New Testament Society of Southern Africa

THE EARLY CHRISTIANS IN EPHESUS AND THE DATE OF REVELATION, AGAIN

Author(s): Mark Wilson
Source: Neotestamentica, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2005), pp. 163-193
Published by: New Testament Society of Southern Africa
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43048533
Accessed: 12-02-2016 17:11 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New Testament Society of Southern Africa is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Neotestamentica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 39.1 (2005)163-193
Neotestamenica
©NewTestament
SocietyofSouth
Africa

THE EARLY CHRISTIANS IN EPHESUS AND THE DATE

OF REVELATION, AGAIN

Mark Wilson
RegentUniversity

Abstract
The importance of thedateof Revelationloomslargein Paul Trebilco's
reconstruction of the earlyChristiancommunity in Ephesus.Trebilco
acceptsa latedatearoundC.E. 95 to supporthis hypothesis. This essay
examinesTrebilco'sevidencefora latedateand showsits 'certainty' is
muchmoretenuousthanTrebilcocredits.Rather, this evidencè is often
contradictory and circular.Alternative of the data are
interpretations
consideredwithadditionalfactorsexamined.The essay concludesthat
thehistoricaland literaryevidenceinsteadfavorsan earlydateofaround
C.E. 69 ratherthanthelatedate.Such a finding wouldradicallychange
the locus of Trebilco'sproposedRevelationcommunity. It would also
provide a richerpicture of the in
Christians Ephesus and Asia duringa
periodin whichTrebilcohas a lacunain hisprojectedtrajectory of early
Christian development.

Introduction
Paul Trebilco,in his newlypublishedTheEarly Christiansin Ephesus from
Paul to Ignatius, has reopeneddiscussionof the date of theApocalypseby
stating,'Revelation was almost certainlywrittentowards the end of
Domitian'sreign'(2004, 347). Trebilcobases thisconclusionon fourfactors
that he outlines in a section called "Dating". His otherwiseextensive
documentation is absentin thisdiscussionbecause he offerslittleevidence
to supporthis assertion.However,the date of ca. C.E. 95-96 serves as a
foundationforhis reconstruction of the Christiancommunity in Ephesus in
the late firstcentury.This paper will seek to interactwithTrebilco's four

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164 Neotestamentica
39.1 (2005)

factorsas well as proposea numberof othersthatmustbe consideredin this

questionof dating.1
Two periods have emerged as probable for the historicalsettingof
Revelation-after Nero's reign (ca. C.E. 69) and at the end of Domitian's
2
reign(ca. C.E. 95). Duringthe 19thcenturythe earlydate was favoredby
scholars, while in the 20th century, following the publication of
commentaries by Charles,Swete,and Beckwith,thelatterbecame preferred
(Wilson 1993, 587). This disparityin datingis noteworthy and presupposes
two different periods within the Asian church during which Revelationwas
written.The conclusionof Michaels (1992, 46) thatinterpreters shouldlearn
to "live with a considerable degree of uncertaintyabout its date and
historicalsetting"is perhapsrealistic,yetit is criticallyunsatisfying. Hemer
(1986, 3), on theother hand,says that"theproblem of date is a crucialfactor
in thehistoricalSitzimLebeď.
Feuillet(1965, 92-93) arguesfora curiouscombinationof earlyand late
dating.John,while actually writingduringDomitian's reign,fictitiously
antedateshis prophecyto the late 60s. He does not do thisto deceive his
readersor to suggesthis propheciesare ex eventu; rather"He merelywishes
to take a step backward,and to place himselfunderVespasian beforethe
destruction of Jerusalemand of the Temple, in orderto see thetheological
significanceof thisevent,thegravestcrisiswhichtheChristiancommunity
has had to face to date". Needless to say, few interpreters have accepted
Feuillet'shypothesis.
The question of date is closely tied to that of authorship.Irenaeus'
testimony( Haer 5.30.3) thatthe Revelationwas "seen" at the end of the
reign of Domitian has been generallyaccepted today. SchüsslerFiorenza
accepts this date unquestioningly for her literary and historical
presuppositions,and in her 1991 commentarygives only a limited
discussionon the date,using the "tradition"of Irenaeusas evidence(1991,
17). Trebilco(2004, 294n. 4) likewisecitesIrenaeus'remarkas supporting a

forthispaperis drawn
1 Muchofthematerial fromtheopening chapter
background ofmy
Unisadoctoral "A pie in a verybleaksky?Analysis
thesis, andappropriationofthe
promise inthesevenletters
sayings tothechurches 2-3"(1996).I wishto
inRevelation
thank
ProfH.A.Lombard forhislaboursinservingasmypromoter.
2 Extensive
discussions
onRevelation's datecanbe foundinD. Guthrie
(1990,948-62),J.
A.duRand(1991,228-34),
andS. Smalley (1994,40-50).

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 165

late date.3However,Irenaeusalso statesthatthe authorof the Gospel and

theApocalypseare one and thesame,and thattheauthoris Johnthedisciple
of Jesus and one of the Twelve. These conclusions Schüssler Fiorenza,
Trebilco, and many other critical scholars have found untenable.4If
Irenaeus' commentsare found criticallyunacceptable on two of three
counts, his thirdcommentregardingdate should likewise be critically
examined (cf. Wilson 1993, 597). This is particularlytrue when other
externalevidence (e.g., Tacitus Hist. and Suetonius Vitae) provides no
corroborationfor the widespread persecutionunder Domitian of which
Eusebius laterspeaks.AlthoughIrenaeus' testimonyseems incontrovertible,
F. J.A. Hort,followingWeiss, makesthisplausibleexplanation:
Certainlyat the beginningof Vespasian's reignDomitian,who first
representedhim at Rome,bore a hatefulcharacter (Suet Dom 1).... If
Domitianin hisyouth, notyetemperor, was regarded
as thefutureheadof
thebeast,hewouldina verytruesensebe a mainsubjectoftheApocalypse,
and thebestcomingrepresentative of thehostileforcesagainstwhichSt
JohnrepresentedtheChurchas contending: anditis conceivable
thatifthis
wereknownand remembered, theassociationof his namewiththebook
mightby a possibleconfusion,afterDomitianhad cometo be knownas a
passintoa tradition
persecutor, thatthebookwas written inhisreign(1980,
xxix).

1. The Name "Babylon"

Trebilco's firstfactor in dating is John's use of the symbolic name
"Babylon" (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21) forRome. He (2004, 294) says
thatthis"pointsdecisivelyto a date after70 CE". YarbroCollins (1984, 58)
also sees this as a "weightyinternalindicationof the date". "Babylon" is
also foundin othercontemporaneousJewishliterature( 4 Ezra 3:1-2, 28;
15:46; 16:1; 2 Bar. 11:1, 67:7; Sib. Or. 5.143, 159). However,it is doubtful
that John learned this symbolic name from these sources, given his
preferenceforOT traditions, such as thosein Jeremiah.Yet YarbroCollins

3 J.duRand(1991,232)citesIrenaeus' as "thestrongest
testimony external
witness".
4 Trebilco(2004,293) adds a freshcomplicationto thediscussion
of Revelation's
Whereas
authorship. Papiasgaveus twoJohns, Trebilcooffers
three.
Theauthorwas
neither
theapostle
northeelder(whom heidentifies
as theauthor
oftheGospelandthe
three rather
letters); "wecannot 'John'
identify theauthorofRevelation
withanyother
knownfigure".

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

(1984, 58) thinksit highlyunlikelythatthe name would have been used

beforeTitusdestroyedthetemple,so thispointsto a date afterC.E. 70.
Yarbro Collins's argumentseems impressiveexcept forone oversight.
She omitsthereferenceto Babylonin 1 Pet 5:13, whose probablereferent is
also Rome. In a laterdiscussionof persecutionunderDomitian,she writes
(1984, 69): "FirstPeterclearlyreflectssome degreeof persecution,but its
date is uncertain.The allusionto Rome as Babylonshowsthatitwas written
afterC.E. 70". J. R. Michaels (1988, lxiii) argues similarlyregardingthe
"
datingof 1 Peter: 'Babylon' as a designationfor Rome is not attested
beforeC.E. 70, but becomes frequentin bothChristianand Jewishsources
after 70". A circular argumentis evident here regardingthe use of
"Babylon".Revelationcannotbe datedbefore70 because 1 Peterand other
documentsare datedafter70, and 1 Petercannotbe datedbefore70 because
5
Revelationis datedafter70.
A solutionto the frequentusage of "Babylon" in texts afterC.E. 70
mightbe itsuse in 1 Peterand Revelationiftheyare datedbefore70. Indeed
Michaels (1988, lxvi-lxvii) concludes his twelve page discussion of
authorship, saying,"The traditional view thatthelivingPeterwas personally
responsible for the as
letter it standshas notbeen,and probablyin thenature
of thecase cannotbe, decisivelyshaken".
While W. M. Ramsay(1905, 282ff)arguedfora late date of C.E. 80 for
1 Peterand Peter'sdeath,thehistoricaltradition datingPeter'smartyrdom to
theNeronicpersecutionof ca C.E. 65-66 seemsmorecertain(Eusebius Hist,
eccl. 25.5-7; cf. Chase 1988, 3.769). This would place thewritingof 1 Peter
beforeC.E. 70 and therebyattestto theuse of "Babylon" forRome before
the destruction of the temple,the precise conclusionwhichG. Edmundson
arrivesat his BamptonLectures(1913, 119-20). PerhapstheChristiansin
in
Rome,duringtheirsuffering underNero,began to interpret prophetically the
capital cityas the new Babylon. Peter used this cipher when he addressed
the suffering Christiansin Asia Minor,includingthose in the provinceof
Asia. Johnmighthave become familiarwith the use of "Babylon" as a
metaphorfor Rome through1 Peter or throughcontact with Roman
Christians.

