Replies

from Horae Apocalypticae by Rev. E.B. Elliott as presented by Bill and Sandy Kalivas

POINT 2
"Although some scholars have uncritically accepted the statement of St. Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) that the prophecy appeared 'toward the end of Domitian's reign' (i.e., around A.D. 96), there is considerable room for doubt about his precise meaning (he may have meant that the Apostle John himself 'was seen' by others). The language of St. Irenaeus is somewhat ambiguous; and, regardless of what he was talking about, he could have been mistaken." (p. 3)

External evidence to the dating of John's Revelation comes from writings from early church fathers and historians. There are no second or third century writings which mention or even point to a dating of Revelation during the reign of Nero. There are however, several extant writings which support the later writing, during Domitian's reign. The statement of St. Irenaeus is the primary and earliest support.

It is not surprising that Praeterists, having no strong witnesses of their own, must discount Irenaeus' statement. However, they do not stop there, but also subtlely attack his character by implying that he might not have known what he talking about and, further, allows this mistake to be recorded. Elliott thinks highly of St. Irenaeus as a scholar and church father as he states in the following passage:

"And considering Irenaeus' own very early era, relation to St. John, and character, -- that he was an Asiatic Greek, born nearly about the time of St. John's death, --that he was a disciple of Polycarp, which latter was a disciple of St. John, -- and that he was moreover one of the most learned, as well as most devoted of the Christian bishops of the age..." (vol. I, p. 2)

Of course, the statement itself comes under heavy scrutiny by those who cannot accept the later dating. It must! The original statement was given in Greek. The very construction of the sentence is taken apart and there are those who will claim it had not been interpreted correctly for centuries. Elliott is vehement in his opposition to this type of attack. He gives us the commonly held interpretation of the passage.

"For the testimony of Irenaeus -- Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John, -- is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable. Speaking of the name and number of the Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse: 'for it [the Apocalypse evidently] was seen no very long time ago; but almost in our age, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.' " (vol. I, p. 32)

In a footnote, Elliott proceeds to re-quote the statement in the original Greek and explain why St. Irenaeus could only be referring to the vision John saw and not to John himself.

In another footnote in his book, Chilton invites us to read Moses Stuart's work on Revelation to find early writers supporting a Neronic date. Would he also be interested to know what Professor Stuart thought about the construction of St. Irenaeus' statement? Elliott comments as follows "And here, in his opening summary, Professor Stuart admits distinctly in the first instance the futility of the attempts that have been made to get rid of Irenaeus' famous testimony asserting the Domitianic date, by supplying another nominative case... And really the true construction ... is so palpable, that one is astonished at this time of day to find any respectable writer so bewildering himself, as to attempt the revival of the absurdities that professor Stuart thus rejects." (vol. I, p. 534)

Further evidence from Irenaeus comes from his book Against Heresies as he discusses the number 666 and its interpretation. He, writing after 177 A.D., speaks of the embodiment of the number 666 as yet future to them.

But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation". Book 5 Chap. 30, Sec. 2)

POINT 3
"(St. Irenaeus, incidentally, is the only source for this late dating of Revelation; all other 'sources' are simply quoting from him. It is thus rather disingenuous for commentators to claim, as Swete does, that Early Christian tradition is almost unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of Domitian.) Certainly, there are other early writers whose statements indicate that St. John wrote the Revelation much earlier, under Nero's persecution." (p. 4)

There are many early church fathers and historians who have commented on dating of the book of Revelation. In this point, Chilton attacks all persons who would support the later date as being mere sounding boards to one early church father who "may have been mistaken." Yet as we read Elliott's work we find a wealth of information regarding early supporters as well as dissenters to an A.D. 96 date. We wish to note that in most all cases Elliott footnoted not only the work in which he found these opinions but additionally repeated the comments verbatim in the original Greek or Latin. This section will be long, but we feel necessarily so, in order to acquaint the readers with a full picture of the witnesses on both sides. We add a little background information for each man discussed which we found in "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by LeRoy Edwin Froom.

Tertullian is the first support mentioned. He lived from approximately 160-240 A.D., born in North Africa at Carthage, and converted to Christianity when he was 30-40 years of age. He became the father of Latin theology and creator of the church language in the Latin tongue. Tertullian's support of a 96 A.D. date is based on his references to persecutions of the apostles; Paul and Peter were put to death by Nero yet no mention of John and his banishment is mentioned as occurring during this time.

-- "First, Tertullian seems in no dubious manner to indicate this view of the Apocalyptic date. For in his Apology, after specifying Nero's as the first imperial persecution, and this one by the sword, (wherein, as he elsewhere says, Paul and Peter suffered, no mention being made of John,) he proceeds to notice Domitian's as the next persecution, and this as one in which Christians suffered by banishment, the well-known punishment inflicted on St. John. It is evident that Eusebius thus understands Tertullian; I mean as alluding to St. John's banishment as the act of Domitian." (vol. I, p. 33)

Titus Flavius Clemens or Clement of Alexandria lived from approximately 150-220 A.D. He was originally a pagan philosopher converted to the Christian church. He sought instruction from the most eminent teachers, traveling extensively to Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Palestine. He was a pupil of Pantaenus at Alexandria and was made presbyter in the church of Alexandria. Clement's support to a later date is found in story involving St. John after he returned from Patmos. The point being made that John was quite an old man when it occurred.

-- "Next Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as acted out by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, 'after the death of the tyrant;' and represents him as at that time an infirm old man. Now 'the tyrant,' whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be: since, at the time of Nero's persecution, St. John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.

