Ca and tt: date for the writing of the apocalypse

[Catholic Apologist]

This is a debate had between Catholics in a partial preterist sense:

Facts on the Dating of the Apocalypse

Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.

Today, there are a few people who are pushing for a pre-70 AD date for the writing of the
Apocalypse of St. John. Mostly these voices come from Protestant sectors and is due
mainly to their presuppositions on how the Apocalypse is supposed to be interpreted.
They claim that the “internal evidence” of the Apocalypse points to a pre-70 AD date.
That conclusion, of course, is based on their idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture,
which are often at odds with Catholic interpretation. The bigger problem, however, is that
the so-called “internal evidence” for an early dating of the Apocalypse runs smack into
the patristic consensus which says it was written after 70 AD.

The reason this is of concern for us is that some Catholics today have decided they are
going to depart from the patristic consensus and not only push for a pre-70 AD date, but
they do so because they also want to depart from the patristic consensus regarding the
place and time of the Millennium of Apocalypse 20:1-6. The two ideas go hand-in-hand.
They have decided that the Fathers were wrong in placing the Millennium during the
Christian era, from the First Coming of Christ to the Second Coming. These new
“theologians” claim that the Millennium should be in the Old Testament. In essence,
instead of a Christian millennium that we have always believed, they now want a Jewish
millennium. This is just another indication how Catholic teaching today is being
Judaized, the very warnings I have given many times in the last five years.

Here is the upshot. There is no Father that supports a pre-70 AD dating for the
Apocalypse. There isn’t a Father within 500 years that gives any explicit mention of Nero
and Patmos in the same sentence, much less says Nero exiled John to Patmos prior to 70
AD, including the attempts of modern scholars to make Epiphanius depart from the
consensus. Not until well into the Middle Ages does anyone suggest a pre-70 AD date for
the Apocalypse, and they are few and far between (e.g., Theophlact, Andreas of
Cappadocia).

There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a massive scale,
Nero and Domitian. In 67 AD, Nero killed St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. But there is no
record of Nero banishing any Christians to Patmos. Nero preferred to torture Christians
by burning them and throwing them to lions.

Again, all the Christian and secular sources in the patristic era place the banishment of
Christians to Patmos at the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). No one places the banishment
of John, or any Christian, under the reign of Nero.

Eusebius is one of our greatest sources, since he lived only two hundred years after
Domitian’s reign. Every source that Eusebius could gather said that John was exiled to
Patmos during the reign of Domitian. Eusebius’ earliest source was Irenaeus.

1
It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still
alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his
testimony to the divine word. 2. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against
Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is
given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him 3.
“If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it
would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not
long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”
(Church History, Book 3, Ch. 18).

Eusebius used other sources to confirm the same truth:

It is said that in this persecution [Domitian’s] the apostle and evangelist John,
who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in
consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of
his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of
Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows
concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at
the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Revelation.
For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the
reign of Domitian.’ To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith
flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did
not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms
which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For
they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of
a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome,
was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony
borne to Christ (Church History, Bk. III, ch. 18).

Eusebius adds:

Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: ‘Domitian also,
who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing
that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very
soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.’ But after
Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the
Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days,
voted that Domitian’s horrors should be cancelled, and that those who had been
unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored
to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in
the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian
tradition (Church History, Bk. III, ch. 20)

2
Victorinus also holds to the same date. His information is independent of Eusebius. He
writes:

“And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the
tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.” He says this, because when
John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour
of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and
when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by
suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John
being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same
Apocalypse which he had received from God. This, therefore, is what He says:
Thou must again prophesy to all nations, because thou seest the crowds of
Antichrist rise up; and against them other crowds shall stand, and they shall fall
by the sword on the one side and on the other. (Commentary on the Apocalypse,
11)

The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published,
since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother,
and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba” (Commentary on the Apocalypse,
XVII).

Clement of Alexandria gives the same information:

And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains
for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a
narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the
Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the
isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the
nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to
ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit. (The Rich Man, XLII)

The “tyrant’s death” could only refer Nero
or Domitian, since they were the only ones
who severely persecuted Christians. Lactantius confirms this:

After an interval of some years from the death of Nero, there arose another
tyrant no less wicked (Domitian), who, although his government was
exceedingly odious, for a very long time oppressed his subjects, and reigned in
security, until at length he stretched forth his impious hands against the Lord.
Having been instigated by evil demons to persecute the righteous people, he was
then delivered into the power of his enemies, and suffered due punishment.
(Address to Donatus, Ch 3).

