Abstract
Slater argues that the dating of John’s Apocalypse has depended on the external witness of Irenaeus, writing over a century later. He begins with the internal evidence and arrives at a date between 68 and 70 CE. For example, he looks at the question of who is or is not an apostle in Rev 2:2. He argues that no one in the 90s was disputing who the apostles were. Rather, the debate was who carried on the apostolic tradition. Furthermore, he argues that this earlier date also helps to understand better some debates within early Christianity.
The debate concerning the date of the book of Revelation, also known as John’s Apocalypse, continues to flourish in select circles of NT studies among scholars from all theological perspectives. The vast majority of exegetes ignore this debate and continue with the Domitianic date. There are at least two reasons for this. Primarily, those persons in NT studies who are not hip deep in apocalyptic studies generally do not care. Some believe introducing a new date might stir up an exegetical hornet’s nest, so they avoid it. Others avoid the topic so that their colleagues might not see them (mistakenly) as an uncritical scholar who hopes to affirm the authorship of the Apostle John. Although these concerns are realistic, they have not kept many of us from plowing these fields anew. For many, it is possible to introduce a new date proposal, to show what difference it makes, and to do so without being uncritical in a sea of neo-Enlightenment criticism. This study attempts to do both of those things.
First, let us say a few words about the genre of the book. The genre “apocalypse” gets its name from the opening line of the Book of Revelation: Apokalypsis. This Greek word means “to reveal,” thus the English title “Revelation.” Biblical apocalyptic literature, however, did not begin with the Book of Revelation or the Book of Daniel. It has roots in the culture of the Ancient Near East and clearly builds upon traditions found in Ezekiel, Isaiah 40–55, and Zechariah, to name but a few biblical antecedents.
Apocalypticism was a social movement borne from a social crisis. This crisis may have developed in one of two ways: (i) one group displacing another; or (ii) one group totally dominating and exploiting another. With the first type, the displaced group might retain much of its social status but have less political power. Apocalypticism heavily influences such groups but they do not normally produce full-blown apocalypses. The Jewish Sibylline Oracles, written by Jews living comfortably in Egypt, provide examples of such apocalyptic writings that are not apocalypses. A more recent example would be the Republican Contract with America during Bill Clinton’s second term in office. These works envision a new society but not the end of the world as we know it.
The second type of crisis is more devastating. One group is superior in almost every way. The dominant group usually controls the economy, the political system, and/or the legal system. Members of the dominant group in the lowest socio-economic class might look down upon members of the subjugated group regardless of their economic resources. The subjugated group has little social status and little legal recourse. In such settings, oppressed persons often produce apocalypses that look to the future for divine deliverance. 2 The Revelation to John is such a book. Because John saw no other alternative within the social matrix to rectify the plight of Christians, he envisioned the end of the world that would replace the status quo.
Jewish and Christian apocalypses during the Greco-Roman period displayed some or all of the following six general characteristics: (i) they derive from a context of crisis; (ii) they are revealed by a heavenly being (usually an angel); (iii) they are written under a false name of someone famous and dead (pseudonymity/pseudepigraphy); (iv) they have an Us vs. Them perspective (dualism) with no middle ground; (v) the revelation is hidden and sealed until the end time; and (vi) they envision a new world order which completely replaces the present one and reverses the present social order. I believe these features are the central features of an apocalypse.
The crisis varies depending upon the depth of the tensions between the two competing groups. If the crisis is intense and constant, “they” are unredeemable. If it is intense but sporadic, some of “them” are redeemable. If the tensions vary from place to place and are sporadic, dialogue exists between the two sides.
In almost every instance, an archangel gives the vision and/or guides the human seer on a cosmic journey where the seer, usually a dead great worthy within a given tradition, either receives a meaningful vision or finds secrets of the universe on a cosmic journey with the help of the angel. Revelation is unique in both instances: (i) Christ Jesus, not an angel, reveals the apocalypse; and (ii) John is not a dead great worthy but a living, authoritative figure in the seven churches of Asia.
The dualistic and deterministic elements convey to the original readers the certainty of their religious propriety and the certainty of their ultimate vindication and salvation. As Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was fond of saying, “Keep the faith, baby.” In sum: it may not seem like it now, but God has everything in hand. 3
Most apocalypses were “hidden” (or “sealed”) and “found” just before their final visions came true. In most apocalypses, earlier visions report known historical facts and give readers hope that the last visions will also come true in the end. These prophecies-after-the-fact are key features in many apocalypses. Again, Revelation is unique in that it is not hidden or sealed (see, e.g., 1.3; 22.10).
