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.

popularized by Suetonius, uses the titles in tandem. The usage by Martial and Dio Chrysostom falls under the rubric of this variant, although technically Martial’s variant is distinguished by his preference for –que over et⁷¹. The second variation, found in both Dio Cassius and Martial, employs a ‘both ... and’ (or ‘not only ... but also’) construction (kai/ ... kai/; -que ... -que)⁷². This construction indicates the titles were regarded as separate (‘both ‘lord’ and ‘god’ ‘, not ‘lord and god’). The third variation (te_ kai/), employed by Dio Cassius ⁷³, is a bit ambiguous for it could be either a ‘both ... and’ construction, favoring independent use of the titles, or it could simply mean ‘and’, thus allowing for the use of the titles in tandem. Translation issues also haunt the ‘exact parallel’ approach. When rendering dominus into Greek, should one utilize despo/thj, as in Dio Chrysostom and Dio Cassius, or ku/rioj, as in Rev 4,11? Finally, the omission of words must be taken into consideration. Dio Cassius did not add the pronoun ‘our’ to ‘lord’ and ‘god, as did Suetonius and Martial. Obviously, one has to allow for a modicum of flexibility in the structure of Domitian’s titles, for, simply put, one cannot seek an ‘exact parallel’ for a title that is not consistent itself.

        Therefore, our quest for parallels in the LXX will begin with a definition of terms. An ‘exact parallel’ is defined as one that matches the phrase o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n in every detail (so Beasley-Murray). An ‘approximate parallel’ is defined as one that contains the basic wording and structure of a phrase (e.g. [kai/ +] ku/rioj + kai/ + qeo/j). In addition, an ‘approximate parallel’ allows for the transposition of the words (e.g. ku/rioj and qeo/j), the replacement of key words with synonyms (e.g. despo/thj for ku/rioj; te_ kai/ for kai/ ... kai/), and the addition of other words to a phrase. Additions