Thus it must rather have been the tyrant Domitian. So, in fact, Eusebius expressly explains Clement to mean. " (vol. I, p. 33-34)

Victorinus, who died in 303 or 304 A.D., was the bishop of Pettaw in Upper Pannonia, near modern Vienna. He wrote commentaries on several Old Testament books, Matthew and Revelation.

-- "Thirdly, Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw, and martyr in Diocletian's persecution, in a Commentary on the Apocalypse written towards the close of the third century, says twice over expressly, and in a part that bears no mark of interpolation, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the isle of Patmos when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian." (vol. I, p. 34-35)

Eusebius Pamphili lived from approximately 260-340 A.D. He was bishop of Caesarea and wrote Ecclesiastical History. In this work he relates events in the early church and his chronology places St. John on Patmos during Domitian's reign.

-- "To the same effect, fourthly is the very important testimony of Eusebius...on the date of St. John's banishment to Patmos, he distinctly intimates more than once his agreement with the tradition of the ancients, that referred it to Domitian's persecution: and indeed implies, as is perfectly evident, that he knew of no other tradition whatsoever as to the time of St. John's banishment to Patmos." (vol. I, p. 35-36)

-- "The same is the recorded judgment of Jerome; the same of Augustine's friend, Orosius; the same of Sulpitius Severus. Once more, we find an unhesitating statement of similar purport in Primasius; an eminent Augustinian commentator on the Apocalypse, of the sixth century. In his Preface to this Commentary, he speaks of the Apocalyptic visions having been seen by St. John when banished and condemned to the mines in Patmos by the Emperor Domitian." (vol. I, p. 36)

Jerome lived from approximately 340-420 A.D. He is most well known for his revision of the "Old Latin" translation of the Bible into what is known as the Latin Vulgate. He also wrote commentaries on many books of Scripture. Sulpitius Severus who lived from approximately 363-420 A.D. was an ecclesiastical historian born in Aquitania. He spent his later years in monastic retirement at Toulouse, in Aquitania.

We learn from Elliott, a scholar who read all the statements from the early historians that they did not merely mimic St. Irenaeus, but that they were themselves scholars and their statements are the result of their own research into this matter.

"Such is the later and subsidiary Patristic testimony still extant, to the fact of St. John having seen the Apocalyptic visions in Patmos under the reign of Domitian: -- a chain of testimony not to be viewed... as but the repetition of that of Irenaeus, whom indeed for the most part these writers do not even refer to: but as their own deliberate independent judgment, formed on all the evidence which then existed. As to any contrary early tradition respecting the date, if such there was, ...it can scarcely have been unknown the them. And their total silence respecting it is only explicable on one of two suppositions; -- viz. either that it did not exist; or that they deemed it undeserving of credit, and not even worth the notice." (vol. I, p. 36-37)

Next Elliott reviews the early works which placed the writing of Revelation during Nero's reign or earlier. He finds these works to be of questionable value.

-- "Nor can it be wondered at: seeing that as to any contrary statement on the point in question, there appears to have been none whatsoever until the time of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century: ...whose chief work, On Heresies, is decried ... as 'full of blots and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author:' ...For he speaks of St. John having prophesied when in the isle of Patmos, in the days of the Emperor Claudius: --a time when... it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of the Christian body whatsoever..." (vol. I, p. 37)

" ...another testimony to the early date of the Apocalypse. The subscription to a Syriac version of the book, written about the beginning of the sixth century, is thus worded; 'The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.' But of what value is this opinion, then first broached, as it would appear?" ( vol. I, p. 38-39)

Elliott adds this footnote which explains that Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero.

"May not the mistake have arisen from Domitian having sometimes the title of Nero given him; and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero?" He includes in this footnote further proofs given in Latin of this title applying to Domitian. (vol. I pg. 39, footnote 1)

Arethas born in 860 A.D. was archbishop of Caesarea and had great influence at the Byzantine court. His commentary on the Apocalypse was mostly a compilation, in which he mainly follows Andreas, who questioned the commonly accepted writing date of 96 A.D.

-- "Or again, [what of] the commentator Arethas, promulgated still two or three centuries later, to the effect that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; an opinion contradicted indeed elsewhere in the body of his work by himself?" (vol. I, p. 39)

"Alike the one and the other slept unnoticed for centuries. And, if waked up by critics of a more modern age, it has only been ... from the supposed necessity of such dates, in order to [justify] any possible explanation of the Apocalyptic prophecies." (vol. I, p. 39)

So we see that the earliest and most substantive testimony leans heavily in favor of a later, or Domitian date. And as to the contrary opinions supporting a Neronic date they are seen to be fewer in number, written later, and less tangible. It stands to reason, therefore, that the main support by Praeterists for a Neronic date is found by casting doubt on what was meant by the statements of key witnesses. In other words, what Praeterists have done to Irenaeus' statement is also done to the other key statements. Elliott goes into great detail to refute the arguments of this nature, however, we have not included them here for succinctness. (See Horae Apocalypticae vol. I, p. 39, footnote 6 for defense of Eusebius' statement and p. 34, footnote 2 for defense of Clement's story.)

POINT 4
"A good deal of the modern presumption in favor of a Domitianic 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, cherished as it is, does not seem to be based on any hard evidence at all." (p.4)

This argument is the one we find most puzzling of all. We do not require a period of slaughter and persecution of Christians under Domitian in order to believe the Book of Revelation was written in that period. In fact, we use the absence of this type of persecution to our advantage in the following manner: Under Nero Christians were more likely to be killed as were Paul and Peter, yet under Domitian, Christians were banished, as was John. Had John been brought before Nero, why was he not put to death as were so many others?