When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Biblewriter]

WHen John wrote that those events were soon to take place, it does not require any interpretation of that word "soon." "Soon" does not mean over 2000 years from today. And the word "soon" appears a fair number of times. For those who reject the internal information, the murkiness of "assumed interpretation" is their only refuge.

Soon, in human terms, or soon, in divine terms? It also says that the return of Jesus to reward his own would be soon. But it has not happened.

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

So in God's timing, it has now been only a couple of days since He said that.

 

[Biblewriter]

When I learned about the book speaking mainly of the fall of Jerusalem and read about that description, it all fell beautifully into place. The predictions of Matthew 24 fell into place. The words of Jesus before the Sanhedren fell into place. Reading about prophesy fullfilled is more thrilling than assuming it is yet to take place. It happened as Jesus said, in the lifetime of those standing there when he died. He happened within one generation. Nero was the beast. I took a tour in Rome once (secular) and they showed us the remains of a statue of Nero or done by Nero which was reported to have been able to speak. The book of Revelation became alive to me and it all make sense.

When the whole of Old Testament prophecy is known, it all falls beautifully into place.

Why is it that even as late as the fifth century, Jerome called futurism "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church"?

Because those writers who actually lived in the ancient world, and were thus familiar with the actual histories of what had happened in those times, knew that the events of that period did not fit the prophecies in the Bible.

Most Preterists seem unaware that their system of interpretation was not even invented before the 1600s, long after most of the world's real knowledge of the facts of ancient history had been lost.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Soon, in human terms, or soon, in divine terms? It also says that the return of Jesus to reward his own would be soon. But it has not happened.

Those he spoke to either died before it happened or saw it. His return was in Judgement of Israel and that generation saw it.

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

So in God's timing, it has now been only a couple of days since He said that.

Dont believe that God doesn’t understand the passing of time and it’s quantification. When Jesus said “soon” it happened soon. The question is what was “it.”

 

[Biblewriter]

Those he spoke to either died before it happened or saw it. His return was in Judgement of Israel and that generation saw it.

" 'Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.' 'And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.' " Revelation 22:10-12

 

[Dorothy Mae]

When the whole of Old Testament prophecy is known, it all falls beautifully into place.

Why is it that even as late as the fifth century, Jerome called futurism "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church"?

Because those writers who actually lived in the ancient world, and were thus familiar with the actual histories of what had happened in those times, knew that the events of that period did not fit the prophecies in the Bible.

Most Preterists seem unaware that their system of interpretation was not even invented before the 1600s, long after most of the world's real knowledge of the facts of ancient history had been lost.

This easiest way to deal with an understanding of the Bible you don’t like is to give it a label and then date the understanding from when the word was first used.

It is easy to see that when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, the Christians knew this was the fulfillment of prophesy Jesus spoke of and was happening. Lucky for them the idea that this was all supposed to happen not then but 2000+ years later hadn’t been invented yet. Otherwise they have died horribly instead of escaping as Jesus advised.

Quite sure the churches in Rev also knew it was a letter to them as well and not something that was for 2000+ years later and so useless for them.

The internal evidence for Rev predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding persecution fits perfectly with the history.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

" 'Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.' 'And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.' " Revelation 22:10-12

Right. Book not sealed as in Daniel because it was for them, not a people 2000 years later.

 

[Biblewriter]

This easiest way to deal with an understanding of the Bible you don’t like is to give it a label and then date the understanding from when the word was first used.

It is easy to see that when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, the Christians knew this was the fulfillment of prophesy Jesus spoke of and was happening. Lucky for them the idea that this was all supposed to happen not then but 2000+ years later hadn’t been invented yet. Otherwise they have died horribly instead of escaping as Jesus advised.

Quite sure the churches in Rev also knew it was a letter to them as well and not something that was for 2000+ years later and so useless for them.

The internal evidence for Rev predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding persecution fits perfectly with the history.

In order to claim that the prophecies fit historic events perfectly, it is necessary to pretend that the details of most prophecies are simply not important.

Why was it that the Christian writers who wrote so soon after A.D. 70, were very confident that these scriptures spoke of events that were in their own futures? Because than knew that the details of what had happened did not fit the details of the prophecies.

 

[AFrazier]

No Julius was Cæsar. The others took the name Cæsar.

Your Math doesn't work.

1. Julius Cæsar
2. Antony
3. Augustus
4. Tiberius
5. Caligula
6. Claudius
7. Nero
8. Galba
9. Otho
10. Vitellius
11. Vespasian

Josephus called Titus Cæsar although he was only the prince.

