpers
(Vesp.
1.1). If Augustus is the first emperor and these three rulers are omitted, the five who have fallen are Augustus to Nero, and the current emperor is Vespasian. This makes Titus the seventh ruler and Domitian the Antichrist, the eighth who belongs to the seven.
⁷³
But neither this alternative reconstruction nor other proposals related to a succession of individual Roman emperors have proven satisfactory.

Some reject the notion that John was following a historical chronology in favor of a symbolic one.
⁷⁴
The number seven may convey the idea of perfection or completion (1:4,11,12,16,20; 2:1; 3:1; 4:5; etc.).
⁷⁵
Hence the reference to the seven heads as both “hills” and “kings” could be symbolic,
⁷⁶
with the seven hills representing seven kingdoms rather than individual kings.
⁷⁷
Alternatively, “hills” could be translated as “mountains,” representing an OT metaphor for kingdom or empire. In this case then the “head” in
question would not be an individual but a future kingdom.
⁷⁸
In light of these different historical and symbolic interpretations of the passage, dating Revelation based on 17:9—11 remains therefore inconclusive.

External Evidence
The earliest traditions located Revelation in the reigns of Claudius, Nero, Domitian, or Trajan. Starting with the least likely date, Epiphanius (c. 375) placed Revelation in the reign of Claudius. He also remarked that John was compelled by the Holy Spirit to write in his old age
(Panarion
51.12, 33). But Claudius died in the year 54, and it is highly unlikely that he banished John to Patmos.
⁷⁹

The external testimony supporting a date during Nero's reign is equally problematic. Apart from two late Syriac versions,
⁸⁰
the only testimony asserting Nero as the emperor at the time of composition comes from tenuous statements by Theophylact of Bulgaria in the twelfth century.
⁸¹
Most likely, this author misunderstood Irenaeus's assertion that John lived until the time of Trajan.
⁸²

By far the bulk of early church tradition supports the time of Domitian.
⁸³
Irenaeus's testimony constitutes the earliest available evidence regarding the date of the Apocalypse (c. 130—200).
⁸⁴
Irenaeus, a native of Smyrna, may have received his information directly from Polycarp, a disciple of John (Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.3.4), and his pronouncement gained broad acceptance in the early church.
⁸⁵

Irenaeus's testimony was affirmed by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150—215), Origen (c. 185-254), Victorinus (died c. 304), Eusebius (c. 260-340), and Jerome (c. 354-420). Clement and Origen stated that John wrote from Patmos but did not name the emperor. Clement, writing around the end of the first century,
⁸⁶
remarked that John was released
from exile on Patmos after the death of the “tyrant.”
⁸⁷
Although he did not provide the name, Eusebius assumed it was Domitian.
⁸⁸
After Domitian died, Nerva promised a “new era” of liberty and justice.
⁸⁹
The tyrant in question could very well be Domitian, which would corroborate the date indicated by Irenaeus.
⁹⁰

Eusebius accepted Irenaeus's testimony, asserting that Revelation was written in the fourteenth year of Domitian's reign (c. AD 95;
Eccl. Hist.
3.18.1—3 citing Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
5.30.3).
⁹¹
He depicted Domitian as a cruel tyrant, the successor of Nero, in his hostility toward God and his persecution of Christians.
⁹²
He also affirmed the tradition that after John was released from Patmos, he took up residence in Ephesus subsequent to Domitian's death.
⁹³
If his sources were in error and no such persecution took place, his dating becomes suspect.
⁹⁴
In any case, Eusebius's testimony preserved a tradition ascribing to Revelation a late date that was widely accepted in the early church.

The strength of a given witness depends upon one's confidence in that source.
⁹⁵
Although it is not without some difficulties, the testimony of Irenaeus should be afforded the most merit. It represents the earliest tradition with possible connections back to Polycarp (first half of second century), one of John's disciples. Testimony supporting any other date came about much later and is not widely attested. The arguments against Irenaeus's dating do not successfully dislodge its validity.
⁹⁶
Even proponents of an early date must concede that, based on external evidence, the Domitian date is the only fully viable possibility. As Hort maintained, “If external evidence alone could decide, there would be a clear preponderance for Domitian.”
⁹⁷

