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.
376 Gonzalo Rojas-Flores
wanted to reveal the name, he would have done it, since he still lived
at the end of Domitian’s reign (2). On the other hand, although Irenaeus
has an acknowledged reputation in the patristic tradition, his work is
not exempt from inaccuracies due to, mostly, his uncritical acceptance
of not so reliable traditions (3). This questionable methodology
weakens not only Irenaeus’ testimony, written almost a century after
the death of Domitian, but the whole testimony of a patristic trend that
simply repeated his words. This happens due to the absence of
coetaneous and independent testimonies related to Irenaeus to confirm
his supposed late dating (4).
But there is another tradition headed by Papias (c. 60-130), who
wrote that the brothers John and James, sons of Zebedee, were killed
by the Jews (5). The Canon Muratorianus, written between the years
170 and 220, states that Paul wrote only to seven churches by
“following the rule of his predecessor Johnâ€, who wrote to seven
churches in Revelation (6). Tertullian (c. 160-220), apparently, affirms
that the exile of John to Patmos happened in the same time in which
Peter and Paul were executed (De praescriptione haereticorum, 36).
On the other hand, although Tertullian mentions the perversity of
(2) In the past the following supported the reinterpretation of Irenaeus: J.M.
MACDONALD, The Life and Writings of St. John (London 1877) 169-170; S.H.
CHASE. “The Date of the Apocalypse. The Evidence of Irenaeusâ€, JTS 8 (1907)
431-435; G. EDMUNDSON, The Church in Rome in the First Century (London
1913) 164-165, among others. Nowadays, GENTRY, Before, 45-59.
(3) Cf. F.W. FARRAR, The Early Days of Christianity (New York 1884) 398;
E.C. SELWYN, The Christian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse (London
1900) 125; D. GUTHRIE, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL 31970)
17; J. MOFFATT, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, The Expositor’s Greek
Testament (ed. W.R. NICOLL) (Grand Rapids 1980) V, 320; MOBERLY,
“Revelationâ€, 380-383.
(4) On Irenaeus as the only source of this tradition, cf. M. STUART, Commen-
tary on the Apocalypse (Andover 1845) I, 281-282; II, 269; M.S. TERRY, Biblical
Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids [1883] 1974) 237-239; W.H. SIMCOX, The
Revelation of St. John Divine (Cambridge 1898) xiii; C.C. TORREY, The
Apocalypse of John (New Haven 1958) 78; B. NEWMAN, “The Fallacy of the
Domitian Hypothesis. Critique of the Irenaeus Source as a Witness for the
Contemporary-Historical Approach to the Interpretation of the Apocalypseâ€, NTS
10 (1962) 133-139.
(5) Papias was quoted by Philip of Side (TU, II, 170) and Georgius
Hamartolus (Chronicon 3.134). Swete has stated that Papias does not affirm that
the brothers suffered martyrdom at the same time. Therefore, John might have
died at any date before the last days of Jerusalem. Cf. H.B. SWETE, Commentary
on Revelation (Gran Rapids [1911] 1977) clxxix-clxxx.
(6) Cf. GENTRY, Before, 93-94.