Exegetical Toolkit, Part 6
Historical Context
(avg. read time: 8–15 mins.)
Part 1: Introduction and Context
Part 3: Grammatical-Syntactical Analysis
As with Part 1, this part primarily covers what is not itself a tool in the toolkit, although it can be approached in various ways that could qualify as tools. That is, we are concerned here with historical rather than literary context. The books of the Bible were initially addressed to times and places much different than our own with much less accumulated history and different dominating influences. And the various books of the Bible were written in diverse settings of time and place as well. While the Bible’s significance is obviously not restricted to that now-distant past, that past context had some impact on the communicative events of Scripture.
In studying these diverse contexts, certain clarifications need to be made. First, while it is true that historical contexts had some impact on the communicative events that are the contents of Scripture, we do not necessarily have access to information about much (if any) of that context today. Much of the past has been forgotten in anything but broad strokes. And what information we have is subject to multiple interpretations and explanations. That does not mean we can learn nothing of the past, but in some ways like scientific knowledge, it is provisional and subject to revision as more information is incorporated and explanations that better satisfy the criteria of explanation (as I have outlined here and here) are formulated.1 Of course, this is a scale, as some events are more well-established by evidence that they happened—some of which can be described as “historical bedrock”—and other events are less well attested, if not simply someone’s informed guess for filling in gaps of data.
Second, on that note, it should be remembered that a lot of scholarship practiced under the label “historical criticism” is not necessarily going to be helpful for exploring historical context. While this form of scholarship is concerned with finding (the) historical meaning of texts and illuminating the “world behind the text” (the historical background informing the text), its practices have often produced duller kinds of speculative fiction than what you will find in science fiction or fantasy. Source criticism has often posited the existence of hypothetical texts, in which some have claimed to identify redactional layers of texts for which there is no concrete evidence, and its claims have contributed to further hypotheses of entities that may or may not have existed (like the “Gospel communities”). Form criticism and its presumptions about a connection of form (formal elements of a passage), content, and setting (or the Sitz im Leben or “setting in life” of a community or audience) led to further speculative claims about imagined settings and characteristics of imagined communities and extensive histories of creative transmission. Tradition criticism has combined both of these to present complex transmission histories that lack in evidence aside from questions begged about the texts they claim to explain. Redaction criticism overemphasizes supposed differences between supposed layers of development to make assertions about redactors and their reasons for redaction (including posited qualities of their hypothetical communities). (Based on work I have done elsewhere, I think most redaction-critical work, especially those that are supposed to explain historical orders and relations between texts, should be thrown out.)
Third, related to this, scholarly theories about historical background, even if they are widely accepted, need not be accepted as fact. It helps to know what reconstructions of the background have become popular and why. But again, these theories are provisional. The dates of composition for the writings of the Bible are often controversial. Many of Paul’s letters have a smaller range of posited dates for when they might have been written. But the possible ranges for the Gospels being written span decades. And the ranges of proposed dates for OT books can be much more wildly divergent. Moreover, because there is so much of history lost to us, scholars often engage in mirror-reading of texts to see what evidence there is within a text that can tell us about the situation for which the text was written. The supposition that the situation would be reflected in the writing is not unreasonable, but claims based on notions that a situation had to be A to lead to the presence of B in the text can often be tenuous (as illustrated in my article and post on the Corinthian resurrection deniers).
Fourth, historical context consists of more than setting in time and place, including in relation to known events. It can also include situations and relations of everyday life, values, customs, traditions, institutions, politics, economics, and so on. Social science studies have potential to illuminate these elements of historical context. But these also must be taken with a grain of salt. The bases for conclusions that they draw sometimes depend too strongly on present-day analogues or on underselling difference between their model and what they seek to explain with the model. These analyses can also be reductionist in their focus. For as much valuable information as the Social-Science Commentary series and other works by the Context Group may provide, I find that they are often distorted by their reductionism. The commentary on Revelation, for example, tries to read much of the text through the lens of ancient astrology, although other frames of reference are more illuminating.
Archaeology can also illuminate the historical context of texts. It can illuminate settings and imagery used in texts. Inscriptions and coins (as I have noted previously in this series) can exemplify other uses of language and imagery roughly contemporaneous or prior to the text in question. Likewise, the findings of archaeology can illuminate aspects of events and people recorded in texts. Naturally, biblical archaeology has become quite the sprawling field.
It is also crucial to remember that historical context consists of multiple facets. Some of it is nearer to the author and the location of composition. Some of it is further away, but it still has influence. For example, NT texts can be looked at from the angle of Jewish history in Galilee, Judea, and Samaria, or from the angle of the Diaspora. They can also be looked at from Greco-Roman angles, whether we focus on Hellenization, Romanization, the movements of people in power, the daily pressures of life in the empire, and so on. You can, of course, focus on various realia therein as well, including contemporary or past literature, inscriptions, papyri, coins, specific settings, architecture, remains of statues or reliefs, and other artifacts. Thus, one can practice analysis of historical context at varying levels of complexity. Depending on how one draws the boundaries of historical inquiry, one can also include in this sphere the matters of historical theology, philosophy, and religion to give more context to ideas, practices, and themes.2
The precise application will depend on the subject you focus on. Interaction with historical Jesus stories will involve different dimensions of historical analysis than the historical context of Isaiah. Similarly, historical analysis of Paul’s letters may include debates about the historical Paul, which involves factors that are not pertinent to historical analysis of Obadiah or Jude.
