by John T. Lewis
INTRODUCTION
by John T. Lewis
INTRODUCTION
Very unwise is the one who would suggest that an easy
solution can be found in dating the book of Revelation.
Scholars have speculated over the years and arrived at many
different conclusions. Whatever date one chooses has a great
bearing on one's interpretation of the book as a whole. For
this reason, weighing the evidence and establishing its date is
very important.
The purpose of this paper will be to examine two of the
most popular views regarding the date Revelation was written.
Many scholars date the book during or around the time of Nero
(about A.D. 64). Others opt for a late date during Domitian's
reign (about A.D. 96). Both of these views, I believe, have
several problems, especially from an internal point of view.
After examining each of these views, I shall propose a third
view. I believe Revelation was written by John the apostle
during the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 69-79). Like the other two
views, a date of Vespasian has problems. However, after
examining the evidence, especially that of internal, I believe
this view to be the most probable.
The first two decades of this century saw works by Charles,
Swete, and Beckwith which popularized the Domitianic date for
Revelation.1 Since this time the majority of scholars have
accepted this view.
THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS
Most of the evidence for a Domitianic date rests upon the
testimony of Irenaeus. The problem in accepting Irenaeus'
statement is that it is ambiguous. The statement is often
translated, "...it would have been announced by him who beheld
the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time
since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's
reign."2 Translated this way, the book of Revelation is
clearly that which was seen near the end of Domitian's reign.
But the verb "was seen" can grammatically refer to either "the
apocalyptic vision" (i.e. the book of Revelation) or "he who
beheld" (i.e. John).3 Determining which one Irenaeus had in
mind is impossible to do. Irenaeus' statement, therefore, should
not be considered as strong evidence for the late date.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The most notable internal evidence comes from the condition
of the churches in Paul's epistles and that of Revelation. John
said that the church of Ephesus had left their first love (2:4).
Hailey says, "This is decided change from that existing at the
time Paul wrote to the church at that place..."4 This argument
is based on pure speculation. Hailey is merely making an
assumption to suggest that a group of people could not
apostatize in the space of just a few years. This was evidently
the case with the Galatian churches (Gal. 1:6). Wayne Jackson
takes a stab at internal evidence based on the church at
Laodicea. The Laodiceans were wealthy people (3:17). Yet
Jackson says,
In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely
destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required
more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen
again to the state of affluence described in
Revelation.5
Once again, however, this argument is based on speculation with
no proof whatsoever. Tacitus (A.D. 55-117) tells us that the
recovery of Laodicea was a simple matter. He said, "One of the
famous cities of Asia, Laodicea, was that same year overthrown
by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered
itself by its own resources."(emphasis mine).6 Obviously the
earthquake of A.D. 60 did not vastly affect the Laodicean
community since they were in no need of relief from the Roman
Empire. Surely they were able to recover in as few as eight
years.
THE REASON FOR REJECTING A DOMITIANIC DATE
The main reason to reject a Domitianic date is based on
internal evidence. Those holding to this date believe that
Domitian is the beast. However, several times John makes a
specific notation that he was not writing during this time. The
beast was yet to come. Look closely at the words of John:
"...the beast that was, and is not..." (17:8b). In the same
verse John said that the beast "will ascend out of the
bottomless pit..." In 17:10 John speaks of the one who "is."
Whoever this is, it refers to the sixth. After this will come
one who will reign for "a short time." After this the eighth,
who is the beast, will come. John did not say the world was
already undergoing persecution by the beast. He said, "All who
dwell on the earth will worship him ..." (13:8). Clearly if
Domitian is the beast, John could not be writing during his
reign. Evidently John was looking into the near future at a
time when the beast would rise. Further, most late date
advocates believe Revelation was written in A.D. 96. Domitian
died in 96! What good would this book do for the troubled
saints of Asia if the persecution was nearly over?