5 The common usedin critical

fallacies exposedby J. A. T.
datingwererigorously
inRedating
inhisconclusions
Robinson theNewTestament
(1976,336-51).

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 167

2. The Nero Redivivus Myth

The second factornamedby Trebilcois theNero redivivusmyth.He (2004,
294) writes:"Nero died in 68, and thelegendis attestedin 69, butsince Rev
presupposeswidespreadknowledgeof the legend, a somewhatlater date
seems to be required".This so-called evidence has littlebasis in historical
reality.Afterthe suicide of Nero, manyresidentsof the easternprovinces
could not believe thatthispopular,yetdespotic,emperorwas in factdead.
An urban legend developed thatthe emperor'senemies had engineereda
conspiracyto stagethewhole eventand thatNero wouldreturn(Nero redux)
afterescaping to the East. The continuedcirculationof imperialedicts in
Nero's name continuedto fuel such speculation.Those who accepted that
Nero had died somehowdeveloped the notionthathe would returnto life
(Nero redivivus).
In July69 theresidentsof Asia became alarmedover a reportthatNero
had come again. A mob soon gatheredaroundhis look-alike.The pretender,
believed to be a slave fromPontusor a freedmanfromItaly,was forcedto
land on the Aegean island of Cythnus.There he was soon confronted by
Calpurnius Asprenas, the newly appointed governor of Galatia and
Pamphyliawho was on his way to assume his new post. Calpurniussoon
capturedand killed "Nero", and orderedthathis body be displayedfirstin
Ephesus beforebeingtakento Rome (Tacitus,Hist. 2.8-9; Johnof Antioch,
fr. 104; Suetonius,Nero 57). In 80 anotherpretendernamed Tarentius
Maximus appearedin Asia. His attemptto depose Titus as emperorproved
unsuccessful.A thirdpretenderappeared around 88-89, but the Parthians
wereforcedto handhimoverto Domitian.
Trebilcoagreesthatthemythis attestedin 69 but failsto mentionthatit
was knownat thattimein Ephesus,thetargetof his study.The proximity of
the othersix cities in Asia would ensurethatthe news of the first"Nero
redivivus" would
spreadto themin days. Hence no timelag is needed,and a
laterdate forRevelationis notrequired.

3. The Use of the Phrase oi öcoöekckajroaxoXoi

The thirdfactorTrebilcouses to date RevelationafterC.E. 80 is theuse of
oí ôcoSeicaànoXxóXox in 21:14. He (2004, 294) cites Aune thatthephraseis
not attestedbefore 80-95, but never gives the source of that attestation.
Aune, however,shows thatthe only othersimilartextin the NT is Matt
10:2: "the names of the twelveapostles" (oi ôcoôeicaa7coaió^oi). But since

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168 Neotestamentica
39. 1 (2005)

"thereis consensusthatthis [80-95] is the mostlikelyperiodwithinwhich

the Gospel of Matthewwas written",6 Aune (1997, lxiv) concludes that
Revelationmustbe writtenlateras well. Once again a circularargumentis
introducedfordatingpurposes:Revelationcannotbe dated earlierbecause
Matthewis datedafter80 and vice versa.Robinsonexposedtheweaknessof
suchargumentation decades ago:

Whatseemedto be firmdatings
basedon scientificevidencearerevealedto
reston deductions
fromdeductions.
Thepattern is self-consistent
butcircular
(1976,3).
Aune's "consensus"of Mattheanscholarswho argue fora laterdate is
not monolithiceither.In fact,in the Word Biblical Commentary, the same
seriesin whichAune publishedhis statements on Revelation,D. A. Hagner
has written
on Matthew:
Thereis thusgoodreasonto takeseriouslythepossibilityof an early(i.e.,
pre-70)datingoftheGospel(with,forexample,Gundry, Reicke,Robinson,
andWenham).The inclination towardan earlydatetakenhere,however, is
just thatandno more.It needsto be re-emphasizedthatthedogmatism of
criticalorthodoxy
concerning a post-70date is unwarranted(1993, lxxiv-
lxxv).
Trebilco'sthirdfactorfora late date is therefore
disputable.

4. The Temple in Jerusalem

Trebilco's finalpointmentionsfactorsused by proponentsof an earlydate,
but that"can be interpretedplausiblyagainstthebackgroundof Domitian's
reign"(2004, 294). He identifies
thesefactorsin footnote6: (a) references
to
the templeand Jerusalemin 11:1-2, 8, suggestingthatthe templeis still
standing,and (b) John's reuse of earliermaterialsaccountingforpre-70
featuresin the book. Again Trebilco provides no furtherdiscussion or
documentation fortheseassertions,althoughit is clear thathe is dependent
on Aune's commentary again here. The firstfactorwill be discussednext
withthesecondfactorto be discussedin section5.

6 AunecitesKümmel
andDavies-Allison
asrepresentative
scholars
whoholdthisposition.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 169

Source analysis of Revelationhas noted the significanceof 11:1-2 for

dating.For Johnto measurethe temple,it musthave still been standing,
hence indicatinga date before70. To allow fora late date, Charles (1920,
1.270) postulatedthatthis was an earliersource which Johnincorporated
intothisvision.Robinson(1976, 242), on theotherhand,sees thisreference
as certainevidence forhis premisethatRevelationwas writtenbeforethe
temple'sdestruction.
The temple(vaóç) is firstmentionedin 7:15, wherethe greatmultitude
martyred in the greattribulationis servingGod continuallyin his temple.
This templeis the heavenlyrealityof whichthe earthlytemplewas only a
copy (cf. Heb 9: Iff). In the three other passages where the temple is
mentioned(14:15-17; 15:5-6; 21:22), its location is in heaven. A related
expressionin 11:2, "holycity",does notreappearuntil21:2 whenJohnsees
theNew Jerusalemdescendingfromheaven preparedas a bride(cf. 21:10;
22:19). Accordingto Park (1995, 281), "the expression'the holy city' is
consistently used fortheHeavenlyJerusalemratherthantheearthlyone".
Yet to interpret the temple/holy city imageryin 11:2 as heavenly is
problematic.A key source forJohnhere is Jesus' statementin the Lucan
version of the Olivet Discourse: "Jerusalemwill be trampledon by the
Gentilesuntil the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled"(Luke 21:24). Vos
(1965, 123) observes that John substitutes"holy city" for the Lucan
"Jerusalem",concluding that this change "may indicate a symbolical
implicationof thispassage". Mazzaferri(1989, 321) believes that"thenew
Jerusalem, nottheold, is in view". He (1989, 322) thenasks whythenations
attackthe city,answeringthat"the main reason is probablythatJohnhere
reinterpretsJesus' originalprophecy,Luke 21:24, in the lightof the fall of
old Jerusalem".
The temple/holy cityimageryin Revelationspeaks predominantly of a
heavenlyreality ratherthan an earthlyone. But given John'smultivalentuse
of imagery(cf. SchüsslerFiorenza 1985, 183ff), the physicaltempleand
citymightstillbe in view, especiallybecause of the laterreferenceto the
great city "where also their Lord was crucified" (11:8). Mazzaferri's
tentativeconclusion thatold Jerusalemhas fallen seems unsubstantiated,
given the ambivalenceof the imagery.Yet formultivalenceto work in a
text,the alternativesmustbe viable. Gundry(1987, 258) is on targetwhen
he observes that "the adjective 'new' contraststhis Jerusalemwith the
presentearthlyone". It is thereforepossible thatthistextwas written
before
thedestruction of Jerusalemand itstemplein C.E. 70.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

5. The Seven Emperors

Trebilco's commentregarding"John'sreuse of earliermaterialsaccounting
forpre-70featuresin thebook" is notdeveloped.But again his dependence
on Aune is evident,so we turnto Aune to understandwhat these "earlier
materials"are. The discussionhere revolvesaround 17:9-11, which is the
primary internal evidence for dating in Revelation. However, little
consensus exists among commentatorsregarding the identityof the
5+1+1=7+1=8 emperors (cf. Beckwith 1919, 704-8). The major
designationsof the eightemperorsare presentedbelow, althougheach has
additionalpermutations:

Historic7 Principáte8Despotic9 Roman Tyrannical11 Christological/

Antichrist10 Apocalyptic12

FiveFallen FiveFallen Fivefallen Fivefallen Fivefallen Fivefallen

1. Julius 1. Augustus1. Augustus 1. Nero 1. Julius 1. Gaius
2.Augustus 2.Tiberius 2.Tiberius 2.Galba 2.Gaius 2.Claudius
3.Tiberius 3.Gaius 3.Gaius 3.Claudius
3.Otho/Vitellius 3.Nero
4.Gaius 4.Claudius 4.Claudius 4.Vespasian 4. Nero 4.Vespasian
5.Claudius 5.Nero 5.Nero 5.Titus 5.Domitian 5.Titus

7 Theorder in Suetonius; cf.Tacitus(Ann..4.34; 13.3);Josephus(Ant.18.32);Sib.Or.

and4 Ezra11-12.Giet(1957,54) andFord(1975,290)follow
5:12-51; 1-6butoptfor
Vespasian as 7 andTitusas 8. Lightfoot(1889-90, ininterpreting
1.2.509), thetenkings
inBarn.4:4,reckons kingasJulius
thefirst Caesarandthetenth asVespasian.
8 Adopted byRobinson (1975,243),Bell(1979,93-102), andRowland (1982,403-13).
9 Adopted by Swete (1909, 220) and Charles (1920,2.69);Hort (1908, xxix)optsfor
Domitian as 7.
10 AdoptedbyTurner (1912,217)andAlio(1933,281-82).
11 Adoptedby Schüssler Fiorenza(1991,97),whofallsoneemperor short byfailingtolist
Claudius(cf.1985,42)
12 Christologicaladopted byStrobel (1963-64,439-41).SchüsslerFiorenza (1985,42) feels
thatthisinterpretation "findsits strongestsupport in Rev. itself',yetchanges the
in her1991commentary.
identification Jewish apocalypticadoptedbyYarbro Collins
(1984,64)andduRand(1991,231).

