The dating of the book of Revelation is one of the long-standing questions in biblical studies. Some suggest that it was written in the reign of Nero, before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Others place it later, in the reign of Domitian, around AD 95. The later date has been widely repeated in Christian tradition, but when the external evidence is examined closely, it is striking how virtually all of it depends on a single non-decisive source.
The key reference is found in Against Heresies 5.30.3, where Irenaeus writes:
“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 not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
The wording is ambiguous. The verb ἑωράθη (“was seen”) does not specify whether it refers to the vision itself, to John, or even to the circulation of the book. Furthermore, Irenaeus’ main concern in this passage is not to date Revelation but to discourage speculation about the identity of the beast and the number 666. The reference to Domitian appears incidentally in that context.
Subsequent writers build on Irenaeus rather than supplying new testimony. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History (3.18.1), records:
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell in the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he speaks of the number of the name of Antichrist which is in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be revealed plainly at the present time, it would have been spoken by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign.’”
Jerome, in Lives of Illustrious Men (ch. 9), repeats Eusebius almost word for word:
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries.”
Victorinus, the earliest Latin commentator on Revelation (late 3rd century), says in his commentary:
“When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There it was therefore that he saw the Apocalypse; and when now grown old, he thought that he should receive his crown by suffering; Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus afterwards delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.” Later patristic writers such as Sulpicius Severus and Orosius reflect the same line. Each case, however, shows dependence on the testimony of Irenaeus rather than independent historical memory.
Outside these ecclesiastical sources, there is little mention of John under Domitian. Roman historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius provide extensive accounts of Domitian but make no reference to Apostle John’s exile. This absence does not prove one date over the other, but it does highlight the limited scope of external evidence for a Domitianic setting.
The internal content of Revelation often enters this discussion as well. The description of the “great city”, called Babylon, is said to be as the place “where the Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8), and the sense of imminence that runs throughout the book are all cited by those who are proponents of an earlier date.
The persistence of the Domitianic date is understandable. Irenaeus was a significant figure in the second century, connected through Polycarp to the apostolic age, and his authority carried great weight. Once his remark was preserved by Eusebius and Jerome, it became part of the standard chronology repeated by later tradition.
In summary, the external case for a late date of Revelation rests on a single sentence from Irenaeus. Later writers such as Eusebius, Jerome, and Victorinus preserve and repeat this testimony, but do so in dependence on Irenaeus rather than from independent knowledge. What may appear to be multiple confirmations is therefore a transmission of one remark through later tradition. Even more, the wording of Irenaeus is itself ambiguous. The phrase “it was seen” could refer to the vision, to John himself, or even to the book being circulated in the churches, and many scholars have observed that the sentence most is addressing matters not related to the dating of the book. Thus the external foundation for the Domitian date is not only singular but also uncertain in meaning.