Prior to the twentieth century the majority of scholars
favored a date during the time of Nero.7 Some have dated it
just after Nero's death during the reign of Galba.8 In
modern scholarship this view seems to be making a comeback among
many.9 Gentry suggests that Revelation was written somewhere
between A.D. 64 and A.D. 67.10
THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM
There are several pieces of internal evidence that scholars
cite in favor of a Neronic date. One such reference is that
many believe John spoke of the Temple as still in existence
(11:8) when he wrote the book, thus proving a pre-A.D. 70 date.
Gentry notes, "If John wrote about literal Jerusalem ....
twenty-five years after the destruction of the literal temple
...., it would seem improbable that he would speak of the temple
as if it were still standing."11 The reference to the place
"where also our Lord was crucified" is very likely a symbolic
reference rather than a geographical reference. Mounce
suggests that this reference is used ".... not to identify a
geographical location but to illustrate the response of paganism
to righteousness."12
Also, there are many problems in accepting 11:8 as pointing
to a literal temple. The "great city" is frequently mentioned
in chapter 18 which most agree refers to the Roman Empire (c.f.
18:10,16,18,19,21). Should not "the great city" be interpreted
as Rome in 11:8 as well? We should further note that this vision
has the temple preserved and the outer courtyard destroyed
(11:1-2). However, the destruction of Jerusalem was not merely
the destruction of the outer courtyard or the city, but the
temple itself. Obviously these cannot be parallel events.
In addition, whatever this event refers to, the beast persecutes
the two witnesses in this city (11:7-8). There is no documented
case of Nero persecuting Christians in Jerusalem. McGuiggan
rightly says:
There is not an illustration, in or out of the New
Testament, where the Romans persecuted the church in
Jerusalem. That Rome persecuted the church we all know,
but where is the testimony, in or out of Scripture, that
she hunted and killed Christians literally in
Jerusalem?13
This is strong evidence in light of the fact that Jesus promised
that none of His followers would be affected in the siege of
Jerusalem (Lk. 21:18). The Neronic advocate, however, is forced
to say that Christians were persecuted at this event.
NERO'S PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
Perhaps the greatest piece of evidence for the early date
is that of the consensus that Nero persecuted Christians. Wilson
notes that Nero's persecution was the "first organized" against
Christianity.14 Tacitus goes into great detail of how
Christians were arrested and convicted. They were covered with
skins of animals and torn apart by wild dogs. They were
crucified or set on fire for nightly illumination.15 However,
we shouldn't think that this was a persecution started by Nero
because Christians failed to worship him. Grant points out:
But it would be wrong accept the implication .... that the
Christians were attacked by Nero because they practiced
Christianity --that is to say, because they failed to
perform certain patriotic religious duties which it was
normal for non-Christians to perform.16
Nero's persecution, although brutal, doesn't soundly fit John's
description of the beast. Saints are slain "for the word of God"
(6:9). They had war made against them because they would not
worship the beast (13:7-9; 20:4). Yes, Nero was worshipped
while still alive, but there is no record that this was forced
upon anyone. Further, even Vespasian, Titus and Domitian
received divine worship at the Temple of Sebastoi. However,
both Caligula and Nero "were clearly unsuitable candidates for
cultic honors because their reigns were so disastrous for the
Roman aristocracy."17
666
John said, "Let him who has understanding calculate the
number of the beast, for it is the number of man: his number is
666." (13:18). Gentry and others say this number only fits the
name of Nero.18 We are safe in saying, I think, that such an
interpretation is a desperate attempt to arrive at a Neronic
date. In the first place, Irenaeus himself had no idea as to
the identity of 666. In fact he said that "many names can be
found possessing the number mentioned."19 Gentry says that "...
numbers which concealed names were common."20 If so, then
should not Nero's name have been a simple matter of
calculation in early times? Why was it so hard to figure out?
We must also ask why the Hebrew alphabet must be used to arrive
at Nero's name. Why use Hebrew when Revelation was written in
Greek? Are we to assume that early Asian Christians knew they
should use the Hebrew system of calculation rather than the
Greek or even Latin?
