Why do people believe the late date of Revelation?

[JohannineScholar]

Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?

 

[RC1970]

Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?

People like to think that there is some great earthly occurrence yet to take place. It tickles their ears and entertains their minds. St. Augustine referred to these people (futurists) as carnal. Thick of all the books and movies that have been made about the "coming tribulation". Fiction sells.

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[RC1970]

So you think it is motivated by a rejection of preterism? Because one could be a futurist and still believe that Revelation was written early. I'm more wondered what it is about the historical evidence that makes people so sure of the late date.

The reference concerning John (and his vision) made by Irenaeus.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?

Preterists have made the observation that the entire book of revelation is actually a figurative account of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, however, I am not a preterist.
.
I think the main reason relates to the dating of the gospels and similar content. The judiaizing of the gospels era happened after Paul died. So the dates from 80s to late 90s would make sense for the book of revelation. The Gospel of John is a different matter of course, as it wasn't written as it would be written to an original audience.

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Okay, so you go by the internal evidence. The Galatians judaized though didn't they? And these false teachers, even on the Neronian dating, would have come in after Paul. How do you know exactly when these false teachers came into the church? Isn't it more likely they came in soon after Paul left, when their was a void of leadership, when false teachers were abounding (see 1 and 2 Timothy)? Wouldn't the churches have had copies of Paul's letters to read every week by the 80s?

I don't really want to make this about preterism though. I am not a preterist and the question of the dating of Revelation, while it has implications for preterism, is separate from it.

Well, I don't really care about the dating either way to be honest, and don't care about the preterist conclusions. I was just throwing ideas out there as possible reasons why others might think that. My reference to the Judaizing of the church comes from the book of acts:
.
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. (Acts 20:29)
.
If what Paul said there can be taken as a sure word of prophecy, then we know it happened.
.
I think it is very possible that all the territories of Peter and Paul had the writings of Paul by the 80s. The area of Asia Minor that Paul couldn't go to that was given to John, seemed to have contact with the disciples of James but not Paul. So by the 80s, some regions may not have had Paul's writings.

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Paul said after his departure--not four decades later after John's exile--so I think that supports the Neronian dating.

I'm not sure what you mean about areas of Asia Minor that Paul didn't go to. Paul's region included Ephesus, Laodicea and Smyrna, at least, and the rest--we don't know.

The source of my faith in Jesus is supernaturally rooted, so the dating doesn't affect me. I just test out the various translations in application and see which one has the best spiritual fruit.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Why are people so persuaded of this? Usually they are so persuaded that they think the early date (Nero) is impossible. Why are people so confident of this?

Paul AND Polycarp both wrote letters to the church in Philippi.

Polycarp's letter to the Philippians - Wikipedia, the free ...
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPolycarp's_letter_to_the_Philippians
Wikipedia
The Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) is an epistle

composed around AD 110 to 140 by Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the Apostolic ...

SNIP:

"If any man does not abstain from avarice he will be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as if he were among the Gentiles who "know not the judgment of God." Or do we "not know that the saints shall judge the world?" as Paul teaches. 3 But I have neither perceived nor heard any such thing among you, among whom the blessed Paul laboured, who are praised in the beginning of his Epistle. For concerning you he boasts in all the Churches who then alone had known the Lord, for we had not yet known him.

"We (Smyrna) had not YET know him" (The Lord).​

When Paul wrote HIS letter to the Philippians, Polycarp wasn't even born yet.

Paul died around 66-67 AD.

Polycarp was born in 69 AD.

It is recorded by Irenaeus, and by Tertullian, that Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Apostle.

From the Book of Revelation:

To the Church in Smyrna

“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.

“‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slandera of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’ - Revelation 2: 8-11
​

Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him Bishop of Smyrna.

But at what age did John ordain him Bishop of Smyrna?

As a newborn in A.D. 69?

When he was 10 years old in A.D. 79?

When he turned 20 years of age in A.D. 89?

How about when he turned 30 years old in A.D. 99?

How young could Polycarp have been before he was ordained by the Apostle John as the Bishop of Smyrna AND have God write a positive review of his Church in Revelation?

If you ask any of "the wise and learned" from the Preterist camp, he would have had to been the first baby Bishop of a Church that wasn't built yet.

Polycarp said that no church in Smyrna existed during the ministry of Paul, who died around 66-67 AD., before he was even born.

