Audio only:
In this eye-opening episode of The Jimmy Akin Podcast, Jimmy dismantles the popular myth that Emperor Domitian launched a brutal persecution of Christians and demanded worship as “Lord and God.” He reveals how this narrative arose from later exaggerations, not solid evidence, and shows why it’s been used to date Revelation—incorrectly. Instead, Jimmy builds a compelling case for an earlier date for Revelation (around 68–69 AD), tying it to Nero and the chaotic Year of the Four Emperors. Shocking history meets sharp biblical insight—don’t miss this myth-busting deep dive!
TRANSCRIPT:
Coming Up
It’s common to encounter claims that the Roman emperor Domitian was a major persecutor of Christians and that he demanded divine worship, insisting on being called “Lord and God.”
It’s even common to hear these claims cited as important keys for determining the date and meaning of the book of Revelation, with Domitian serving as its famous “beast.”
But there’s a problem.
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
The Real Domitian
Domitian reigned between A.D. 81 and 96, and like all of the Roman emperors, he had flaws.
Ancient authors even accuse him of being responsible for the death of the previous emperor, his brother, Titus.
He also angered the aristocracy, and he was eventually assassinated by court officials.
However, ancient Roman authors don’t accuse him of being the kind of monster that Caligula or Nero were.
Neither do the earliest Christian sources accuse him of instituting a major persecution of the Faith.
A False Narrative Develops
A while back, the Biblical Archaeology Society ran a piece titled “Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians.”
In it, biblical scholar Mark Wilson looked at the origin of how the idea of a Domitianic persecution developed. He writes:
“Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians”
Eusebius in his Church History (CH) provides the first reference to Domitian persecuting the church.
Writing over three centuries later in the early fourth century C.E., this ancient Christian historian first quotes Melito of Sardis, who mentioned that Domitian brought slanderous accusations against Christians (CH 4.26.9).
He also cites Tertullian, who claimed that Domitian was cruel like the emperor Nero (r. 54–68 C.E.), but that Domitian was more intelligent, so he ceased his cruelty and recalled the Christians he had exiled (CH 3.20.9).
Eusebius also quotes Irenaeus, who claimed Domitian’s persecution consisted only of John’s banishment to Patmos and the exile of other Christians to the island of Pontia (CH 3.18.1, 5).
Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus of Lyons were authors who wrote in the late second century, less than a hundred years after Domitian’s reign, and Tertullian wrote at the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries.
They report only that he slandered Christians and exiled some.
And, actually, what Eusebius said in connection with Irenaeus is a bit weaker than what the article states.
Eusebius says that it is reported that John was exiled to Patmos during the time of Domitian, but he doesn’t quote Irenaeus as saying that.
And Irenaeus doesn’t say that. He says that either John or the vision in the book of Revelation was seen in the reign of Domitian, but Irenaeus doesn’t say it was Domitian who banished him there.
Regardless of precisely what Irenaeus said, if these second century authors don’t provide evidence of a wide-scale persecution by Domitian, then it’s very unlikely that there was one.
Wilson continues:
“Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians”
Despite these cautious statements by three earlier authors, Eusebius then spun his own alternative fact by claiming that Domitian, like Nero, had “stirred up persecution against us” (“anekinei diōgmon”; CH 3.17).
From here the tradition was enlarged by Orosius (d. 420 C.E.), who, in his History Against the Pagans, wrote that Domitian issued edicts for a general and cruel persecution (7.10.5).
Despite a lack of evidence, [Roman historian Brian] Jones observes that the tradition concerning Domitian’s persecution persists: “From a frail, almost non-existent basis, it gradually developed and grew large.”
And pagan authors also don’t provide evidence of a notable persecution of Christians by the emperor Domitian. Wilson continues:
“Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians”
No pagan writer of the time ever accused Domitian, as they had Nero, of persecuting Christians. Pliny [the Younger], for example, served as a lawyer under Domitian and wrote in a letter to Trajan (r. 98–117 C.E.) that he was never present at the trial of a Christian (Letters 10.96.1). This is a strange claim for one of Domitian’s former officials if Christian persecution were so prevalent.
“Lord and God”?