THE PERSECUTION BY JEWS
One last piece of evidence for a Neronic date is found in
passages such as 2:9 where the Jews are mentioned as taking part
in the blasphemy of Christians. This calls for a date before
the destruction of Jerusalem, so it is argued, while the Jews
still contributed to Christian persecution. Hailey points out
that "the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple did not
diminish the Jews' hatred for Christians, but rather intensified
it."21 When Polycarp was put to death the "Jews especially
took part in collecting the wood that he might be burned."22
The Martyrdom of Polycarp says that this event was "according to
custom"23 meaning that Jews customarily took part in the
execution of Christians even after the temple was destroyed.
THE REASON FOR REJECTING A NERONIC DATE
The Neronic date suffers the same problem with internal
evidence as that of a Domitianic date. Many begin in 17:10-11
by counting Julius Caesar as the first of the five emperors who
have fallen. Thus the one who "is" (when the book was written)
would be Nero. Later we shall see that evidence is not so
conclusive for Julius being the first emperor. Also, Nero
cannot be the one who "is" and the beast at the same time. John
clearly says that the beast "is not." If the beast "is not" and
Nero was reigning when the book was written, then Nero couldn't
possibly be the beast! John is forecasting someone who will
come up out of the abyss. If Nero is the beast, then Revelation
was written before his reign, because John says that he had not
yet come.
From the analysis above, I believe strongly that there is
ample evidence to reject both a date during the reign of Nero or
Domitian. I now shall propose that Revelation was written
during the reign of Titus Flavius Vespasianus or better known as
Vespasian (A.D. 69-79).
One reason to accept this date and reject the others is due
to the fact that Revelation was not written while the beast
exercised his authority. The devil was "about" to throw some in
prison (2:10). Two times John says that the beast "is not"
(17:8,10). Clearly he says that the beast is yet to come.
Further, the condition of the seven churches indicates that they
were not yet undergoing any severe persecution. Ephesus had
left their first love (2:4). Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea had
moral problems within. Albert Hall, who holds an early date
said, "Both conditions would seem to indicate a certain laxness
in the churches, due perhaps to a lack of stringent or prolonged
pressure from outside."24 This suggests that Revelation was
written sometime before the beast arrived on the scene. If Nero
is the beast, Revelation must have been written before his
reign. Most scholars, though, reject this possibility. If
Domitian is the beast, Revelation was written before his reign.
This, I believe, is the correct understanding of Revelation's
date of composition.
PERSECUTION UNDER DOMITIAN
If Domitian is the beast there must be some type of
evidence to support his persecution. There is, admittedly,
little direct evidence of a Domitianic persecution when compared
with Nero. However, silence of historians does not necessarily
prove that Domitian had no part in persecution of the saints.
First we should note that the 80's were a period of
increased cultic activity. During the reign of Domitian the
Temple Sebastoi was dedicated to Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
"Asia made a cooperative effort to honor the Flavian imperial
family with a temple and cult dedicated to them," says Steven
Friensen.25 Further he says, "Clearly, Asia was on the cutting
edge of imperial cult activity."26 These emperors were
worshipped as theos (god). This doesn't prove that Domitian
forced worship to himself, but it does indicate increased
activity coming out of Asia, the very area to which John wrote.
We also may note that Domitian was called "a second Nero"
by some Roman writers.27 Eusebius, writing two centuries
later said that Domitian "showed himself a successor of Nero in
enmity and hostility to God. He was in fact, the second to
organize persecution against us."28 While the writing of
Eusebius is late, it does perhaps indicate the belief in a
Domitianic persecution. An organized persecution of this
magnitude would not be soon forgotten.
Albert Bell, an early date advocate, admits Domitianic
persecution when he says,
Pliny, in his famous letter to Trajan about the Christian
persistence in Bithynia, mentions that he had never been
present at trials of Christians, implying, of course, that
there had been such trials. And the only time in Pliny's
life that they are likely to have occurred is under
Domitian.29
This is significant because Pliny was born in A.D. 62 and could
not possibly have even had the opportunity to have been at a
Christian trial under the reign of Nero. Domitian is the only
possibility.