The new world order is the culmination of the apocalypse. It provides a vision of hope for a community under duress. Sometimes this section of an apocalypse provides a new social order within a renewed world, while others provide a completely new physical universe. While no single apocalypse has all of these features, they must display a majority of them if they are to be classed as apocalypses.
Dating the book
The majority opinion has dated the composition of Revelation late during Domitian’s reign (81–96). This date is based, however, entirely upon the external witness of Irenaeus, who lived a century after Domitian. When those who support a Domitianic date look for internal evidence, they do so in light of their presupposed position without asking whether the internal evidence can be interpreted differently.
Some exegetes have argued that the Domitianic date is correct because it coincides with Domitian’s claim to divine honors, putting pressure on Christians to worship the emperor as a divine being. Additionally, some scholars have argued that “Babylon” became a code name for Rome near the end of the first Christian century, as evidenced in 1 Pet 5:13; 4 Ezra/2 Esdr 3:1; Sib. Or. 5, 143, and 159, and 2 Bar. 10:1–3; 11:1, and 67:7, all dated between 60 and 120 CE. Many commentators note that several of these passages refer to Rome/Babylon as the second destroyer of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 CE. 4 Thompson speaks for many: “In Jewish literature, the enemy Rome is designated Edom, Kittim, and Egypt, as well as Babylon. For the most part, however, the identity with Babylon occurs after 70 CE, that is, Rome is called Babylon after she destroys Jerusalem and the Temple.” 5
Still others have argued that the Nero myth in Rev 13:1–4, 18 and 17:9–11, which symbolically represents the first Roman emperors, would indicate that the Domitianic date is most probably correct, that Domitian is the second Nero, the eighth ruler. Revelation 17:9–11 reads as follows: “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, another has yet to appear, and whenever he appears, it is necessary for him to remain a brief time. And the beast who was and is not, he is the eighth and is from the seven and he goes to perdition.” Proponents of the Domitianic date, whether they begin counting with Julius Caesar, or with Augustus Caesar, or Caligula, the emperor who first openly demanded divine honors, find a way to end with Domitian, omitting Galba, Otho and Vitellius, who each ruled briefly from 68–69 between Nero and Vespasian. 6
First, it must be stated that the Domitianic date is based upon Irenaeus, an external witness at least a century later in Against Heresies 5. However, Irenaeus has not proven to be a credible historical witness in other matters. For example, Irenaeus stated that he knew Polycarp and that Polycarp knew John the Apostle, implying that he has received accurate tradition from an apostle through Polycarp. Although this is possible, many church historians have doubted the veracity of this statement because Polycarp would have been quite young when John died, and Irenaeus himself would have been very young when Polycarp died. In any event, it is highly doubtful that Polycarp could have received any extensive training of any type from John or that he would have been able to pass it on to a very young Irenaeus. Moreover, Irenaeus argued that John the Apostle wrote both the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John. A brief examination of the genres (apocalypse vs gospel), the writing style (poor vs capable Greek), and theology (end-time judgment vs here-and-now joy) indicate that it is highly unlikely that both were written or authorized by the same person. 7 Indeed, the Apocalypse never appeals to apostolic authority or to a disciple of an apostle (cf. John 21:24)—a powerful social tool in the early church, as evidenced in Paul’s letters (e.g., Gal 1:11–2:21; 1 Cor 9:1–18; 2 Cor 10:1–11:15).
As noted earlier, Irenaeus is an external witness writing approximately a century after Domitian’s reign. He is far removed from the actual events and at best must rely upon second-hand witnesses. Thompson and others have demonstrated clearly that there was no empire-wide persecution of Christians inaugurated by Domitian. 8 Moreover, Thompson has shown conclusively that the writings of the Roman historians who were Irenaeus’ primary sources had intentionally given a poor depiction of Domitian in order to ingratiate themselves to Trajan and his new imperial family. Thus, for these reasons, Irenaeus is not the most reliable source for dating the Apocalypse to John and can only be used as a supporting witness, if then.
