I am about to settle the matter of a late date for the writing of Revelation in a way that even my fellow Futurists might not like since I now believe it was even later then the reign of Domitian. But this view could be compatible with Preterism if you left the 70 AD obsession in favor of the real Desolation of Classical Israel.
Objectors may object that I'm making it too late to be legitimately Apostolic. I don't see it that way of course. Quadratus of Athens in his apology to Hadrian written for Hadrian's visit to Athens in 124 or 125 AD says that some of those healed and risen from the dead by Jesus were still alive at that time. Today it is verified as being possible to live to 122. Pliny using documents related to a Roman Census of 74 AD says in one region of Italy there were many people who were over 100, 4 were 130 and some up to 140. So I have no doubt that in Judea some people born BC lived through the Bar Kochba Revolt and that some people who were healed by Jesus and then witnessed Him Risen made it even into the reign of Antonius Pius.
The responsibility for keeping the Canon pure is The Holy Spirit's not Man's, it would not have been allowed to become universally accepted by Churches in every region if it wasn't the True Word of God. Eusebius of Caesarea had to acknowledge that it was universally accepted even though he was personally biased against it.
The oldest reference to the existence of Revelation is Justin Martyr.
Dialogue with Trypho 81.4 "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."Why does this quote make me think he's referring to something still very recent? Because he's not even aware of there being a book, just that the vision happened, as if the text of the book proper still hadn't left the region of those seven cities but the gist of the message had spread by word of mouth.
The Message to Pergamon refers to a Martyr there named Antipas. The traditions about Antipas say he was cooked alive in the Red Bull of the Serapion. The Serapion of Pergamon was a second century structure, like the Temple to Trajan it was a project probably started during Trajan's reign but finished under Hadrian. Now in past speculations about Pergamon I simply considered this a reason that detail of the tradition must be wrong, since I as this post itself shows don't inherently trust traditions. However there is another factor to consider.
It is not a coincidence both references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 are the two cities that were centers of the imperial cult in the province. In those cities everyone was required to offer sacrifices to the Emperor, nothing else about the religious views of an individual mattered. Jews were exempted because the Romans recognized them as an ancient religion, and during the first century Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.
Even if you believe the mythology about the Neornian Persecution that was a brief persecution that didn't effect people outside Rome. The Policy that lead to the systemic Christian Martyrdoms alluded to in Revelation 2-3 didn't begin till during the reign of Trajan, that's what the correspondence with Pliny The Younger was all about. But Pliny was governor in Bithynia, our oldest confirmation this was going on in the province of Asia was during the reign of Hadrian when Gaius Minicis Fundanus was governor there.
The Temple to Trajan completed under Hadrian is probably the Seat of Satan then since later in Revelation the Seat of Satan is given to The Beast meaning it's it must be where The Emperor is worshiped.
In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians he seems to claim Smyrna didn't have a Christian community during the lifetime of Paul. Preterists have attempted to explain this as only meaning not when Paul was in Philippi. But what I find interesting is the inclusion of Polycarp in the letter Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome. His intention in the letter is to claim that these communities had been practicing Passover how they currently were from the beginning, so I feel it's logical to deduce that at least the first name associated with each city was a founder of that Christian community. Meaning Polycarp himself may have founded the Church in Smyrna, and his birth is popularly estimated to have been 69 AD though I have reasons for thinking he could have been born up to 30 years earlier.
"But we know Ephesus wasn't founded by the people Polycrates associated with it because of Acts 18-20" you may object. 2 Timothy 4:11 tells us John Mark had been at Ephesus with Timothy for a time. So I think he's the John who was in Ephesus in the late 1st Century not the Son of Zebedee.
Neither Smyrna, Pergamon, Sardis or Philadelphia are mentioned by name anywhere in Acts or in the letters of Paul. Meanwhile Laodicea and Hierapolis are mentioned by Paul only in letters I personally believe he wrote after the point when traditionalists claim he died. Basically the letters Secular Scholars think Paul didn't write I think were written between 70-100 AD.
In the ongoing debate between if Revelation was written during Domitian or Nero's reign. The Nero proponents may have numbers on their side, yes seemingly more sources said it was Nero (and some Claudius). But Domitian advocates have antiquity on their side, Irenaeus is the first person to ever directly say anything about the when of Revelation's writing at all.
Thing is Irenaeus and Tertullian are already of the era when John son of Zebedee, the John who wrote Revelation, John the Presbyter, and the Beloved Disciple were all being conflated together by "patristic" tradition, I'm convinced those are 4 separate individuals one of whom was not named John, so by this point the "Early Church Fathers" are already fundamentally untrustworthy to me on this issue.
In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians he seems to claim Smyrna didn't have a Christian community during the lifetime of Paul. Preterists have attempted to explain this as only meaning not when Paul was in Philippi. But what I find interesting is the inclusion of Polycarp in the letter Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome. His intention in the letter is to claim that these communities had been practicing Passover how they currently were from the beginning, so I feel it's logical to deduce that at least the first name associated with each city was a founder of that Christian community. Meaning Polycarp himself may have founded the Church in Smyrna, and his birth is popularly estimated to have been 69 AD though I have reasons for thinking he could have been born up to 30 years earlier.
"But we know Ephesus wasn't founded by the people Polycrates associated with it because of Acts 18-20" you may object. 2 Timothy 4:11 tells us John Mark had been at Ephesus with Timothy for a time. So I think he's the John who was in Ephesus in the late 1st Century not the Son of Zebedee.