Collins tells us that Domitian, like Caligula and Nero, had
the desire to be called "our Lord and God." He goes on to say
that Pliny records a "standard test" for Christians to "repeat
after him an invocation of the gods, to offer wine and incense
to the images of Trajan and of the gods, and to curse
Christ."30 This says that the persecution occurred during
the time of Trajan. But perhaps this same practice occurred
under Domitian as well.
Eminent historian Michael Grant has an interesting analysis
concerning Domitian. He says, "...many people who had adopted
Jewish practices found themselves condemned for 'godlessness' or
'atheism,' which meant that they had refused to sacrifice to the
divinity of the emperor."31 Grant specifically mentions those
who adopted "Jewish practices" as being persecuted. This is no
clear indication of Christians as the target of persecution.
But this does indeed show that Domitian demanded sacrifice to
his name! Who, may I ask, would refuse to sacrifice to Domitian
besides the Jews? Obviously, only the Christians would refuse.
Lastly, Suetonius also records that Domitian desired to be
addressed as "Our Lord and God." He further says that "no one
should address him otherwise, either in writing or by word of
mouth."32 Collins notes that Dio Cassius wrote of a certain
Juventius Celus who was suspected of conspiracy and saved
himself "by performing proskynesis and calling the emperor 'lord
and god.'"33 Interestingly, this same phrase is used quite
extensively throughout Revelation (4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; et.
al.). These pieces of evidence do not show conclusively that
Domitian persecuted Christians. They do validate, however, that
his attitude was such that he could easily have been the one
which John describes as the beast.
17:10-11
One of the major keys in unlocking the date of Revelation
is John's discussion of emperors in 17:10-11. To find the date
of Revelation, we only need to unlock the identity of the one
who "is." John says that five "kings" (emperors) had fallen
before the time of his writing. "One is" means the one who was
currently in power at the time of his writing. One would come
after this who would reign only a short period of time. Then
the beast would be revealed. I shall now try to establish that
Vespasian is the one who "is" (the one reigning at John's
writing). "Five have fallen" has reference to the first five
emperors of the Roman Empire. These would be Augustus,
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The one who "is" would
be Vespasian. After him comes Titus who reigned only a "short
time" (2-3 years). After this the beast, Domitian, is revealed.
In establishing this analysis to be true, it will be important
to consider two things. First, should those three emperors
between Nero and Vespasian (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) be
omitted in our counting to arrive at a Vespasianic date?
Second, should we begin counting the five who have fallen with
Augustus (as I have done) or Julius Caesar as many scholars have
suggested?
THE OMISSION OF GALBA, OTHO, AND VITELLIUS
There is ample evidence to support the omission of the
three emperors between Nero and Vespasian. These emperors,
Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, reigned all together less than two
years (June, A.D. 68 to July or Dec., A.D. 69). These men rose
and fell so quickly because of the civil war which had erupted
throughout the empire. Both Galba and Vitellius were murdered
and Otho committed suicide. Whether they were actually declared
"emperor" by the Senate makes little difference. What matters
is what the population at large (the ones reading Revelation)
accepted.
The first reason to reject the three civil war emperors is
because of confusion among the nation. In discussing the
writings of Tacitus, Grant tells us that this was a period
"...when the succession to the throne was disputed."34 Nero's
death brought the title of "emperor" upon Galba. Yet this
ascension was disputed. Plutarch notes the following concerning
Galba's rise to power:
But at Rome, Nymphidius Sabinus, not gently, and little by
little, but at once, and without exception, engrossed all
power to himself; Galba, being an old man .... would
scarcely .... live long enough to be carried in a litter to
Rome; and the troops in the city were from old time
attached to him....35
Even though Galba was the official man with the ring, many were
loyal to Sabinus. Interestingly, Otho also at one time claimed
to be the true successor of Nero which was said to be quite
popular among many.36
But this was just the beginning. During Galba's official
reign, many were declaring themselves loyal to Vitellius. Those
of Germany hated Galba so much that they broke down the images
of Galba and saluted Vitellius as emperor. Tacitus notes that
"not a single legate or tribune exerted himself to Galba."37
The armies of Britain and Ligones also supported Vitellius.38
Interestingly Tacitus calls Vitellius "emperor" even while Otho
officially wore the purple.39 So who was actually emperor in
this troubled time? Was it Galba, Otho, Sabinus, Vitellius or
even Piso who Tacitus says reigned for four days?40 The
answer depended upon who was asked, not who the Senate had
officially chosen.