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 171

Oneis Oneis Oneis Oneis Oneis Oneis

6.Nero 6.Galba 6.Vespasian 6.Domitian 6.Nerva 6.Domitian

Onenotyet Onenotyet Onenotyet Onenotyet Onenotyet Onenotyet

7.Galba 7.Otho 7.Titus 7.Unidentified7.Trajan 7.Unidentified
8.Otho 8.Nero 8.Domitian 8.Unidentified8.Unidentified
8.Unidentified

Boring (1989, 183; cf. Pretorius1988, 127), because of such diverse

identifications,has suggested that seven here is "a symbolic number
standingforthewhole line of Romanemperors(just as the 'seven' churches
of chapters2-3 representthe churchesof Asia-and the world)". While the
number seven undoubtedlysymbolizes the full sequence of Roman
emperors(Bauckham 1993, 406-7), the historicalrealityof seven emperors
underliesthetradition,even as seven churchesexisted.The beastwho is the
eighthis an emperorredivivusand is said to belong to the seven (Rev
17:11).
The "Historic" listing has strongliterarybacking. However, of the
sourceslistedin its footnote,all date fromthe earlysecond centuryexcept
Josephus (ca. 93-94). Thereforethey could not have influencedJohn
directly,althoughtheirofficialsourcesand traditions mighthave. Rev 13:3
is a probablereferenceto Nero, thehead witha mortalwound.Nero would
be dead and could not be the reigningemperor.Therefore,this orderis
unlikelysinceNero wouldbe thereigningemperor(cf. YarbroCollins 1984,
59).
Which emperorshould begin the list has been a matterof dispute.
AlthoughSuetoniusbeginshis listwithJuliusCaesar,theprincipáteactually
began withhis adopted son Augustus.Augustushad a stronglink to Asia
throughhis slave Zoilos. In 39 B.C.E. the then Octavian influencedthe
senateto grantspecial statusto Zoilos' nativeAphrodisias,near Laodicea.
Around35 B.C.E. he guaranteedthe rightof the Asian Jewsto send the
templetax to Jerusalem. In 30 B.C.E. Octavianstoppedin Asia on his return
fromEgypt.A yearlaterhe authorizedthefirstAsian templeof theemperor
cult in Pergamůmand sponsoreda sacred precinctforRoman citizensin
Ephesus.Because of Augustus,theemperorculthad an earlyfootholdin the
provinceof Asia.
Around9 B.C.E. Paulus Fabius Maximus,theproconsulof Asia, issueda
letterto the koinonof Asia suggestingthatAugustus'birthdaybe made an

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172 Neotestamentica
39.1 (2005)

officialholiday in the provinceas well as the beginningof the municipal

new year (Lightfoot 1889-1890, 2.1.700-1). The koinon perfunctorily
confirmedthe proconsul's wishes, and the Asian calendar was changed.
Afterthekoinonissued thedecree,theproconsulhad it inscribedon a stele
in bothGreekand Latin and placed in thetempleat Pergamům(Johnsonet
al. 1961, §142). The decree was apparentlydistributedthroughoutthe
provincebecause copies have been foundin fiveAsian cities.
Shortlybeforehis deathin C.E. 14 Augustusdepositedan accountof the
thingshe had done ( reruma se gestarum'Suet Aug 101) withthe Vestal
Virgins.The threesurvivingtextsof Augustus'Res Gestaehave been found
in Asia Minor-Ancyra, Pisidian Antioch,and Asian Apollonia. A copy of
Augustus' deeds was probably also posted at the Augustan temple in
Pergamům, as it was inscribed on the walls of its sistertemplein Ancyra.
Othercopies of his deeds were likelyto be foundin otherAsian cities,since
such official correspondencewould enter throughthe place of "First
Landing"-Ephesus.
DuringJulius'lifetimethe only provincialcities in the empireto issue
coinage withhis portrait were theAnatoliancitiesof Nicea and Lampsacus
(Burnettet al. 1992, 1.38). The only Asian coinage to featureJuliuswas a
posthumousissue from Apamea (2.769). However, the coming of the
principátebroughta major change to this pattern."The portraitof the
emperorpervades, thoughdoes not exclusivelyoccupy, the obverses of
provincialcoinage" (1.38). Approximatelytwo hundredprovincialcities
issued coins withAugustus'portrait.Speakingspecificallyof theprovince
of Asia, Grant(1968, 75) writes:"In his reignseventy-three mintsof the
province (out of the ninety-seven for the whole peninsula) seem to have
issued bronzecoins". Such widespreadattentiongivento Augustusin Asia
suggeststhat in popular thinkinghe was consideredthe founderof the
empireand henceitsfirstemperor.
For his Christologicalinterpretation Strobel (1963-64, 437) seeks to
pinpoint the defining moment in Revelation: "fur den Apokalyptiker
bezeichnenKreuz und Erhöhungdas Telos des altenÄons in einemzugleich
eminenthistorischen Sinne". He arbitrarilydecides to beginhis listnotwith
the
Tiberius, emperor who was then reigning,butwiththefirstemperorafter
theexaltation,Gaius (Caligula). Thereis anotherChristologicalperspective
to be considered,however.The birthof themale child (12:5) is theearliest
historicalreferencein Revelation,and thebirthand exaltationare described
as a unifiedevent.Afterthewar in heaventhedragonis flungto earthwhere

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 173

his firstactivityis to attemptto devourtheson (vv. 3-4). This perhapsrefers

to Herod's attemptto kill Jesus(Matt 2:13-18). Jesuswas born of course
duringthereignof Augustus(Luke 2:1; ca. 4 B.C.E.). John'sChristological
perspective appears to begin with Christ's incarnation,not with his
exaltation.Given the above evidence,we conclude thatJohn'slist begins
withAugustus,notJuliusCaesar or Gaius.
Some interpreters committedto a Domitianicdate have recognizedthe
problem of the sixth kingbeing Domitian.Thus it has been suggestedthat
the threecivil war emperorsshould be omitted.However,all the liststhat
omit the threecivil war emperors-Galba,Otho, and Vitellius-ignorethe
ancientliteraryevidence. The threeare recognizedas legitimateemperors
by Suetonius,Sib. Or. 5:12-51, and 4 Ezra 11-12,althoughthesesourcesare
of a laterdate thanRevelation.Numismaticevidence reveals thatcoinage
forGalba, Otho,and Vitelliuswas producedat thelargemintin Alexandria
(Burnettet al 1992, 2.735). "At Antiochtherewas a mintwhichhad duly
struckcoins of Galba and Otho, thoughnot (owing to the shortperiod
betweenthe news of Vitellius' accession knownin May and thebeginning
of the anti-Vitellianmovementsoon after)of Vitellius" (Wellesley 1989,
126). Althoughno coinage of Galba was mintedin theseven citiesof Asia,
suchcoinage was producedat theAsian citiesof Parium(Burnettet al 1992,
1.386), Ilium(1:392), and Cotiaeumwhereunusually"it producedcoins for
"
Galba, signedby no less thanthree'magistrates' (1.518). Othercities in
Asia Minorthatmintedcoins forGalba wereNicea, Nicomedia,Galatia,and
Olba (2.735). Numismatic evidence demonstratesthat the three were
recognizedas legitimateemperorsin the provinces.Galba' s representation
on Asian coinage shows specificallythathis rule was recognizedin the
regionof John'saudience. Thereforeany identification omittingthe three
ignores that evidence.
Aune (1997, lxii) concedesthatthelogical calculationof thelistin 17:9-
11 "places the compositionof Revelation from54 (the beginningof the
reign of Nero) to 79 (the end of the reign of Vespasian)". However,
"scholars convinced of a Domitianic date for Revelation have used Rev
17:9-11 as evidence fora late first-century date, sometimesworkingback
fromDomitianto ensurethatthe calculationends up withthe appropriate
emperor".One of the ways theydo this is to suggestthatJohnused an
earliersource,eitherby updatingitor notupdatingit.13

13 SeeAune'
s discussion
(1997,lxii)fortheinterpreters
whotakethese
perspectives.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 Neotestamentica39A(2005)

The listof theseven emperorsoccursin thefourthand finalf'Q5ssaying

("This is..."). All the sayings(also 13:10, 18; and 14:12) speak directlyto
the Asia believersto understandthe spiritualimplicationsof the present
crisis.Johnpresumesthathis audiencenot onlycan endureand be faithful,
but it can also understandits opponentby calculatingthe numberof the
beast and by identifying the seven emperors.The firstthreesayingsdisplay
no evidence of "back-dating"or earlier sources, so it is problematicto
interpret 17:9-11 as such. Therefore, to use thisHode sayingas evidenceof
a late date is again to misreadtheevidence.

