In recent years there has come to be a considerable amount of debate about when the Revelation, or the Apocalypse, as it is sometimes called, was given. Essentially all of this debate has been driven by arguments advanced by the Preterists. These people insist that all (but some of them only say most) of the events prophesied in the Bible have already taken place. As a part of this doctrine, they insist that the main subject of the Revelation was the destruction of Jerusalem, which is believed to have taken place in the year 70 A.D. Thus, it is absolutely critical for a Preterist to insist that the Revelation was written before that time. The Preterists use the term “Futurists” to refer to those who believe that at least most of these prophesies remain to fulfilled in the future. They claim that only futurists think the Revelation was written after Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this is simply incorrect.
Futurists really could care less when the Revelation was written, for to them that date is completely irrelevant. To them, its meaning is exactly the same whether it was written before or after Jerusalem was destroyed. The same is true of secular historians. Their entire interest in when any event took place is historical accuracy. They could care less what the date was. They only want to correctly determine that date, whenever it was. So why, then, do essentially all scholars who are not Preterists agree that the Revelation was written more than twenty years after Jerusalem was destroyed?
This is so widely accepted among essentially all unprejudiced historians because an overwhelming majority of the earlier Christian writers, those called the “Church Fathers” were in agreement about information that indicates that the Revelation was given a few years after A.D. 90.
The earliest such comment we know about is one by Irenaeus, who wrote, “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, paragraph 3. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1996, vol 1.) This is thought to have been written between 186 and 188 A.D.
Preterists claim that the words “That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domation’s reign.” Refer to John, rather than to his vision. But when we consider the point Irenaeus was making, we see that this cannot be correct. He told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in “the apocalyptic vision.” Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, “for he was seen no very long time since...” He said “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.” using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.
Some of the more radical Preterists, determined to reject this testimony of Irenaeus, claim that his words "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day..." cannot refer to "the apocalyptic vision," because they claim that Irenaeus usually used the word "seen" with reference to persons, but not for things (like visions.) But this is clearly incorrect. For in this same "Against Heresies," Irenaeus repeatedly used the word "seen" with reference both to visions and to things seen in visions. He used it in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 10, saying, "This, too, was made still clearer by Ezekiel, that the prophets saw the dispensations of God in part, but not actually God Himself. For when this man had seen the vision of God, and the cherubim, and their wheels..." He used it again in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 12, saying, "However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might prefigure and show forth future events beforehand." He used it again in book 5, chapter 26, paragraph 1, saying, "He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: ‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast.'" He used it again in the same paragraph, saying, "Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar..." He used it again in book 5, chapter 28, paragraph 2 of this work, saying, "John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' "(All of these comments can be found in the same volume 1 of "Ante-Nicene Fathers" that was previously cited for "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus.) So, contrary to the claim made by these Preterists, Irenaeus often used the word "seen" in regard to things (like visions.)
, and four changes which appear to be intentional and false alterations (p. 12a 6 scivit, 11 populosu exercitu, 23 filii, 25 sacrificat). We have therefore to deal with the work of a scribe either unable or unwilling to understand the work which he was copying, and yet given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him from regard simply to the supposed form of words..."
