The Dating of the Book of Revelation

[Arthur81]

The internal evidences are in our estimation overwhelmingly in favor of the Neronian date. A few of these it is well to call in mind.

(a) The messages to the seven churches disclose the fact that they were being subjected to the propaganda of Judaizing teachers. This indicates a date before Jerusalem had fallen. The Judaizing power had met its doom before the days of Domitian, but its efforts were rife in Nero's day.

(b) In chapter eleven the temple was measured which points to the fact that it was still standing. The holy city is consigned to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles for forty two months. It is a matter of history that the Roman army came and trod down Jei'usalem. It may be remarked in passing that forty two months and its equivalent expressions are not to be understood as 1260 years. There is no truth in the theory that a day in prophecy means a year. That was the view of Wm. Miller who fixed the date of Christ's coming as 1843. Further we are told in chapter eleven that an earthquake caused one tenth of the city to fall. The expression implies that the city was still standing when John wrote. The same chapter predicts the murder of two witnesses in the street of the city where our Lord was crucified. Who those witnesses were we will consider in the proper place but the reference to Jerusalem is unmistakable. These references to Jerusalem, to the temple, and to the altar are natural enough on the view that John was writing before the advent of the Roman armies ; but sound very strange if Jerusalem had fallen and the temple and altar were no longer in existence.

(c) In chapter seventeen we have mention of Rome as a great city that ruleth over the kings of the earth and sat on her seven hills. This is just old Rome which by the way exonerates the narrative from being a description of some supposed future "Tribulation." In connection with this city the writer mentions its dynasty of kings : "And there are seven kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is yet to come; and when he cometh he must continue for a short space."

Will this fit Nero's age? There is nothing it fits so well as the Caesar dynasty. Julius, Aug'ustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, the five that are fallen; Nero the one that is ; and Galba the other that is yet to come and which must continue a short space ; the short space being about seven months. How does this verse cited fit the age of Domitian? It finds no historical parallel in Domitian's day. Now if there are only two alternatives and the date must be one or the other, then we have no hesitancy in saying that this text takes definite stand on the side of the Neronian date.

(d) In XIII: 18, the number 666 is given as the number of the beast, which is also "the number of a man." This is easily derived from the familiar form, Neron Caesar, by adding the value of the letters composing the name. The person bearing the number is represented as a persecuting power making war upon the church and whose advances the church was being encouraged to resist.

(e) Furthermore other epistles of the New Testament seem clearly to refer to certain passages in The Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation antedated those epistles; and if their dates are approximately fixed then they limit the time in which Revelation could have been written.

Heb. 12:22 speaks of t-he heavenly Jerusalem.

Rev. 21 :2 shows the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "the first born written in heaven." Revelation says, "Written in the book of life." There are several such references.

II Pet. 3:10 "The heavens shall pass away." Did Peter get that from Rev. 20:11 where it is said that the earth and the heavens fled away ?

II Pet. 3:13 "We according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness."

Where did Peter find that promise of new heavens and a new earth? Evidently in Rev. 21:1 "I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."

Then to complete the reference we learn from Rev. 21:27 and Rev. 22:14 that only the righteous dwell there.

Here then Peter refers to The Revelation, and if, as is generally conceded, Peter perished in the persecution under Nero, the book of the Revelation must have been written prior to Peter's death.

These considerations make it sufficiently clear that the book was written in the Neronian era and that it had special reference to the events of that day. In fact the purpose of the book was primarily to meet the situation that then confronted the church. It would be intelligible to the first readers and they would understand and be prepared for what they were to face, and this we may remark is characteristic of prophecy in general. Prophecy is not all enigma; it is revelation. It is true this is apocalyptical prophecy which adds somewhat to the difficulty of interpretation; but if we observe the great landmarks that have been indicated in reference to Nero, the Roman Empire, Jerusalem and Rome, we will not get lost in the labyrinths of typology.
From D. S. Clark's Commentary on Revelation, The Message from Patmos

 

[Marty fox]

The internal evidences are in our estimation overwhelmingly in favor of the Neronian date. A few of these it is well to call in mind.

(a) The messages to the seven churches disclose the fact that they were being subjected to the propaganda of Judaizing teachers. This indicates a date before Jerusalem had fallen. The Judaizing power had met its doom before the days of Domitian, but its efforts were rife in Nero's day.