6. The Persecution of Domitian

AlthoughTrebilco does not list the alleged persecutionof Domitianas a
factor,he mentionsitbrieflyin a footnotein the"Dating"section(2004, 294
n. 7) as well as in a discussionof whetherJohn'sEphesian audience was
facinga crisis(2004, 343-44). The internalevidencein Revelationsuggests
localized persecutionin Asia while in otherpartsof theempire,particularly
Rome,massivepersecutionhad producedinnumerable martyrs.This picture
of widespreadtribulation is compatiblewithan earlydate duringor afterthe
reignof Nero, but incompatiblewiththe historicalevidence fora late date
duringDomitian's reign.
The standard Roman sources portray Domitian as a tyrantand
megalomaniac.Yet Plinythe Younger (Ep. Tra. 10.96) begins his letterto
Emperor Trajan by confessingthat he has never been present at the
examination( cognitio) of a Christian.It is remarkablethatthishighRoman
officialservedas a stateprosecutorduringDomitian's reign,but had never
attendeda Christianproscription.The likelyreason is thatno systematic
persecutionemanatedfromRome duringthisperiodagainstChristians,and
therefore Plinyis ignoranton how to proceedwiththeprosecutionof those
broughtbeforehim.
The testimony of Eusebius {Hist. eccl. 3.17-20) is also confused.On the
one hand, he calls Domitian a second Nero whose policies resultedin
persecutionsand martyrdoms. On theother,he quotes Hegesippusthatafter
Domitianmettheaccused grandsonsof Jude,he freedthemand decreedthat
the persecutionof Christianswas over. If Domitianwere such a Neronic
despot, it is difficultto understandsuch a dramaticflip-flop.Thompson
(1990, 95-115), in his sweeping review of the emperor'sreign,argues
convincingly thatthepersecutionunderDomitianwas limitedto thosein his
immediate circle and not directed against Christians as Christians.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 175

Thompson (103-4) claims that later historians who have seized on

Domitianic caricatures,particularlythe emperor's alleged demand to be
called "our Lord and God" ( dominuset deus noster), errin proposingthis
periodas Revelation'shistoricalbackground.
Ramsay (1994, 71-72) recognized the lack of documentationfor a
Domitianicpersecutionof Christiansand suggestedthatRevelationitselfis
the primarysource. Robinson (1976, 230) criticizesRamsay's use of "the
evidenceof theApocalypsealreadyinterpreted as Domitianicmaterial"and
likewiseassertsthat"theprimarysourcespresenta ratherdifferent picture".
If 1 Clementis dated to C.E. 95-96 (cf. Lightfoot1889-1890, 1.346-58), it
might provide evidence of a Domitianic persecution.For, as Holmes
(Lightfootet al 1992, 25) observes,"At the timeof writing,the churchin
Rome appears to be facingsome sort of persecution;in fact the letterto
Corinthhas been delayedbecause of it (1:1; cf. 7:1)". Merrill(1924, 161),
however,objects to the evidentialvalue of 1:1: "It is quite preposterousto
claim thatthe innocentsentencewith which it startsbears manifestand
conscious witnessto a persecutionof the Churchof Rome by Domitian".
Edmundson(1913, 191) believes the referenceto "sudden and repeated
misfortunes and reverses"in 1: 1 betterrefersto thepoliticalturmoilin 69,
thus he argues that 1 Clement was writtenin early 70. Domitian's
biographerB. W. Jonessummarizes:
No convincingevidenceexists for a Domitianicpersecutionof the
Perhapsa few Christians
Christians.... were amongstthoseexecutedor
banished
during the90s:thathardly
constitutes
a persecution
(1992,117).
Such reassessmentsconclusivelyshow thatDomitian's persecutionof
Christiansis moremyththanfact.
Commentators who favora late date, yet are aware of these historical
have
difficulties, proposed a new solutionto the "crisis theory".Yarbro
Collins (1984, 106) suggeststhatwe look to psychological,sociological,and
anthropologicalstudies instead of historicalones for the answer. She
concludes that the situationin Asia was only a "perceived crisis". The
Christiansexperiencedonly "relativedeprivation",and theirpersecution
was no worse thanthatof others.Theirsuffering was not an objectiveone,
but rather"due to the conflictbetweenthe Christianfaithitself,as John
understoodit, and the social situationas he perceived it" (106). Though
officialRoman historiographers may downplayany Christianpersecution,
SchüsslerFiorenza(1985, 8), who herselfholds to a late date,nevertheless

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

concedes "it is notborneoutby theexperiencearticulatedin Rev. and other

NT writings".
Yarbro Collins's solution to the lack of historical evidence for a
Domitianicpersecutionis unconvincing.Gager (1975, 50) observesthatthe
"concretesituation[is] persecutionand martyrdom... Whateverits date and
location,thewritinginescapablypresupposesa situationin whichbelievers
had experiencedsuffering and death at the hands of Rome". Likewise,the
pointof Robinson is well taken:
One thingof whichwe maybe certainis thattheApocalypse,unlessthe
productof a and
perfervid psychotic was
imagination, written out of an
intenseexperience
of theChristian at thehandsof theimperial
suffering
authorities, bythe"beast"ofBabylon(1976,230-31).
represented
Sufferingwas not a realitypresentin each of the seven churches.The
Laodicean churchwas prospering,but perhaps that was because of its
distance fromthe Aegean coast. The initialaddressees-Ephesus,Smyrna,
and Pergamum-were the three"first"cities of Asia and centersof Roman
civil and religiouspower. They were the churchesthatwere experiencing
hardship.Insteadof dismissingthecrisisas a psychologicalone,perhapsthe
solutionis morea geographicalone.

7. Food Sacrificed to Idols

Althoughthe issue of food sacrificedto idols is not mentionedby Trebilco
as a factorfor dating, he discusses the subject in the contextof the
Nicolaitans (2004, 319-25). The issue of eiScoXóOuTOV is mentioned
explicitlyin the Pergamene(2:14) and Thyatiran(2:20) letters.
Ramsay
describesthesituation:
In bothPergamům and Thyatirasomeof theChristiansstillclungto their
membership of thepaganassociations and sharedin thefellowshipof the
ritualmeal.If thatevilwerenotburnedout,thewholeloosespiritofpagan
society,its impurity and its idolatry,would continueto rule in the
congregation(1996,119).
Eatingfood sacrificedto idols was one of thefourpracticesfromwhich
theJerusalemcouncilasked Gentilebelieversto abstain(Acts 15:29; 21:25).
Lightfoot(1993, 309 n.l) in factsuggeststhatthe expressionoí) ßdAlcoécp'
újxáçaXXopdpoç (2:24) foundin theThyatiranletter"looks like a reference
to thedecree".Paul addressedthisissue in his firstletterto theCorinthians
(8: Iff; 10:19) written
fromEphesusaboutC.E. 55.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again ill

Trebilco(2004, 320) places theNicolaitancontroversy in the 90s based

upon his presuppositions regardingdating.Yet thisragingissue,whichtore
apartcongregationsin the early decades of the Gentilechurches,appears
resolvedat theend of thefirstcentury.In theDidache (6.3; ca. C.E. 100) the
command,probablybased on theteachingsof Paul and John,is simply:ano
Sé Toi) 8Í5cüá,o0útodXicjlv
7ipóa8X£,Ampeía yáp sgtiv Becovveicpœv.When
Ignatius wrote his lettersto the Asian churches(ca. 110), he does not
mentionthe problemof síôco^oOuxov.Ramsay (1988, 759), who holds to
late dating,concedes thatthe Thyatiranindecisionregardingthe issue of
food sacrificedto idols appearsto pointto an earlierdate thanthereignof
Domitian.

8. Apollo and Apollyon

In a discussionof John'suse of the Leto-Apollo combatmythin Rev 12,
Trebilco(2004, 399) writesthat"Nero lateridentifiedhimselfwithApollo,
and Apollo mythsand the Apollo cult were used duringNero's reign as
imperialpropaganda".He cites approvingly(400) the analysis of Yarbro
Collins (1976, 190) that "the authorof Revelation formulateda further
elementin the antithesisof Christand Nero. The claims of the Apollonian
Nero are rejectedby thedepictionof Christas thetruebringerof orderand
light".AlthoughthisNeronic connectionwiththe Apollo motifis clearly
acceptedby Trebilco,he failsto drawoutany implicationsfordating.
Since Grotius,Apollyon('AttoAIúgov; 9:1 1) has been takento be a word
play on thegod Apollo (Oepke 1.397) in his role as destroyer (fromtheverb
a7T0Al')ļiior -co). Bell (1979, 98-99) believes that John's mentionof
Apollyon is anotherclue to identifyNero as the church'spersecutor;the
name "is highly suggestiveof Nero's patron deity Apollo and perhaps
hintingat Nero's suspected role in the destructionof Rome". This
identification
is certain,givenJohn'sonlyotheruse of a7rcoX£iav in 17:8, 11
whenthebeast-theeighthemperor,Nero redivivus- is now readyto go to his
destruction.
Both Seneca (Apol. 4.1.22-23) and Suetonius( Ner: 53) notecomparisons
of Nero's voice and appearancewithApollo's. Suetonius( Ner.: 25.3) also
mentionsthatfollowingNero's performing tourof Greece,he completedhis
triumphalreturnto Rome at the templeof Apollo, not of Jupiter.In the
epitomeof Dio's Roman History, , Nero is hailed as "our Apollo" (61.20.5;

