Date of the Apocalypse

[David Kent]

The following is from E B Elliott, Horae Apocalyptica 3rd edition, 1847

Chap.II.—The Date of the Apocalypse.

• Part 1

This is my second preliminary point of inquiry, and one on which also the historical evidence will be found both direct and conclusive. For the testimony of Ireneus, —Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John,—is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable. Speaking of the name and number of the Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse: "For it" (the Apocalypse evidently)" was seen no very long time ago; but almost in our age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian.

The attempts that have been made to get rid of this testimony, and force another meaning on Irenaeus' words, by those whose views and theories made them wish to do so, have utterly failed. It is as clear a testimony on the point it relates to, as there can be found to any other fact in any other historian.

Nor is it unsupported by other testimony. First, (not to insist on Tertullian,1) Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but clearly confirms the statement. Relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as enacted by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, "after the.death of the tyrant;" and represents him as then an infirm old man. 3 Now "the tyrant," whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be: since at the time of Nero's persecution, St.John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age. 4 Thus it must rather have been, so as Eusebius explains Clement, the tyrant 5 Domilian. 1—Secondly, Victorinus (Bishop of Pettaw, and martyr in Diocletian's persecution) in his Commentary on the Apocalypse,written towards the close of the third century, says twice over expressly, and in a part that bears no mark of interpolation, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the isle of Patmos, when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian.1—To the same effect, thirdly, is the testimony of an Apocryphal author who wrote a history of St.John under the name of Prochorus, one of the seven primary deacons mentioned in the Acts; a work, I conceive, of the third century, and the same perhaps as one noted among the spurious by Athanasius 3—Again, Eusebius, testimony may be cited on the date of the Apocalyptic revelation, (though he doubted about its author,) as expressing his deliberate adoption of the statement of Irenaeus. 1—The same is the recorded judgment of Jerome; 2 the same of Sulpitius Severus3—

Further, we find a distinct statement of similar purport in Primasius, an eminent Augustinian commentator on the Apocalypse, of the sixth century. In his Preface to this Commentary, he speaks of the Apocalyptic visions having been seen by St.John when banished and condemned to the mines in Patmos by the Emperor Domitian.4— And more might yet be added.5

Such is the later and subsidiary Patristic still extant, to the fact of St.John having seen the Apocalyptic visions in Patmos under the reign of Domitian:—a chain of testimony not to be viewed (so as Tilloch would nwarrantably represent it) 1 as but the repetition of that of Irenaus, whom indeed for the most part these writers do not even refer to;*but as their own deliberate independent judgment, formed on all the evidence that then existed. As to any contrary early tradition respecting the date, if such there was, (as Sir I. Newton and Tilloch, still without any warrant of historic record, have assumed,3) it can scarcely have been unknown to them. And their total silence respecting it is only explicable on one of two suppositions; viz. Either that it did not exist, or that they deemed it undeserving of credit, and not even worth the notice.

To be continued

 

[David Kent]

—The Date of the Apocalypse.

Part 2

Nor can this be wondered at: seeing that as to any contrary statement on the point in question, there appears to have been none whatsoever until the time of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century: a writer whose work is decried by Mosheim as "full of blot sand errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author:" 4 and who in his statement on this very point,—supposing it correctly written, and not an error of transcription in our copies,—so exemplifies this ignorance, as well to justify its silent neglect by those writers of our catena, viz. Jerom, Sulpitius, and Primasius, who lived after him. For he speaks of St. John having prophesied when in the isle of Patmos, in the days of the Emperor Claudius:1—a time when, as Michaelis justly observes,2 it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of the Christian body whatsoever; and when moreover the probability is that of the seven Apocalyptic scarce one was as yet in existence,3 and the Apostle John moreover in no way associated with the district.4 But indeed one is almost forced to suspect some strange error in the transcriber. For Epiphanius elsewhere implies John's age to have been ninety at the time of his return from Patmos.5 And can we suppose that he really thought John to have been ninety years old before A.D.54, which was the latest year of the life of Claudius, or about seventy when called by Christ to be his disciple?6—Besides whose strange theory we are reminded by Newton and Tilloch of yet another testimony to the early date of the Apocalypse. The subscription to a Syriac version of the book, written about the beginning of the sixth century,1 is thus worded; "The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero." But of what value is this opinion, then first broached, as it would appear?2—Or again, of what that of the commentator Arcthas, promulgated still two or three centuries later,3 to the effect that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; an opinion contradicted indeed elsewhere in the body of his work by himself?4—Alike the one and the other slept unnoticed for centuries. And if waked up by critics of a more modern age, it has only been (as Michaelis, we have seen, confesses) from the supposed necessity of such dates, in order to any possible explanation of the Apocalyptic prophecies.1 It does not need that I discuss at all prominently certainpoints of indirect and subsidiary historical evidence, in favour of an early date, which these writers have also called into their aid. A sufficient notice of them will be found below: and it will appear that they all, like the direct testimony just discussed, prove weak and worthless on examination.2—Nor will the only other evidence offered on their side,—evidence internal in its character and which has been urged of late years with great earnestness and some effect1 by Dr.Tilloch and others, after Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton,—be found at all better able to bear examination.