The math works just fine if you consider Vespasian the eighth Caesar, and not merely the eighth person to lay claim to the empire. Consider the same line presented here and parallel it with Daniel. In Daniel there were ten horns, and an eleventh "little" horn rose up, plucking three of those before it up by the roots (Daniel 7:7-8). The first seven horns are Julius through Nero. The eighth, ninth, and tenth are Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Then the eleventh "little" horn rose up, being Vespasian (who is "little" because he was from an equestrian family), who took the empire, whereas Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were all killed. With those three plucked up by the roots, who indeed laid claim to the empire (though they weren't actual Caesars), Vespasian became the next Caesar in line, making him not only the eleventh horn that plucked up three others by the roots, but also the eighth in the line of Caesars.

Titus is irrelevant to the enumeration. He may have prosecuted the war directly, but he remained there beyond Nero and throughout the civil war at the direction of his father. Ergo, though he was an heir, and eventually became a Caesar himself, the war on the Jews was Vespasian's. Titus was merely his general.

 

[AFrazier]

I just have to point out that this is now a common response in a discussion in our culture now when the party speaking has no answer or is losing. They simply point to something like who might have said it who is dubious avoiding the obvious problem with whether the matter is true or not. This is picking and choosing which information from the writings of Iraeneus one likes to accept. If he said Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem (by naming an emporer) well, then this is truth and we accept it cause he knew someone who knew John. But he if said that Jesus was 50 at his death (relatively old man) well then that was repeated by someone who is dubious ignoring the truth of the statment. See how it works? If someone says something the person likes, then that is truth. If they say something the person does not like, well then a dubious person repeated it (cannot really say that Iraeneus did not write this cause he did so we point the finger at some theological position we all know is dubious instead.)

The man who wants truth is less interested in WHO says it but whether it is true or not. The man who does not want truth will reject truths he has already decided to reject using who said it as the excuse.

You just gave the long-winded version of what I already said earlier. It's confirmation bias. They see what they want to see in the evidence presented to them. If it supports their conclusions, then it is good evidence. If it does not, then it is unreliable evidence.

 

[claninja]

Right. Book not sealed as in Daniel because it was for them, not a people 2000 years later.

Daniel was told to seal up the vision of the ram and the goat, which was about Persia and Greece, for it was about the distance future:

The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”
Daniel 8:26 - Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 8:26 - English Standard Version


But John is told not to seal it up because it is soon.

And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Revelation 22:10 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 22:10 - English Standard Version


This gives us time context, that soon means soon, and not 2000+ years

 

[David Kent]

his regnal name

Of course. That was the name he chose.

 

[David Kent]

No, he said Jesus was 50. Means he got that basic fact wrong. Means his source of information was not as he claimed. And he was the only one who mentioned in ONE SENTENCE the emporer at the time of the writing of Revelation. Pretty shakey memory and source. Why didn't he write more about it. He was a long time after the event and to base a view on one sentence written by a guy who could not get the age of Jesus at his death is pretty shakey especially when it is in defiance of the text itself. The "proofs" I read for this position are based on one shakey memory sentence in full defiance of the text.

Would you like to give the reference in Irenaeus so we can look it up.?
*

 

[claninja]

Would you like to give the reference in Irenaeus so we can look it up.?
*

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

 

[claninja]

Again, the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John” gives a long and detailed account of John’s arrest and trial, including the fact that Domitian was the son of Vespasian and reigned after him. And then it says, “And when all were glorifying God, and wondering at the faith of John, Domitian said to him: I have put forth a decree of the senate, that all such persons should be summarily dealt with, without trial; but since I find from thee that they are innocent, and that their religion is rather beneficial, I banish thee to an island, that I may not seem myself to do away with my own decrees.” (“Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John,” author unknown, translated by Alexander Walker, Esq. 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, 1994, vol 8, pp. 561-562.) This is thought to have been written sometime during the second century.

The extreme detail of this account is proof that it is not based on either of the other two statements we have examined which link John’s time in Patmos with Domatian. But this account does not mention the fact that John was condemned to work in the mines or the fact that he published the Revelation after he was released, as stated by Victornius. So even as the statements of Victornius have to be based on a source other than Irenaeus, they also have to be based on a source other than the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John.” Thus there are at least three independent ante-Nicene sources that all say either that John was exiled “to an island” by Domitian, or that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian.

part 2

"The acts of John"

The story of John being banished by Domitian is found in chapters 1-17 of the acts of John. This part of the book, in original greek, is considered 'lost' and is not a part of the original acts of John.


