When was the Book of Revelation written?

[claninja]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

 

[Dave-W]

The 94-96 ad timeframe seems to fit the Roman history.

 

[jsimms615]

I'm sorry but why does it matter?

 

[claninja]

The 94-96 ad timeframe seems to fit the Roman history.

And what evidence do you have to support this?

 

[claninja]

I'm sorry but why does it matter?

when reading a book, especially as difficult as revelation, its important to understand when the book was written and to what audience. I find this topic brought up in a lot of threads, but it is such a big question, that it can derail a forum and most likely needs its own thread.

Preterists argue that revelation was written before 70 ad, linking the prophecy of revelation with the destruction of the temple in 70ad

Futurists (most not all), argue that revelation was written after 70 ad. In other words, none of the prophecy in revelation is about the destruction of 70 AD. If revelation was written after 70 AD, I would agree with futurists, prophecy about the past isn't prophecy.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

I actually do not have a specific belief on the subject. My guess would be after 70 AD but that is just a guess based on the fact that it is never mentioned elsewhere in the Bible by anyone nor is any of it referenced anywhere else or its details corroborated elsewhere leading me to assume it was written last of all those books contained in the Bible. That is not a very strong case but it is all I got. I am however curious to know why you are asking the question. Is there a specific reason you are doing so?

 

[Albion]

And what evidence do you have to support this?

That's what just about every historian seems to think. You can verify it for yourself without much difficulty, I would think. This might be a reasonable starting point:

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

 

[Dave-W]

And what evidence do you have to support this?

The timing of emperor Domitan exiling hundreds of "dissidents," and their later release after his death.

 

[Dave-W]

I am however curious to know why you are asking the question. Is there a specific reason you are doing so?

Those who hold to a preterist viewpoint maintain that the events predicted all happened in 70 ad with the destruction of the Temple. Hard to call something that already happened a "prediction."

 

[jsimms615]

when reading a book, especially as difficult as revelation, its important to understand when the book was written and to what audience. I find this topic brought up in a lot of threads, but it is such a big question, that it can derail a forum and most likely needs its own thread.

Preterists argue that revelation was written before 70 ad, linking the prophecy of revelation with the destruction of the temple in 70ad

Futurists (most not all), argue that revelation was written after 70 ad. In other words, none of the prophecy in revelation is about the destruction of 70 AD. If revelation was written after 70 AD, I would agree with futurists, prophecy about the past isn't prophecy.

And how do these people determine that since the temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. is not mentioned? Rolling dice maybe? tea leaves?

 

[claninja]

That's what just about every historian seems to think. You can verify it for yourself without much difficulty, I would think.

The only thing I can find is that Historians base it off of this Iraneaus quote:

"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."

I was curious if there is any other evidence, considering Iraneaus also states in his 5th book about the number of the beast:

As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies

Suggesting that there are older copies of revelation

 

[grasping the after wind]

when reading a book, especially as difficult as revelation, its important to understand when the book was written and to what audience. I find this topic brought up in a lot of threads, but it is such a big question, that it can derail a forum and most likely needs its own thread.

Preterists argue that revelation was written before 70 ad, linking the prophecy of revelation with the destruction of the temple in 70ad

Futurists (most not all), argue that revelation was written after 70 ad. In other words, none of the prophecy in revelation is about the destruction of 70 AD. If revelation was written after 70 AD, I would agree with futurists, prophecy about the past isn't prophecy.

I was writing my reply bw as you were posting this so the question I asked in post is no longer necessary having already been answered. thank you.

 

[claninja]

The timing of emperor Domitan exiling hundreds of "dissidents," and their later release after his death.

The syriac version of revelation starts with:

"The Revelation which God made to John the evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero Caesar"

 

[jsimms615]

when reading a book, especially as difficult as revelation, its important to understand when the book was written and to what audience. I find this topic brought up in a lot of threads, but it is such a big question, that it can derail a forum and most likely needs its own thread.

Preterists argue that revelation was written before 70 ad, linking the prophecy of revelation with the destruction of the temple in 70ad

Futurists (most not all), argue that revelation was written after 70 ad. In other words, none of the prophecy in revelation is about the destruction of 70 AD. If revelation was written after 70 AD, I would agree with futurists, prophecy about the past isn't prophecy.

I would tend to fall into the futurist category, not because of some date before or after the destruction of the temple though. The type of destruction worldwide that Revelations refers to I don't see any evidence of happening in the past. Certainly death and hades are not in the lake of fire. Nor have we seen the type of death and destruction mentioned in Revelations before. Not to mention we haven't seen the two witnesses or many other specific events

 

[mark kennedy]

The entire New Testament was complete before 70 AD, the fact that none of the New Testament writers mention the destruction of the Temple makes that pretty obvious. John was exiled at Patmos and there is no conclusive evidence the exile was based on the edict of an emperor. Paul had issues with local magistrates in Ephesus, why not John? The church would not have accepted the book had it not come with Apostolic authority and had it been some obscure figure you would have never heard of it. Definitely before 70 AD.

 

[Kevin Snow]

We know when it was written because of Irenaeus of Lyons. He told everyone when it was written because he was right there after it had been written.

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.
~Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, Section 3

And Domitian's reign was around 81-96 AD.

 

[Chinchilla]

when reading a book, especially as difficult as revelation, its important to understand when the book was written and to what audience. I find this topic brought up in a lot of threads, but it is such a big question, that it can derail a forum and most likely needs its own thread.

Preterists argue that revelation was written before 70 ad, linking the prophecy of revelation with the destruction of the temple in 70ad

Futurists (most not all), argue that revelation was written after 70 ad. In other words, none of the prophecy in revelation is about the destruction of 70 AD. If revelation was written after 70 AD, I would agree with futurists, prophecy about the past isn't prophecy.

Roman Empire needs to be rebuild under 10 kings because it was never ruled by so many at a time . Revelation is not only one prophetic book in Bible they must all fit together .

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

So we don't really know the date of Revelation but it was clearly not fullfilled based on other prophecy.
People believe what they want to believe

 

[David Kent]

Roman Empire needs to be rebuild under 10 kings because it was never ruled by so many at a time . Revelation is not only one prophetic book in Bible they must all fit together .

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

So we don't really know the date of Revelation but it was clearly not fullfilled based on other prophecy.
People believe what they want to believe

Nonsense. The Roman empire was overthrown by ten kings or tribes. All historic.

If you don't know history, you won't understand prophecy.

 

[Chinchilla]

Nonsense. The Roman empire was overthrown by ten kings or tribes. All historic.

If you don't know history, you won't understand prophecy.

So which ones of these did Antichrist overthrown and who was he ? He is supposed to kill 3 of them.

 

[claninja]

We know when it was written because of Irenaeus of Lyons. He told everyone when it was written because he was right there after it had been written.

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.
~Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, Section 3

And Domitian's reign was around 81-96 AD.

1st, this is 2nd hand from Polycarp, a supposed student of John.

Book 5, Chapter 30, section 1:
1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it];

2nd, If the vision was seen almost in the day of irenaeus, Why would he call the copies of revelation, ancient?