Floyd O. Parker, «‘Our Lord and God’ in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation?», Vol. 82 (2001) 207-231

This article challenges a commonly-held belief that the title ‘our Lord and God’ (Rev 4,11) served as a Christian counter-blast to the claim of the emperor Domitian to be dominus et deus noster. Despite the claims of several scholars that the title ‘our Lord and God’ does not appear in the OT, the data collected favors the view that the title in Rev 4,11 does indeed have its origin in the divine title ‘Lord and God’ found in the LXX and other Jewish sources. Consequently, the title is of no use in helping to determine the date of the book of Revelation.

        The epigraphic evidence also presented an obstacle for the theory that Domitian promoted the title. Thompson noted that inscriptions, coins, and medallions from Domitian’s period do not bear the title ‘lord and god’¹². Jones writes:

In view of Domitian’s concern for theological niceties, the story is all but incredible. The best an emperor could expect after death was to be declared a divus, never a deus: a living one had to make do with even less. If an emperor such as Domitian could overcome that barrier, why should he hesitate to proclaim it publicly (and epigraphically)? Senatorial abhorrence would not have concerned him¹³.

        Jones noted that, although the title dominus does appear on inscriptions, it is used exclusively in the sense that slaves used it of their masters¹⁴.

        These theories have not been accepted wholesale. Slater has pointed out that the writers of Domitian’s day may also have been biased in their positive portrayal of the emperor and that Quintilian, while not employing ‘our lord and god’, did deem the emperor worthy of divine honors¹⁵. Aune noted, contrary to the assertion of Thompson, that two of the authors of Domitian’s time actually used the titles ‘lord and god’. Martial used ‘lord and god’ in tandem several times, while Statius used ‘lord’ and ‘god’ separately ¹⁶. Aune further noted that Thompson did not adequately appreciate the different contexts in which Dio Cassius mentioned the use of the title and that he failed to evaluate the testimony of Dio Chrysostom. He attributed the absence of the title ‘lord and god’ on coins, medallions, and inscriptions to the fact that such nomenclature was not a part of official titulary¹⁷.

        On the other hand, these very scholars have accepted certain aspects of Thompson’s reconstruction. Aune writes, ‘Thompson is correct ... in arguing that Domitian did not demand greater divine honors than his imperial predecessors or successors’¹⁸. Slater even