When Otho was preparing to take the throne from Galba, the
people of Rome rejected Otho for his hostile takeover. "The
whole populace and the slaves with them were now crowding the
palace, clamoring with discordant shouts for the death of
Otho.41 The people at large considered this event to be a
"crime."42 Once Otho finally took the throne, he still had to
contend with Vitellius who was still considered emperor by many.
Both set up as emperor at the same time according to
Josephus.43 During this struggle Tacitus tells us that the
empire was divided on who was actually in charge.44
Tacitus also indicates that both Otho and Vitellius were
rejected by a great majority of the people. They thought Otho
and Vitellius were "the most worthless of mortals."45 By
implication, the common people regarded the empire as
non-existent during this period of time. Listen to the words of
Tacitus:
'The world,' they said, 'was well-nigh turned upside down
when the struggle for the empire was between worthy
competitors, yet the empire continued to exist after the
victories of Caius Julius and Caesar Augustus...'46
If the empire "continued to exist" under Julius and Augustus,
the people must have believed that it had not continued to exist
during the reigns of these rebel rulers. Plutarch further adds
that neither Otho nor Vitellius had "any real reputation." He
goes on to acknowledge Otho as a ruler in the official sense,
but by implication says that he was emperor only in an
"illegal" way.47
This was a period of significant confusion about who was
actually in charge. Actually no one was in charge at least from
Tacitus' point of view. Listen closely to his examination of
this civil war struggle: "While things were in this state, while
there was division in the Senate, resentment among the
conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the
country at large no laws and no emperor..." (emphasis mine).48
Before leaving this point attention must be directed to the
role Vespasian played in this matter. Upon the death of Nero,
Vespasian halted his expedition against Jerusalem as he waited
to see what would become of the empire.49 This occurred in
June of A.D. 68. However, only one year later, during the early
part of Vitellius' reign, many were already declaring Vespasian
emperor. By July 1 of A.D. 68 the armies of the east declared
themselves in favor of Vespasian, not Vitellius.50 As early
as Galba's murder (Jan. A.D. 69) plans were being made by
supporters of Vespasian to take control.51 In other words,
just six months after Nero's death many were already thinking
along the line of Vespasian. Early on those of Egypt, Judea and
Syria swore allegiance to Vespasian.52 On July 1 (officially
still during the reign of Vitellius) he was saluted emperor.53
They called him "Caesar and Augustus." The regions of Achaia,
Pontus, Armenia, and Asia also followed suit as did
Illyricum.54 Early on Vespasian was already recognized as
Caesar in the very region (Asia) to which John wrote! Vespasian
even considered his reign to begin, not when the Senate
officially declared him, but July 1, while Vitellius still
officially reigned.55 This must have meant in many peoples
minds that Vitellius was no emperor at all.
Based on the evidence presented, I think a solid case can
be built to pass over these three emperors in John's counting of
the kings. Keep in mind that news traveled rather slow compared
with our modern media. By the time Nero's death was learned,
Galba and Otho may have come and gone. Since those of the east
rejected Vitellius, many probably accepted Vespasian as the
successor of Nero. Recall again the words of Tacitus that there
was no real emperor at this time.56
WHO WAS THE FIRST EMPEROR?
Now we turn to the question of the first emperor to begin
John's count of the five who had fallen (17:10-11). Early date
advocates insist that Julius Caesar should be the first in our
count. Gentry says that ".... the evidence still points to the
legitimacy of starting the count with Julius Caesar."57
Wallace adds, "....it would be folly to attempt to name the
Roman Caesars and leave Julius out."58 While it is true that
some historians recognize Julius as the first, I believe the
evidence favors starting with Augustus. First, modern
historians recognize Augustus as the first. In The Roman
Historians, Michael Grant begins his review of the emperors with
Augustus. He continues by saying, "Augustus .... was the first
Roman princeps or emperor .... After accompanying Caesar
[Julius], now dictator (that is to say absolute ruler, though he
is never thought of as the first of the emperors)...."59
Virtually every Roman historian agrees with this analysis.
