The Church has traditionally understood the human author of The Apocalypse to be none other than St. John the Apostle. The list of early Church Fathers who accepted St. John’s authorship is formidable: Melito, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil, to name the most prominent. However, among those who doubted Johanine authorship are Dionysius, Denis of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom.

Most of the doubters, however, had one thing in common: they strongly objected to what they perceived to be the book’s millenarian slant. They believed that an apostle would never have held the millenarian position that they thought was integral to The Apocalypse.

In that they were right. If The Apocalypse taught a future thousand-year corporeal reign of Christ after the second advent, the book could not have been apostolic in origin. This concept was Jewish in origin, but not a part of the deposit of Faith Christ gave to the Apostles. But since St. Augustine conclusively showed that the book does not have a millenarian slant (unless the reader brings it with him), I believe we can discount that objection.

Some modernists claim The Apocalypse was the work of several men: a “visions by committee.” That position does not take into account the beautiful unity of the book. Perhaps a reader who is just starting to study the book might find this theory plausible, but not a longtime student. In fact, “Most scholars judge that Apocalypse is the work of one author … that actually had a supernatural vision” (NCE). Since there is broad support among scholars that the book was authored by one man, I see no convincing reason to abandon the traditional Church position: St. John is the author.

Modern opinions

Nonetheless, many modern scholars split the book into parts (usually three) and date each from a different period. They claim that one person then compiled these three parts and made them into a whole.

The first “text” (say modernists) contains the letters to the seven churches that begin the book (chs. 1–3). The authorship of this section is usually dated at the supposed time of compilation, around 96 A.D., during the reign of Domitian.

The major reason this text is dated late is because of the mention of numerous heresies. The modern scholar usually doubts that these heresies could have existed any earlier than the end of the first century, partly because they imagine early Christianity as an undogmatic spiritual movement. Given that presupposition, how could heresy spring up before there was a unity of Church belief against which to define it? Of course they could not, say modernists, so the letters to the Churches must be dated later.

Modernists date the largest text section (chs. 4–14) from the reign of Nero because there exists virtually unanimous agreement that the 666 refers to Nero (Apoc. 13:18). “Scholars … believe that the historical background of Apocalypse was the reign of either Nero (54–68) … or Vespasian (69–79)” (NCE).

The third text (ch. 15 ff) is believed to have been written after the start of the reign of Vespasian (69 A.D.). Scholars see a reference to him in the list of kings in the final part of Apocalypse (Apoc. 17:9). If you do not believe in prophecy, this section could not have been written before Vespasian took the throne. (GR1).

In spite of the accepted thesis that the unity of the book argues strongly for one author, many scholars follow this three-text theory. The French scholar Boismard pioneered some of these ideas (LAP, 507–541; NCE).

So where does this leave us? If we are careful, we will notice that we are actually in a similar situation as we were in Daniel. Many scholars hold to a later date of writing, but believe the visions were intended to be read as though they were written in 68 A.D. That is the crucial question for our study: What is the author’s intended frame of reference?

Scholars accept that the intended setting of the large second section of text is 68 A.D. Yet they reject that date for the first and third texts because, quite frankly, they reject the possibility of the supernatural. We do not have that problem (GR1).

The modernists’ presupposition underlying the first text (that there couldn’t have been heresy early in the Church) is faulty. The Church was born “whole” on the day of Pentecost precisely because Her birth was supernatural. As the Catechism states, “The Church was catholic on the day of Pentecost [i.e., having correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession]” (CCC, par. 830). If one accepts the supernatural nature of the Church, there is no problem accepting the existence of heresy in 68 A.D. We should keep in mind that Gnosticism was the Church’s initial plague. It pre-existed the Church by centuries and pounced upon the Church right from its initial introduction into the non-Jewish intellectual world.

We can find ample evidence that other Churches struggled with heresy early. For example, St. Peter wrote his first epistle before 68 A.D., which is the latest reasonable date for his martyrdom. Yet he is worried about the sexual promiscuity of the Nicolaitins, just as St. John was, without referring to the heretics by name. “I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh” (1 Pet. 2:11; AEX, 50).

Also, Jesus warned His disciples in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24) that heresy would crop up in His Church before the fall of the Temple! A close study of The Apocalypse shows that St. John was careful to substantiate the fulfillment of the eight signs of the Olivet Discourse for his readers. Those who try to give the seven letters a late date do not take into account the words of our Savior (or they date the Olivet Discourse later also, and place those words in the mouth of the early Church instead of attributing them to Jesus).