For what is the main argument? It Is founded on certain marked similarities discoverable, as they suppose, in sundry Epistles of Peter and Paul, written before Nero's death, to passages in the Apocalypse; whence they infer that the Apocalypse was written first, the Epistles afterwards.1 Now in a question of this kind it is important to distinguish between cases of reference to some antecedent writing,—whether direct, or by means of the article or pronouns demonstrative,—and those of mere similarity of thought or expression. Of the former class of examples, adduced by these critics from the apostolic epistles, there is not one, I believe, which is not explicable as a reference to the previous prophecies of the Old Testament.2 As to cases of mere similarity and coincidence of thought,i we may often see much of it even in uninspired writings, without implying imitation on the part of one or other of the writers, how much more may we expect undesigned resemblances In inspired writings, such as are both the Epistles and Book of the Apocalypse spoken of; seeing that, though written by different human penmen, they were inspired by one and the same divine Spirit:3 which Spirit may just as well be supposed to have dictated an idea or brief sketch to St.Peter or St.Paul, which was afterwards to be developed in the finished pictures of the Apocalypse of St.John, as to have spoken by those first-mentioned Apostles in terms or figures borrowed from the previously promulged pictures of the Apocalypse. All this is very evident; and with it the exceeding danger of arguing, so as Newton and Tilloch have done, for the chronological priority of the Apocalypse, from any supposed imitations of It which they may think to trace in one and another of the apostolic epistles. But it is to Dr.Tilloch himself that we owe the setting forth of the utter unsoundness and error of this their argument in the clearest light. For he has plainly shown that on this principle there must be allowed proof of reference to the Apocalypse in St.Paul's two Epistles to the Thessalonians,—proof as conclusive as in any other case:1—the which Epistles were, however, notoriously written2 (and indeed other of the Epistles also3) before ever a Christian church was founded at Ephesus: much more before it had any episcopal angel presiding over it, such as was addressed in the first of the Apocalyptic Epistles by the Lord Jesus.1—such is their main argument to prove an early date from internal evidence. Of the lesser and subsidiary I add a brief notice below.2

To be concluded

 

[David Kent]

Date of the Apocalypse

Part 3

One word, ere I conclude, on two or three partially corroborative points of evidence drawn from profane history and historians. First,it would seem from their report very questionable (nor does any authentic ecclesiastical history decisively contradict it) whether Nero's persecution of Christians extended far beyond the precincts of Rome itself: a circumstance which, if true, negatives of itself the proposed theory of St.John having been banished in his persecution to the mines of Patmos.—

Secondly, they furnish no evidence that in Nero's persecution banishment to the islands, with its usual penal accompaniments, was one of the punishments then put in force against accused Christians: whereas, on the other hand, we have direct profane historic testimony in proof that that particular punishment was enforced against persons accused of Christianity in the persecution by Domilian. The illustrative case of the noble Senator Clemens' noble wife Domitilla will readily occur to the memory of the classic reader.2—To which let me add, thirdly, that it appears from Tacitus 3 that about the sixth year of Nero, or A.D.60, the city of Laodicea having been destroyed by an earthquake,—in which earthquake, according to Eusebius,4 the adjaent cities of Colossae and Hierapolis were also involved,—Laodicea itself was almost immediately afterre built: whereas there is no historic evidence of the restoration for a half century, or more, of the other two of those fallen cities.5 I note this in answer to Tilloch's rash argument, that the circumstance of the Church at Colossae not being mentioned in the Apocalyptic Epistles, justifies an inference that the Apocalypse was seen and written before the first founding of the Colossian Church.1

