Early Date of Revelation Finally Proven?

[timtams]

This new book is supposed to provide conclusive proof for the early writing of Revelation, but it's expensive. Has anyone read it who could share its main arguments? Apparently it explains Irenaeus and other writers that seem to support the late date.

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-John-Evangelist-Reinterpretation-Christian/dp/1978709307

 

[CharismaticLady]

This new book is supposed to provide conclusive proof for the early writing of Revelation, but it's expensive. Has anyone read it who could share its main arguments? Apparently it explains Irenaeus and other writers that seem to support the late date.

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-John-Evangelist-Reinterpretation-Christian/dp/1978709307

Domitian's reign was from 81 AD to 96 AD. I'm fine with a late date of 94 to 96 AD for the writing of Revelation.

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

Expensive but well worth it. The chapters in this book absolutely DEMOLISH the late date.

 

[timtams]

There's a summary of the arguments here:

Dean Furlong: Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation (2020)

 

[Adamina]

This new book is supposed to provide conclusive proof for the early writing of Revelation, but it's expensive. Has anyone read it who could share its main arguments? Apparently it explains Irenaeus and other writers that seem to support the late date.
https://www.amazon.com/Identity-John-Evangelist-Reinterpretation-Christian/dp/1978709307

Expensive but well worth it. The chapters in this book absolutely DEMOLISH the late date.

There's a summary of the arguments here:

Dean Furlong: Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation (2020)

Interesting book and thanks for posting that.

I am not a fan of deciding between an early or later dating/writing of Revelation, but rather what it is symbolizing. It is after all the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" Revelation 1:1

I looked at the book site and there was 1 review given on the book.
I will be probably wait for more reviews to come out, as there are vast internet sources one could look up on that subject.
However I am intrigued by his detailed analysis on John the Revelator.

Review
This is an excellent examination of the historical sources regarding the John who wrote the Gospel, and the various traditions concerning his identity, his death, and his place amongst the Evangelists. This will no doubt become a standard reference point for many years to come. -- Fr John Behr, St Vladimir’s Seminary, New York, and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

The frequent claim that the early church was unanimous in identifying the Fourth Evangelist as John the son of Zebedee obscures the complexity of the ancient sources. In this carefully-argued monograph, Dean Furlong presents a robust challenge to this claim. Like a skillful detective, Furlong interrogates the early witnesses, with a keen eye for detail, concluding that ‘the traditional view’ results from the conflation of independent traditions about the Zebedean John and Papias’s John the Elder. His proposal provides compelling explanations for some of the puzzles in the Johannine traditions, such as Epiphanius’s otherwise bewildering dating of John’s exile and death to the reign of Claudius. Furlong’s thesis deserves serious consideration as a valuable contribution both to authorship questions and to the early reception history of the Johannine corpus. -- Ian Boxall, The Catholic University of America

In this clearly written and thoroughly researched volume, Dean Furlong argues that John the Elder, mentioned by Papias, was the author of the Fourth Gospel, rather than John the son of Zebedee. This study is a highly learned and detailed investigation of all the relevant evidence on this matter. It has the great merit of helping us to understand and take seriously all – and not just some – of the evidence about the authorship of John’s Gospel from patristic sources. Anyone interested in the Fourth Gospel will greatly benefit from this highly significant study. -- Paul Trebilco, University of Otago

However, I do find the Preterist arguments to be quite convincing concerning an early date and perhaps why preterism may be becoming more popular while futurism is starting to fall behind [tho I have no statistics for that]

Some links concerning arguments for both an early date:

Google search results for Early Dating of Revelation Church History:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=1366&bih=626&sxsrf=ACYBGNRAHxQ-JBHZT4_mqOIUlcylJdhErQ:1583122996331&ei=NIpcXsTeE4OgtQXc2YyIDQ&q=early+dating+of+revelation+church+history&oq=early+dating+of+revelation+church+history&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299l2.9524.33151..33574...1.4..0.152.2045.2j16......1....1j2..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i304i39j35i39j0i22i30j33i22i29i30j33i10j33i160.gjrJAo-LC-I&ved=0ahUKEwjEyNPe-PrnAhUDUK0KHdwsA9EQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

11.3.1. Internal Evidence for an Early Date Commentary - A ...
www.biblestudytools.com › commentaries › revelation › introduction
Aspects of the text of the book of Revelation have been understood by some as being indicative of an earlier date. Chilton holds that since Scripture teaches that ...

PP3: External Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation ...
Aug 13, 2009 - In fact, according to the Preterist view, which preceded the Dispensational view in Church history by many centuries, the book of Revelation ...

We will now move on to a consideration of the date in which the book of Revelation was written. This segment will consider the external evidence for an early date (likely 64-68 AD) as opposed to a late date (95-96 AD). This will be followed by several posts in which we will consider the internal evidence for an early date. Although this post happens to come first, it’s the internal evidence (what Scripture has to say) which is more important............................

Adam Maarschalk
==========================================
I found another similar book that expounds on the link between Revelation and the Olivet Discourse. I may purchase this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Date-Revelation-End-Times/dp/0996452524
5.0 out of 5 stars Things like this generation shall not pass before

The Book of Revelation is commonly believed to have been written sometime around AD 94-95 during the last years of the reign of the Emperor Domitian. One of the most important arguments for this date is based on a statement made by Irenaeus of Lyons almost 100 years later. This statement is recorded for us in the original Greek in the famous church history written by Eusebius of Caesarea (early fourth century). What if the way we have read Irenaeus' statement is mistaken? What if we have erred in reading Irenaeus through the eyes of Eusebius? What if we are overlooking some questionable presuppositions and a basic misunderstanding which colored the way Eusebius wrote history? This misunderstanding and these presuppositions are both examined in Robert Hillegonds painstaking research published as The Early Date of Revelation and the Endtimes. This issue powerfully impacts our understanding of end times prophecy, as well as what we should be doing as we await the return of Christ......................

.................I had not encountered this perspective before. The belief is backed up with evidence, that the Book of Revelation was written by John before 70 AD, prior to the widely accepted later date of 90 AD. This means that it was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD AND that most, if not all (hence the term partial in the title), of the books prophecies have already come to pass, the mystery of the 666 is solved as it is equal to the Roman Emperor Nero's name. So many things fit perfectly within this belief. Things like this generation shall not pass before... Also many of the sentences match up perfectly with the Olivet Discourses presented in all the Gospels, except for John's. Thus leading many scholars to believe that Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse.

..................................................

 

[Adamina]

Domitian's reign was from 81 AD to 96 AD. I'm fine with a late date of 94 to 96 AD for the writing of Revelation.

Is there a reason you are not fine with an early dating? I have not studied much on either views, but am willing to study on a later date for Revelation.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Is there a reason you are not fine with an early dating? I have not studied much on either views, but am willing to study on a later date for Revelation.

I just said because of the dates of the reign of Domitian's reign was from 81 AD to 96 AD. We know that Revelation was written on Patmos where John had been exiled until Domitian's death in 96 AD.

Preterists try to force an early date before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. and say that Revelation was fulfilled by the destruction of the temple. You see if John wrote Revelation on Patmos and was released in 96 AD, and was exiled there by Domitian whose reign didn't start until 81 AD, the Preterist's theory is out to lunch, and the title of the OP is false.

 

[timtams]

Is there a reason you are not fine with an early dating? I have not studied much on either views, but am willing to study on a later date for Revelation.

I'm persuaded of the early dating. I just think it's right. I'm not a preterist. One thing I would say--three endorsements by leading scholars is probably worth a hundred reviews!

 

[Adamina]

I'm persuaded of the early dating. I just think it's right. I'm not a preterist. One thing I would say--three endorsements by leading scholars is probably worth a hundred reviews!

Do you have a list of scholars, including early centuries church historians that agreed with an early dating of Reve?
I also have become an advocate an early date, simply because of Luke's 70 ad Olivet Discourse and Josephus's agreement with both.
Not sure why a lot of Christians want to believe in a later date, especially if Revelation chapts1-19 and the Great City shown in it quite possibly concerns Jerusalem 70AD.

One could say Jesus and the Apostles were futurists while Josephus and post 70ad scholars were Preterist and or Amills. Are any parts of the 70AD Olivet Discourse shown in Revelation?
Just my thoughts...........

Luke 19:
41 And as He nears, beholding the City, and He laments on Her, 42 saying, "That if Thou knew and Thou, even indeed in this day, the toward peace of Thee, now yet it was hid from Thy eyes.
43 That shall be arriving days upon Thee, and Thy enemies shall be casting up a rampart/siege-work to Thee and shall be encompassing Thee, and pressing Thee from-every-side.
44 And shall be leveling Thee and Thy offspring in Thee, and not shall be leaving stone upon stone in Thee, stead which not Thou knew the season of the visitation of Thee".

Luke 21:
5 and of some saying concerning the Temple, that to goodly stones and votive-offerings it hath been adorned
6 “These which ye are beholding.
Shall be coming days in which not shall be being left stone upon stone here which not shall be being thrown-down
===================================
Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our[fn] Lord was crucified.

Revelation 18:18
And they cried, observing the smoke of Her burning, saying, "What like to the great City?"
19 and they cast dust upon their heads, and cried, lamenting, weeping and mourning, saying,
"Woe! woe! the great City! in which are rich all those having ships in the sea, out of Her preciousness,
for to one hour was She was desolated.

 

[timtams]

Do you have a list of scholars, including early centuries church historians that agreed with an early dating of Reve?

Yes, I found this list for scholars: The Early Date of Revelation   |  Study Archive

For the early church, this article is useful: Dean Furlong: Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation (2020)

 

[summerville]

There's a summary of the arguments here:

Dean Furlong: Patristic Evidence for the Early Date of Revelation (2020)

Excerpt:

The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke

This second century work, while not direct evidence for the early date, does claim that John wrote Revelation before he wrote his Gospel.

Tertullian

Tertullian speaks of John being sent into exile after surviving being plunged into boiling oil at Rome (Praescr. 36).

Jerome quotes Tertullian as relating that John was plunged into oil by Nero. This reading has been changed in the editions because of its support for the Neronian exile.

Jerome source could not have been Tertullian’s extant Prescription of Heretics as he quotes details about the oil (e.g. that John came out more youthful) which are not found in that work. Furlong argues that he quoted instead from one of Tertullian’s lost works.