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 379
(8,3). While some were flogged, others were sentenced to death (22,19;
26,10). Those who could escape “were scattered throughout the
countryside of Judea and Samaria†(8,1) (16). However it is curious to
confirm that this persecution did not affect the apostles who were left
undamaged (8,1), but only the Hellenist Jewish-Christians. The cause
of this focused persecution can be found in the verbal attack of Stephen
— and his followers — against the establishment of the Temple. His
ideas were based on Isaiah 66,1-2 (cf. Acts 7,44-50), but the apostles
and the rest of the Community did not share this position (Acts 2,46;
3,1; 5,12.20-21.42; cf. 21,20-26). This opposition of opinions explains
the various prophetic traditions about the Temple: destroyed according
to the synoptic gospels, preserved according to Rev 11,1-13.
Many authors have argued that Rev 11,1-2 would be an inde-
pendent fragment, written before the year 70 and incorporated into the
text later on (17). But it is not convincing that this passage (which
prophecies the profanation of the Holy City for 42 months, excepting
the Sanctuary where the believers are sheltered) could have been
incorporated into the definitive version after the total destruction of
Jerusalem, the demolition of the Temple and the annihilation of the
zealot resistance entrenched inside of it.
Could John write the passage 11,1-2 at the end of the reign of
Domitian, by placing it in a past time with the purpose of antedating
it? Could John try to give it a fictitious antiquity which it didn’t
have?(18). But if it had happened that way, John would not have written
about believers inside the Temple. He would not have “forgotten†to
mention that the Jewish-Christians — the real believers — did not stay
in the Temple, but they escaped from Jerusalem.
There is also another hypothesis that proposes that Rev 11,1-2 does
not make any reference to the physical Temple (already destroyed), but
it would be a symbolic representation of the Community of the Saints
after the year 70, pursued by the Pagans (19). This hypothesis is not
convincing either, because the Temple is located in a Holy City which
(16) All biblical citations come from the New Revised Standard Version,
unless I indicate the contrary.
(17) R.H. CHARLES, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation
of St. John (Edinburgh 1920) I, lxii-lxiii, xciii-xciv, 270-271; MOFFATT, The
Revelation, 281-295.
(18) Cf. H.B. SWETE, The Apocalypse of St. John (London 1906) 221.
(19) W. MILLIGAN, Discussions on the Apocalypse (London 1893) 95; G.B.
CAIRD, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York 1966)
132; R.H. MOUNCE, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids 1977) 35.