Before Jerusalem Fell

18
THE NERO REDIVZVUS MYTH
Morris’s third evidence for a Domitianic date for Revelation is
the ancient Nero Redivivu.s myth, which he briefly explains and confidently
employs: “Again, it is urged that the book shows evidence of
knowledge of the Nero redivivus myth (e.g. xvii. 8, 11). After Nero’s
death it was thought in some circles that he would return. At first
this appears to have been a refusal to believe that he was actually
dead. Later it took the form of a belief that he would come to life
again. This took time to develop and Domitian’s reign is about as
early as we can expect it. ” 1 Swete lists the myth as the first of the
“more definite” evidences for a late date: “There are other indications
of date which are more definite, and point in the same direction. (a)
It is impossible to doubt that the legend of Nero Redivivus is in full view
of the Apocalyptist in more than one passage (xiii. 3, 12, 14, xvii.
8).~>2
Form critic Moffatt boldly asserts that “the phase of the Neroredivivus
myth which is represented in the Apocalypse cannot be
earlier than at least the latter part of Vespasian’s reign.”3 In his
commentary on Revelation 17 he speaks strongly of the role of the
myth in interpreting the passage, when he notes that “the latter trait
is unmistakably due to the legend of Nero redivivus, apart from
which the oracle is unintelligible.”4 Charles, a fellow form critic, is
equally confident of the utility of the NeTo Redivivus myth in establishing
Revelation’s date: “ Tb Nero-rediuivus myth appears implkit~ and
1. Leon Morris, The Revelatwn of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 37.
2. Henry Barclay Swete, CornmmtaV on Rsvelaticm (Grand Rapids: Kregel, [1906]
1977), pp. ci-cii.
3. James Moffatt, The Revelation of St. John ttu Diviw, in W. R. Nicoll, cd., Englishman’s
Greek Te.rtamd, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1980), p. 317.
4. Ibid., p. 450.
300