Apart from specialized studies on particular books or passages thereof, many resources are available for exploring historical context. Some are more general historical or sociological analyses. Some of these are edited volumes, but among those that are by single authors, one should see the following for work on the NT in particular:
Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
Bell, Jr., Albert A. Exploring the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide to the World of Jesus and the First Christians. Nashville: Nelson, 1998.
deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Judge, E. A. The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays. WUNT 229. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
_____. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge. Edited by David M. Scholer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Hubbard, Moyer V. Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
MacMullen, Ramsay. Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Witherington III, Ben. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
The most thorough biblical commentaries, particularly of those written in the last two hundred or so years, will tend to provide readers with such context. Socio-rhetorical commentaries like those by my old mentor Ben Witherington, as well as the extensive commentaries of my professor and reader Craig Keener (especially his Acts commentary), are helpful for exploring larger historical contexts, sociological elements, and the impact of rhetorical presentation in the context of the day. Bible background commentaries and works like the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible provide much wider-ranging engagements with such historical context, as does the Archaeological Study Bible on particularly archaeological matters. OT and NT introductions will deal with these matters as well. I have also noted some other primary and secondary sources for Jewish and Roman contexts of the Second Temple and NT eras in series beginning here and here.
Application to Rev 1:1–8
This form of analysis has all kinds of possible applications for Revelation, and it has been used quite frequently for detailed studies in that regard. But these have tended to focus on texts beyond the introduction. My comments and examples here will be relatively brief.
As historical studies bring into focus the world and author behind the text, such studies may focus on the introductory matters of author and dating. Depending on how one identifies John the Revelator (and I am inclined to identify him with John the Evangelist), one can explore the history of John, including interactions with what the Bible tells us and what early tradition attests. As for dating, scholars tend to date Revelation in relation to the persecution of Christians during the reigns of Nero, Domitian, or Trajan. The majority favor a Domitianic date. I am of the minority that favors a Neronic date. I have presented arguments for it here, though I may revisit this in more detail another time.3
One can also examine the images of “kingdom” and “priests” that have a prominent role here in 1:6. That would be a large project unto itself because of how important these concepts were in the ancient context of John, whether one examines it from gentile perspectives, Jewish perspectives, the OT, or so on. As such, this is not something we will pursue here.
We have addressed the description of John as servant/slave/subject (δοῦλος) of God in Part 4. But there the focus was on specific uses of the language. Although other ancient leaders, particularly of the populist variety, might portray themselves as servants to the people they lead, John is particularly in touch with tradition embodied in the OT and NT, as we have seen in Part 4. That is, John was part of a tradition in which this language was used of leaders among God’s people, who were also described as God’s servants/slaves/subjects. It is also in line with Jesus’s teaching about the greatest among his followers being the servant of others (Matt 20:26 // Mark 10:43; Matt 23:11; Mark 9:35); the leader is the chief servant, and leaders ought to be exemplary servants. Such a description also reminds leaders like John that they are ultimately at service to and subject to God’s will rather than their own. They are in their position to execute his will. The dynamics of this description within the Christian community can be pursued further in work like Murray Vasser has done.4
We can also address the language of “witness” and “testimony” introduced here in 1:2. The verb appears again only in last portion of the book in 22:16, 18, and 20. The noun appears again in the same phrase as 1:2 (1:9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4) or a shortened reference (6:9; 11:7; 12:11). The usage of the terminology in this book (see also 1:5; 2:13; 3:14; 11:3; 17:6) may be a signal of a current development. On the one hand, the origins of the language are the legal world of the courtroom. Witnesses were (and often are now) expected to have some kind of firsthand knowledge of what they testify about that is grounded in objective observation (Lev 5:1). This could apply most especially to Jesus and his own testimony (1:5; 3:14) and to those Jesus himself commissioned to testify of they had seen, heard, and so on. But it also applied by extension to those who faithfully passed on their testimony and testified themselves of what God had done as attested in the gospel story and beyond. Such public declaration is another aspect of what it means to be a witness. As was emphasized in Jewish courts, declarations that are to be accepted as truthful require integrity from the witness in the matter they testify about so that their testimony holds up under scrutiny, otherwise there would be penalty for false testimony (Deut 19:16–21; m. Mak. 1; cf. 1 Cor 15:12–19). Moreover, given the value of multiple witnesses (Deut 19:15) and the need for witnesses to agree in their testimony, we see John refer to multiple witnesses in this book and provide gospel summaries (including here in 1:5) that agree with gospel summaries throughout the NT.5
On the other hand, in Christian contexts in particular, the notion of “witness” would come to have another sense. We see the beginnings of it here with the references to the blood of the witnesses, to Jesus being a witness in his death, and to Antipas, a witness who has been killed. Those who suffered unto death in faithfulness to whom and to what they testified were considered exemplary witnesses, and so this category of Christ-followers came to be known as “martyrs.” This significance carried over in other languages where this functions as a loanword from Greek.
