Another way around the problem you are trying to resolve is to
question, for yourself, the possibility of a pre-Nero date for the
Revelation. I have argued for this in my 'Redating the Revelation
and...' book (2001). A relatively unrelated issue posed the question
for me and with little optimism I began to inquire and, eventually,
was convinced that not only was it early (I place it at mid 62) but it
preceded most of the NT. Most of the NT was written, then, with the
Revelation in mind and seeking to encourage a Church facing what the
writers assumed would the tribulation just prior to the parousia.
Such a dating also resolves the problem of including Nero in a genuine
prophecy raised by one of the previous contributors.
I am currently - slowly - rewriting my book so it is not available,
but I have included teh following excerpt. Having just quoted Wilson
"The persecution of 95 and 96 was the creation of Eusebius and
Lightfoot, not of Domitian."
I added the following footnote:
"Wilson, J. Christian, `The Problem of the Domitianic Date of
Revelation', New Testament Studies 39:587-605, 1993, p. 605. Wilson
argues that in the nineteenth century most New Testament scholars gave
the Revelation a pre-70 date. Among them, he says, was J.B. Lightfoot.
Lightfoot's arguments for a period of persecution under Domitian,
however, have been taken up by subsequent scholars as evidence of a
later date for the Apocalypse. Naming three scholarly commentaries
published in English in the first decades of the twentieth century by
R.H. Charles, H.B. Swete and I.T. Beckwith, Wilson comments:
They accept Lightfoot's work and refer to it without criticism and
without making any significant critical inquiry of their own into the
validity of the claims of a Domitianic persecution. (p. 588)
A similar change in this century by many German scholars, says Wilson,
was due to their following Irenaeus' comment placing the vision near
the end of Domitian's reign. His own article provides a critical look
at both of these bases for dating the Revelation."
St Luke's Church
--- In email@example.com
> Hi folks, sorry to just parachute in here, but I try to stay on the
> sidelines, like a third string quarterback holding the clipboard, as I
> need to learn before I talk (at least my wife thinks so).
> Anyway, Kistemaker makes the analysis that the identification of Nero
> and 666, is not based on early church fathers but rather comes from
> nineteenth-century scholars,
> "W.G.Baines, The Number of the Beast in Revelation 13:18," Heythjourn
> 16 1975.
> So my question is, why then do many people say that the early church
> or part of it anyway, felt that Nero was indeed the Beast?
> If you can give me any solid verifiable evidence to the early church
> holding that view or at least portions of the church beleiving so, I
> would much appreciate it and any further reading on the specific topic.
> Thank you!
> Troy Yoppini