While some have argued that there was great pressure upon Christians to conform to regional religio-political pressures during Domitian’s reign, 9 in actuality those pressures were present from the early days of the Empire in the Roman province of Asia. Dio Cassius notes that divine honors to the imperial family began during Caesar Augustus’ reign. 10 Price provides solid evidence of heavy competition among the cities of the province designated as neokoros, an official site of the imperial cult. 11 The status neokoros brought political, economic, and other social benefits to cities and regions. Similarly, Price, Friesen, Rowland, and others argue that those who resisted conformity to regional traditions and pressures would have faced local abuse, discrimination and other forces of social abuse, and might well have produced protest literature as a way of dealing with social stresses at any time during this same era. 12
Babylon is indeed used as a code name for Rome in the latter decades of the first century CE and the early decades of the second century CE in 1 Peter, Sibylline Oracle 5, 2 Esdras/4 Ezra and 2 Baruch; Daniel and Sibylline Oracle 3.3000-309, however, both use “Babylon” as a code name for an evil empire in the middle of the second century BCE. In both books, “Babylon” is code for Syria. The Syrians did not destroy the Temple. Thus, “Babylon” is simply an evil empire in both books.
In Revelation, the Temple is still standing (11:1–2). 13 Rather than commenting upon the destruction of the second temple, the Apocalypse uses Babylon to represent the political presence of Satan in the world in Rev 12:1–13:18 and 17:1–19:4: Babylon is the enemy of God that must be punished in the end times. Using Babylon in this way is consistent with the use of such names to refer symbolically to an enemy of the elect community, in some instances using Kittim, and in others, Egypt. Furthermore, it is consistent with the use of Babylon in both Daniel and Sibylline Oracle 3. It is just as conceivable that Revelation is reading Daniel and re-applying the meaning of Babylon for a pre-70 date prior to the destruction of the temple. Jewish apocalypses regularly adapted and transformed traditional materials for their own times. For example, Davidic messianic expectation (Rev 5:4–12; cf. 4 Ezra 11:36–46), the one like a son of man (cf. Dan 7:13 and Rev 1:7–16), and the Leviathan-Behemoth myth (Rev 13:1–18; cf. 4 Ezra 6:49) are all recast in John’s Apocalypse.
Furthermore, the symbolic references to the emperor found in Revelation 13 and 17 are important internal witnesses. Too many exegetes have omitted Galba, Otho, and Vitellius from their lists, however, without proving that John would have also omitted them. Rather, they worked backward from Domitian in order to make their presupposed dating fit the data, instead of the reverse. After Nero’s death in 68 CE, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius all ruled briefly as emperor until Vespasian eventually took control in 69 CE. Bell, Rowland, and Wilson have all shown that ancient writings, including Sibylline Oracle 5, and writers such as Suetonius, Tacitus, and Eutropius included these three men in their respective lists of emperors.
Bell correctly avoids attempting to discern whether one should begin counting the Roman emperors with either Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar. Instead, he begins with the fifth emperor, who is clearly Nero (see Rev 13:3 and 17:9–11). As stated previously, ancient writers included Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in their lists. He notes that Roman writers Suetonius, Plutarch, and Eutropius included them. Additionally, he correctly argues that for 4 Ezra 12:16 (dated ca. 100 CE) to refer to twelve emperors it had to have included Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. According to Roman custom, anyone duly inducted into an office would have been included in any official list of office-holders. He dates the Apocalypse between June 68 and January 69 during Galba’s reign. 14 “Armies in Spain, Germany and Judaea are supporting rival candidates for the principate. Where there had been order and peace, for as long as any man living could recall, there is suddenly anarchy and civil war.” 15 Finally, he notes that while Suetonius mentions Nero’s persecution, he does not mention one initiated by Domitian. 16
Concurring with Bell, Rowland also includes Galba, Otho, and Vitellius when reading Revelation 13 and 17. He agrees with Bell that Nero is clearly the fifth emperor and that the book dates to the reign of Galba. “No other explanation of these verses matches the simplicity of this interpretation, which, one may assume, would also have been the most obvious to the original readers of the document.” 17 He adds, again, concurring with Bell, that the political turmoil which ensued after Nero’s death throughout the Roman Empire during 68 CE, coupled with the apocalyptic imagery found in the book, clearly points to 68 CE as the time of the writing of the Apocalypse of John.
