Why do people believe the late date of Revelation?

[Biblewriter]

This is a lot of information and I thank you for posting it. But it boils down to two pre-Eusebian sources--Victorinus and Irenaeus, the latter of which is ambiguous--so one pre-Eusebian source that says it was in Domitian's reign (and he doesn't say John was banished at the end of this reign--on the contrary, he says that John grew old on the island). And Irenaeus is ambiguous. Saying that this is what preterists claim only muddies the pool. It's ambiguous, irrespective of who says it. I think your dismissal of the MC is tendentious and unpersuasive. Manuscripts of early works are often late--texts are not dated on this basis--to do so is, as I said before, tendentious and just makes you look biased. When do you think the oldest copies of Irenaeus or Eusebius are dated to? Scholars accept what it says. The fact that it is found in You refer to a narrative of the trial of John. Why do you date this in the second century? This seems to be a mistake.

I have already given logical reasons for rejecting the claim that the statement of Irenaeus was ambiguous. The entire sense of the of the statement has to be ignored to even make it seem ambiguous. But as that is strictly a matter of opinion, I will leave it.

And as to differentiating as to whether or not a statement was written before or after the time of Eusebius, that is simply an attempt to cloud the issue. Not even one of the writers I quoted lived at the time the Revelation was given. So every one of them was relying on the body of knowledge that existed in the ancient world. That is, all of them wrote before the time of the great loss of knowledge that descended during Medieval times. And these writers included details that proved a minimum of four independent sources of information.

But my reason for rejecting the statement of the Muratorian Fragment is different. The problem is not that it comes from a document copied out at a much later date, but rather that this late dated fragment was copied out by a "scribe" who has been demonstrated to have been unreliable in the extreme. I quoted the highly respected Metzenger giving his reasons for rejecting this fragment as a reliable source of information. And I provided a link to even the Preterist Archive saying hat it is not reliable. So it is nonsense to present this fragment as historically significant. The only thing it proves is that, in (probably) the seventh or eighth century, there was at least one man who wanted to advance this opinion.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Yes, I read your reasons. I thought that you probably haven't read the arguments of Chase and Edmundson. Also, you misquoted Irenaeus in your reasons--he doesn't argue that it would have been announced in the apocalyptic vision but rather by him who saw the vision--this is the crucial point made by Edmundson and Chase (and I think Gentry makes it too), so it makes me wonder--you say you have spent decades researching, but this doesn't seem to have included a reading of the important works defending the early date. Your argument was based on a flawed reading. You can't assume that because you have given what you consider to be logical reasons, that others will accept them as logical. They are to be evaluated.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes, I read your reasons. I thought that you probably haven't read the arguments of Chase and Edmundson. Also, you misquoted Irenaeus in your reasons--he doesn't argue that it would have been announced in the apocalyptic vision but rather by him who saw the vision--this is the crucial point made by Edmundson and Chase (and I think Gentry makes it too), so it makes me wonder--you say you have spent decades researching, but this doesn't seem to have included a reading of the important works defending the early date. Your argument was based on a flawed reading. You can't assume that because you have given what you consider to be logical reasons, that others will accept them as logical. They are to be evaluated.

I did not "misquote" Irenaeus. Rather, after quoting his exact words, I pointed out the real point of his statement. I have read the opposing interpretations, and find them trivial, based almost completely on wresting what he said.

My argument was addressed mainly to Preterists because it has mostly been Preterists that have pushed the issue of the alleged "early date."

As I said, my presentations are based on my own personal research. I almost never quote things said by other people, other than the actual words of the sources I quote as historical evidence. And The arguments I present are my own. If you think they are not persuasive, that is your decision. But I think they are conclusive to any mind not clouded by prejudice.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Not a single pre-Eusebian source unambiguously made John to have been banished late in Domitian's reign, as Eusebius does.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Okay, I now know two reasons why people late date Revelation. Some because they genuinely think Irenaeus said that; others because they want a polemical tool against preterism.

 

[Biblewriter]

And some because they know that the overwhelming majority of all available historical evidence indicates the "late date."

 

[JohannineScholar]

this thread is about understanding why people date Revelation late, not an argument for the early date.