(b) In chapter eleven the temple was measured which points to the fact that it was still standing. The holy city is consigned to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles for forty two months. It is a matter of history that the Roman army came and trod down Jei'usalem. It may be remarked in passing that forty two months and its equivalent expressions are not to be understood as 1260 years. There is no truth in the theory that a day in prophecy means a year. That was the view of Wm. Miller who fixed the date of Christ's coming as 1843. Further we are told in chapter eleven that an earthquake caused one tenth of the city to fall. The expression implies that the city was still standing when John wrote. The same chapter predicts the murder of two witnesses in the street of the city where our Lord was crucified. Who those witnesses were we will consider in the proper place but the reference to Jerusalem is unmistakable. These references to Jerusalem, to the temple, and to the altar are natural enough on the view that John was writing before the advent of the Roman armies ; but sound very strange if Jerusalem had fallen and the temple and altar were no longer in existence.

(c) In chapter seventeen we have mention of Rome as a great city that ruleth over the kings of the earth and sat on her seven hills. This is just old Rome which by the way exonerates the narrative from being a description of some supposed future "Tribulation." In connection with this city the writer mentions its dynasty of kings : "And there are seven kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is yet to come; and when he cometh he must continue for a short space."

Will this fit Nero's age? There is nothing it fits so well as the Caesar dynasty. Julius, Aug'ustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, the five that are fallen; Nero the one that is ; and Galba the other that is yet to come and which must continue a short space ; the short space being about seven months. How does this verse cited fit the age of Domitian? It finds no historical parallel in Domitian's day. Now if there are only two alternatives and the date must be one or the other, then we have no hesitancy in saying that this text takes definite stand on the side of the Neronian date.

(d) In XIII: 18, the number 666 is given as the number of the beast, which is also "the number of a man." This is easily derived from the familiar form, Neron Caesar, by adding the value of the letters composing the name. The person bearing the number is represented as a persecuting power making war upon the church and whose advances the church was being encouraged to resist.

(e) Furthermore other epistles of the New Testament seem clearly to refer to certain passages in The Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation antedated those epistles; and if their dates are approximately fixed then they limit the time in which Revelation could have been written.

Heb. 12:22 speaks of t-he heavenly Jerusalem.

Rev. 21 :2 shows the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "the first born written in heaven." Revelation says, "Written in the book of life." There are several such references.

II Pet. 3:10 "The heavens shall pass away." Did Peter get that from Rev. 20:11 where it is said that the earth and the heavens fled away ?

II Pet. 3:13 "We according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness."

Where did Peter find that promise of new heavens and a new earth? Evidently in Rev. 21:1 "I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."

Then to complete the reference we learn from Rev. 21:27 and Rev. 22:14 that only the righteous dwell there.

Here then Peter refers to The Revelation, and if, as is generally conceded, Peter perished in the persecution under Nero, the book of the Revelation must have been written prior to Peter's death.

These considerations make it sufficiently clear that the book was written in the Neronian era and that it had special reference to the events of that day. In fact the purpose of the book was primarily to meet the situation that then confronted the church. It would be intelligible to the first readers and they would understand and be prepared for what they were to face, and this we may remark is characteristic of prophecy in general. Prophecy is not all enigma; it is revelation. It is true this is apocalyptical prophecy which adds somewhat to the difficulty of interpretation; but if we observe the great landmarks that have been indicated in reference to Nero, the Roman Empire, Jerusalem and Rome, we will not get lost in the labyrinths of typology.
From D. S. Clark's Commentary on Revelation, The Message from Patmos

Yes amen I agree

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes amen I agree

When Was The Book Of Revelation Written?​

Author: Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence​

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

 

[Marty fox]

When Was The Book Of Revelation Written?​

Author: Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence​

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,


To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

Hello truth long time no talk.

The OP uses scripture but you posted non scriptural views. I also have books pointing to the early date but I lean to the scriptures and history

 

[Truth7t7]

Hello truth long time no talk.

The OP uses scripture but you posted non scriptural views. I also have books pointing to the early date but I lean to the scriptures and history

There is "internal evidence" and scripture to support it, your claim no scripture was used is "False"

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

 

[Marty fox]

There is "internal evidence" and scripture to support it, your claim no scripture was used is "False"

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

I meant which point to an early revelation date none of them do

 

[3 Resurrections]

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

This does not prove a late date. Paul told the Ephesian elders on the day of his departure, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30). Paul's departure from the Ephesians before his trip to Jerusalem would soon be followed by the Ephesians falling prey to false teachers, even those coming from among themselves. It didn't take long. In fact, Paul commented to Timothy that by the time he was then writing around AD 67 just before Paul's martyrdom, that "this thou knowest that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." (2 Tim. 1:15). This included Ephesus having defected by then.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

This doesn't prove a late date either. John was only exiled to the island of Patmos because boiling him in oil at Nero's orders failed to kill him. The powers that be did try to martyr John, but without success. Domitian wasn't the only Roman emperor who used exile to get rid of "problems".