Thus (to conclude) the varied historical evidence that has been inquired into, all concurs to confirm the date originally and expressly assigned by Irenaus to the Apocalypse, as seen and written at the close of the reign of Domitian: that is, near the end of the year 95, or beginning of 96.2 Accordingly, the most approved modern ecclesiastical historians and biblical critics,—writers who have had no bias on the point in question, one way or the other, from any particular cherished theory of Apocalyptic interpretation,—for example alike Dupin, Basnage, Turretin, Spanheim,3 Mosheim, Milner, LeClerc, Mill, Whitby,4 Lampe, Neander, Lardner, 5 Tomline, Burton,6 &c,&c,—have alike adopted it.7 And we may, I am persuaded, depend on its correctness with as unhesitating and implicit confidence, as on the truth of almost any of the lesser facts recorded in history.1—It seems surprising to me that respectable and learned commentators should have wasted their time and labour in building up Apocalyptic Expositions on the sandy foundation of an earlier Neronic date.2 It seems stranger still that they should have allowed themselves so to represent the present state of evidence and argument on the point, as if the fact of this earlier date were a thing admitted,3 and beyond doubt.4

The important bearing of the true Apocalyptic date on Apocalyptic interpretation will soon appear.

Concluded
This Book may be downloaded here: http://historicism.com/Elliott/Horae-vol1.pdf or from Google books, or Play Store

 

[keras]

If you go to Patmos, as I have, you will see a plaque near the beach where it says John baptized people in 95 AD. Also in the cave where John wrote Revelation, it states that was during Dominations time as Emperor.
It is only people who want to make out that Revelation is fulfilled, for whatever reason; who attempt to make a case for a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation.
Which is plainly wrong, as what is described in Revelation, bears no relation to what happened in 70 - 135 AD

 

[David Kent]

If you go to Patmos, as I have, you will see a plaque near the beach where it says John baptized people in 95 AD. Also in the cave where John wrote Revelation, it states that was during Dominations time as Emperor.
It is only people who want to make out that Revelation is fulfilled, for whatever reason; who attempt to make a case for a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation.
Which is plainly wrong, as what is described in Revelation, bears no relation to what happened in 70 - 135 AD

Preterists say that he temple in Revelation was the temple standing before the Roman war, however the early church writers said it referred to the church, which is what historicists understand. Paul said "Ye are the temple of God" etc. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 1 Corinthians 6:19 2 Corinthians 6:16 See also 1 Peter 2:5

 

[Lost4words]

It was written before 70AD. There is evidence to suggest this to be correct.

I have looked into it and for me, evidence strongly supports an earlier date.

Of course, those who like to predict future doom and gloom etc will disagree as an earlier date white washes their beliefs on end times.

 

[Christian Gedge]

The following is from E B Elliott, Horae Apocalyptica 3rd edition, 1847

Chap.II.—The Date of the Apocalypse.

Ive always thought that the AD 95 date seemed to have the most support. But I must say, this book is heavy going. For example he had Tertullian in brackets. Was he an exception? Are you able to give a list of early church leaders who agreed with that date? Alternatively, could you summarise for us the key points?

 

[David Kent]

Ive always thought that the AD 95 date seemed to have the most support. But I must say, this book is heavy going. For example he had Tertullian in brackets. Was he an exception? Are you able to give a list of early church leaders who agreed with that date? Alternatively, could you summarise for us the key points?

I will try. It would have been a lot heavier going if I had included all the footnotes which were about 2-3 times longer.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Only if you've got time brother. Incidentally (I dont know if Im imagining) authors from the late 19th century wrote in academic style. Not for the proletariat that's for sure.

 

[David Kent]

Only if you've got time brother. Incidentally (I dont know if Im imagining) authors from the late 19th century wrote in academic style. Not for the proletariat that's for sure.

Yes. His footnotes through the book quote Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French. They call that a classic education. Edward Bishop Elliott had a brother and at one time thy were both vicars of diferent churches in Brighton Sussex. His sister was as hymn writer, Charlotte Elliott (Just as I am) as was his daughter, Emily E Elliott, (Thou didst leave thy throne.)

I am sorry, that I willnot have time to do that. There is an abridged paraphrase on Google, but it doesn't include the introductionary chapters.
Googie seem to try and prevent copying of the book. I was unable to copy it at all on my laptop, but I managed to copy it on my tablet, but pastes it with all the letter spaces removed, making it like just one long word. It took me some hours to insert all the spaces again.

