Introduction
In the first installment, I briefly made a case for why the dating of the Revelation of John is important. Here I want to look at the external evidence to see where it points. Again, I will be reviewing Kenneth Gentry’s book Before Jerusalem Fell as my primary source and supplementing various sources for more counterpoints. While exploring the data, Gentry interacts with the strongest arguments for a late date, and the book is replete with references and quotations from the greatest scholars on the subject of yesterday and today.
To review the terms, there are two camps for dating John’s banishment and subsequent visions: a late date under Domitian (95 AD) and an early date under Nero (65 AD). The late date is preferred today by far, but the early date was preferred before the 20th century. No scholar doubts that John was on Patmos at some point in his life.
External evidence refers to all correlations outside the Bible – early church fathers, Roman historians, and even versions of the Biblical canon. Late date advocates place the bulk of their proof in the external evidence category, reasoning that the outside world, which was closest to the time of the events in question, and therefore is the strongest witness. Generally, this is true for ancient documents. The fact that we are dealing with the inspired Word of God, however, means that we ought not give undue weight to non-inspired sources if they contradict what is found within.
Below is a compilation of the best available data for external sources.
External Evidence
Irenaeus (130-202)
By far, the “strongest evidence in the late date arsenal” is a quote from Irenaeus (130-202). Irenaeus was a venerated early church father who knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Irenaeus wrote the first work of apologetics entitled Against Heresies, a response to cults that had broken away from Christianity, such as the Marcionites and Gnostics. In this passage, Irenaeus is dealing with the “666” meaning in Revelation and says:
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies
This statement was likely written in 180-190, relatively close to the timeframe in question. To be sure, this is a solid bit of evidence, as Irenaeus seems to clearly mention apocalyptic writing (Revelation) and Domitian in the same sentence. The presumed meaning of this is that John saw the visions of Revelation not all that long ago, almost in our time, during the reign of Domitian. Pack your bags, slam dunk, no further questions, your Honor, right? Maybe.
There has been quite a bit of debate over the clarity of Irenaeus’s statement going all the way back to the 1600s. He was notoriously tricky to read. “Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix,” remarked translators Roberts and Rambout on their first edition translation of his works.
The meaning of this statement centers around the verb “was seen” (there is no specific pronoun “that” here, it is inferred from the verb). The question is, what is the referent of this verb? What “was seen” towards the end of Domitian’s reign, John’s apocalyptic vision, or John himself?
The reason anyone brings this up is because of a curious question that naturally arises. Basically, Irenaeus is saying we are not going to make wild guesses about who this antichrist figure is, because if we were supposed to know, that name would have been told to us. One historian, looking at the syntax of the sentence and broadening this portion into the context of all of Irenaeus’s writings, observes:
The logic of the sentences seems to me to require this interpretation. The statement that the vision was seen at the close of Domitian’s reign supplies no reason why the mysterious numbers should have been expounded “by him who saw the apocalypse,” had he judged such an exposition needful. If, on the other hand, we refer [subject of ‘was seen”] to St. John, the meaning is plain and simple. We may expand the sentences
S.H. Chase, The Date Of The Apocalypse
thus: “Had it been needful that the explanation of the name should be proclaimed to the men of our own day, that explanation would have been given by the author of the Book. For the author was seen on earth, he lived and held converse with his disciples, not so very long ago, but almost in our own generation.” Thus, on the one hand, he lived years after he wrote the Book, and there was abundant opportunity for him to expound the riddle, had he wished to do so; and, on the other hand, since he lived on almost into our generation, the explanation, had he given it, must have been preserved to us.
Another scholar makes a similar observation:
[Irenaeus] argues that if this knowledge [i.e., regarding the identity of 666] had been important at that time it would have been communicated by the writer of the Apocalypse, who lived so near their own time. . . . There was therefore really no ambiguity to be avoided, requiring him to use the name of John or the personal pronoun as the subject of [was seen], the verb of sight. The scope requires this nominative and no other.
James M. Macdonald, The Life and Writings of St. John
Gentry devotes pages to the matter of Irenaeus’s statement alone and offers many other reasons for legitimate doubt, some of them linguistic, some of them translational. Church historian John Laurence von Mosheim was no fan of the Latin translations handed down to us from Irenaeus (who wrote in Greek), saying his writings have come to us “through the medium of a wretchedly barbarous and obscure Latin translation.” It appears that whoever the nameless person was who translated Irenaeus’s original was “little up to the task,” making some novice mistakes.
In addition, elsewhere, Irenaeus refers to circulating “ancient copies” of John’s Revelation: “As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies.” Not only does he refer to copies, but ancient copies, which of necessity must be older than the original. Writing Heresies in 175-185 AD, these ancient copies may suggest an earlier Revelation, coinciding with an interpretation alluded to above that is was John that was seen not so long ago, not the vision.
Several other minor historical possibilities are also intriguing. Irenaeus may have had information on Domitian’s reign when he briefly ruled for his brother Vespasian in 70 AD, when acting as imperio consulari, which Tacitus relates to us. John also may have suffered under both Nero and Domitian. And we must remember that Irenaeus is writing from Lyons, today in France, quite removed from the events.