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

This doesn't prove a late date either. In fact, it proves the early date. Revelation was written just prior to the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake, when the church members were still self-satisfied and overconfident, saying "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". God told these smug, self-satisfied church members that "I am ABOUT TO spue thee out of my mouth". That meant the judgment coming with the AD 60 earthquake would soon be upon Laodicea's inhabitants. Meaning John was writing Revelation just before AD 60.

 

[Wick Stick]

The internal evidences are in our estimation overwhelmingly in favor of the Neronian date. A few of these it is well to call in mind.

(a) The messages to the seven churches disclose the fact that they were being subjected to the propaganda of Judaizing teachers. This indicates a date before Jerusalem had fallen. The Judaizing power had met its doom before the days of Domitian, but its efforts were rife in Nero's day.

(b) In chapter eleven the temple was measured which points to the fact that it was still standing. The holy city is consigned to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles for forty two months. It is a matter of history that the Roman army came and trod down Jei'usalem. It may be remarked in passing that forty two months and its equivalent expressions are not to be understood as 1260 years. There is no truth in the theory that a day in prophecy means a year. That was the view of Wm. Miller who fixed the date of Christ's coming as 1843. Further we are told in chapter eleven that an earthquake caused one tenth of the city to fall. The expression implies that the city was still standing when John wrote. The same chapter predicts the murder of two witnesses in the street of the city where our Lord was crucified. Who those witnesses were we will consider in the proper place but the reference to Jerusalem is unmistakable. These references to Jerusalem, to the temple, and to the altar are natural enough on the view that John was writing before the advent of the Roman armies ; but sound very strange if Jerusalem had fallen and the temple and altar were no longer in existence.

(c) In chapter seventeen we have mention of Rome as a great city that ruleth over the kings of the earth and sat on her seven hills. This is just old Rome which by the way exonerates the narrative from being a description of some supposed future "Tribulation." In connection with this city the writer mentions its dynasty of kings : "And there are seven kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is yet to come; and when he cometh he must continue for a short space."

Will this fit Nero's age? There is nothing it fits so well as the Caesar dynasty. Julius, Aug'ustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, the five that are fallen; Nero the one that is ; and Galba the other that is yet to come and which must continue a short space ; the short space being about seven months. How does this verse cited fit the age of Domitian? It finds no historical parallel in Domitian's day. Now if there are only two alternatives and the date must be one or the other, then we have no hesitancy in saying that this text takes definite stand on the side of the Neronian date.

(d) In XIII: 18, the number 666 is given as the number of the beast, which is also "the number of a man." This is easily derived from the familiar form, Neron Caesar, by adding the value of the letters composing the name. The person bearing the number is represented as a persecuting power making war upon the church and whose advances the church was being encouraged to resist.

(e) Furthermore other epistles of the New Testament seem clearly to refer to certain passages in The Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation antedated those epistles; and if their dates are approximately fixed then they limit the time in which Revelation could have been written.

Heb. 12:22 speaks of t-he heavenly Jerusalem.

Rev. 21 :2 shows the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "the first born written in heaven." Revelation says, "Written in the book of life." There are several such references.

II Pet. 3:10 "The heavens shall pass away." Did Peter get that from Rev. 20:11 where it is said that the earth and the heavens fled away ?

II Pet. 3:13 "We according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness."

Where did Peter find that promise of new heavens and a new earth? Evidently in Rev. 21:1 "I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."

Then to complete the reference we learn from Rev. 21:27 and Rev. 22:14 that only the righteous dwell there.

Here then Peter refers to The Revelation, and if, as is generally conceded, Peter perished in the persecution under Nero, the book of the Revelation must have been written prior to Peter's death.

These considerations make it sufficiently clear that the book was written in the Neronian era and that it had special reference to the events of that day. In fact the purpose of the book was primarily to meet the situation that then confronted the church. It would be intelligible to the first readers and they would understand and be prepared for what they were to face, and this we may remark is characteristic of prophecy in general. Prophecy is not all enigma; it is revelation. It is true this is apocalyptical prophecy which adds somewhat to the difficulty of interpretation; but if we observe the great landmarks that have been indicated in reference to Nero, the Roman Empire, Jerusalem and Rome, we will not get lost in the labyrinths of typology.
From D. S. Clark's Commentary on Revelation, The Message from Patmos

There seems to be evidence for both an early date AND a late one.

