Some of the historical evidence for the Date of the Apocalypse:
Irenaeus, - Polycarp’s disciple, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John, - Speaking of the name and number of the Beast in the Apocalypse, 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, towards the end of the reign of Domitian" [1]
Attempts that have been made to get rid of this testimony, and force another meaning on Irenaeus’ words, by those wanting the Apocalypse to fit there theories,[2]
Tertullian seems 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,[3] Paul and Peter suffered, no mention being made of John, he proceeds to notice Domitian as the next persecution, and this as one in which Christians suffered by banishment, the well-known punishment inflicted on John.,[4] It is evident that Eusebius thus understands Tertulian; I mean as alluding to John’s banishment as the act of Domitian.[5]
Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of 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;"[6] and represents him as at that time an infirm old man.[7]
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, John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.[8] Thus it must have been the tyrant Domitian. So, in fact, Eusebius expressly explains Clement to mean.[9]
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, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the Isle of Patmos, when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian.[10]
There is no evidence that in Nero persecution banishment to the islands with its usual penal accompaniments, was one of the punishments then put in force against accused Christians: whereas, on the other hand, we have direct profane historic testimony in proof that that particular punishment was enforced against persons accused of Christianity in the persecution by Domitian.
Dion Cassius expressly mentions the liberation from exile of those whom Domitian had banished on the charge of atheism, (i. e. of Christianity,) by the Emperor Nerva on his accession: ´Ο Νερουαις τους τε κοινομενους επ ασεβειρι αφηκε και τους φευγοντας κατηγαγε
—a fact precisely agreeing with the ecclesiastical tradition as to St. John’s liberation occurring on that Emperor’s death (whoever he was) had banished him to Patmos.
The varied historical evidence confirms the date originally and expressly assigned by Irenaeus to the Apocalypse, as seen and written at the close of the reign of Domitian; that is, near the end of the year 95, or beginning: of 96. Domitian was assassinated September A. D. 96.
Notes:
[1]The following is the passage, which I quote in full from Eusebius, H. E. iii. 18. Γραφων γε τοι ό Ειρηναιος περι της ψηφου της κατατον Αντιχριστον προσηγοριας εν τη Ιωαννου λεγομρνη Αποκαλυψει αυταις συλλαβαις εν πεμπτψ των προς τας αίρεσεις ταυτα περι του Ιωαννου φησιν. Ει δε εδει αναφανδον εν τψ νυν καιρψ κηρυττεσθαι τονομα αυτου δί εκεινου ανερρεθη του και την Αποκαλυψιν έωρακοτος ουδε γαρ προ πολλου χρονου εωραθν αλλα σχεδον επι της ήμετερας γενας προς τψ τελε της Δουετιανου αρχης.
[2]Michaelis, p. 525, thus candidly acknowledges the origin and object of these attempts. "Several modern commentators, who wish to refer the Apocalypse to the reign of Nero, that they may be better able to explain its prophecies, contend that the words of Ireufeus have been misunderstood by ecclesiastical writers, and that Ireufeus did not mean to say that the Revelation was seen in the reign of Domitian."
[3]Scorpiac. c. l5.
[4] "Teutaverat Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate; scd, uia et homo, facile cncptum rcpressit, restitutis etiaui quos relegaverat." Apol. c. 5. The verb relego is used by him elsewhere of St. John’s exile to Patmos. Dc Praise. 36.
[5]Euseb. H .E. iii. 20.
[6]Quis Dives Salvetur, chap.. xlii. The story is copied by Eusebius into his H; E. iii. 23, and begins thus Επειδη γαρ του τυραννον τελευτησαντος απο της Πατμου της νησου μετηλθεν εις την Εφεσον.
[7]The statement, επιλαθομενος της ήλικιας της έαυτου, and the appellative, τον γεροντα both occur in reference to him: the latter twice over.
[8]For he is supposed to have been considerably younger than our Lord, The traditionary reports of his age at the time of his death all tend to that conclusion. And Jerome, Adv. Jovin Lib. i. c. 14, says expressly of his age when first called by Christ; "Ut autem sciamus tunc fuisse puerum manifestissime decent ecclesiasticae historiae." Now Nero’s persecution broke out in the year of our Lord 64, and ended with Nero’s death, A.D. 68
[9]H. E. ubi sup.
[10]On Apoc. X. 11, "Thou must prophesy again," he observes; "Hoc est quoniam, quando hoc ndit Joannes, erat in insula. I’athmos, in metallura damuatus a Bomitiano Caesare. Ibi ergo vidit Apocalypsim:et cum senior jam putaret se per passionem accepturum receptionem, iuterfecto Domitiano omnia judicia ejus soluta sunt; et Joannes, de raetallo dimissus, sic postea tradidit banc eandem quam acceperat a Domino Apocalypsim."
not to take away from any teachings that is offered.
?