As you will see below, several ancient writers took Irenaeus as a leading representative of Christianity, and it is not surprising that they sourced him uncritically when making their statements about the banishment of John. They depended upon him as the “fountain of tradition,” and he is the source text in almost every case. This means, of the church fathers cited below, their testimony will only be as valid as the source text they borrowed from.
It is also important to remember that Irenaeus was not an inspired biblical writer. Other ancient writers contradict him (see below). He also made some strange historical claims, like Jesus living up to fifty years old.
Now, we aren’t on a smear campaign against this church father – he was a stud and well respected – but we do need to dethrone the idea that one obscure sentence should be taken a solid gold. Frederic Farrar summarizes the case well,
We accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.
Frederic Farrar, The Early Days Of Christianity
Summary of the Point: This is the best evidence for a late date of Revelation. Irenaeus, though a noble and necessary church father, is not inspired, and so we cannot simply say, “Thus says Irenaeus” and take as Gospel what is unclear at best.
Clement of Rome (35-99)
Clement was a contemporary of Paul, working “side by side” with him (Philippians 1:3). He is often cited among the Domitian team.
And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus.
Clement
Who is the tyrant? Doesn’t say. This is often taken to mean Domitian, but there is no reason why this should be. That name must be assumed; it is not stated. A more appropriate question would be, who would qualify to be called a tyrant? Cement would know, as he lived through the entirety of both Nero and Domitian. We will look at the abomination that was Nero when we examine the internal evidence, but for now, take a couple of quotes from Pliny the Elder, who calls Nero “the poison of the world” and “the destroyer of the human race,” and remarks “neither discrimination nor moderation [were employed] in putting to death whomsoever he pleased on any pretext whatever.” Sounds pretty tyrant-y.
I read one late date article on the matter which said Domitian “was as bad as Nero…maybe worse.” This is not even close to being accurate. Persecution under Domitian was brief and much less severe than Nero’s, and there isn’t much evidence that persecution was specifically religious at all, but rather specific, involving individuals who were suspected of being adversaries. Running afoul of Domitian was easily enough avoided, and as Donald McFayden writes, a “Christian had only to avoid public office and to abstain from gratuitous attacks upon the cult to be secure from molestation.”
Clement tells other stories of the elderly John (well into his 90s) hopping on horseback and chasing down an elder who was leaving the faith. This would have been quite the feat for a 90-year-old. Contrary to this, Jerome says John was so frail that he needed to be carried to the different churches.
Lastly, buttressing the late date allocation of Clement, Eusebius takes Clement’s “tyrant” to mean Domitian, not Nero. He says, “That very disciple whom Jesus loved, at once both Apostle and Evangelist, was still alive and administered the churches there, having returned from his exile on the island after the death of Domitian… Clement likewise has indicated the time.” See below for the possible issues with his view.
To summarize, the only reason for putting Clement in the late date camp is what Eusebius “clarifies” in his writing, and the “tyrant” is backfilled with Domitian. But when tyrannical action is compared, Nero bests all.
Shepherd of Hermas
Shepherd of Hermas was a church father, some link him to the Hermas greeted by Paul in Romans 16:14. There is good evidence that he wrote within two decades of Jerusalem’s fall. The Shepherd writes, “The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.” Clearly, if Paul followed John’s example in writing to seven churches, and we know Paul was killed under Nero, then John’s letters to churches must have preceded Paul’s, pointing to a Neronian date for Revelation.
Tertullian (160-220)
Tertullian puts John’s banishment to Patmos contemporaneous with the sufferings of the other apostles. “But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What an happy Church is that! on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.”
Dates of his writings overlap with Irenaeus, giving an early and opposing account of John’s banishment. He is often put in the early date camp by scholars. Jerome (see below) confirms Tertullian’s placement of a Neronic banishment, but in his later writings, he places John on Patmos under Domitian.
The counterargument is that Tertullian is simply remarking on the site, not necessarily the chronology. It would be like saying Massachusetts has such historical significance as it was the site of the Pilgrims’ landing, the Boston Tea Party, and the 2004 Red Sox World Series win. All three men suffered in Rome, but not at the same time.
Victorinus of Pettau (304)
Victorinus of Pettau (d. 304), an early Christian writer, also has a clear statement:
“When John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.”
Victorinus
It is clear where Victorinus places John’s vision, under Domitian. We must ask the question of where he sourced his material, as he is writing potentially almost two hundred and fifty years after the events. Did he, like Eusebius, also get his information from Irenaeus? Additionally, if Domitian began his persecution in 96 AD, this means John would likely have been in his mid to late 90s when he was brought to Rome, tried, flogged, banished to Patmos to work the mines, and after Domitian died, was released and presumably survived several more years, stretches credulity.
Origen (185-254)
Another early church father hauled onto the late date side is Origen (185-253). Again, he has a nameless reference attributed to Domitian without warrant.
The King of the Remans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore testimony, on account of the word of truth, to the isle of Patmos. John, moreover, teaches us things respecting his testimony [i.e., martyrdom], without saying who condemned him when he utters these things in the Apocalypse. He seems also to have seen the Apocalypse . . . in the island.