What about the claim that Domitian insisted on being worshipped as a god during his lifetime and that he demanded the title “Lord and God” which in Latin would be = Dominus et Deus? Wilson writes:
“Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians”
The poet Statius (Silvae 1.6.83–84) states that Domitian rejected the title Dominus [or “Lord”] as his predecessor Augustus (the first Roman emperor) had done.
The historian Suetonius (Life of Domitian 13.2) does report that Domitian dictated a letter that began, “Our Lord and Master orders . . . ,” but it was only his sycophantic officials who began to address him in this way.
The story was again embellished by later historians to the point that Domitian is said to have ordered its use.
Jones thinks the story incredible because Domitian was known for his habitual attention to theological detail in traditional Roman worship, so he would not have adopted such inflammatory divine language.
After their deaths, the best that emperors could hope for was to be called Divus (Divine), not Deus (God).
If Domitian were such a megalomaniac who ordered worship to himself, why haven’t any inscriptions been found using this formula?
In fact, no epigraphic evidence exists attesting to Christians being forced to call him “Lord and God.”
Epigraphy is the study of ancient inscriptions, so if Domitian had insisted on being called Lord and God, it’s surprising that we haven’t found any inscriptions referring to him this way.
Last Refuge of a Failing Hypothesis
The absence of evidence supporting the idea of a Domitianic persecution hasn’t stopped some from trying to defend it, but the argument they use is the last refuge of a failing hypothesis.
Wilson writes:
“Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians”
[Biblical scholar] Leonard Thompson notes that a more critical reading of Eusebius raises doubts about a widespread persecution of Christians under Domitian. He concludes that “most modern commentators no longer accept a Domitianic persecution of Christians.”
However, that hasn’t stopped some from trying to rescue the hypothesis:
“Alternative Facts: Domitian’s Persecution of Christians”
Some writers consider Revelation as a source for a persecution by Domitian, although John never identifies a specific emperor. If so, then Revelation would be the only ancient source pointing to such a persecution.
But this is a sign of a failing hypothesis: Using the very data that the hypothesis was supposed to illuminate to prop it up instead.
Revelation contains many things that are unclear, and the Domitianic hypothesis was supposed to be a historical certainty that could unlock Revelation and make its meaning plain.
Instead, after we realized we don’t have evidence for a Domitianic persecution, the ambiguities in Revelation are now being used to prop up the idea that one occurred.
That is circular reasoning.
Breaking out of the Circle
In fact, we have good evidence that Revelation was written well before Domitian’s reign.
First—as we discussed in Episode 68 on when the book of Revelation was written—in Revelation 11, John is told:
Revelation 11:1-2
Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.
This is an unambiguous reference to the temple in Jerusalem. It describes the temple as still in operation. Notice that it refers to “those who worship there.”
But the temple was destroyed by Roman forces in August of A.D. 70, indicating that Revelation was written before this date.
Second, in Revelation 13, we read:
Revelation 13:18
This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.
A few manuscripts give the number as 616 instead of 666.
From elsewhere in Revelation, we learn that the beast is linked to a line of kings that rules the world, that it demands worship, and that it persecutes Christians.
This sounds very much like the line of Roman emperors—especially Caligula and Nero, who portrayed themselves as living gods.
And it so happens that both 666 and 616 are the numbers you get when you add up the letters in different spellings of “Nero Caesar.”
Nero—the fifth Roman emperor—reigned from A.D. 54 to 68, which suggests that he was or had recently been on the scene, allowing the original readers to calculate his number.
That would put the writing of Revelation sometime between A.D. 54 and 70. But can we be more specific? We can.
Third, in Revelation 17, we read:
Revelation 17:9-10
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads [of the beast] are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
The most natural reading of this is that the kings are the line of Roman emperors, who reigned from Rome’s famous seven hills.
The first five emperors were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. These are the five who are fallen.
The “one [who] is” would be the sixth emperor—Galba—who reigned from June of 68 to January of 69.
The “other [who] has not yet come” would be the seventh emperor—Otho—and he did, indeed, reign “only a little while,” from January of 69 to April of 69—just three months.
This would put the writing of Revelation during the reign of Galba, between June of 68 and January of 69.
So, as you can see, once we detach Revelation from the idea of a non-existent, lethal persecution under Domitian, a lot of evidence falls into place.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!
SOURCES:
Mark Wilson’s article: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/post-biblical-period/domitian-persecution-of-christians/