Another noteworthy element of the opening is the blessing on “the one who reads and those who hear” (1:3). This description presumes a setting in which a person will read a text in a communal setting for others to hear. The degree of literacy in the ancient world is debatable, in part because it depends on what one means by “literate” and what particular context one refers to. At the least, most people were not literate enough to read a book like Revelation by themselves, and so certain people would have the responsibility of reading aloud what others needed to hear as well. N. T. Wright and Michael Bird summarize the matter as follows:
Saying someone is “literate”, or asking about percentages of “literate” people in a population, will depend on which level we are talking about. Some people can just about write their own name. Others can also scribble out business contracts, and write short informal letters. Others are capable of reading sustained literary works; others still, of composing them. And there are shades in between. In addition, being functionally multilingual does not always mean having the same degree of literary competency in all the relevant languages. Generally speaking, and working with a ‘literacy’ somewhere in the middle of the scale just described, ancient literacy levels are estimated to be at around 10–15 per cent, perhaps higher for Jews and Christians, who had a strong book culture with an emphasis on reading sacred texts. However, if we take into account widespread phenomena like inscriptions, graffiti, and so on, there is a good chance that ancient literacy levels might have been even higher still.6
These comments are influenced by Brian Wright, who has argued for literacy being more prevalent than common claims, albeit not to the level to where reading a book like Revelation aloud was not the reserve of the minority.7 He has also written extensively on communal reading events in the NT era, including as evidenced by Revelation.8 J. Garland Autry has written his dissertation exploring this context of this particular book.9
Furthermore, it must be remembered that John designated this text for circulation, as it contained letters written to seven communities in Asia. It would be read for all of these communities’ hearing. While one of the seven letters would be the special focus of each congregation, they would all hear the messages addressed to the others as well. This reminded the faithful that they were not alone, and it served to provide some extra accountability in obeying what was heard.
The locations of the seven assemblies are listed elsewhere in this chapter (1:11) and in chs. 2–3: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. All of them were prominent cities in the province of Asia at the time. Indeed, six of them belonged to a succession of seven cities where the council of Asiarchs (Acts 19:31) would meet. The lone exception is Thyatria, which was more centrally located than Cyzicus and was on the same route one could take from Ephesus through these other cities to Laodicea. Ephesus (which I have provided some slight background on here and here) was the most populous and important of these cities (in fact, at a population of 200,000–250,000 people, it was one of the most populous cities in the empire). It also had a prominent port, and it was the closest to the island of Patmos where John was. In all of these ways, it made sense to begin the circulation route with this city. Given the strategic placement of these communities and the natural path of distribution and circulation, these communities would also help the continued distribution of this work to smaller surrounding communities and ones further away who would want to know this revelation of Jesus Christ.
Studies have been done on the seven cities individually and collectively. Some prominent studies of the seven cities as a whole are Colin Hemer’s The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting10 and Roland Worth’s two-volume work on the Greco-Asian and Roman settings.11 These studies and others like them have plenty of good historical information on these cities. However, as I have warned in this example, these studies and others like them can try to force connections between the imagery of the letters and the local settings that are not supported by the ancient evidence.
One could also study the descriptions of Jesus and his future action in this opening in light of depictions of other figures in the ancient world. However, for myself, I am focusing on those next time, when I will be using a different tool. Then, I will focus on Revelation’s links with other texts.
For an example of a good resource on the context of religion, see Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions, trans. Brian McNeil (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
More specifically related to dating, I should mention the study by Jonathan Bernier (Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022]). I am inclined to agree with his conclusions about NT texts being written before 70. However, I do not agree with all of his arguments for these conclusions, particularly when it comes to ideas about the “delay of the Parousia.” For an example where I deal with such claims related to Paul, see here.
Also see his dissertation: Murray Vasser, “Slaves in the Christian Household: The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln in Context” (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2020).
My friend Keldie Paroschi has written much more on the legal context of the NT, particularly in relation to 1 Cor 15, in her dissertation. Keldie Paroschi, “False Witnesses of God? The Legal Framework of the Apostolic Testimony to the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:1–19” (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2025).
N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (London: SPCK; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 110.
Brian J. Wright, “Ancient Literacy in New Testament Research: Incorporating a Few More Lines of Enquiry,” TJ 36 (2015): 1–29.
Brian J. Wright, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017).
J. Garland Autry, “Performing the Apocalypse: Analyzing the Public Recitation Event for the Delivery and Reception of the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2024).
Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, JSNTSup 11 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).
Roland H. Worth, The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1999); Roland H. Worth, The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Roman Culture (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1999).