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

14
62.20.5). Nero also had a coin struckdepictinghimselfin the guise of
Apollo playinga lyre.15Coins fromNero's reign(54-68) show himwitha
hairstyleidenticalto one depictedon Apollo (Griffin1984, 121).
Caird (1966, 120) and others,most recentlyGrether(1992, 1.302),
regardthe referenceas an indirectattackon Domitian "who liked to be
regardedas Apollo incarnate".However, Caird gives no source for his
information. None of the Roman historiansmentionsuch a relationship.
InsteadtheyrecordthatMinervawas thegod whomDomitianreveredmost
(SuetoniusDom. 4.4; 15.3; Cassius Dio 67:1.2; 67.16.2 [Athena]).16In fact,
Jones (1992, 100) insists: "In private, his devotion to Minerva was
absolute". This devotionwas expressedby the consistentissuance of four
coin types annually,the erectionof temples,and the sponsorshipof an
annual festival in Minerva's honor. Publicly, however, Domitian was
devoted to Jupiterwho had saved his life in 69. "Throughoutthe reign,
whetheron coins or in the works of Statius, Silius Italicus or Martial,
Domitian was linked with Jupiterand portrayedas his subordinate,his
'warriorvice-regent'"(Jones1992, 99). Commentators who relateDomitian
withApollo have failed to check theirsources and continueto perpetuate
error.
thisidentificational
If the referencesin 9:11 and 12:Iff are to Apollo and the Leto-Apollo
myth,and theyprobablyare, the historicalconnectionis to Nero, not to
Domitian.17"The polemic against Greco-Romanculture",which Trebilco

14 CassiusDio (62.14.2),however,alsostatesthatNeroabolished theoracleofApolloand

onhisvisittoGreece,
seizeditsterritory perhaps forthegod'sdistressing or
predictions
becauseNerowascrazy.
(1984,120)believes
15 M. T. Griffin Suetonius is inaccurate intworespects: thatthegod,
nottheemperor, is actually onthecoinandthat
depicted thecoinswerestruck before 66
andthusbefore hisreturn.However, sheconcludes: "Butthere is noreason todoubt that
thecoinswereintended andunderstood as anallusion totheEmperor's performances".
ofthiscoin,seeGrant
Foranillustration (1968,PI.9,#1).
16 Fora cointypeofDomitian showing toMinerva,
a sacrifice seeGrant (1968,PI.4,#1).
A.
17 Kerkeslager (1993,118) another
finds linkto Apollo in thefirst seal(6:2):thebow
carriedbytherider onthewhite horse"would haveserved as a fairlytransparentsymbol
ofApollo".Heavowsthat John usesApolloimagery as "a polemic against themessage of
falseprophetsandthevaluesof pagansociety" (119).Although he assertsthatthe
polemicalusageoftheApolloimagery ismost pointed in9:11, hemakes nomention ofits
with
association Nero.Notethefollowing Asiancointypes ofApollo(Burnett etal 1992):
withbowandstag(Miletus 2703,2708,2713-14), onrockholding a bow(Miletus 2712),
onhorseback withdouble ax(Hierapolis2957),firing arrow from bow(Synaus 3107).

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 179

(2004, 400) suggests is occurringhere, would have impactedthe Asian

believersmoreimmediately in thelate 60s. DuringDomitian's reigntwenty-
fiveyearslaterimperialpropagandarelatedto Apollo failsto appear in the
historicalrecordand hence would probablynot have been an issue forthe
Asian church.

9. The Riches of Laodicea

Trebilco(2004, 436-38) mentionstherichesof Laodicea in his discussionof
John's critique of material possessions to the audience in the Seven
Churches.He surveysbrieflythebackgroundforthewealthof the cityand
mentions the earthquake that devastated the Asian cities of the
Catacecaumene(i.e., "burntland"), includingPhiladelphiaand Laodicea in
C.E. 60. However,he fails to make any linksbetweenthisearthquakeand
the date of Revelation.Otherscholarssuch as Hemeruse the occasion of
thisearthquaketo rule out an earlydate. They ask, How could Laodicea in
less thana decade be portrayedas richand wealthy(3:17)?
Laodicea had accepted aid fromRome followingearlier earthquakes
(Strabo Geogr. 12.8.18; Suetonius Tib. 8). Yet afterthe earthquakein 60,
only Laodicea among the Asian cities refusedto accept Roman financial
assistance.Tacitus recordsthatLaodicea "recoveredby its own resources,
withoutassistancefromourselves"(propriisopibus; Ann.14.27.1). Citinga
buildinginscriptionfirmlydated to C.E. 79 ( CIG 3935 = IGRR 4.845),
Hemer (1983, 58) believes the survivingbuildinginscriptionsin Laodicea
suggest a longer time frame more appropriateto a Domitianic date.
However,Lightfoot(1993, 43) sees no problemof "only a veryfewyears"
betweenthetwo.
A key word in the Laodicean letteris 7tà,odt8cû(Rev 3:17, 18; cf. 18:3,
15, 19). The Laodicean pridein herown self-accomplishment and financial
independenceappears to be exemplifiedin the church's attitude,for the
congregationapparentlypartookof the wealthof its host community. The
city's rebuildingneed not be complete for this attitudeto manifest.The
socio-economic situationof Laodicea was a microcosmof Rome's (cf.
Yarbro Collins 1980, 202). The dirge pronouncedin chapter18 decries
Babylon's excessive materialism.Through the example of Babylon's
destruction,the Laodicean church is again remindedto desist fromits
presentcourse lest the judgmentpronouncedon the world's economic
system,in whichit indulged,would likewisecome upon it.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 Neotestamentica
39.1 (2005)

Yarbro Collins (1984, 76) concludesthat"thisbit of evidence is of no

18
positivehelp in datingthebook". Yet theexigencyof theearthquakeand
the subsequentLaodicean refusalof aid bettersuggest an early date in
accordance with the church's rhetoricalsituationof riches and wealth
presentedin Revelation.

10. The Luxury of Rome

Trebilco (2004, 439) sees in Rev 18 an indication of the material
possessions of his audience,so that"Johnis calling some of his readersto
give up theirinvolvementin trade,and hence theirpresumablyprofitable
incomes".This chapteris theonlyNT textthatuses aiprļviaco(vv. 7, 9) and
aipīļvoĢ(v. 3), meaningto "live in luxury,live sensually"( BAGD s. v.).
Bauckham(1993, 338) calls the economic critiquein this chapter"one of
thefiercestattackson Rome and one of themosteffectivepieces of political
resistanceliteraturefromtheperiodof theearlyempire".The wantonluxury
of severalCaesars is well known.Both Tacitusand Suetoniusdocumentthe
licentiouslivingof Nero and recordall mannerof his debaucheries.Griffin
(1984, 128) notes thatNeronian literatureabounds with diatribesagainst
luxury,citingthe examples of Martial,Lucan, Petronius,and particularly
19
Seneca. Vitellius' extravagancesare likewisenotedby Suetonius(Vit. 13).
The menu forone banquetwas 2000 fishand 7000 birds.Duringhis brief
20
reignhe spentapproximately900 millionsestercessimplyon banquets.
The list of edibles procured fromevery corner of the empire bears a
remarkableresemblanceto the cargoes of the sea captains mentionedin
18:11-13.21

18 Aune(1997,lxiii)likewisewrites,"However, bothlinesofargument arecapableofa

variety so thata firm
ofinterpretations, datelateinthefirst A.D.cannot
century bebased
onthesearguments".
19 Griffin innote73,pages271-72.Shepoints
liststhereferences out,however,thatsuch
attacks
againstluxurywerestandard inRomanschools ofdeclamation andinworks of
Roman poetsandphilosophers.
20 Fora discussionofthevalueofRoman money intoday's seeM. Wilson
terms, (2002,
4.349)
21 Wellesley(1989,201),however, considers
theportrait as a gluttonous
ofVitellius and
drunken hostorguestata successionofTrimalchianbanquetstobe Flavianrevisionist
"Adispassionate
history: studyofVitellius
hardly confirms
theusualcaricature".

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 181

Domitian,on the otherhand, while known for giving numerousand

generousbanquets,"usually ended themearly; in no case did he protract
thembeyond sunset,or follow themby a drinkingbout" (Dom. 21). The
only extravagantentertainment that Domitian promoted was in the
Colosseum and the Circus (Dom. 4). Suetonius, however, does term
Domitian as "excessively lustful"and devotes a paragraphto his sexual
proclivities(Dom. 22).
Thereis no doubtthatthewordgroupaipīļviacoand axpiyvoçaccurately
describesthe wantonluxuryof the early principáte.If John's descriptive
languageseemsto bestcharacterizea period,theevidencesuggeststheearly
date ratherthan the late, although Domitian's behavior was certainly
debauched.
The followingsix factorsare unmentioned by Trebilcobut also provide
important internalevidenceregardingthepossibledatingof Revelation.