Clement refers to the release of those exiled and this matches Eusebius reference to the
same at the death of Domitian. The emperor in view cannot be Nero because Clement
refers to John as a very old man, which would not have been the case in 70 AD.

3
Clement quotes John as saying to an apostate thief:

“Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me.
Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If
need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I
will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me….And he, when he
heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and
wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for
himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears,
concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath
that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and
failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by
repentance, led him back to the church.” (The Rich Man, XLII)

We also know that John lived until after Domitian from Irenaeus’ references to Polycarp,
John’s disciple. Polycarp was born in 65 AD and died in 155 AD. This makes him two
years old when Nero died and five years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. Since
Polycarp was taught by John, it must have been several decades after the destruction of
Jerusalem.

Jerome testifies to the same, and also mentions Irenaeus and Justin Martyr as writing
commentaries on the same connection between Domitian and Patmos. Notice how
Jerome mentions Nero, but bypasses him to make the connection between Domitian and
John’s exile to Patmos:

In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised a second
persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse,
on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But
Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive
cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under
Pertinax and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and
built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-
eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city. (Lives of
Illustrious Men, Ch IX).

Jerome testifies to the same truth in another work:

We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most
clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the
sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise
on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle – the one a
married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an
Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the
Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing
which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in
the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian
4
as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of
the future Tertullian, moreover, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that
having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active
than when he went in (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, 26).

Sulpitius Severus says:

Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the
Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the
island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote
and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly
or impiously not accepted by many (The Sacred History, Ch 31).

Testimony to these Fathers is noted in one of the more detailed commentaries on this
issue:

“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” (Horae Apocalypticae, E. B. Elliott, vol. I, p. 36).

Hippolytus says:

John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in
which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s
time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not
be found (The Twelve Apostles, XLIX).

Regarding lone testimony of Epiphanius, Elliott states: “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…” (Horae Apocalypticae, vol. I, p. 37).

He adds: “ …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?” (Horae Apocalypticae, vol. I, p. 38-39).

5
Elliott also states that Domitian was often known by the name Nero, thus the confusion
some scholars have with Nero and Domitian.

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 (Horae Apocalypticae, vol. I pg. 39,
footnote 1).

The Acts of John reports that John was indeed exiled under Domitian:

And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to
the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name,
who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would
quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over
to another. And Domitian, troubled by what was said, sent a centurion with
soldiers to seize John, and bring him. And having gone to Ephesus, they asked
where John lived.

And when all were glorifying God, and wondering at the faith of John, Domitian
said to him: I have put for
th a decree of the senate, that all such persons should
be summarily dealt with, without trial; but since I find from thee that they are
innocent, and that their religion is rather beneficial, I banish thee to an island,
that I may not seem myself to do away with my own decrees. He asked then that
the condemned criminal should be let go; and when he was let go, John said:
Depart, give thanks to God, who has this day delivered thee from prison and
from death.

And having prayed, he raised her up. And Domitian, astonished at all the
wonders, sent him away to an island, appointing for him a set time. And
straightway John sailed to Patmos, where also he was deemed worthy to see the
revelation of the end. And when Domitian was dead, Nerva succeeded to the
kingdom, and recalled all who had been banished; and having kept the kingdom
for a year, he made Trajan his successor in the kingdom. And when he was king
over the Romans, John went to Ephesus, and regulated all the teaching of the
church, holding many conferences, anti reminding them of what the Lord had
said to them, and what duty he had assigned to each. And when he was old and
changed, he ordered Polycarp to be bishop over the church. (Acts of the Holy
Apostle John, Exile and Departure).

This agrees with Eusebius’ account:

But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the
empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of
those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those
who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their
6
property restored to them. 11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned
from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according
to an ancient Christian tradition. (Church History, Book 3, Ch 20).

At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still
living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after
the death of Domitian from his exile on the island. 2. And that he was still alive
at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should
be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such
indeed were Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. 3. The former in the second
book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: “And all the elders that
associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John
delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.” 4.
And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the
following words: “But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul,
and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the
apostolic tradition.” 5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can
be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to
those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and read the
account which rims as follows: 6. “Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but
a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and
treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant’s death, he returned from the
isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring
territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to
set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of
those that were pointed out by the Spirit. (Church History, Book 3, Ch 23).

Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.

[KangarooJack]

CA,

We are supposed to be discussing the preterist view that the new covenant age had not fully come until ad70. Consequently, much of Jesus' teachings and even some of the apostolic teaching was cancelled when the new covenant age fully arrived.

I gave Hebrews 6 as a “proof text” and I was expecting that you would begin there.

thinker

[Author]

Posts