Conclusion
On the whole the preponderance of the internal and external evidence suggests the mid-90s during the reign of Domitian as the most probable date of
composition. The external testimony overwhelmingly favors the late date, which became the established tradition throughout church history. The internal testimony, while less than conclusive, also tends to support a later date. Although some passages may reflect historical circumstances prior to 70, most of the evidence seems to point to a later date. The book of Revelation was written around 95—96 by John in obedient submission to the vision he received while in exile on Patmos.
⁹⁸

Provenance

John disclosed the location of where he received his vision as the little isle of Patmos in the Aegean Sea (1:9b).
⁹⁹
Pliny and Strabo briefly mention Patmos as included among the Sporades islands.
¹⁰⁰
It was situated about 40 miles west of Miletus and almost 60 miles southwest of Ephesus.
¹⁰¹
This close proximity to the mainland of Asia Minor demonstrates its inclusion in the provincial boundaries. Patmos could have functioned as a place of exile, but no records exist identifying it as such.
¹⁰²
Although not uninhabited, Patmos's small rocky terrain made it an ideal spot for banishment.
¹⁰³
John indicated that the reason he was there was “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,”
¹⁰⁴
most likely indicating some form of persecution.
¹⁰⁵
This is supported by John's self-identification as a fellow participant with the churches in their hardships (1:9; see 2:9,10,22; 7:14).
¹⁰⁶
Therefore, John's presence on Patmos was the result of official opposition to his message.
¹⁰⁷

Exile or banishment to an isolated island constituted a relatively common form of punishment in the Roman Empire.
¹⁰⁸
Those condemned to banishment faced either a perpetual sentence (Lat.
deportatio),
which might have resulted in loss of citizenship and property, or a less severe temporary sentence (Lat.
relegatio)
.
¹⁰⁹
These sanctions were often
used instead of the death penalty.
¹¹⁰
The emperor, city prefect, or provincial governor could determine the punishment as he deemed necessary.
¹¹¹
This included the punishment of Christians.
¹¹²
Provincial governors had the authority to try cases without direct intervention from the emperor and to sentence the accused to
relegatio adinsulam
(banishment to an island).
¹¹³
Cases that warranted
deportatio,
however, required a verdict from the emperor.
¹¹⁴
According to Tertullian (c. 160—225), John was exiled to Patmos as an
insulam relegatur.
¹¹⁵
Thus it seems likely that John was banished from Ephesus in Asia Minor by a provincial governor.
¹¹⁶

Destination, Occasion, and Purpose

The book of Revelation is addressed to seven churches that existed at the end of the first century (95—96). John addressed Christians living in cities dotted along a postal route in the Roman province of Asia Minor.
¹¹⁷
The cities were Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. John explicitly stated several times that the occasion for writing was a direct command from the Lord (1:11,19; see 2:1, etc.).

John's vision arrived at a time when the churches of Asia Minor needed encouragement to remain faithful to Christ and to endure hardships as they swam against the currents of the surrounding culture (chaps. 2—3). The implicit occasion is that Christians in these cities stood at the crossroads between faith and culture, having to choose between compromise with the world system and their commitment to Christ.

The Christians in Ephesus were commended for enduring hardships because of the name of Christ (2:3). John indicated that the cause of their hardship was their faithfulness to Jesus’ name, but the exact nature of their suffering remains elusive because all that is said is that believers had patiently endured and continued to endure under a burden. Their hardships may have originated from internal conflicts with the Nicolaitans (2:6). Sadly, however, they seemed to have emphasized doctrinal purity to the extent that they neglected the command to love one another (2:4).

While the church in Ephesus successfully resisted these false teachers, the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira apparently opened their doors to them. John maligned the Nicolaitans in both churches as a specifically detestable group, comparing them to Balaam who led Israel
to worship idols and to commit acts of sexual immorality (2:14). The Nicolaitans most likely encouraged believers to participate in pagan religious rituals. Thyatira had allowed a false prophetess to gain a following in the church (2:20-21). John called her “Jezebel” because, like the infamous queen in Israel's history (1 Kgs 16:31-33; 18:4,13; 19:1-2;21; 2 Kgs 9:30-37), this heretical female teacher had led the people of God into idolatry and immorality and encouraged a syncretistic blend between the pagan religions of the dominant culture and Christianity. The presence of these false teachers indicates that the churches experienced a number of internal crises compromising their fidelity to Christ and impugning their witness
.

Map 20.1: Churches of the Revelation