Origen
Who is this King of the Romans who condemned John to Patmos? Doesn’t say. It is curious as to why Origen doesn’t name the “king” as his life overlapped with Irenaeus, who named Domitian. Additionally, Nero was the last of the Caesars who were looked upon as a line of hailed kings. After him, it was a series of generals who tacked Caesar onto their names.
Eusebius (260-339)
Eusebius was a historian and advisor to Constantine. He is also roped into the late date camp, not without reason. Here is his statement on the subject.
When Domitian had given many proofs of his great cruelty and had put to death without any reasonable trial no small number of men distinguished at Rome by family and career, and had punished with-out a cause myriads of other notable men by banishment and confiscation of their property, he finally showed himself the successor of Nero’s campaign of hostility to God. He was the second to promote persecution against us, though his father, Vespasian, had planned no evil against us. At this time, the story goes, the Apostle and Evangelist John was still alive, and was condemned to live in the island of Patmos for his witness to the divine word. At any rate Irenaeus, writing about the number of the name ascribed to the anti-Christ in the so-called Apocalypse of John, states this about John in so many words in the fifth book Against Heresies.
Eusebius, Church History
This statement is unambiguous. However, he quotes Irenaeus as his source for this information, so the accuracy of Eusebius’s statement is only as reliable as we admit Irenaeus’s to be. Also, and importantly, Eusebius disagrees with a major point, which is the authorship of Revelation. In one place, he establishes both the old age and authorship of John writing Revelation, and in another place, discounts that John wrote Revelation at all. He says there were two Johns, the Apostle and another, both have tombs in Ephesus, and that is was “likely that the second [non-apostle] (unless anyone prefers the former) saw the revelation which passes under the name of John.”
In addition, Eusebius seems to contradict himself by putting the banishment of John in the same sentence as the sufferings of Peter and Paul in Evangelical Demonstrations, indicating all three were persecuted contemporaneously under Nero, complementing Tertullian. This may mean that he changed his mind based on new learnings, as these books were written at different times. The point is that placing Eusebius on the late date team completely depends on our trusting Irenaeus’ statement. And it appears that Eusebius himself didn’t hold Irenaeus in as high regard historically as some modern scholars do.
Other dissimilarities are found when compared to other ancient historians. Eusebius and Clement agree that John, in his nineties, was lithe enough to hop on a horse and gallop down an apostate, where Jerome says he was so frail he needed to be carried from church to church.
Epiphanies (c. A.D. 315-403)
Bishop of Sardis, Epiphanies has an odd contribution, stating twice that John’s banishment happened under Claudius, who reigned before Nero. Some suggest that Epiphanies was referring to a lesser-used alias of Nero, which was “Claudius Nero Caesar.” Scholars place him in the early date tradition.
Syriac Witness (mid to late fourth century)
This text places Revelation under Nero:
After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles, Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he sent [and] took all that the procurator had and imprisoned him; and laid hold of St. John and drove him into exile and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste.
Syriac History of John, the Son of Zebedee
Both Syriac copies of Revelation clearly state in the title that John was banished to Patmos by Nero. The 6th and 7th century versions of the Syriac New Testament titles of Revelation say “written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar,” or some such variation. Granted, this is several hundred years after the events in question, which can somewhat attenuate the impact. However, the Syriac witness receives the information from somewhere, meaning there was a tradition of Neronic dating.
Jerome (340-420)
He of Vulgate fame.
[John was] a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more-over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in.
Jerome, Against Jovinium
Chalk one up for late date, mostly. However, his conflation of the Tertullian quote, which strongly supports the early date, muddles things somewhat. Likely, he was also pulling from the traditional understanding laid out by Irenaeus, mashing two traditions.
Conclusion
There is other evidence not mentioned, though, that Gentry recites, but the ones listed are the most significant. I think the point is that the external evidence for dating Revelation is not a slam dunk for either side. Gentry concludes, “even the external evidence leans towards a Neronic date.” If it does, it is by a nose. Honestly, I may weigh the external evidence slightly in favor of the late date, though the magnitude of the doubt from statements like Irenaeus seems to rely on peccadilloes of ancient Greek and Latin grammatical syntax, which he understands and I do not.
Regarding the most significant late date external evidence, Irenaeus, Gentry concludes, “Irenaeus’s statement, the major evidence by far, is grammatically ambiguous and easily susceptible to a most reasonable reinterpretation. The re-interpretive approach would totally eliminate him as a positive late date witness.”
But this evidence is by no means conclusive. People saw things differently back then, just as they do now. Some ancient historians point to Nero, others to Domitian, some to both. One contradicts another, and there is, remarkably, even some disagreement about the author of Revelation. The general attitude of certainty one gets from the first few centuries regarding Revelation’s timing is translucent at best, if not opaque. In closing, it must be remembered that the weight we give the external evidence as opposed to the internal ought not be considered equal, particularly when it comes to the Bible.
Once again, if this subject is of particular interest to you, I recommend Gentry’s book for yourself. It is comprehensive and a good summation of the mountains of evidence on both sides. The next post will focus on the internal evidence.
Thought Butter 