That makes me think that there's multiple authorship or some editing that's happened.

 

[Truth7t7]

I meant which point to an early revelation date none of them do

The Revelation was written in 96AD just as Irenaeus wrote, when John was imprisoned by Emperor Domitian, at the end of his reign, he died in 96AD

Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John who wrote the Revelation, was Irenaeus

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30).

No, that is NOT exactly what Irenaeus wrote. You have at least been honest above in not putting the apocalyptic vision within quote marks. Thank you for that.

In Irenaeus's original Greek, it is debatable whether it was JOHN who was seen, or if it was the VISION which was seen almost in Irenaeus' own generation. The Greek language allows either possibility for translation. It can be translated as either "he" OR "that" which was seen. This sentence is ambiguous, and cannot by itself alone be used to prove anything one way or another on the composition date of Revelation.

Furthermore, when we look at the very same "Against Heresies" work by Irenaeus, he refers in the beginning to "all the MOST ANCIENT COPIES" of the apocalypse. This means there cannot have been "all the most ancient copies" of the apocalypse circulating almost in Irenaeus's days, and also having the apocalypse being written down originally almost in Irenaeus's day at the close of the reign of Domitian. Revelation cannot have been newly written in Domitian's reign and still have copies of it being of "ancient" origin at the same time. This is a clear contradiction.

When one's eschatology is almost entirely dependent upon a single pronoun which has been inserted at the translator's choice into an ambiguous statement by a single historian...this is flimsy evidence at best of a late date composition. And it is coming from an external source, rather than all the internal proof in Revelation itself that shows an early date.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, that is NOT exactly what Irenaeus wrote. You have at least been honest above in not putting the apocalyptic vision within quote marks. Thank you for that.

In Irenaeus's original Greek, it is debatable whether it was JOHN who was seen, or if it was the VISION which was seen almost in Irenaeus' own generation. The Greek language allows either possibility for translation. It can be translated as either "he" OR "that" which was seen. This sentence is ambiguous, and cannot by itself alone be used to prove anything one way or another on the composition date of Revelation.

Furthermore, when we look at the very same "Against Heresies" work by Irenaeus, he refers in the beginning to "all the MOST ANCIENT COPIES" of the apocalypse. This means there cannot have been "all the most ancient copies" of the apocalypse circulating almost in Irenaeus's days, and also having the apocalypse being written down originally almost in Irenaeus's day at the close of the reign of Domitian. Revelation cannot have been newly written in Domitian's reign and still have copies of it being of "ancient" origin at the same time. This is a clear contradiction.

When one's eschatology is almost entirely dependent upon a single pronoun which has been inserted at the translator's choice into an ambiguous statement by a single historian...this is flimsy evidence at best of a late date composition. And it is coming from an external source, rather than all the internal proof in Revelation itself that shows an early date.

I Disagree, Ireneaeus wrote concerning the "Vision" taking place at the end of Emperor Domitians reign in 96AD

Adding to that your false claims in 3 resurrection taking place, your not to be taken seriously IMHO

 

[3 Resurrections]

I Disagree, Ireneaeus wrote concerning the "Vision" taking place at the end of Emperor Domitians reign in 96AD

No, Irenaeus in his original Greek only wrote that something was seen almost in his days, towards the end of Domitian's reign. But the Greek language terms Irenaeus used never confirm whether it was either John who was seen or if it was the vision which was seen then. Either of these translations are possible, and you are just relying on the translator's own choice of which one they thought it should be. But unfortunately, this creates a contradiction in the content of Irenaeus's "Against Heresies".

You are failing to consider this utter contradiction presented by the "ANCIENT COPIES" of the apocalypse that Irenaeus wrote about in this same "Against Heresies" document. How in the world can you have "ANCIENT copies" of Revelation at the same time that vision of Revelation is first being seen? It just isn't possible.

