Robinson rejects the relating of Rev 6:6 to the revoking of Domitian's edict of 92 A . D . Owing to the shortage of cereals and
the superabundance of wine, Domitian issued an edict that no fresh vineyards should be planted in Italy and that half the vineyards in the provinces should be cut down. But the edict set the Asiatic cities in an uproar and they prevailed on Domitian not only to withdraw his edict, but to impose a punishment on those who allowed their old vineyards to go out of cultivation.=3®
Ve would agree with Robinson that there is not enough evidence to prove the date of Revelation from Rev 6:6. Charles points out that the
Chapter Two
scarcity of bread and the plentifulness of the vintage in the last days was an old Jewish expectation.
Nevertheless we incline to the opinion that the sarcastic phrase "do not tamper with the oil or the wine" was an answer to some well known expressed attitude that encouraged wine production even in a time of wheat shortage. The events of 92 A.D. fit the case very well. This position is advanced by Harnack and supported by Bousset, Swéte, Reinach and Moffat, Although Charles considers it doubtful, he does add that "Domitian*s edict may have occasioned the mention of this old eschatological expectation".
Clmpter Eleven and the Destruction of the Temple
Robinson claims that chapter eleven gives evidence of a pre-70 A.D. date for Revelation because it presupposes that Jerusalem and the Temple are still standing.2®®
This is perhaps Robinson's strongest argument, and "before the technique of source criticism was applied regularly to Révélation, that is, before 1882, this passage was used to date the book as a whole before 70 C.E."^®®
For it is indeed generally agreed that this passage speaks of a pre-70 situation.^** Many authors believe that John is re-using earlier oracles which were written before 70 A.D. in their original
Chapter Two
f o r m . R o b i n s o n rejects this solution, but deals with only part of the reason for the hypothesis.
One argument for the source theory is the Jewish thought and ideas in chapter eleven. Anderson Scott believes that especially the idea of the two witnesses betrays Jewish o r i g i n . B e c k w i t h argues that such an oracle understood literally could not be attributed to a Christian prophet, that nothing is known in Christian tradition of a preservation of the temple from Gentile desecration, and that events are recounted which have no parallel in Christian thought.^-*®
Robinson, on the other hand, can see no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet.^4* However that might be, there are many other reasons adduced, not referred to by Robinson, for considering that chapter eleven contains sources.
Anderson Scott points out that the whole passage is a parenthesis, and it introduces a new circle of i d e a s , C h a r l e s gives other
reasons. The diction and idiom of chapter eleven differ very perceptibly from those of our author. The order of words differs decidedly from that of our author. The meaning of certain phrases in
Rev 11:1-13 differs absolutely from that which they bear in the rest of the Apocalypse.
There are thus many reasons for considering chapter eleven as a re-use of source material, and Robinson's case against the use of sources is unconvincing.
Chapter Two
Moreover Rev 11:1-2 and Rev 11:3-13 are from different sources. Anderson Scott points out the strange abruptness with which the third verse o p e n s , T h e connection between the two sections is loose and external. The first section focuses on the temple, but the second does not mention the temple at all.=*® And, very significantly, Jerusalem is the 'holy city' in the first section, but 'Sodom and Egypt' in the second.
The second section presents no difficulty. It does not mention the temple at all, and could easily fit a post 70 A.D. situation. Although much of Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in 70 A.D., a legion was probably stationed there with an ancillary civilian population. And it is likely that a number of Jews and Christians returned to the city after the war, and that they did some rebuilding.
It is the first section that mentions the measuring of the sanctuary and the altar, and from the context the measuring implies preservation.*®® Granted that John is using a source and therefore re stating prophecy, it is quite feasible to believe that he is giving the prophecy a new interpretation. A.Y. Collins suggests that the outer courtyard represents the earthly Jerusalem which has been given over to the Gentiles, while the temple itself refers to the heavenly temple which the Gentiles cannot control.*®’
This explanation is fully consistent with John's other references to the temple in the main part of his book. In Rev 7:15, Rev 11:19, Rev 14:15, Rev 15: 5,6,8, Rev 16:1 and in Rev 17, the temple refers to
Chapter Two
the temple in heaven. John’s meaning of the temple in Rev 11:1 should be considered in the light of the meaning of ’temple’ in the rest of the book. John shows no interest in the historical temple in the rest of his book. Moreover in the final vision of the New Jerusalem, it is explicitly stated that there is no temple in the city. Such an idea is more likely to date from after the destruction of the temple.*®*