Wilson also emphasizes internal evidence and includes Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in reckoning the list of emperors. He concurs with Bell and Rowland that it is most important that Nero is clearly the fifth emperor. Wilson identifies 666 as a gematria for NERON KAISAR. “When the name is put into Hebrew and the numerical equivalents of the Hebrew letters are added together, the sum is 666.” In addition, he provides the most credible explanation for the “616” variant reading in some manuscripts. “The 616 (variant) would take the final nun off the name Neron in order to render it Nero, the acceptable way of saying the name in Greek.” 18 Because Nero is the fifth emperor, Galba is the sixth, “the one who is,” and Otho is yet to come. For Wilson, as for Bell and Rowland, the Apocalypse dates to the reign of Galba. Although I agree in general, elsewhere I have argued that John wrote Revelation during the reign of Vitellius, but I would not lose sleep if it were proven to have been written during Galba’s reign. 19
I am, therefore, in general agreement with a date between 68–70 CE, and would offer additional evidence. First are two examples, found in Rev 2:9 (“those who say they are Jews [though they are not but are really Satan’s synagogue]” and similarly in 3:9), which have been overlooked. In both passages, being Jewish is the religious ideal. John did not castigate his opponents because they were Jews but because they were not faithful Jews. Such a self-understanding is more conceivable in the 60s than the 90s.
Another factor overlooked in dating the book is John’s position on eating meat offered to idols in Rev 2:14 and 2:20, a position diametrically opposed to Paul’s more moderate position in 1 Corinthians 8. John sees Paul’s position as an unfaithful accommodation, if not capitulation, to social norms and expectations. It is highly unlikely that a Christian leader would consciously and openly oppose Paul during the 90s in the same area in which Paul had an extensive presence and where Christians from all theological perspectives would have collected Paul’s letters, regularly quoting them as authoritative. Indeed, everyone wants to be the acknowledged successor to Paul the Apostle in the 90s. We know, however, from Paul’s own letters of his ardent opponents in the 50s and 60s (e.g., Gal 1:10–2:10; 2 Cor 11:1–33).
Another internal factor is the accusation of false apostles in Rev 2:2: “You have tested those who say they are apostles but are not, and you have found them to be liars.” By the 90s there was no longer any debate who the apostles were. Again, the argument was who faithfully followed the teachings and practices of the apostles. Such an assertion about false apostles would be more likely and necessary during the 60s than the 90s. 20 Moreover, above I noted that John intentionally opposed Paul in the same region.
Why it matters
Correctly dating the Apocalypse to John has ramifications for other parts of the NT. It allows us to envision what the other side of some internal Christian debates might have been like and what the other side might have been thinking. A good case in point: would it not have been very helpful to hear Barnabas’s perspective of what occurred in Antioch after the Apostolic Council? Those of us who have pastored for more than three months know quite well that often people with the best intentions and the best motivations disagree. We should not assume that first-century Christians were any better. Rather, we should ask how God might have been working amid disagreement and how we might grow from this lesson.
In that vein, I propose that this John would have been one of Paul’s opponents in Roman Asia. He is more traditionally Jewish than Paul is, the Greek syntax of many of his statements feels very Palestinian, and he challenges both Paul’s apostolic status, practices, and his theology. He fits the profiles of Paul’s opponents referred to in Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Living in a more intense context, John might have felt (understandably) that any accommodation was too much. Such a staunch devotion to one’s beliefs by someone under duress is often viewed as the only means to maintain one’s integrity.
Furthermore, an earlier date would also help to explain why the book is so Jewish. It is both Christian and Jewish at a point in time when this fact would have been a given for the original readers. Such a self-designation and self-understanding is much more intelligible in the 60s, when Christianity was still very much within Judaism, and Paul’s status was very much up for debate. By the 90s no one is questioning whether Paul was an apostle. The debate was who carried on Paul’s tradition authentically.
Finally, dating the book correctly, without either attempting to argue indirectly for apostolic authority/authorship or unnecessarily causing a debate for its own sake, has implications for the craft of NT studies. NT professionals are not called solely to question the religious tradition. We must sometimes question the exegetical traditions—the monuments with feet of clay that we have created in our own image. The exegetical traditions are not sacrosanct and we should not treat them as if they were. Imperfect human beings have made these traditions and it is our duty to improve upon them as best we can.