I enjoyed this MP3 episode, The Historical Context of Revelation - Part 1. I think the Book of Revelation is a wonderful and crucial study on many levels. I concur full-heartily, that virtually all Scripture, but most importantly to us in this time-period, the New Testament, must be (indeed, necessarily) understood in its historical context.

In my research, St. Irenaenus states that the prophecy appeared, "toward the end of Domitian's reign," which puts it at about A.D. 96 or between A.D. 91–95 as Pres. Jeannie intimates. Most other sources seem to be merely quoting Irenaenus.

It seems the popular conception is that an immense time-period when Christians were slaughtered occurred under the rule of Domitian. After all, he was Caesar, emperor (even demanded godly recognition), and a noted barbarous and abominable tyrant.

However, there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence supporting the Christian slaughter under his rule. Until the fifth century, there is no mention in any historian of a supposedly widespread persecution of Christians by his government. He banished some Christians, but even they were ultimately recalled. I understand that while true, a limited selective purge of some Christians occurred, it's not certain any Christians were put to death in Domitian's reign. Contrast that with the outright massacre of Christians under Nero. St. Clement and Tacitus (two early and entirely independent witnesses) reference Nero's reign when touting "immense multitudes."

It seems interesting to me that commentators are led by Irenaenus (who never mentions a persecution), to prefer Domitianic context for Revelations.

Doesn't the Book prophesy Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans (also driving home the importance as to whom (first century Christians) the letter was written), it seems to me that this alone, places the authorship before September of A.D. 70 (when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred).

I am familiar with the argument that Revelation and the persecution it describes really occurred under Nero. It is true that Irenaeus identifies it with Domitian's reign, yet that is not the main reason why I believe that this is correct. There is a correlation in some respects between Domitian and Nero, thus their association one with another. However, the Emperor Cult really begins with Domitian and over and over this is the imagery and background of the book of Revelation.

The main argument against associating Revelation with the reign of Domitian is echoed in your comments - that there was not widespread persecution throughout the Roman empire. First, John is not writing about widespread bloodshed everywhere. His concern in with the Churches of Asia, which were his responsibility. The only person we know had been martyred at this time is Antipas, who is mentioned in Revelation itself. So John is not claiming or suggesting that there was a slaughter of many people. I am amazed that people are so dismissive of the real trauma experienced by these congregations with the martyrdom of just one person - in this case a bishop, Antipas.

How many people would have to be martyred in your congregation for it to be a crisis, for it to have great impact on your parish? Would hundreds have to die before it became a great concern? This conclusion - that it cannot be based during the time of Domitian because not "enough" people died under Domitian does not reflect real life. It is a cold, distant assessment and does not take into consideration the feelings and reactions of these early Christians as they lived through these events.

Lastly, let me also say that Irenaeus' testimony deserves to be taken seriously. First, remember that he was originally from Asia, so he was familiar with the traditions of Asia. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himeself. Irenaeus is an older man at the time he is writing toward the end of the second century. He was catechized in Asia decades earlier, much closer in time to when John had actually written the Apocalypse - probably within 30 or 40 years of its composition.

Can you remember your youth, what occurred and what you were taught? Can you remmeber back 30 years, or know people who share with you events going back 60 or 70 years? Do you remember hearing stories about World War II, or the Great Depression, or the day Kennedy was shot? Those events occured 40 - 70 years ago. Do you know about things that occurred before you were born from sources you trust in your past?

Just because the earliest written source that WE have for this information - that the Aposcalpyse was written in the reign of Domitian - is Irenaus, this does not mean that he invented this tradition. If he had, he would have been called out on it by his contemporaries who knew the "real" tradition, if what Irenaeus was telling us a falsehood. Plus, Irenaeus would have to be contradicing other written sources of information that existed in his time that no longer exist. You see, a great many books existed in antiquity that have not survived to our time. He could not have contradicted what was already well-known and established in the Christian tradition without completely losing credibility.

In fact, one of the most famous Christian books in antiquity was called Dominical Oracles, by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. He wrote down many of the earliest Christian oral traditions. He is in fact, the earliest source of the information that John authored the Apocalypse. That book no longer survives, but it was well-known in antiquity. Papias wrote not long after the death of John, around 120 or 130 AD. If he said John wrote during the reign of Nero, Irenaeus would not have said otherwise. Papias was from Asia, too, and familiar with the Johannine traditions.

Hello,
I wanted to ask if you are familiar with the writings of Fr. Paul Tarazi, and his opinion that the Book of Revelation and the epistles and the Gospel of St John were written by John Mark, the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. What do you think of his views?