1 1. The Parthian Threat

The commonidentification of the firstrideron a whitehorse(6:2) withthe
Parthiansis problematic.Boring's (1989, 122) statements thatParthia"was
neversubduedby theRomans" and that"thedefeatof theRoman armiesin
the Tigris valley by the Parthian general Vologeses in 62 was still
rememberedin John's time" are inaccurateand wronglyspeculative.As
Henderson (1927, 308) notes, "During the firstsixty years of the first
centuryof our era thetwo rivalEmpiresof Rome and Parthiahad quarrelled
and foughtinsatiably".But thesituationchangedunderNero. The following
pointson the Parthiancampaignare drawnfromHenderson's(1903, 153-
95) incisiveanalysis,following(Ann. 13-15passim).
Parthia's threatto Rome was regional,and the Roman campaignwas
primarily to secureitseasternfrontier. Corbulo's conquestof Armenia(C.E.
59) and victory over the Parthians was total.Only throughthe follyof the
clientkingTigranesin 60 and theineptitudeof his replacementPaetuswere
the Parthiansable to regain an advantage by defeatingthe Romans at
Rhandeia in 62. Once Corbulo reestablishedthe Roman positionin 63, the
Parthiansagain become suppliantswithTiridatesforcedto travelto Rome in
65 to receive his crown. The Parthianclientking was treatedas visiting
royaltyby Nero, and the emperorwas hailed for restoringpeace to the
empirewithhis triumphover the Parthians.Tiridatesvisitedthe cities of
Asia on his returnto Parthia,and the impressiongiven to Johnand the

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

Christianswould have been of a submitted monarchratherthana victorious

general.
The civil war in 68-69 would have been an ideal timefortheParthiansto
strikeagainsttheirlongtimeenemy.Mucianus,the governorof Syria,had
lefttheeasternfrontier vulnerablewhenhe led thesixthlegionwestwardto
depose Vitellius. "But neitherVologeses, nor his brotherTiridates in
Armenia,showed any desire to break the peace and friendshiprecently
securedby theNeronianpolicy" (Henderson1908, 145). In fact,Vologeses
offeredVespasian 40,000 Parthiancavalryto help himsecuretheprincipáte.
The Flavians were thus indebtedto the Parthiansfor theircooperation
duringthistumultuous transition.
If Revelation were writtenduring Domitian's reign, as Boring and
Trebilco believe, Roman memorieswould have been of threedecades of
peace withthe Parthians.Henderson(1927, 59) explains:"Afterthe fall of
Jerusalemtheeasternhalfof theEmpirecaused littleanxietyto theFlavian
Emperors".In fact, the Armenianpeace lasted over fiftyyears and is
reflectedby thetotalabsence on Roman coinage of anti-Parthian war types,
which only returnagain in the second century(Grant 1968, 48n). Ramsay
(1994, 41-44) uses coin typesfromParthiato identifythe riderin 6:2 as
Parthian.Althoughtheportraiture of bow and horseman/na/havesome use
forgeneralbackground,Ramsay fails to discuss why and how Johnwould
have a knowledge of Parthiancoins. He acknowledges that Greek and
Roman coins show theParthiansas vanquished(44), so it is improbablethat
Johnwould depictthemas victorious.Any use of the Parthiansituationas
an aid to dateRevelationis fraught withproblems.

12. The Great Multitude

In 7:9 Johnsees a "greatmultitude"{oyXoq7ioX,úç) in heaven slain during
the greattribulation.This innumerablegroup is fromeverynation,tribe,
people, and nation. Johnson(1981, 12.486) observes that this polyglot
cosmopolitanmultitude"mightwell describe the crowds commonto the
Asia". While a seaportlike
agora or the quay of a seaportin first-century
Ephesus would have a diverserepresentation, in Rome could thetotal
only
ethnicpopulationrepresented in theempireand beyondbe found(Reasoner
1993, 851). Juvenal'sstatement{Sat. 3.62) bears this out: "Long ago the
Oronteshas overflowedinto the Tiber". Such ethnicdiversityappears to
have characterizedtheearlychurch.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 183

Both Tacitus (Ann. 15.44; multitudoingens)and Clement( 1 Clem. 6.1;

rcoXi) speak of "immensemultitudes"of Christianslosingtheirlives
7tÀ,Í10oç)
underNero. In his thirdvision Hermas(Vis. 3.1.9) is refusedpermissionto
sitat therighthandof theangel. This special place is reservedforthosewho
have endured"scourgings,imprisonments, greattribulations, crosses, and
wild beasts forthe sake of the Name" (3.2.1). The scale of such suffering
describedin thispostapostolicdocument(ca. C.E. 95-100) accordswiththe
historicalfactsof the Neronic persecution.As we have seen, thereis no
evidence in the standardsources of a mass persecutionof Christiansin
Rome underDomitian.John'suse of "greatmultitude"pointsto a timeof
conflictduringNero's reign.

13. The Flight into the Wilderness

Renan (1899, 150ff.)firstproposedthattheflightintothewilderness(12:6,
14-17) describestheflightof theJerusalemchurchto Pella (modernTabaqat
Fahil, approximatelytwentymiles south of the Sea of Galilee). Brandon
(1957, 177) thinksthatwithoutthe lateraccountsof Eusebius (Hist. eccl.
3.5.3) and Epiphanius(Pan. 29.7; 30.2; Mens. 15) "it is veryunlikelythat
the passage would ever have been regardedas containingan allusion to a
concertedflightof JewishChristiansacross the Jordanto Pella". Sowers
(1970, 315) insists, however, that "the chapter is patentlydescribing
historicaloccurrences(for example the birthand crucifixion-exaltation of
Christ,v. 5, and the persecutionof the Church,v. 17) in mythological
terms".
Chapter12 is indeeddifficult butthewoman's escape to the
to interpret,
wildernesshas remarkablesimilaritieswithJesus' admonition(Matt 24:15-
22; Mark 13:14-20; Luke 21:20-24) to fleefromJerusalem to themountains.
Although Pella is not in the Mountains,
Transjordanian "it qualifiesas a city
of refugein the termsof the oracle since it is in the foothillsof these
mountains"(Sowers 1970, 319). The dragon'sattemptto destroytheJewish
Christiansfirstin Zealot-controlledJerusalemand thenwhile crossingthe
Jordanin the winterfloods (xeijaœv;Matt 24:20; Mark 13:18) comes to
naught.Instead the Gentile churchesof the Decapolis rescued and aided
(xpecpœaiv;12:6) the JewishChristianrefugees(Sowers 1970, 315). With
the Jerusalemchurchsafe,the dragonnow turnshis attentionto make war
againsttherestof thesaints(v. 17). Such a reconstruction is plausible,since
otheralternativeshave littleto commendthem.This interpretation again
pointsto a datebeforeC.E. 70.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

14. The Beast of 666

In 13:18 thebelieverwho has understanding (ó sÇcovvoí>v)is challengedto
the of
calculate('ļ/rļ(piaaico) identity the beast whose numberis 666. By the
timeof Irenaeusthe exact identityof the beast was lost (his best guess was
"Lateinos"),althoughthevariant616 was alreadyrecognized(Haer. 5.28.2).
For two millenniaspeculationover the identityof 666 has spawnedintense
debate. For an older review of the possibilitiessee Peake (1920, 312-27),
while fora newerone see Bauckham(1993, 384-452).22
Among the Roman emperorsSuetoniusmentionsonly Nero as having
gematriaassociated with his name ( Ner: 39.2). A Greek verse circulating
aroundRome lampoonedNero thus:"Nero,Orestes,Alcmeontheirmothers
slew/Acalculationnew (Neovļ/rļcpov).Nero his motherslew". The numerical
equivalent of Nero's name is 1005, the same as that of the rest of the
sentence,"his motherslew". Scarre(1995, 51, 54) statesthat"themurderof

22 TheHebrew andGreek withthecalculation

associated
gematria ofthese plusthat
names
isas follows:
toJesus
related

Kaisar
Neron NeroKaisar Lateinos Jesus

3=50N 3=50N A=30L

R
-i=200 R
-i=200 <x=1A 1=10I
1=60 6O T=300T Tļ=8 E
1=50N e= 5 E o=200S
p=100K p=100K 1=101 o= 70O
o=60S o=60S v=50N u=400U
-i=200
R i=200R o= 70O c=200S
666 616 c=200S 888
666

NEPÍ2NKAIIAP is a common inscription ofcoinagefrom

on theobverse Ephesus
et al 1992;e. g.,#2626),
(Burnett andLaodicea(#2917).
Sardis(#3011), the
Further,
Hebrew letterwaw(1) hasthevalueof six."Sincethere in theGreek
aresixletters
ofthenameofJesusflriaoûç),
spelling thewawcanstandas a signofthatname"
(Finnegan1992,353).666is thusa defective
anddeceptive ofthetrueOne
enumeration
numbered6.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 185

his motherAgrippina... in 59 was the single most notoriousact of Nero's

reign".
Nero is twice comparedto a beast (0r|pióv)by Apollonius(Philostratus
Vit.Apoll. 4.38). Indeed he is muchworse because no animal "devoursits
own mother,but Nero is gorgedwith such quarry".Nero is also called a
great beast (0iļp jieyaq) in the Sybilline Oracles (8.157). Domitian is
similarly called "the most monstrousbeast" by Pliny the Younger
{immanissimabelua; Pan. 48.3), butthisin thecontextof describinghimas
a Nero redivivus.Juvenal( Sat 4.38) likewise thoughtof Domitian as a
second,albeitbald, Nero, and Martial( Epig: 11.33) referred to Domitian's
deathas Nero's.
Ancient "understanding"of the beast whose number is 666 points
directlyto Nero. In fact,Bauckham (1993, 384) unequivocallystatesthat
"Nero Caesar is the name of the beast". However,he avoids the obvious
implicationof an early date, claiming that "John has historicizedthe
apocalyptictraditionof the eschatological adversaryidentifiedwith the
returning Nero" (444). This traditionis now fulfilledin theFlavian dynasty
whichreestablishedimperialpowerfollowingthecivil war.
Several literaryclues link this chapterback to chapters2-3 where the
seven churchesare addressed. 13:9 containsthe only otherexhortationto
hear in Revelation. And four fï28é sayings related to the beast, which
perform a hortatorical
functionlike thepromisesayings,are likewisefound.
The sayingin 13:10 followsa referenceto theNero redivivusmythin 13:3
(cf. v 14), in whichthebeast has a fatalwoundthathealed. The personwith
wisdom in 13:18 can calculate the number of the beast- 666. The
perseveringsaints in 14:12 are to forgothe worshipof the beast and his
image and to refusehis mark.And in 17:9 the audience is invitedto have
understanding. The sevenheads,whichare sevenhills,are a clue pointingto
the city of Rome. Then follows the enigmaticmention of the seven
kings/emperors. Throughthese four?ï2ôé sayings,the Asian churchesare
exhortedto recognizeand act on the spiritualimplicationsof the present
historicalexigenceof thetimeofNero and shortlyafter.