There are also those of ancient times who recognized
Augustus as the first. Suetonius does list Julius as the first.
But as Bell, an early date advocate, comments,
Suetonius includes Julius in his Lives, but the first part
of the work is lost, so we do not know his rationale for
doing so. He does point out, however, that Augustus
received magistratus atque honores .... novi generis perpet
vosque, recognizing some distinction between the princeps
and his uncle.60
Most early date scholars use Suetonius quite heavily for their
proof of Julius being the first emperor. This shows that
Suetonius is ambiguous at best.
There are several pieces of ancient evidence in favor of
Augustus that must be examined. First, Roman coins have been
recovered which name Augustus as "father of his country."61
Tacitus comments that the people had often thrust upon him "the
title 'Father of his country.'"62 This is strong evidence of
what the people believed at this period of time. Historian
Plutarch recognized that Julius never accepted the title of
emperor.63 Ptolomy, an ancient astronomer, (A.D. 100 --
c.178) in his Chronological Table of the Kings, chose to begin
the list of emperors, not with Julius, but with Augustus.
Interestingly, he also passed over the reigns of Galba, Otho,
and Vitellius.64 In summary, modern historians, coins,
Plutarch, Tacitus, and Ptolomy (and possibly even Suetonius) all
agree that Augustus was the first Roman Emperor.
We have briefly tried to examine the two popular dates for
Revelation with an alternative view during the time of
Vespasian. John says that "five have fallen." Since we
established Augustus as the first emperor, we begin our count
with him. The first five are: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula,
Claudius, and Nero. These are the five who had fallen. The
three civil war emperors should be omitted because of the
confusion of who was in charge and because no one really ruled
at this time. Therefore, Vespasian (the sixth) is the one who
"is." After him came one who would reign only a short time.
This would be the short reign of Titus. After this came the
beast who, according to our analysis, would be none other than
the famous, but feared, Domitian.
1 J. Christian Wilson, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation," New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 587. 2 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.3. 3 Kenneth Gentry, The Beast of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute Christian Economics, 1989), 151-152. 4 Homer Hailey, Revelation An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1901), 33. 5 Wayne Jackson, "The Book of Revelation --When Was it Written?," Christian Courier 25 (Nov. 1989): 26. 6 Tacitus, Annals, 14.27. 7 Wilson, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation," 587. 8 Albert A. Bell, "The Date of John's Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered," New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 93. 9 For an excellent work on this view see Kenneth Gentry, The Beast of Revelation. 10 Gentry, 82. 11 Ibid., 121. 12 Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977): 226. 13 Jim McGuiggan, Revelation (Lubbock, TX: International Biblical Resources, 1976): 161. 14 Wilson, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation," 589. 15 Tacitus, Annals, 15.44. 16 Michael Grant, Nero --Emperor in Revolt (New York: American Heritage Press, 1970), 156. 17 Steven Friesen, "Ephesus --Key to a Vison in Revelation," Biblical Archaeology Review 19 (May/ June 1993): 32-33. 18 Gentry, 29-34. 19 Irenaeus, 5.26.1. 20 Gentry, 31. 21 Hailey, 33. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Bell, 100. 25 Friesen, 34. 26 Ibid. 27 Juvenal, Sat 4.38; Pliny, Paneg. 53.3-4 as quoted by Adela Yarbro Collins, "Dating the Apocalypse of John," Biblical Research 26 (1981): 34. 28 Eusebius, H.E. 2.17. 29 Bell, 96. 30 Adela Yarbro Collins, "Dating the Apocalypse of John," Biblical Research 26 (1981): 40-41. 31 Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1985), 63-64. 32 Ray Summers, Worthy is the Lamb (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1951): 84. 33 Collins, 40. 34 Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970): 300. 35 Plutarch's Lives, Galba. 36 Grant, The Roman Emperors, 47. 37 Tacitus, Histories 1.55-57. 38 Ibid., 1.61, 64. 39 Ibid., 1.69. 40 Ibid., 1.48. 41 Ibid., 1.32. 42 Ibid., 1.50. 43 Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 4.9.9. 44 Tacitus, Histories, 1.76-77. 45 Ibid., 1.50. 46 Ibid. 47 Plutarch's Lives, Otho. 48 Tacitus, Histories, 4.11. 49 Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 4.9.2. 50 Grant, The Roman Emperors, 49. 51 Ibid., 51. 52 Ibid. 53 Tacitus, Histories, 2.80. 54 Ibid., 2.81, 85. 55 Ibid., 2.79; Grant, The Roman Emperors, 53. 56 Ibid., 4.11. 57 Gentry, 106. 58 Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Book of Revelation (Fort Smith, AR: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1966):32. 59 Grant, The Roman Emperors, 9. 60 Bell, p. 98. 61 Michael Grant, History of Rome (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978): 251. 62 Tacitus, Annals, 1.72. 63 Plutarch's Lives, Antony. 64 Ptolomy, Chronological Table of the Kings. Robert Hutchins, ed. Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1938), 466.
