p. 15, regards the argument for the early date as inconclusive; JÜLICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 104-106, thinks the reign of Domitian, about 85 A.D., a more probable date than one before 70 A.D. The problem of the date of the book of Revelation is one of great difficulty. Ancient tradition, though not quite unanimously, assigns it to the reign of Domitian (81-96), and there are some portions of the book, especially the epistles to the seven churches, that might well have been written toward the end of the first century. Yet other parts of the book seem to bear clear testimony to an earlier date. Thus chap. 11:1, 2 seems to imply that the temple was still standing. In 17 10 reference is made to seven kings, of whom "the five are fallen, the one is, and the other is not yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a little while." This passage is most naturally understood to refer to the emperors of Rome, of whom, reckoned from Augustus as the first, Nero was the fifth. The beast that was and is not and is about to come out of the abyss, and to go into perdition, is said to be one of the seven, and himself also an eighth. This enigmatical language seems to find its most probable explanation in the assumption that by a change of figure the emperor previously referred to as the head of the beast is here identified with the beast, and that the enigma is based upon the report, current soon after Nero's death, that he would return. This report the apocalyptist employs to convey to his readers symbolically the key to his prediction, though not necessarily accepting it himself in a literal sense. If this identification is correct, the date of the book is quite definitely fixed, being placed in the reign of Nero's successor, yet before the destruction of Jerusalem; hence between June, 68, and August, 70, A.D. It may still be a question whether the writer refers to Galba, who reigned from June, 68, to January, 69, as Nero's successor, or ignores the three short reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, whose combined reigns lasted but about eighteen months, and counts Vespasian (69-79) as the sixth. Titus (79-81) would, in that case, be the seventh, and Domitian (81-96) the eighth, the Nero redivivus. In the former case the date indicated would be 68, in the latter 69 or 70 A.D. Some writers have taken the variant indications of time as an argument to prove either that the book is made up of visions composed at different times, or that it is of composite authorship. To this latter view at least is to be opposed the evidence of unity, regarded by most students as being, precisely in the case of this book, singularly strong. If, in view of the absence of decisive evidence, either that any portions are of late date, or that the book is of composite authorship, we date the book by the clearest evidence, we shall assign it to the period between the death of Nero in June, 68, and the downfall of the temple in the latter part of the summer of 70 A.D. Pending further investigation and the presentation of more definite evidence, this date may be provisionally accepted. Literature: WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, §35; FARRAR, Early Days of Christianity (an extended discussion), see especially Book V., chaps. xxvii., xxviii., §§5, 6; SIMCOX, Cambridge Greek Testament, volume on Revelation, Introduction. Concerning the partition theories, see VÖLTER, Die Entstehung der Apokalypse, 2d ed.; VISCHER, Die Offenbarung Johannis als eine jüdische Apokalypse in christlicher Bearbeitung, in Gebhardt und Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, II., 3; WEIZSÄCKER, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, pp. 486-503; JULICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 178–183; MILLIGAN, The Revelation of St. John, Appendices III. and IV., defends the unity of the book, and assigns it to the reign of Domitian; also SALMON, Introduction to the New Testament, 7th ed., Lecture XIV. In his first edition Salmon favored the earlier date. There is much reason to believe that the Gospel of Mark was written not far from this period (66–70 A.D.), and that the Gospel of Matthew also was published either just before the destruction of Jerusalem, or not long after that event. The discussion of the evidence does not, however, fall within the scope of these notes. NOTE 15. THE LITERATURE OF THE YEARS 70-100 A.D. §§77-79. The closing period of the Apostolic Age, from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans till the death of the apostle John, is a period of great obscurity in the history of the church, and of scanty literature, if we may judge from that which has come down to us. The only books of the New Testament that can with confidence be referred to this period proceed from two authors. The two narrative works of Luke, the Gospel and the Acts, were probably written in the first part of this period. The Gospel of John and his three short epistles probably belong to the latter portion of it. But the evidence for the exact determination of the dates of these several books is wholly lacking. To this period also belongs the earliest Christian literature not included in the New Testament canon. The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians is generally acknowledged to have been written about 96-98 A.D. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles are also held by some to have been written before 100 A.D. This is the period, therefore, of transition from the literature which in due time became Canonical to that which is commonly known as Patristic. INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES IN THE RECORDS AND LETTERS. Indented references refer to the narrative passages taken from the speeches and letters and inserted, either in the body of the section or at the bottom of the page, at the point corresponding to the time of the events which they relate. References in brackets indicate passages bracketed in the text. |