Neither Smyrna, Pergamon, Sardis or Philadelphia are mentioned by name anywhere in Acts or in the letters of Paul. Meanwhile Laodicea and Hierapolis are mentioned by Paul only in letters I personally believe he wrote after the point when traditionalists claim he died. Basically the letters Secular Scholars think Paul didn't write I think were written between 70-100 AD.
In the ongoing debate between if Revelation was written during Domitian or Nero's reign. The Nero proponents may have numbers on their side, yes seemingly more sources said it was Nero (and some Claudius). But Domitian advocates have antiquity on their side, Irenaeus is the first person to ever directly say anything about the when of Revelation's writing at all.
Thing is Irenaeus and Tertullian are already of the era when John son of Zebedee, the John who wrote Revelation, John the Presbyter, and the Beloved Disciple were all being conflated together by "patristic" tradition, I'm convinced those are 4 separate individuals one of whom was not named John, so by this point the "Early Church Fathers" are already fundamentally untrustworthy to me on this issue.
Regardless it is of note that Irenaeus also said this John lived into the reign of Trajan. And given the argument Preterists make about Irenaeus saying John being "last seen" during the reign of Domitian, he could have meant it was then he left for "Patmos" and the vision happened later. Indeed his point in context is the recentness of the vision, so Domitian as the bare earliest date is in fact what makes most sense.
I think there was inevitably a desire of some to make Revelation older then it was, partly for concern that it's actual date was too young to be valid. So there is not a single "patristic" source I will consider a pure unbiased witness here.
I would not consider it impossible that "The Tyrant" in some references might have originally been not a Roman Emperor at all but Simon Bar-Kochba who's persecution of Christians is witnessed in a contemporary source, Justin Martyr's apology to Hadrian. Thing is I'm not convinced the reference to "Patmos" in chapter 1 is claiming a legal "exile" at all.
Futurists cite Cassius Dio as secular evidence Domitian was exiling people to Islands. But this was for enemies who were Roman Aristocrats or at least citizens. Of course if my theory that John Mark was John of Patmos is true then the name Marcus implies he was a Roman citizen. While people exiled by Domitian were allowed to return as soon as he died, John may have chosen to continue witnessing Jesus to the natives of this island. My hunch is John Mark was in Jerusalem for the spring feasts of 30 AD but probably not (by modern standards at least) an adult yet and so born between 10 and 20 AD.
I think there was inevitably a desire of some to make Revelation older then it was, partly for concern that it's actual date was too young to be valid. So there is not a single "patristic" source I will consider a pure unbiased witness here.
I would not consider it impossible that "The Tyrant" in some references might have originally been not a Roman Emperor at all but Simon Bar-Kochba who's persecution of Christians is witnessed in a contemporary source, Justin Martyr's apology to Hadrian. Thing is I'm not convinced the reference to "Patmos" in chapter 1 is claiming a legal "exile" at all.
Futurists cite Cassius Dio as secular evidence Domitian was exiling people to Islands. But this was for enemies who were Roman Aristocrats or at least citizens. Of course if my theory that John Mark was John of Patmos is true then the name Marcus implies he was a Roman citizen. While people exiled by Domitian were allowed to return as soon as he died, John may have chosen to continue witnessing Jesus to the natives of this island. My hunch is John Mark was in Jerusalem for the spring feasts of 30 AD but probably not (by modern standards at least) an adult yet and so born between 10 and 20 AD.
If you still think the Sixth King of chapter 11 was contemporary with when John had the vision then Hadrian can be consider a 6th Emperor if you consider Vespasian's rise in the Year of the Four Emperors a sort of reboot.
Religion for Breakfast did a video on the Church of the Holy Sepulture around last Easter called Where is the Tomb of Jesus?. While I've generally been against viewing that as the authentic location of the Crucifixion what I learned in this video is that Melito of Sardis refereed to the Crucifixion as being in the City not outside of it and that is viewed as evidence for the location of the Crucifixion being a place not within the city originally but part of the expanded Aelia Capitolina of Hadrian. Which lead me to thinking of Revelation 11:8 even though the video didn't bring that up at all.
I recently discovered a potential Hadrianic explanation for specifically the 10 days reference in the message to Smyrna.
When Hadrian became Emperor in 117, the people of Egypt were compelled to pray to all the gods and wear garlands (wreaths) for 10 days. So maybe something similar was done in Asia?
In conclusion I think The Revelation was written down sometime in the reign of Hadrian.
Update April 2024: So the name of Philadelphia is frequently cited as evidence Revelation can't have been written after the time of Vespasian because the name was allegedly changed to Flavia.
The problem is Flavia was an addition to the name, the city was fully called "Flavia Philadelphia" at this time. The city was known as Philadelphia till the Turks took it in 1390, the use of Flavia likely died out as soon as that dynasty did.
Such imperial name changes do not make the old disappear over night. If Philadelphia Pennsylvania was renamed Trumpania tomorrow do you think everyone would immediately cease using the old name? Most of these cities had more then one name they were known by at different times, the meaning of "Brotherly Love" happened to fit the character of how Jesus is describing this Community.
Ignatius's letter to this same Christianity Community uses the name of Philadelphia and no one honestly thinks that can be dated to pre Vespasian. My date for the Ignatian letter is later then most but even those who 100% accept the traditional Ignatius narrative still place them in the second century.
There was also a Prophetess known as Ammia in Philadelphia.
I find it amusing to see an argument like this here when having your name changed is a theme in the message in verse 12.
Update October 2024: This is an Atheist Websites that also favors a Hadrianic Date for Revelation. I obviously differ with them on a lot of stuff they tie this too but they're still interesting to read.
Perhaps the John of Revelation is Eusebius's seventh Bishop of Jerusalem.
No comments:
Post a Comment