We have already alluded to our reasoning concerning the third section. Because they reject the possibility of true prophecy, many scholars date this third text during the reign of Vespasian. But even granting that the text refers to Vespasian (I argue in the main body of this book that Nero is a much more logical choice), I see no problem with St. John’s having written it before Vespasian became emperor in 69 A.D. If one accepts the possibility of the supernatural, there is no compelling reason to date any of the book after 68 A.D.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Some scholars believe that the historical background of Apocalypse was the reign of Nero (54–68 A.D.).… The preparatory vision in Heaven (chs. 4–5) serves as a second prophetic investiture for the revelation of God’s interventions from the Resurrection of Christ to the fall of Jerusalem. [Some scholars] find apocalyptic allusion to different phases of the Jewish War of 66–70” (NCE, LAH).

Regardless of the date of authorship, the crucial issue is that many scholars agree that The Apocalypse describes in apocalyptic language the world events that transpired from 66 to 70 A.D. I go a step further. I believe that St. John the apostle saw the visions and wrote them down around the same date as the frame of reference, 68 A.D.

We must not overemphasize the importance of the date of authorship. As long as we agree with modern scholarship about the author’s intended frame of reference, we can clearly understand The Apocalypse. So the discussion concerning the actual date does not directly impinge on the purpose of this book. But if you are curious about the reasons for dating the authorship of The Apocalypse in 68 A.D., then hang with me.

The internal evidence within The Apocalypse points to a 68 A.D. date of writing, or at least to that time as a frame of reference for its writing. The evidence I point to in this short summary is not adequately dealt with in the modern three-text theory, nor in rapturist theories.

Of one thing we can be absolutely certain: the book was not primarily written about events that would not transpire until hundreds or even thousands of years later. If it had been, it would be the only book of the Bible that was intentionally meant to be undecipherable to its original readers. God does not pull tricks like that on people who are undergoing intense persecution: this book could not be primarily speaking of events in our own day.

The language St. John uses makes this crystal clear. He includes the repeated assertion that these events must happen “soon.” The book starts with this statement: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants what must soon take place” (1:1). In verse 3, St. John re-emphasizes that “the time is near.”

The contrast with Daniel’s statement regarding these events is noteworthy. Daniel is told that “the words are shut up and sealed until the end of time” (Dan. 12:9), because the time of its fulfillment was so far away (five centuries). The angel tells St. John, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (22:10). Yet rapturists attempt to place the fulfillment twenty centuries later! No can do. It is not honest interpretation.

Those who try to see current events in The Apocalypse should learn the lesson of Joachim of Fiore. He understood this problem and so used the seven letters to symbolize seven epochs of Church history that stretched from St. John’s time to his own thirteenth century. That was the only way he could justify the use of the word soon. But his solution was innovative in his day and has been justly discredited since.

As we will see, the events of 70 A.D. fit very well as a fulfillment of many of the events that “must soon take place.” However, a later dating (of 96 A.D.) leaves us with nothing of significance that took place anytime “soon.” Of course, this is an argument that modernists would use against the earlier dating. They freely admit that the visions of The Apocalypse were fulfilled in 70 A.D., but would want to date it around 96 A.D. to avoid the appearance of supernatural prophecy (GR1). By the modernist view, a later author wrote after 70 A.D. as though he were writing before then. In scholarly circles, this is called “antedating.”

Although I disagree with the modernist in his antisupernatural assumptions, I grant that the book can be understood using this assumption. The subject of the book is the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The book is an enlargement on the themes in the Olivet Discourse and in the even-earlier prophecies of Daniel.

The many instances in which St. John disguises the true characters and events through symbolism argue for authorship during a time of intense persecution. These disguises would protect the Christian community from reprisals if a copy of the book were ever confiscated. While the persecution of Domitian was certainly intense enough to warrant this use of disguise, some of the book will not tolerate that late a dating.

Further, some of the disguised symbols point to Jerusalem in an uncomplimentary light. What would be the purpose of disguising the references to a city that had been sacked twenty-six years earlier? The symbolism pointing to Jerusalem definitely suggests a date of writing before Jerusalem lost its influence in 70 A.D.

