7. Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation

Summarized from Chapter 7 of The Identity of John the Evangelist: Revision and Reinterpretation in Early Christian Sources (Lanham: Lexington/Fortress Academic, 2020) by Dean Furlong, PhD.

When was Revelation written, according to early Christian sources?

This chapter challenges the dominant view that the early Christians dated John’s exile late in Domitian’s reign, arguing instead that the earliest sources (Irenaeus, the Acts of John, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria) held to the tradition of John’s Neronian banishment.

It does not discuss sources which placed John’s exile in Claudius’s reign (e.g. Epiphanius, Muratorian Canon, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen (?) Apringius), which are discussed separately in Chapter 4.

Eusebius’s construction of the Domitianic date was discussed in Chapter 6.

Irenaeus (c. 185)

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

More on the Nicolaitans

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 wrote Revelation before he wrote his Gospel, which is consistent with the evidence of Irenaeus (later the book argues that both sources were dependent upon Papias).

Tertullian (c. 205)

Tertullian speaks of Rome as the place,

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.

Praescr. 36

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.

But Jerome records an otherwise lost statement of Tertullian which claimed that John was plunged into the boiling oil by Nero:

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.

Jov. 1.26

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).

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.

Jerome also cited unnamed “ecclesiastical histories” as relating that John was “immediately” (statim) sent into exile after surviving being plunged into the boiling oil.

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. Additional support for this is provided from Chrysostom.

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.

Syriac Works

The Neronian exile is attested in Syriac versions of Revelation which may date to as early as the fourth century. It is also attested in the Syriac work entitled the History of John, which may also have been written as early as the fourth century.

Tyconius of Carthage (fl. 380)

Tyconius identified the sixth king of John’s vision (of whom it is said “one is”) as Nero, suggesting that he or his source placed the vision in Nero’s reign.

Other Writings

The chapter also discusses the dating of John’s exile in the Acts of John by ProchorusActs of John in Rome (a late work occasionally confused with the far earlier Acts of John), Andreas of Caesarea, and Arethas of Caesarea.

Further Reading

The original dissertation is here (though go to chapter 6, not 7–the book expanded the dissertation and added some chapters): John the Evangelist: Revision and Reinterpretation in Early Christian Sources

The latest version of the research can be found here:


The Early Christians and the Dating of Revelation: Are We Too Late?

Polycarp and the Date of Revelation

The Martyrdom of Antipas and the Dating of Revelation

5 thoughts on “7. Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation”

  1. I could sworn Preterist used to have better argument for the Neornian date then this?

    So Eusebius statements about what Pre-Nicene sources said aren’t trust worthy but Jerome’s are? John certainly wasn’t boiled in oil in Rome. Ienaeus statement can’t be saying Domitian reign is when John was last seen alive because he also says John lived into the reign of Trajan.

    I don’t trust the Patristic traditions at all, that’s what makes me a Protestant. My view on the date of Revelation is one even Futurists will be bothered by.


  2. Hello Dean,

    I really do appreciate all this valuable information you’ve posted here on your blog.

    There was one statement I couldn’t identify the source for. After multiple hours searching for it I finaly was successful. I want to share it here if others do have the same problem. You do write:

    “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). ”

    For hours I was searching for the full designation of this source: ‘De resurr. fr. 1’.
    It is: ‘de resurrectione ad Mammaeam imperatricem’ (Syriac fragment).

    According to ‘The Apostolic Fathers by J.B. Lightfoot: Part I, Volume 2: Hippolytus of Portus’ it is “a letter to a certain princess twice quoted by Theodoret (AR. 12. b, c).” (p. 397).

    One can read it here on archive: https://archive.org/details/p1apostolicfathe02clemuoft/page/396/mode/2up

    There is also a german book from 1897 on archive: https://archive.org/details/hippolytuswerk01hipp/page/250/mode/2up

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s