From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
Translation and Notes by M. R. James
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

The best edition of the Greek remains is in Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr. 11.1, 1898: the Latin is in Book V of the Historia Apostolica of Abdias (Fabricius, Cod. Apoer. N. T.: there is no modern edition).

The beginning of the book is lost. It probably related in some form a trial, and banishment of John to Patmos. A distinctly late Greek text printed by Bonnet (in two forms) as cc. 1-17 of his work tells how Domitian, on his accession, persecuted the Jews. They accused the Christians in a letter to him: he accordingly persecuted the Christians. He heard of John's teaching in Ephesus and sent for him: his ascetic habits on the voyage impressed his captors. He was brought before Domitian, and made to drink poison, which did not hurt him: the dregs of it killed a criminal on whom it was tried: and John revived him; he also raised a girl who was slain by an unclean spirit. Domitian, who was much impressed, banished him to Patmos. Nerva recalled him. The second text tells how he escaped shipwreck on leaving Patmos, swimming on a cork; landed at Miletus, where a chapel was built in his honour, and went to Ephesus. All this is late: but an old story, known to Tertullian and to other Latin writers, but to no Greek, said that either Domitian at Rome or the Proconsul at Ephesus cast John into a caldron of boiling oil which did him no hurt. The scene of this was eventually fixed at the Latin Gate in Rome (hence the St. John Port Latin of our calendar, May 6th). We have no detailed account of this, but it is conjectured to have been told in the early part of the Leucian Acts. If so, it is odd that no Greek writer mentions it.


Additionally, the book was condemned as gnostic heresy by the church.

In light of this, it is not appropriate to label 'the acts of john' as proof that Revelation was written post 70ad. Possible and highly suspect evidence at best, but not absolute proof.

chapters of the the acts of john:

1-17, now considered not be a part of the original acts of john

18-36,

37-55

56-57, according to Bonnet, not original

87-105

106-115






to continue....

 

[claninja]

In order to claim that the prophecies fit historic events perfectly, it is necessary to pretend that the details of most prophecies are simply not important.

Why was it that the Christian writers who wrote so soon after A.D. 70, were very confident that these scriptures spoke of events that were in their own futures? Because than knew that the details of what had happened did not fit the details of the prophecies.

The details of the Jewish Roman war up until the temple destruction align very nicely with the olivet discourse, as well as the seals of revelation, bowls, and trumpets in revelation.

Why did the apostles believe they were living the in the last days (acts 2:16-17), at end of the age (1 corinthians 10:11), or in the last hour (1 John 2:18)?

Maybe because their master told them so: Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (matthew 24:34)

God 'came' many times in the old testament (2 samuel 22, Isaiah 19, Micah1,......) with regards to judging individuals, armies, and even nations. Why does this language all of the sudden mean something different with regards to the coming of the son of man at Jerusalem's destruction?

 

[David Kent]

You just gave the long-winded version of what I already said earlier. It's confirmation bias. They see what they want to see in the evidence presented to them. If it supports their conclusions, then it is good evidence. If it does not, then it is unreliable evidence.

Daniel was told to seal up the vision of the ram and the goat, which was about Persia and Greece, for it was about the distance future:

The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”
Daniel 8:26 - Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 8:26 - English Standard Version

But John is told not to seal it up because it is soon.

And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Revelation 22:10 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 22:10 - English Standard Version


This gives us time context, that soon means soon, and not 2000+ years

Do you Preterists, or for that matter Futurists, believe that God had nothing to say to his children through the centuries of tribulation they have endured. The book of Revelation is addressed to seven churches, representing the entire church. It is written to the church and it concerns the church. Remember it is a signified book. Told by signs. It is not literal. If you assume it is literal you make nonsense of it.

• Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John
• 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

The Lord sent the Revelation to His servants to comfort them through the dark ages of great tribulation. This it did.

I have read two writers of the past who said they did not understand Revelation until they read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire then they saw the visions accurately depicted in history. So accurate was it, they said, that had it not been that Gibbon was a scoffer of Christianity, they would have not believed that it was an accurate history.

 

[συνείδησις]

The holy city Jerusalem is trampled underfoot by the Gentiles.
That is not symbolic language, that is the proof that the Gentiles had already smashed Jerusalem.

It's not symbolic language only if you choose to not interpret it as such. I see it it as entirely symbolic.