 

[David Kent]

It was written before 70AD. There is evidence to suggest this to be correct.

I have looked into it and for me, evidence strongly supports an earlier date.

Of course, those who like to predict future doom and gloom etc will disagree as an earlier date white washes their beliefs on end times.

The Catholic church would say that as one of their men, Alcazar, invented preterism.

You could post some of that "evidence"?

 

[Lost4words]

The Catholic church would say that as one of their men, Alcazar, invented preterism.

You could post some of that "evidence"?

Google it.

 

[David Kent]

Google it.

I am asking you.

 

[Lost4words]

I am asking you.

I have replied. Info is out there.

 

[David Kent]

I have replied. Info is out there.

I have shown you the evidence that counters that.

 

[Lost4words]

I have shown you the evidence that counters that.

Your evidence, my evidence. You wouldnt agree same as i dont agree with yours. I believe in the earlier date, you dont.

The Early Date of Revelation   |  Study Archive

PP3: External Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)

A couple for you to chew on and digest. Some good info for you my friend

 

[keras]

Your evidence, my evidence. You wouldnt agree same as i dont agree with yours. I believe in the earlier date, you dont.

The proof that Revelation was written AFTER 7o AD, is: what the historical record says about the 70 AD events and what Revelation prophesies, are totally different.
The mistaken idea that it does, is only contrived by making Revelation into a book of Spiritual and allegorical nonsense.

 

[Lost4words]

The proof that Revelation was written AFTER 7o AD, is: what the historical record says about the 70 AD events and what Revelation prophesies, are totally different.
The mistaken idea that it does, is only contrived by making Revelation into a book of Spiritual and allegorical nonsense.

You only want to believe what 'you' believe. You refuse to accept the facts. You make up your very own idea of what Revelation is saying. You look at it through 'modern' glasses.

The 2 links i provided above in post no:16 give excellent info. Truthful too!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The following is from E B Elliott, Horae Apocalyptica 3rd edition, 1847
Chap.II.—The Date of the Apocalypse.

• Part 1

This is my second preliminary point of inquiry, and one on which also the historical evidence will be found both direct and conclusive.

"direct and conclusive"?

Or different from erroneous 'conclusions' of others ?
Long, drawn out, relying on men ?

Pertinent today ?

What (and when?) does the Heavenly Creator Reveal to little children (His children, like Corrie ten Boom), concerning His Word (Revelation/The Apocalypse) ?

 

[David Kent]

Your evidence, my evidence. You wouldnt agree same as i dont agree with yours. I believe in the earlier date, you dont.

The Early Date of Revelation | Study Archive

PP3: External Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)

A couple for you to chew on and digest. Some good info for you my friend

A common ploy taken from your second link.
"It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."

They say the similarity of names Domitius and Domitian is often used, but it is nonsense as Domitiu was one of Nero's birth names and not one of his regal names.
the most compelling evidence for a late date is that practically all the Early Church Writers (aka ECF) taught that the antichrist was still to come, he would follow the ten kings who would suceed the Roman empire and would continue till the end of all things. Few preterist or futurist views in them.
The following extracts are taken from an appendix in the 4th edition of Mr Elliott's book.

Pseudo Sibil (hinted) that antichrist would be nero restored to life. Wrote of Rome as Babylon. as well as Rome.

Justin Martyr, Antichrist was still future in his day but based mainly on Daniel.

Irenaeus, Directed his readers to look out for the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms which would be immediately followed by Antichrist. Considered Antichrist would fix the abomination in Jerusalem and sit in a rebuilt temple as god.

Tertullian, Chronologically agreed with Irenaeus but not with his views about antichrist. Tertullian considered pseudo christian heretics like the Marcionites sitting in the church as fulfilling Paul's prophecy of Antichrist sitting in the temple.

Hipolytus, and immediate sucessor to Tertullian. Antichrist would revive the old empire as an image or ghost of the fomer, giving life to the image of he beast, just as Augustus once did by giving new laws and constitution.

Origen. Considered the 144,000, in Rev 7 and 14 as true Christians, similar to Tertullian who considered them as 144,000 christian martyrs.

Victorianus, the first to leave us a commentary on Revelation. Rather long but he mainly equates it to the church age. The abomination being heresy in the church.

None of them equated Revelation with the period before AD 70

You can look up their original writings on the Romanist New Advent ste. Start here CHURCH FATHERS: Home