Taken from a blog:Irenaeus (c. 185)
Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation
Irenaeus claims that at the time of the writing of John’s Gospel, Cerinthus was actively disseminating his teachings, which the Nicolaitans had also disseminated “a long time previously” (Haer. 3.11.1). Elsewhere Irenaeus states that the Nicolaitans were active at the time of the writing of Revelation (Haer. 1.26.3), suggesting that he also placed the writing of Revelation “a long time previously” to the writing of the Gospel.
Irenaeus likely placed Cerinthus (who was, according to him, contemporary with the publication of John’s Gospel) at the end of the first century, since he relates that he was known by Polycarp (Haer. 3.3.4), who was martyred in the mid second century. Thus:
- Time of Cerinthus = end of first century = time of John’s Gospel
- Time of Nicolaitans = “a long time previous” to Cerinthus = time of Revelation
According to Eusebius, the Nicolaitans “subsisted for a very short time” (Hist. eccl. 3.29.1). The chapter also notes that according to Hippolytus, Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17–18) were following the teaching of Nicolas, the founder of the sect (De resurr. fr. 1); these two were active in Asia at the end of Paul’s life (i.e. during Nero’s reign).
If this represented a common tradition, then Irenaeus would have placed the Nicolaitans—and Revelation—in the 60s and Cerinthus—and the Gospel of John—in the 90s of the common era.
“He was Seen“
Irenaeus is often believed to have claimed that the apocalyptic vision was seen (ἑωράθη) by John at the end of Domitian’s reign (προς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς). This passage was discussed in Chapter 6.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (c. 190)
This second century work, while not direct evidence for the early date, does claim that “John first wrote Revelation in the island of Patmos, and afterwards the Gospel (Latin adds: “in Asia”), which is consistent with the evidence of Irenaeus discussed above.
Tertullian (c. 205)
Tertullian speaks of Rome as the place,
Tertullian does not specifically say that John was exiled at the same time as Peter and Paul were martyred, though some scholars believe it is implied.where Peter attains to the suffering of the Lord, where Paul is crowned with the departure of John [i.e. was beheaded], where the apostle John, after he was plunged into boiling oil, having suffered nothing, is exiled to an island.
But Jerome records an otherwise lost statement of Tertullian which claimed that John was plunged into the boiling oil by Nero:
The reading “by Nero,” found in all the manuscripts, was amended by an editor to read Romae (“at Rome”) because of its support for the Neronian exile (the editor justified this on the basis that we know the exile happened in Domitian’s reign).moreover, Tertullian relates that, having been thrown into a terracotta jar of burning oil by Nero (a Nerone missus in ferventis olei dolium), he came out cleaner and more vigorous than when he entered.
Jerome’s source could not have been Tertullian’s extant Prescription of Heretics as he quotes details about the oil incident (e.g. that John came out more youthful) which are not found in that work. Instead, he probably quoted from one of Tertullian’s lost works.
- Tertullian states that “the apostle John, after he was plunged into boiling oil, having suffered nothing, is exiled to an island,” showing the close connection of the events.
- Tertullian (as quoted by Jerome) states that John was thrown into the boiling oil in Nero’s reign.
- Therefore, if Tertullian made both statements, he must have placed both the oil incident and the exile that followed it in the reign of Nero.
The source could not have been Tertullian, as he did not write an ecclesiastical history. This thus seems to suggest yet another independent source of a tradition which associated the oil immersion with the exile. The chapter suggests Hegesippus’ Memoirs as the “histories” referred to and as Tertullian’s source for the tradition.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 200)The chapter discusses Clement’s story of the robber captain who fell from the faith and was later restored to it by John, which Clement places sometime after John’s return from exile. Indications in the text show that the story must have been envisioned as taking place over many years.
Chrysostom, who apparently also knows the traditions, stated that the young man “first became a disciple of John, but later was a chief of robbers for a long time (ἐπὶ πολὺν χρόνον)” (ad Theod. 1. 17),1
Furthermore, this narrative cannot be fitted into the brief time between the death of Domitian in 96 and John’s death by the end of the first century. And according to Jerome, John could not even walk in his old age, whereas in this story John is said to have traveled on horseback and to have vigorously pursued the robber. Instead, this narrative was set sometime between John’s return from exile after Nero’s death and the onset of John’s extreme old age, during a decades-long ministry in Asia.
The Acts of John (c. 200)The extant text of this second- or third-century Gnostic work begins with John sailing to Ephesus from Miletus, after which it relates a lengthy account of John’s Asian ministry, culminating in the story of John’s death.
The exile is not mentioned in the extant text, but some scholars think it was probably related in the lost beginning of the work (especially since Miletus is a natural stopping point from Patmos to Ephesus). This narrative is consistent with that proposed for Clement, of a long ministry of John in Asia Minor following his return from exile.
The chapter also provides evidence that the Acts of John envisioned this ministry as occurring over decades, and it argues that John probably visited all seven churches of Revelation, in order, during this time, citing Tertullian, the Passio Iohannis, of Ps.-Melito, and other works in support.