Tradition has Saint Antipas killed under Domitian in ca. 85 AD.What on earth makes you think that Simeon Metaphrastes, writing in the Tenth Century, has any notion of when Antipas was martyred?
In fact, any late-first-century martyrdom is more likely the work of Nero, on account of the fact that there is no hard evidence that any Christians were actually murdered in the much-exaggerated "Domitianic persecution" at all.
A good deal of the modern presumption in favor of a Domi- tianic date is based on the belief that a great, sustained period of persecution and slaughter of Christians was carried on under his rule. This belief, as cherished as it is, does not seem to be based on any hard evidence at all. While there is no doubt that Domitian was a cruel and wicked tyrant (I come to bury a myth about Caesar, not to praise him), until the fifth century there is no mention in any historian of a supposedly widespread persecution of Christians by his government. It is true that he did temporarily banish some Christians; but these were eventually recalled. Robinson remarks: “When this limited and selective purge, in which no Christian was for certain put to death, is compared with the massacre of Christians under Nero in what two early and entirely independent witnesses speak of as ‘immense multitudes,’ it is astonishing that commentators should have been led by Irenaeus, who himself does not even mention a persecution, to prefer a Domitianic context for the book of Revelation." (Chilton, Ibid.)
The apostasy WOULD NOT have reached the level of Pergamum and Thyatira just 3-5 years after Paul. It's inconceivable.
Not inconceivable at all.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
Irenaeus specifically MENTIONS Domitian. Head held high.
Sure he mentions Domitian... the "Anno Domini" dating system wasn't in use yet -- so if you were trying to correspond dates, you'd refer to the reigning Emperor. Trouble is, Iraneaus believed that Christ did not die until around the date we would render as AD 60 -- which would put a Revelation written 35 years after the death of Christ in AD 95, or Domitian's reign.
Once you back out the extra 30 years that Domitian added to the Life of Christ, however, it takes the Revelation back to AD 65.
At any rate, the common rendering of the Irenaeus quote is a mistranslation:
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.
The phrase "that was seen" is from a masculine verb in the original, and may refer to either John or the Revelation; since the Subject is John, the quote should be rendered "WHOM was seen" -- referring to John himself, not the Revelation.
At any rate...
- The Beast of Revelation is personally identified by the Latin mss. gematriya with Nero, who died in AD 68; and...
- The Syriac Manuscript specifically states that the Revelation was received under Nero; and...
- The AD 95 date remains a physical impossibility because Laodicea no longer existed after AD 66.
best, OP
Happy Thanksgiving!!
If Domitian did not presecute Christians, why did Trajan start to do so, as witnessed by the letters of Pliny on this subject?