- Instructions for Contributors
- Subscribe to Biblica or Send books for review
- Index by Authors
- Index by Biblical Books
- FAQ
- Font Instructions
- Vol 93 (2012)
- Vol 92 (2011)
- Vol 91 (2010)
- Vol 90 (2009)
- Vol 89 (2008)
- Vol 88 (2007)
- Vol 87 (2006)
- Vol 86 (2005)
- Vol 85 (2004)
- Vol 84 (2003)
- Vol 83 (2002)
- Vol 82 (2001)
- Vol 81 (2000)
- Vol 80 (1999)
- Vol 79 (1998)
Home
>
Biblica
>
Gonzalo Rojas-Flores, «The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign», Vol. 85 (2004) 375-392
In this article I try to demonstrate that the Book of Revelation was written in the first years of Nero’s reign, because (a) there is an important patristic tradition in favor of Nero and (b) the internal evidence shows that the text was redacted after Nero’s ascension to the throne in 54 and before the earthquake of Laodicea in 60.
The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign
According to ecclesiastical tradition, the Book of Revelation was
written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, about the year 95,
during his exile in Patmos, shortly before writing the fourth gospel in
Ephesus. Most scholars support this late dating (last days of
Domitian’s reign), but the early dating (between the years 64 and 70)
has the support of many important authors (1). In this article I will try
to demonstrate that (a) the external evidence is not conclusive in favor
of a late dating, because there is an important patristic tradition in
favor of Nero’s reign; and (b) the internal evidence provides important
arguments affirming that the definitive version of Revelation was
redacted after Nero’s ascension to power in the year 54 and before the
earthquake of Laodicea in the year 60.
I. External Evidence
Most scholars affirm that the first and most important patristic
testimony in favor of a late dating of Revelation (at the end of
Domitian’s reign) is the work of Irenaeus (130-202), Adv. haeres.
(5.30.3), which was written about 180-190. The original Greek version
of this passage was preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.18.3; 5.8.6).
But Irenaeus’ testimony has been objected to by several authors who
argue that there is a grammatical ambiguity which makes room for
two possible translations. In the most accepted translation Irenaeus
made reference to the time in which the revelation was seen.
According to the alternative translation, the text referred to the time in
which the apostle was seen alive, which is more logical in
consideration of the context. In fact, Irenaeus proposes that it is not
necessary to try to decipher the cryptogram 666. Because if John had
(1) Cf. J.A.T. ROBINSON, Redating the New Testament (London 1976), with
bibliography (chap. VIII); K.L. GENTRY, Before Jerusalem Fell. Dating the Book
of Revelation. An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Com-
position (Tyler, TX 1989), with bibliography (17-18, 24-38); R.B. MOBERLY,
“When was Revelation Conceived?”, Bib 73 (1992) 376-393; J.C. WILSON, “The
Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation”, NTS 39 (1993) 587-605; T.B.
SLATER, “Dating the Apocalypse to John”, Bib 84 (2003) 252-258.


RSS