In Chapters 2 and 3, there are letters written to seven churches, as though these seven encompass the entire scope of St. John’s concern. But by 96 A.D., there would have been many more than seven Churches to address. Opponents of the earlier dating try to claim that these seven were symbolic of all the Churches in 96 A.D., but there is no textual reason for this assertion. The simplest, most logical conclusion is that the failure of John to address any more churches points to an authorship before there were any more, in 68 A.D.

We have already mentioned this, but St. John alludes to the man symbolized by 666 (13:18). With the exception of rapturists, the consensus of scholars is that this refers to Nero. This is clear evidence that St. John meant his readers to understand the book as being written no later than 68 A.D., when Nero committed suicide.

We have also mentioned the seven kings who are noted in text three (17:9–11). Although other alternatives have been proposed, the only solutions that do justice to history and the text remain Vespasian and Nero. Although I believe Nero is the best interpretation, even the reign of Vespasian does not extend the writing of the book to 96 A.D., as proposed by rapturists.

But besides these seven kings, there are also ten future kings mentioned by St. John (17:12). They are specifically mentioned as warring against the Lamb. There were ten persecuting emperors starting with Nero and ending with Diocletian (TBR, 372). If we start from 96 A.D., there were not.

In Chapter 10, St. John is told, “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” It is possible that this is a reference to the rest of The Apocalypse, but it seems to refer to something beyond the scope of that book. In 68 A.D., John had another thirty years of life and ministry left, and he certainly could fulfill this directive. But by 96 A.D., John was an invalid who, according to St. Jerome, “was with difficulty carried into the Church, and could speak only a few words to the people.” His prophetic ministry was drawing to a close at that point, and it is doubtful he would have had the strength to write The Apocalypse, much less look forward to prophesying “again.”

St. John writes of Jerusalem and its Temple as though they were still standing and functioning. In Chapter 11, John is instructed to measure the Temple and its altar, but to omit measuring the outer court of the Temple because it will be trampled by the Gentiles. It is not referred to as the former Temple, nor is any reference made to its past destruction or the future rebuilding of a third Temple. Nor is the book referring to the heavenly Temple; both the last chapter of Zechariah and The Apocalypse assure us that no gentile unbelievers will have access to the New Jerusalem. Yet by 96 A.D. the Temple had already been trampled by the Gentiles, and even destroyed. It seems peculiar that there would be no reference to these events unless The Apocalypse was written before them, when everyone knew the Temple was in existence.

All language develops over time as different events affect its usage and idioms. For example, mouse and bug took on new meanings after the invention of the computer. In the third century B.C., the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek Septuagint introduced Hebraistic elements into the Greek language. Experts tell us that these elements were identifiable in writings before the destruction of Jerusalem, but that they rapidly disappeared after 70 A.D. They are patently evident in the language of The Apocalypse, which necessitates its writing before 70 A.D. (TBR, 43–44).

Scholars proficient in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable. Some claim that their analysis proves that St. John wrote The Apocalypse first, then his Gospel, and finally his three epistles.

This order would explain the difference in the language between St. John’s five books (BAP, 255). The Greek grammar in The Apocalypse is certainly defective. For example, in Apocalypse 3:12, 14:12, and 20:2, the author adds an apposition in the nominative to a word in the oblique case. In 68 A.D., St. John’s Greek abilities would have been less advanced than when he wrote his Gospel two or three decades later. By this understanding, the Gospel of John could be part of the “further witness” of St. John mentioned earlier.

This last piece of internal evidence makes sense only when The Apocalypse is understood in the broader contexts of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse. Since we have been careful in our examination of these two earlier sources, we are able to catch a phrase that many might easily overlook. St. John starts his book by writing, “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, everyone who pierced Him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him” (1:7).

What event is in view here? This is the same language surrounding Daniel’s “Son of man” vision. This is the same language Bertrand Russell misunderstood in the Olivet Discourse. In both instances, we discovered that this language refers to the events of 70 A.D. St. John is letting us in on the secret to understanding his visions. The events of Daniel’s final week of covenantal transition will take center stage for the great bulk of this book.

These nine internal evidences can let us rest assured that if The Apocalypse was not written in 68 A.D., its author certainly planned meticulously for us to think that it was. This has been the conclusion of many scholars, including the eminent scholar Philip Schaff (HCC, I). Because the visions purport to be prophecy, and since we do not reject the possibility of supernatural prophecy, the best understanding of the internal evidence points to a date of authorship around 68 A.D. (GR1).

