When was John Exiled to Patmos?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PetoVeritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PetoVeritas

Guest
The early church fathers (Ireneaus and Eusebius) state that John was exiled to Patmos in the mid-to-late nineties. Other’s believe that he was exiled during the reign of Nero. Obviously, this is the basis of what historical context Revolution was written in. Outside of the early church fathers are there any other sources or clues to which people utilize to claim what the date was for Revolution to be written?
 
The early church fathers (Ireneaus and Eusebius) state that John was exiled to Patmos in the mid-to-late nineties. Other’s believe that he was exiled during the reign of Nero. Obviously, this is the basis of what historical context Revolution was written in. Outside of the early church fathers are there any other sources or clues to which people utilize to claim what the date was for Revolution to be written?
Actually the quote from Ireneaus is vague. Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John and so he was asked the identity of the Anti-Christ and said of John’s Apocalypse,"“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

So what is “that” referring to in the sentence “that was see (during) Domitian’s reign”? Classically the understanding of “that” comes from Eusebius as he interpreted “that” to mean the vision(s) that produced the Book of Revelation. However the Greek is vague. The way it is constructed “that” can mean either “the apocalyptic vision” or “him who saw the apocalyptic vision”(namely John). The Greek can be translated either way.

However the same language which Ireneaus used in this sentence he also used to describe his personally knowing Polycarp and so there is some reason to believe that Eusebius “that” might have have been better translated “he” which have done no disservice to the Greek at all.

God Bless
 
And…

In the Book John uses Temple language regularly and never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem (70AD) as having already happened, and that is odd given that this was one of Christ’s most controversial prophesies and if this book were written after the fact why didn’t John mention its fulfillment? Also this Book was written to the Churches which were extant then and there and was written in a language which would have been difficult for nonbelievers to comprehend, but probably not believers of that day.

As such the mysterious Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast 666 being the number of man, or a number signifying a man fits nicely with a very prominent figure in John’s life, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus or Nero. Nero persecuted the Church terribly. He blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians, burned them, impaled them, fed them to lions, and it was during his reign that both Paul and Peter were executed.

I think John is calling Nero Antichrist, which he certainly was, and that should not be surprising because in John 1 he calls those who have left the Church “antichrist” so it is possible that John may not be referring to some sort of eschatological character at all, or that Nero is a type of what is to come, either way this places the writing of Revelation sometime during the reign of Nero which ended with his suicide in 68AD.

If so then the exile would have had to have been before that in order for the Book to be prophesy.

Also, recall that John mentions seeing three horns and one growing up to dominate them all?

Well after Nero’s suicide in 68AD there was no heir, and in two years plus three different men claimed the throne (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) but were all overthrown in short order ending in Vitellius’ death in battle with Vespasian leaving Vespasian to sieze the Throne, and it was Vespasian’s son Titus who sacked Jerusalem and fulfilled the prophesy of Christ concerning the city less than a year after Vespasian’s ascension.

Also if you consider the prophesy of the Great Beast with ten horns, and the horns are rulers and start with Julius, then Vespasian is the tenth, or if you start with Augustus (because technically Julius was never emperor) then Titus is the tenth.

All of this speaks pretty strongly of an early date of Revelation with a great deal of it fulfilled already I think, and much more so than a later date with all the carious configurations of who’s who and every other week some other hack declaring they know when the world will end and they know who the Antichrist is. I think early dating fits the Book and explains its prophesies very well, and remember the words of our Lord, “23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

So you know that when Christ returns all will see and all will know, and therefore be secure.
 
Thank you so much for you information! I’m going to copy and paste it for myself so I can save it and reference it on my computer. I agree with your conclusion that Revelation refers to Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. I see a lot of things in Revelation that point to that conclusion, but I have a horrible time trying to make those reasons cohesive. This is especially true when I’m faced with some who argues for a later date simply because Revelation says John was exiled to Patmos and for some reason thinks that means 90’s.
I certainly am open to it being a later date, if that is the case, and I know I’m in the minority when it comes to placing Revelation in the late 60’s, but all of the points you make seem so crystal clear to me when I read the book myself.
Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut! 😃
 
The Epistle of St.Clement to the church in Corinth might be a clue. I am trying to remember if he quotes anything from the book of Revelations in this letter. I think not. His Epistle was written probably between 70- 90 AD. (He has an oblique reference to the city of Jerusalem, and their sacrifices as if they were still taking place, thus the earlier date of 70 AD)

In addition, St.Clement is apparently the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, and (he, if it is St. Clement) does not list the book of Revelations as one of the books of the NT. Is this because it was not written when he compiled the Apostolic Constitutions, or part thereof? I do not remember if the book of Revelations was quoted in the Apostolic Constitutions. I do know that almost every book in the OT and NT are quoted in this document.

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho mentions the book of Revelations, and this might be the earliest reference to this book by the early church fathers. Justin Martyr’s dialogue took place around 120 AD.

There is also an apocryphal book that is very specific about why John was sent and when, but it is unreliable. Personally, I think he was sent to the island of Patmos in the 90’s AD.
 
I forgot to mention, that both Bishop Papias and Barnabas mention a 1,000 year period of time, which they might have learned from the book of Revelations. These individuals precede Justin Martyr.
 
I forgot to mention, that both Bishop Papias and Barnabas mention a 1,000 year period of time, which they might have learned from the book of Revelations. These individuals precede Justin Martyr.
However Ireneaus? also mentions, and I can’t find the source arrrrgh, that the writing of the Apostles was completed before the destruction of Jerusalem. Its killing me but I can’t the source.

Sorry.

God Bless
 
Bogeydogg,

The reference does not come to my memory, but that is not to say that Ireneaus, or Eusebius did not write those words. I would certainly say this is true for all of the NT being written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, except probably the book of Revelation.

As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D.”
pravoslavie.ru/english/47227.htm
 
The New American Bible for Catholics dates it to the reign of Domitian, so from 81-96 AD. The Orthodox Study Bible also accepts the dates of Domitian’s reign and states that the majority of scholarship recognizes this dating. The Lutheran Study Bible ( Concordia Press) admits to there being an argument for a date in Nero’s reign, but says that either dating has no effect on the messages contained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top