Beasley-Murray, G.R. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974.
Bell, Albert. "The Date of John's Apocalypse. The Evidence of
Some Roman Historians Reconsidered." New Testament Studies
25 (1979): 93-102.
Bruce, F.F., A Mind For What Matters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990.
Collins, Adelya. "Dating the Apocalypse of John." Biblical
Research 26 (1981): 33-44.
Dupont, Florence. Daily Life In Ancient Rome. Oxford: Blackwell,
1989.
Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.
Translated by G.A. Williamson. New York: Penguin Books,
1965.
Friesen, Steven. "Ephesus --Key To a Vison in Revelation."
Biblical Archaeology Review 19 (May/ June 1993): 25-37.
Gentry, Kenneth. The Beast of Revelation. Tyler, Texas:
Institute For Christian Economics, 1989.
Grant, Michael. The Ancient Historians. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1970.
________. The Founders of the Western World. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1991.
________. History of Rome. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1978.
________. Julius Caesar. New York: M. Evans and Company, 1969.
________. Nero --Emperor in Revolt. New York: American Heritage
Press, 1970.
________. The Roman Emperors. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1985.
Hailey, Homer. Revelation --An Introduction and Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1901.
Jackson, Wayne. "The Book of Revelation --When Written?"
Christian Courier 25 (Nov. 1989): 25-27.
Josephus. The Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
Lawrence, John. "Nero Redivivus." Fides Et Historia 11 (1978):
54-65.
Lenski, R. The Interpretation of St. John's Revelation.
Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1943.
McGuiggan, Jim. Revelation. Lubbock, Texas: International
Biblical Resources, 1976.
Minear, Paul. "The Wounded Beast." Journal of Biblical
Literature LXXII (June 1953): 93-101.
Mounce, Robert. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977.
Newman, Barclay. "The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis." New
Testament Studies 10 (1963): 131-139.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, reprinted 1990. "The Revelation of St.
John the Divine," by James Moffatt, vol. 5, 279-494.
Pliny. Letters of Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Translated
by William Melmoth. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1937.
Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Edited by
William Benton. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.
Ptolomy. The Almagest. Translated by R. Catesby Taliaferro.
Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.
Staniforth, Maxwell. Early Christian Writings. New York: Dorset
Press, 1968.
Summers, Ray. Worthy Is the Lamb. Nashville: Broadman Press,
1951.
Tacitus. The Annals And The Histories. Transleted by William
Jackson Brodribb. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.
Wainwright, Arthur. Mysterious Apocalypse. Nashville, Abingdon
Press, 1993.
Wallace, Foy. The Book of Revelation. Fort Smith, AR: Foy E.
Wallace Jr. Publications, 1966.
Warden, Duane. "Imperial Persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter
and Revelation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 34 (June 1991): 203-212.
Wilson, J. Christian. "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of
Revelation." New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 587-605.
Back to Research Page
Comments? Please E-mail me at: jlewis@brightok.net