15. The Fire

Rev 18 describesthe fall of Babylon the Great- Rome. This cityon seven
hills (17:9) was geographicallyaccessible to thesea throughitsportOstia at
the mouthof the Tiber. A repeatedimage in this chapteris a citybeing
destroyedby firewhose smoke is seen miles away by sea captains(18:17-

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

19). AlthoughJerusalemis also situatedon seven hills,it is landlockedand

cannotbe thereferent ( contraBeagley 1987, 102-110). Johncertainlyuses
thejudgmenttraditionsconcerningBabylon (Jer50-51) and Tyre(Ezek 27-
28). However,his descriptionof thisconflagrationappearsto extendbeyond
biblicalimageryto contemporaneous historicalevents.
The firein Rome in C.E. 64, rumoredto have been startedby Nero
himself,was certainlyof the massive scale describedin this chapter.It
burnedforsix days and seven nights.Tacitus (Ann. 15.40) recordsthatof
Rome's fourteendistrictsonly four remained.The only other possible
destructionon the scale describedby JohnoccurredduringTitus' reign.
Suetonius(Tit. 11.8) mentionsthata firein Rome burnedthreedays and
nights consumingthe area from the Capitol to the Pantheon. During
Domitian's reignthereis no recordof any such destructivefirein Rome.
The firein Rome as a recentmemoryin John'spropheticaccount gives
morecredenceto theearlythanthelate date.

16. The Historical Situation of the Roman Empire in the Late

First Century
Since the late firstcenturyis theperiodin whichRevelationwas supposed
to have been written, it is instructive
to surveybrieflythehistoricalsituation
of theempireduringtwo criticaldecades. In theirvolumesB. W. Henderson
(1903), M. T. Griffin(1984), and K. Wellesley (1992) provide excellent
overviewsof the turbulentperiod of the 60s. Here we simplyoutlinethe
significanteventssurrounding theprojectedearlydate of Revelation.Many
of the dates in thisand thenextchartare drawnfromC. Scarre's excellent
23
surveyChroniclesoftheRomanemperors(1995).

64 July19 Firein Rome

65 April Pisonianconspiracyto killNerofoiled
Spring? Persecutionofthechurchbegins
Summer? Martyrdom ofPeterin Rome
30,000die ofplaguein Rome;hurricane at Campagna
66 June Vinicianconspiracyto killNerofoiled

23 I wishtothankS. R.F. Priceforhissuggestions

as wellasperusal
ofthechart
formistakes.
Otherchartsofdatesfrom theperiod canbefoundinTheCambridge Ancient ; 2nd
History
ed.,volumes 10and11,andatthebeginning ofBarbara Levick'sVespasian
(NewYork:
Routledge,1999).

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 187

July Jews captureMasada and halt temple sacrificefor the

emperor
August- Jew/Gentile massacreswithtensofthousandsofJewskilled
in CaesareaandAlexandria
Sept25 Nerobeginsperformance tourin Greece
Oct-Nov CestiusattacksJerusalem butforcedto retreatin defeat
Governorof Asia, MarciusBarea Soranus,prosecutedby
Nero
Or 67? Martyrdom ofPaul in Rome
67 July Jewishforcesdefeatedat Jotopata; Josephuscaptured
68 Neroreturns fromGreece
March Vindexrevoltsat Lugdunum, Gaul
April3 Galba proclaimed emperor at CarthagoNova, Spain
May Vindexdefeatedat VesontiobyGermanlegions
June 8 Galba recognizedbysenate
June9 Nerocommitssuicidebysword
June20 VespasianandTrajanoccupyJericho; Jerusalem surrounded
October Galba arrivesin RomefromTarraco,Spain
Fall False Neroexecutedon Aegeanislandof Cythnus; his body
shipped from Ephesus to Rome
Faminein Rome
69 Jan2 Vitellius24acclaimedemperorby Rhinelegionsat Colonia
Agrippina
Jan10 Galba adoptsPiso as heirto principáte
Jan15 Othousurpsprincipáte assassinatingGalba andPiso
Feb TitusvisitsEphesusto conspirewithGovernorC Fonteius
Agrippa
March OtholeavesRometo fightVitellius
April 14- Otho's armydefeatedat 1stbattleof Cremona;he commits
16 suicide
May Vitelliusrecognizedby senate
LateJune Capitol burned by foreignmercenarieswhen Vitellius
arrivesin Rome
July1, 3 Vespasianproclaimedemperor in AlexandriaandJudea
August BatavianrevoltalongtheRhineunderCivilis
Sept Dacian revoltalongtheDanube

24 Thebirthofa three-headed
monstertoa womaninSyracuseis interpreted
byApollonius
VitApoll.5.13)tobethethree
(Philostratus whoreign
emperors briefly.
Summingupthe
events "AndFate'swhole
of69,hestates, waspastandoverwithin
episode a single
year".

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 39. 1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

Oct 18 Moon turnedtobloodin lunareclipse

Oct 24- Flavians under Antonius Primus defeat Vitellians at
25 Cremonawiththecitysubsequently burned
Dec 18 Capitol burned including temple of JupiterOptimus
Maximus
Dec 20 Rome capturedby Flavian armyunderAntoniusPrimus;
Vitelliuskilledin theForum
Dec Domitianwith Mucianus begin to governjointlyin his
father'sabsencefromRome
Flood ofTiberin Rome
70 January Gaul's revolt
Winter 1st,4th,16th,& 22ndlegionsmutiny in Germany25
70 May 1 Titusbesieges Jerusalem
June DomitianandMucianusleave Rometo campaignin Gaul
Sept26 TituscapturesJerusalem anddestroys thetemple
Oct Vespasian arrives in Rome to assumeprincipáte

In theirvolumes Henderson(1927) and B. W. Jones (1992) provide

excellentoverviewsof Domitian'sreign.Here is an outlineof thesignificant
eventsof thelate 80s and early90s, whichprecedetheproposedlate date.

88 False Nero appears in Asia and finds refugeamong

Parthians
89 Jan1 Saturninus,governorofUpperGermany, revolts
Spring RevoltofChattiin Germany
Summer RevoltofDacians on theDanube; 1stPannonianWar
91 ManiusAciliusGlabrioexiledforatheism
Fall Grainfaminecauses Domitianin thespringto issue edict
to destroy
vineyards
92 May Sarmatians & Suebi revolton theDanube; 2ndPannonian
War
Faminein PisidianAntioch
93 Fall Domitian'sreignofterrorbegins
94 Reignofterror continues

inGermany
25 Therevolt foroneoftheadventures
is thesetting ofthefictional
Roman
Marcus
informer DidiusFalcowhoruminates: "Atanyother itwouldhavebeen
period
YetintheYearoftheFourEmperors,
impossible. whenthewholeEmpire blazedinruins
whiletheimperial
contenderssloggedit out,thiswasjustone especiallycolourful
sideshow
amongstthewide-scale (L. Davis1992,27).
lunacy"

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 189

95 May FlaviusClemens(firstcousinofDomitian)killed
His wifeFlavia Domitilla(niece of Domitian)banishedto
Pontia(Eusebius)orPandateria(CassiusDio)
Summer 3rdPannonianWar?
96 Sept 18 Domitianmurdered byhis attendant Stephanus

A comparisonof thesetwo periodsshows thatthedecade of the60s was

indeedthemoreturbulent one. Althoughsuch evidenceis circumstantial,it
neverthelesssuggests that this period betteraccords with the historical
exigenceof thechurch'srhetoricalsituation.

Conclusion
The situationof theRoman Empirein thelate 60s was indeeda tumultuous
one, withfiveemperorsrulingand a large Christianpersecutionoccurring.
While therewas a limitedpersecutionby Domitianin the90s, it is doubtful
whetherChristianswere killed as Christians.The hypothesisthat the
situationin the Asian churcheswas simplya perceivedcrisis is untenable.
Irenaeus'testimony to a Domitianicdate,citedby Trebilcoas thefirstfactor
fora late date,is thestrongest argumentin favora date in the90s. However,
a viable reinterpretation of thattestimony has been presentedto accordwith
theearlydate. When theinternalevidenceof Revelationis viewed together
withthe historicalsituationof the Roman Empire,the late 60s appears a
moreviable date forRevelation'scompositionthanthe90s. This is likewise
the conclusionof the Roman historian,B. W. Henderson(1927, 45): "But
the earlierdates are to be preferred, and all thatis leftas authorityforthe
"squall of persecution" under the Flavian Emperor is too remote to be of
value". The earlydate is also moreconsistentwiththeliterary, numismatic,
and historicalsources.The sixteenexamplesdiscussedin thepaperprovide
importantdata regardingthe date of Revelation. Althoughindividually
inconclusive,theycumulativelypoint to a date in the late 60s. Trebilco's
presupposition of a late date seems not so certainand even unlikelyin light
of thisevidence.His reconstruction of the Christiancommunity in Ephesus
would consequently need to be moved back over twenty years to
accommodatethisnew datingscenario.