With that impossibility in mind, there is no way that the Greek-to-Latin translator chose the right word as the vision being what was seen in Irenaeus's days. To be consistent, Irenaeus necessarily must have meant that JOHN was seen almost in his days, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

Adding to that your false claims in 3 resurrection taking place, your not to be taken seriously IMHO

This is just a distraction technique to divert attention from the contradiction problem above that your late-date position has to explain: that problem being the contradiction of Irenaeus writing about then having those "ANCIENT copies" of Revelation, and your proposal that Revelation's vision was first being written down in Irenaeus' time, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, Irenaeus in his original Greek only wrote that something was seen almost in his days, towards the end of Domitian's reign. But the Greek language terms Irenaeus used never confirm whether it was either John who was seen or if it was the vision which was seen then. Either of these translations are possible, and you are just relying on the translator's own choice of which one they thought it should be. But unfortunately, this creates a contradiction in the content of Irenaeus's "Against Heresies".

You are failing to consider this utter contradiction presented by the "ANCIENT COPIES" of the apocalypse that Irenaeus wrote about in this same "Against Heresies" document. How in the world can you have "ANCIENT copies" of Revelation at the same time that vision of Revelation is first being seen? It just isn't possible.

With that impossibility in mind, there is no way that the Greek-to-Latin translator chose the right word as the vision being what was seen in Irenaeus's days. To be consistent, Irenaeus necessarily must have meant that JOHN was seen almost in his days, towards the end of Domitian's reign.


This is just a distraction technique to divert attention from the contradiction problem above that your late-date position has to explain: that problem being the contradiction of Irenaeus writing about then having those "ANCIENT copies" of Revelation, and your proposal that Revelation's vision was first being written down in Irenaeus' time, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

Your claims are the distraction, against heresies chapter 30 is just as Irenaeus wrote it

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

 

[JohnDB]

There is a third option....
Of roughly a two or three day period of writing while John was on Patmos. It is doubtful that John himself was capable of doing the actual pen and ink writing himself due to poor eyesight (after 40 your eyes deteriorate and paper, where common enough, was still very expensive...and John is in a penal colony where access to these things is scarce)

The letter, like pen, paper and ink, could have been smuggled in and out....Roman guards were notorious for always needing cash as they customarily only got paid once a year. The rest of their pay came from bribes and extortion. So long as they didn't lose any prisoners....everyone looked the other way.

John would have been known to be a political exile due to religious matters. None of the Apostles ever kept quiet about their faith. The Jews, annoyingly, kept up regular persecution of Christians. Where in Rome, for a time, Christianity became chic....but as the rich elite dropped the religious views the poor took it up. (Rich didn't want to miss out on games or orgies)
Nero did set fire to the poor sections of Rome (after kicking his mother to death) just so he could have the land for a building project.... and blamed the fire on Christians. (Because they were poor and no one would stand up for them)

So....the letter being penned versus circulated is the question. It would require some time for the prophesies to be copied and circulated. The Earliest known copy is the Sianiticus which has an approximate date of 100AD....much of it was destroyed by time....but enough exists to determine what the book is quite easily. The most contested sections of Revelations were of course lost.

So....history really is not much help. And where people like to major in the minors there are real theological battles for either of the suggested dates.

But....I tend to think that the letter would have been penned/sent during either the beginning or end of the Seige of Jerusalem....no real reason other than just a guess. I'm not exactly what you would say is a preterist either....nor a futurist...nor a blend.

Because in truth I don't know. Nor does anyone else with specific reasons sufficient to say definitively. And I'd have to say that this lack of dating is intentional by God.

What is important is what it tells....and it's not a good time of health, wealth, and prosperity.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Your claims are the distraction, against heresies chapter 30 is just as Irenaeus wrote it

Here is Irenaeus' quote from the very beginning of "Against Heresies" , Book V, Chapter 30.

"Although certain as to the number of the name of Antichrist, yet we should come to no rash conclusions as to the name itself, because this number is capable of being fitted to many names. Reasons for this point being reserved by the Holy Spirit. Antichrist's reign and death.

1. Such, then being the state of the case, and this number being found in ALL THE MOST APPROVED AND ANCIENT COPIES [of the Apocalype], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]..."

So, here we have Irenaeus claiming that there were then at that time many "approved and ANCIENT copies" of the book of Revelation that then existed. You can't have "ANCIENT copies" of Revelation and then two paragraphs later in "Against Heresies (#3) John just getting around to composing the book of Revelation "almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign".

This first #1 paragraph also mentions those whom Irenaeus said "saw John face to face". This is consistent with the later paragraph #3 which can be translated to have either JOHN or the VISION being seen almost in Irenaeus' day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. I maintain that Irenaeus was speaking again about JOHN being seen - not the vision itself - because it doesn't introduce a glaring contradiction in what Irenaeus wrote.

Your interpretation is forcing Irenaeus to contradict himself in his own writings, when there is no need to do so.