The Book of Revelation
Written in A.D. 95

Lord God Almighty, Father of your blessed and beloved
child Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge of
you, God of angels and hosts and all creation, and of the whole
race of the upright who live in your presence: I bless you
that you have thought me worthy of this day and hour, to be
numbered among the martyrs and share in the cup of Christ, for
resurrection to eternal life, for soul and body in the
incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit. Among them may I be
accepted before you today, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice,
just as you, the faithful and true God, have prepared and
foreshown and brought about. For this reason and for all things
I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you, through the eternal
heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved child, through
whom be glory to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, now and for
the ages to come. Amen.​

"When he had offered up his amen and had finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire.
The fire was then lit and shortly thereafter a soldier stabbed Polycarp to death by order of the magistrate when the fire failed to touch him..

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Why are people so persuaded of this?

Because the Revelation isn't a series of random, isolated events throughout history. There are many aspects and events of the Revelation which are specifically inter-related regarding timing and context.

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[victorinus]

I'm more wondered what it is about the historical evidence that makes people so sure of the late date.

the seven churches argue for the late date
-but-
eusebius mentions ancient copies of the apocalypse
-
one explanation for all this is more than one version
-one early by john the baptist
-one later by john of ephesus

 

[Ronald]

Here are the reasons:
"A letter written around A.D. 180 by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, then they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist and all the people in history who have persecuted Christians or who have tried to distort who He is are antichrists as well. Jesus said there would be many. But Nero was only small change in comparison to the antichrist during the Great Tribulation period. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitian’s reign.
Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that it was a newer church which was started later in the first century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D. 70. If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. And finally, Polycarp said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.
If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul’s letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul’s letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred. Nero killed Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos. That was Domitian’s style of punishment.
Some want to adhere to this Preterist view only partially because they understand the many errors in it so they weed out the obvious ones, accept the rest and call themselves Partial-Preterists. They identify Nero as the antichrist and his predecessors as the Beast. The Beast has seven heads and ten horns. The world system in the end times is comprised of nations ruled by leaders independently, not one nation’s successive list of Caesars. The Roman Empire was not divided into fragments in A.D.70. During the Great Tribulation period, the Antichrist subdues three horns and then takes over the rest and rules over the entire world for 42 months and then is defeated by Christ and thrown into the pit for 1000 years. Did that already happen? NO! It’s clear misguided interpretation. This is a crucial point: There view depends on the book of Revelation being written before A.D. 70." (From "Hell ... If I Know" R.D.Bruno)

 

[victorinus]

Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitian’s reign.

a careful read of eusebius will show that he never associates any of the seven churches with the apocalypse - neither does victorinus

 

[JohannineScholar]

Here are the reasons:
"A letter written around A.D. 180 by Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple and successor of John), states that pronouncing the name of the antichrist would be incurring a risk and if it were necessary at the time it was written, it would have been revealed by Christ. They did not know the name of the antichrist. If it was Nero in their past, then they would have stated it. Nero was an antichrist and all the people in history who have persecuted Christians or who have tried to distort who He is are antichrists as well. Jesus said there would be many. But Nero was only small change in comparison to the antichrist during the Great Tribulation period. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusibius all support the date of Revelation given by Irenaeus which was around the end of Domitian’s reign.
Smyrna was not mentioned anywhere else in scripture suggesting that it was a newer church which was started later in the first century. Polycarp was said to be the Bishop of Smyrna and born around A.D. 70. If he was a disciple and successor of John, then this church began decades after the destruction of Jerusalem. And finally, Polycarp said that no church in Smyrna existed in A.D. 67.
If John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70, it would overlap Paul’s letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus at the time. The problems Jesus points out in Revelation concerning Ephesus and Laodicea are not evident in Paul’s letters. John probably did not move to Ephesus until after Paul and Peter were martyred. Nero killed Christians and their prophets including Paul and Peter. That was his style. He would have also killed John if he was around. But John became banished to Patmos. That was Domitian’s style of punishment.
Some want to adhere to this Preterist view only partially because they understand the many errors in it so they weed out the obvious ones, accept the rest and call themselves Partial-Preterists. They identify Nero as the antichrist and his predecessors as the Beast. The Beast has seven heads and ten horns. The world system in the end times is comprised of nations ruled by leaders independently, not one nation’s successive list of Caesars. The Roman Empire was not divided into fragments in A.D.70. During the Great Tribulation period, the Antichrist subdues three horns and then takes over the rest and rules over the entire world for 42 months and then is defeated by Christ and thrown into the pit for 1000 years. Did that already happen? NO! It’s clear misguided interpretation. This is a crucial point: There view depends on the book of Revelation being written before A.D. 70." (From "Hell ... If I Know" R.D.Bruno)

ignorance then--there are so many errors here I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[victorinus]

ignorance then--there are so many errors here I wouldn't know where to start.

why is it important to you?

 

[JohannineScholar]

I don't understand why people are so convinced of the late date. But now I know--misinformation.