“But wait,” you may ask. “What about the isle of Patmos?” St. John tells the reader he was on that isle when he saw these visions. Doesn’t everyone know that St. John was on the isle of Patmos in 96 A.D.?

Actually, there are two traditions in the very early Church concerning the imprisonment of St. John on the penal isle of Patmos. Irenaeus dated St. John’s imprisonment during the reign of Domitian, between 81 and 96 A.D. Since Irenaeus claimed the acquaintance of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, his testimony is given great weight. Yet Epiphanius states that St. John was first imprisoned under Claudius, who reigned from 41 to 54 A.D. (HE, II, 12, 33). Since Claudius was another name used by Nero, Epiphanius is certainly an early witness to the possibility of an earlier, 68 A.D. authorship.

So what do we make of Irenaeus? Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons until his death in about 200 A.D. Every scholar, whether ancient or modern, who holds to 96 rather than 68 A.D. bases it on Irenaeus’s witness. But Irenaeus’s testimony is not without its difficulties. Simply stated, we cannot be absolutely sure of what Irenaeus meant!

Here are the details. Speaking of the man behind the 666, Irenaeus wrote, “If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that [he/it] was seen, but almost in our own generation, towards the end of the reign of Domitian” (AG, V:30:3). I have put the disputed words in brackets.

The dispute centers on what or whom was seen. Was “he” (St. John) seen toward the end of the reign? Or was “it” (the visions) seen by John toward the end of the reign? The grammar of the text gives no clue as to the proper understanding (BAP, 256–257). The first would allow an early dating, but the second would not.

The larger context, however, seems to imply the former understanding. Earlier in this passage, Irenaeus refers to “ancient copies” of The Apocalypse. If there were “ancient copies” already in Irenaeus’s day, would this not presuppose that the original was even older? That would mean the original could not have been from 96 A.D. The context of Irenaeus’s quote turns it into a persuasive argument for an earlier dating of The Apocalypse!

Is there any other evidence to corroborate this understanding of Irenaeus and the unambiguous witness of Epiphanius? Yes. We find more external evidence in a second-century Syriac Version of the New Testament, the Peshito. It is the earliest of all the actual translations of the Bible, dating from within a century of The Apocalypse. The title page of The Apocalypse reads, “The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar.” As we have already noted, Nero died in 68 A.D. This is not irrefutable on its own, but when added to Irenaeus and Epiphanius, it is very strong evidence.

Some have tried to translate the last two words of this title page as Domitian rather than Nero. Dr. Robert Young was a meticulous student of biblical languages who compiled Young’s Analytical Concordance without a computer. He wrote that the emperor (Domitianou) being referred to on the title page was Domitius, another name for Nero (COR). Dr. Young held that the original word Domitianou was later “stupidly mistaken” (his words) as Domitianikos by Sulpicious and Orosius. Domitianou would refer to Nero, who died in 68 A.D., while Domitianikos would refer to Domitian, who began his rule in 95 A.D.

But that is not all. Theophylact, Arethas, and other early writers all firmly confirmed that “John saw these visions in the reign of Nero, and that they were written by him during his banishment by that emperor” (CCO). Origen referred to St. John’s banishment to Patmos as being decided by the “king of the Romans,” a title that was used only of the Julian emperors. Nero was the last of these (BJF). The list goes on and on.

The best solution to all this evidence is to hold confidently to 68 A.D. as the date of authorship. Major objections to an early date come from two sources. The modernist freely admits the subject of the book is the persecution and the Jewish-Roman War of the late 60s, but would like to date the book later to avoid any appearance of true prophecy. The rapturist argues that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem so that he can still look for a future fulfillment. But the internal evidence argues persuasively against him. Even Irenaeus wrote in his treatise Against Heresies that much of The Apocalypse referred to the first advent of Christ.

I believe that the case for a 68 A.D. authorship by St. John is very strong indeed. However, as in Daniel, it is enough if we settle for what is agreed to by many scholars. Andreas of Cappadocia, who wrote the earliest Greek exposition of The Apocalypse in the middle of the fifth century, stated, “There are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus” (ITR, Apoc. 6:12). He continues, “These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews” (ITR, Apoc. 7:1). If we can agree on that, it is enough.