Most scholars today think that the book of Revelation was written around the year A.D. 95, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian.
Historically, though, many thought it was written earlier than that, and there is a surprisingly strong case that the book was written in the late A.D. 60s or the early part of A.D. 70. Let's take a quick look at the evidence . . .
"Five Are Fallen"
In Revelation 17, John sees a vision of the Whore of Babylon seated on the beast with seven heads, and he is told:
[9] This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; [10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
There's pretty good evidence that the beast represents the Roman empire and that these seven kings represent the line of first century Roman emperors.
If you'd like more information on that subject, check out my videos, Who Is the Beast of Revelation and Who Is the Beast of Revelation (Part Two).
Assuming that identification is accurate, that gives us a pretty strong clue about when the book was written. If five of the kings (emperors) are fallen (dead) and one is (living/reigning) then that means Revelation was written during the reign of the sixth emperor. So which would that be?
Here are two possibilities . . .
The Reign of Nero?
If you start the count with Julius Caesar then the sixth emperor would be Nero:
- Julius Caesar
- Augustus
- Tiberius
- Caligula
- Claudius
- Nero
Nero certainly fits well with the description of the beast that is given in the book (see the two videos), but there is a possible problem: Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor. He was a dictator (meaning: the Roman Senate voted him the title "dictator"--which was an actual political office back then, before the term came to mean "tyrant"), but he wasn't voted the title "emperor."
Still, it's possible that this might not have made a lot of difference from the perspective of first century Jews and Christians.
Technically, the Roman emperors weren't kings at all (the Romans were very proud of the fact that they had ended the line of Roman kings and set up a republic), but they functioned as kings, and everybody understood that.
This is why the crowd cried "We have no king but Caesar!" during the trial of Jesus.
So if the count starts with Julius then we have reason to think Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, which was between October 13, A.D. 54 and June 9, A.D. 68.
But there's another possibility that may be even more likely . . .
The Reign of Galba?
The first person to be voted the title "emperor" was Augustus, and he could well be regarded as the starting point of the count by people all across the empire, including Jews and Christians. If so, then this is what we would get:
- Augustus
- Tiberius
- Caligula
- Claudius
- Nero
- Galba
I know. You may be saying, "Who?"
Galba isn't a very famous emperor, and one reason is that he didn't reign very long. In fact, he reigned only a few months, during a disastrous period known as "the Year of Four Emperors," in which Rome was torn apart by a series of bloody civil wars in which one emperor toppled another in rapid succession.
But if that's the case then, since Galba reigned such a short time, we'd actually be able to date the writing of Revelation very precisely.
It would have to be between June 8, A.D. 68 and January 15, A.D. 69. (Galba actually began reigning the day before Nero died, because Nero had been declared an enemy of the state by the Senate and went on the lam before being coerced into committing suicide.)
So it could be that Revelation was written during a very short span in late 68 or (very) early 69.
Is there other evidence that has a bearing on this?
"He must remain only a little while"
You'll recall that the seventh king was said to remain (reign) only a little while. Does that fit the situation?
Yes. In fact, it fits both of the possibilities we've mentioned.
If Nero was reigning then Nero's successor, Galba, certainly reigned a short time--just barely over 7 months.
If Galba was reigning then, since he was reigning in the Year of Four Emperors, his own successor--Otho--lasted only a short time as well, just 3 months (from January 15 to April 16, A.D. 69).
"Do not measure the court outside the temple"
Back in Revelation 11, John was told:
[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, [2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.
This passage speaks of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing.
The text speaks of the gentiles (or nations, same word in Greek) trampling the holy city (Jerusalem) and invading the temple courtyard.
They also invaded and destroyed the temple itself, but the text speaks of this as not having happened yet, since John is told to measure the temple, its altar, and those worshipping there. So it was still functioning.
Since the temple was destroyed on August 5, A.D. 70, that also suggests that Revelation was written before this date.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
How very interesting! Does this mean that the Book of Revelation predates the Gospels? Also, what might this mean for the work attribution to John?
Hmmm…..
The book “Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America” a biography written in 2002.
Abraham Lincoln died April 15, 1865.
Using the “logic” employed we can “believe” that this biography was actually written around the early 1900’s to mid 1800’s because many of the passages can be attributed to that time frame.
Thanks for the info Jimmy. There is a great deal more support for the early dating of Revelation. Although Kenneth Gentry adheres to the non-orthodox eschatology of preterism, he wrote an excellent book on the subj entitled “Before Jerusalem Fell”.
The first verse of the Apocalypse does point out that the point of the revelations to John are “to show to his servants what must soon take place.”
@Mr. Patton
Does the biography of Lincoln consistently treat his assassination as a vague event sometime in the near future, but never treat it as having actually happened? If so, it is a very odd biography; it would be odd to treat his life in a present-tense, day-by-day form, but it would be even stranger to end it in, say, 1864, with only dark hints of an assassination yet to come. If this is not what the biography did, though, the “logic” of your complaint falls away.
Most commentators date all John’s writings in the late First or early Second Century dates b/c of the books’ “high Christology”, the idea being that the Church couldn’t possibly have believed in the full deity of Christ from the beginning. However, if that unwarranted assumption is set aside, then there is very little reason not to date John’s letters, gospel and Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Jimmy,
You mean to tell me that a book or Gospel prophesying the destruction of the temple isn’t an iron clad indicator that, since we all know ‘prophecy’ is a literary technique employed to retell history, they were written after 70 A.D.? Next thing you know you’ll give us evidence that the book was probably actually written by the Apostle!
A brave attempt to understand one of the most difficult books in the Holy Bible. Jimmy, your estimations (late 60AD to early 70AD) are pretty much where traditional Orthodoxy places this (i.e. the middle of the last half of the 1st Century” according to the OCA website). St. John the Apostle (traditionally considered to be the author) seems to have been very well versed in the prophetic writings of Zechariah. The book of Revelation seems to have been quite controversial from the outset (see the New Advent article on the subject). Interestingly, the book does not really inform the liturgical tradition in the East…
If the Book was written about local events- Roman emperors and such, then your conclusions would be relevant to religious history. Rev 1:10 says, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day”. Also if that means he had a vision on the [Catholic] Sunday.
But so much of the book is clearly for the long-term that it’s difficult to take it that way, and still find any meaning for our day. Note also the editor’s note at v.3 in newadvent’s Douay. http://newadvent.org/bible/rev001.htm, where three time possibilities are discussed.
But, if “the Lord’s day” is the day of the end of the system of things prophesied by so many Bible writers including Jesus (“who is the faithful witness”), then John was taken into his and Nero/Galba’s future and our present or near future. In that case we are “in the last day” of John ch. 6:39,40,54 and other places.
How does that change the book’s relevance for us?
Doug,
I’m still waiting for you to explain your error concerning your false assertion that the Holy Spirit is “not evidenced” in the Book of Revelation.
And, a response to the fact the Saint John refers to Christ as God in the Apocalypse.
And, all the other places in the New Testament where Christ is called God.
Don’t you have any answers?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.