Bibliography
Allo,E. B. 1933. SaintJean,l'Apocalypse.3rded. Paris:Gabalda.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 Neotestamentica
39.1 (2005)

Aune,D. E. 1997.Revelation1-5.Dallas: Word.

Bauckham,R. J.1993. TheClimaxofprophecy.Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Beagley, A. J. 1987. The 'Sitz im Leben' of the ApocalypsewithParticular
Referenceto theRole of theChurch'sEnemies.Berlin/New York:De
Gruyter.
Beckwith, I. T. 1922. TheApocalypseofJohn.New York:Macmillan.
Bell,A. A. 1979.The dateofJohn'sApocalypse:The evidenceof someRoman
historians reconsidered. NTS 25:93-102.
Boring,M. E. 1989. 1989.Revelation. Louisville:JohnKnox.
Burnett,A., Amandry, M. & Ripollès,P. P. 1992.RomanProvincialCoinage, 2
vols. London:BritishMuseumPress/Paris: BibliothèqueNationale.
Caird,G. B. 1966. TheRevelationofSt.JohntheDivine.New York:Harper&
Row.
Charles,R. H. 1920. TheRevelationofSt.John.2 volumes.Edinburgh: T& T
Clark.
Chase,F. H. 1988."Peter(Simon)".Pages 756-779inA DictionaryoftheBible,
Volume3. EditedbyJ.Hastings.Edinburgh: T & T Clark,1898.Repr.
Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
Davis, L. 1992. TheIronHand ofMars.New York:Crown.
Du Rand, J. A. 1991. JohanninePerspectives , Part 1: Introduction to the
JohannineWritings. Midrand:Orion.
Edmundson,G. 1913. The Churchin Rome in the First Century.London:
Longmans,Green.
Feuillet,A. 1965. TheApocalypse.New York:Alba House.
Finnegan,J. 1992. TheArchaeology oftheNew Testament. Princeton:Princeton
University Press.
Ford,J.M. 1975.Revelation. GardenCity,NY: Doubleday.
Gager, J. 1975. Kingdomand Community:The Social World of Early
Christianity. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Giet, S. 1957. L'Apocalypse et l'histoire.Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Grant,M. 1968. RomanHistoryfromCoins.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Grether,H. G. 1992. "Apollyon". Pages 301-302 in The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, Vol. 1. EditedbyD. N. Freedman. New York:Doubleday.
Griffin,M. T. 1985. Nero : The End ofa Dynasty. New Haven:Yale University
Press.
Gundry, R. L. 1987. The new Jerusalem: People as place,notplace forpeople.
^29:254-264.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 191

Guthrie,D. 1990. New TestamentIntroduction. 4th ed. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity.
Hagner,D. A. 1993.Matthew. Dallas: Word.
Hemer, C. J. 1986. The Letters to theSeven Churchesof Asia in theirLocal
Setting. Sheffield:JSOT.
Henderson, B. W. 1903. TheLifeand PrincipáteoftheEmperorNero.London:
Macmillan.
Henderson, B. W. 1908. Civil Warand Rebellionin theRomanEmpire,AD 69-
70. London:Macmillan.
Henderson,B. W. 1927. Five RomanEmperors.Cambridge:The University
Press.
Hort,F. J.A. 1980. The Apocalypseof St JohnI-III. Pages i-42 in Expository
and ExegeticalStudies.London:Macmillan,1908.Repr.Minneapolis:
Klock& Klock.
Johnson, A. C., Coleman-Norton, P. R., & Bourne,F. C. 1961. AncientRoman
Statutes.Austin:University ofTexas Press.
Johnson,A. F. 1981. Revelation.Pages 399-603 in The Expositor'sBible
Commentary , Volume 12. Editedby F. E. Gaebelein.GrandRapids:
Zondervan.
Jones,B. W. 1992. TheEmperorDomitian.London:Routledge.
Kerkeslager, A. 1993. Apollo, Greco-Romanprophecy,and the rideron the
whitehorsein Rev. 6:2. JBL 112:116-21.
Lightfoot, J. B. 1993. St Paul's Epistleto theGalatians.London:Macmillan,
1865.Repr.Peabody,Mass: Hendrickson.
Lightfoot, J. B. 1995. St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon.
London:Macmillan1875.Repr.Peabody,Mass.: Hendrickson.
Lightfoot,J. B. 1889-90. The Apostolic Fathers, 5 volumes. London:
Macmillan.
Lightfoot, J.B., Harmer,J.R.; & Holmes,M. W. 1992. TheApostolicFathers.
2nded. GrandRapids:Baker.
Mazzaferri, F. D. 1989. GenreoftheBook ofRevelationfroma Source-Critical
Perspective. Berlin/New York:De Gruyter.
Merrill,E. T. 1924.Essaysin EarlyChristian History.London:Macmillan.
Michaels, J.R. 1988. 1 Peter.
Waco: Word.
Michaels,J.R. 1992.Interpreting theBookofRevelation.GrandRapids:Baker.
Oepke, A. 1964. "À7toMúoc>v". Page 397 in TheologicalDictionaryof theNew
Testament , Volume 1. Edited by G. Kittel. Translatedby G. W.
Bromiley.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.
Park,S.-M. 1995. More thana RegainedEden: The New Jerusalemas the
UltimatePortrayalof EschatologicalBlessednessand its Implication

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 39.1 (2005)
Neotestamentica

for the Understanding of theBook of Revelation.UnpublishedPhD

dissertationofTrinity EvangelicalDivinitySchool.
Peake,A. S. 1920. The RevelationofJohn.London:Holborn.
Pretorius,E. A. C. 1988. The seventh bowl (16:17-19:10). Pages 120-33 in
Reading Revelation.Edited by E. Botha,P. G. R. de Villiers,& J.
J.
Engelbrecht. Pretoria:van Schaik.
Ramsay,W. M. 1905. The Churchin the Roman EmpireBeforeAD 170.
London:Hodder& Stoughton.
Ramsay,W. M. 1988. "Thyatira". Pages 757-759in A Dictionaryof theBible,
Volume4. EditedbyJ.Hastings.Edinburgh: T & T Clark,1898.Repr.
Peabody,Mass.: Hendrickson.
Ramsay,W. M. 1994. TheLettersto theSevenChurches.EditedbyM. Wilson.
Hodderand Stoughton, 1904.Repr.Peabody,Mass: Hendrickson.
Ramsay, W. M. 1996. HistoricalCommentary on FirstCorinthians. Editedby
M. Wilson.GrandRapids:Kregel.
Reasoner, M. 1993. Rome and Roman Christianity. Pages 982-991 in
Dictionary of Paul and his Letters.Editedby G. F. Hawthorne, R. P.
Martin,& D. G. Reid.DownersGrove:InterVarsity.
Renan,E. 1899.Antichrist. London:WalterScott.
Robinson,J.A. T. 1976.RedatingtheNew Testament. London:SCM.
Rowland,C. 1982. TheOpenHeaven.New York:Crossroad.
Scarre,C. 1995. Chronicleof theRomanEmperors.New York: Thamesand
Hudson.
SchüsslerFiorenza,E. 1985. The Book of Revelation:Justiceand Judgment.
Philadelphia:Fortress.
SchüsslerFiorenza,E. 1991. Revelation:Visionofa JustWorld.Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Smalley, S. S. 1994. Thunderand Love: John's Revelationand John's
Community. Dallas: Word.
Sowers,S. 1970. The circumstances and recollectionof the Pella flight.TZ
26:305-320.
Strobel,A. 1963-64.Abfassungund Geschichtstheologie der Apocalypsenach
Kap. XVII.9-12. NTS 10:433-445.
Swete,H. B. 1909. TheApocalypseofStJohn.3rded. London:Macmillan.
Thompson,L. L. 1990. TheBook of Revelation:Apocalypseand Empire.New
York:Oxford.
Trebilco,P. 2004. The Early Christiansin Ephesus fromPaul to Ignatius.
Tübingen:MohrSiebeck.
Turner, C. H. 1913.StudiesinEarlyChurchHistory. Oxford:Clarendon.
Vos, L. A. 1965. TheSynoptic Traditionsin theApocalypse.Kampen:Kok.

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WILSON Date ofRevelation,Again 193

K. 1989. TheLong YearAD 69. 2nded. Bristol:BristolClassicalPress.

Wellesley,
Wilson,J. C. 1993. The problemof the Domitianicdate of Revelation.NTS
39:587-605.
Wilson, 2002. Revelation.Pages 244-383 in ZondervanBible Background
M.
Commentary,, Volume 4. Edited by C. E. Arnold.Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
YarbroCollins,A. 1976. TheCombatMythin theBookofRevelation. Missoula:
ScholarsPress.
YarbroCollins,A. 1980.Revelation18: Taunt-songor dirge?Pages 185-205in
L Apocalypse johannique l'apocalyptique le NouveauTestament.
et dans
EditedbyJ.Lambrecht. Gembloux:Duculot/Leuven: University Press.
: The Power of theApocalypse.
YarbroCollins,A. 1984. Crisisand Catharsis
JohnKnox.
Louisville:Westminster

[email protected]

This content downloaded from 141.218.1.105 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:11:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions