Early Date of Revelation Finally Proven?

timtams said:

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

Click to expand...

timtams said:

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

Click to expand...

timtams said:

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

Click to expand...

timtams said:

There's a summary of the arguments here:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

CharismaticLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

Adamina said:

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.

Click to expand...

timtams said:

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!

Click to expand...

timtams said:

There's a summary of the arguments here:

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

Click to expand...