 

[David Kent]

The math works just fine if you consider Vespasian the eighth Caesar, and not merely the eighth person to lay claim to the empire. Consider the same line presented here and parallel it with Daniel. In Daniel there were ten horns, and an eleventh "little" horn rose up, plucking three of those before it up by the roots (Daniel 7:7-8). The first seven horns are Julius through Nero. The eighth, ninth, and tenth are Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Then the eleventh "little" horn rose up, being Vespasian (who is "little" because he was from an equestrian family), who took the empire, whereas Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were all killed. With those three plucked up by the roots, who indeed laid claim to the empire (though they weren't actual Caesars), Vespasian became the next Caesar in line, making him not only the eleventh horn that plucked up three others by the roots, but also the eighth in the line of Caesars.

Titus is irrelevant to the enumeration. He may have prosecuted the war directly, but he remained there beyond Nero and throughout the civil war at the direction of his father. Ergo, though he was an heir, and eventually became a Caesar himself, the war on the Jews was Vespasian's. Titus was merely his general.

I have never read such a mish-mash. Tertulian and other early church writers knew that the ten horns were future in their day, they would overthrow the empire,(which they later did) and would be followed by antichrist who they mistakenly thought would be an individual, ruling 3½ years. Then would come the end of all things.
Tertulian also taught that the temple in Rev referred to the church and the 144,000 were Christian virgins.

You are well out on the ten horns as at John's time they had not received their kingdom.

• Revelation 17: 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
• 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

The little horn came out of the ten horns so must also have been future.

• Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

The seven heads were also seven mountains and seven kings. That represented the whole Roman economy until it was overthrown by ten gothic kingdoms in the 5th Century. In the above scripture we are told what time it referred to, the time when the seven heads were ruling. In the next chapter we are told that it is after the fall of the empire when the seven horns were ruling.

• Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

 

[David Kent]

part 2

"The acts of John"

The story of John being banished by Domitian is found in chapters 1-17 of the acts of John. This part of the book, in original greek, is considered 'lost' and is not a part of the original acts of John.


From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
Translation and Notes by M. R. James
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

The best edition of the Greek remains is in Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr. 11.1, 1898: the Latin is in Book V of the Historia Apostolica of Abdias (Fabricius, Cod. Apoer. N. T.: there is no modern edition).

The beginning of the book is lost. It probably related in some form a trial, and banishment of John to Patmos. A distinctly late Greek text printed by Bonnet (in two forms) as cc. 1-17 of his work tells how Domitian, on his accession, persecuted the Jews. They accused the Christians in a letter to him: he accordingly persecuted the Christians. He heard of John's teaching in Ephesus and sent for him: his ascetic habits on the voyage impressed his captors. He was brought before Domitian, and made to drink poison, which did not hurt him: the dregs of it killed a criminal on whom it was tried: and John revived him; he also raised a girl who was slain by an unclean spirit. Domitian, who was much impressed, banished him to Patmos. Nerva recalled him. The second text tells how he escaped shipwreck on leaving Patmos, swimming on a cork; landed at Miletus, where a chapel was built in his honour, and went to Ephesus. All this is late: but an old story, known to Tertullian and to other Latin writers, but to no Greek, said that either Domitian at Rome or the Proconsul at Ephesus cast John into a caldron of boiling oil which did him no hurt. The scene of this was eventually fixed at the Latin Gate in Rome (hence the St. John Port Latin of our calendar, May 6th). We have no detailed account of this, but it is conjectured to have been told in the early part of the Leucian Acts. If so, it is odd that no Greek writer mentions it.


Additionally, book was condemned as gnostic heresy by the church.

In light of this, it is not appropriate to label 'the acts of john' as proof that Revelation was written post 70ad. Possible and highly suspect evidence at best, but not absolute proof.

chapters of the the acts of john:

1-17, now considered not be a part of the original acts of john

18-36,

37-55

56-57, according to Bonnet, not original

87-105

106-115






to continue....

I am not interested in apocryphal works. God has preserved all we wish to know in the scriptures.

 

[David Kent]

The details of the Jewish Roman war up until the temple destruction align very nicely with the olivet discourse, as well as the seals of revelation, bowls, and trumpets in revelation.

Why did the apostles believe they were living the in the last days (acts 2:16-17), at end of the age (1 corinthians 10:11), or in the last hour (1 John 2:18)?

Maybe because their master told them so: Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (matthew 24:34)

God 'came' many times in the old testament (2 samuel 22, Isaiah 19, Micah1,......) with regards to judging individuals, armies, and even nations. Why does this language all of the sudden mean something different with regards to the coming of the son of man at Jerusalem's destruction?

I don't disagree with most of that, except Jesus said the father would come and take the kingdom from them.