When was the Book of Revelation written?

[mark kennedy]

Don't know, but maybe it has something to do about the future and not the past? I like Hank but he is really stretching it here as Christ told John the following:

Revelation 1: NASB
17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. 19“Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. 20“As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Actually that's a fairly common argument, it is odd that the destruction of the Temple isn't mention anywhere in the New Testament. In Revelations it isn't quite so much an issue since the focus is on the revelation recieved. The date of authorship is most often between 80 and 90 AD primarily because of the quote you offered. I don't think we have anything conclusive and I think Hank made a solid argument, even though I realize it's hard to nail down academically.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

I will say first that the discipleship of Polycarp to John came a bit after 70 AD as Polycarp was born in 69 AD about the time the Roman empire was marching on Jerusalem.

Second, the key words of 'almost in the day' means the generation of Irenaeus. He wrote in 180 AD and was born around 120AD. Just as the WWII era is well known to me as having a father and uncles who served in that time. I also know a lot about the Great depression in the US and Ireland as my father (in the US) and my mother (in Ireland) grew up during those times. Set a date of 1935 for my knowledge of first hand eyewitnesses (mother, father, uncles, grandparents) and we are now in 2018. Long time.

 

[mkgal1]

Another article I just found:

....there are also historical documents that tell us that John was exiled to Patmos at a much earlier date. Here I will share ten evidences that Revelation was written before AD 68.

1. The Syriac

We have the witness of one of the most ancient versions of the New Testament, called The Syriac. The second-century Syriac Version, called the Peshitto, says the following on the title page of the Book of Revelation:

“Again the revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor Nero.”1

We know that Nero Caesar ruled over the Roman Empire from AD 54 to AD 68. Therefore, John had to have been on the island of Patmos during this earlier period. One of the oldest versions of the Bible tells us when Revelation was written! That alone is a very compelling argument.

2. Revelation 17:10

When we look at the internal evidence, we find that there is also a very clear indicator regarding the date of authorship, found in Revelation 17:10: “They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while” (Rev. 17:10).

This passage, which is speaking of the line of rulers in Rome, tells us exactly how many rulers had already come, which one was currently in power, and that the next one would only last a short while. Take a look at how that perfectly fits with Nero and the Roman Empire of the first century.

The rule of the first seven Roman Emperor’s is as follows:

Julius Caesar (49–44 BC)

Augustus (27 BC–AD 14)

Tiberius (AD 14–37)

Caligula (AD 37–41)

Claudius (AD 41–54)

“Five have fallen…”

Nero (AD 54–68)

“One is…”

Galba (June AD 68–January AD 69, a six month ruler-ship)

“the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.”

Of the first seven kings, five had come (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius), one was now in power (Nero), and one had not yet come (Galba), but would only remain a little time (six months). The current Caesar at the time of John’s writing was the sixth Caesar, Nero.

3. Those Who Pierced Him

Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen (Revelation 1:7 YLT).

We already examined the Hebrew idiom, “coming on clouds,” so we know that this speaks not of the return of Christ for the final judgment day, but of God coming to bring judgment on a city or nation (see Chapter 2 for more on this).

The phrase “those who did pierce him” refers to the people of the first century. According to this passage, they were expected to be alive at the time of Revelation’s fulfillment. How is that possible if Revelation was not going to come to pass until 2,000 or more years later? Consider also that “those who did pierce him” weren’t even alive in AD 96 because they would have been killed in the slaughter of AD 70. This verse is a clear indicator of Revelation being written before AD 70.

4. Jewish Persecution of Christians

The Jewish persecution of Christianity in Revelation 6 and 11 indicates a pre-AD 70 authorship. The Jews were not in a position to persecute the early Church after they were slaughtered in AD 70. In fact, since the AD 70 slaughter, the Jews have never been in a position to be able to persecute Christians.

5. Judaizing Heretics in the Church

The activity of the Judaizing heretics in the Church (see Rev. 2:6,9,15; 3:9) would not have been as large of an issue after Paul’s epistles had been circulated. Therefore, an early date of authorship allows for the heretics to be a larger problem.

6. Existence of Jerusalem and the Temple

The existence and integrity of Jerusalem and the Temple (see Rev. 11) suggest a date before the destruction of AD 70.

7. Time-related Passages

The internal time-related portions of Revelation indicate that the events it foretells will come to pass shortly (see Rev. 1:1,3; 22:10,20). If this was read with an unbiased perspective, one would conclude that Revelation was not written about events 2,000 years in the future.

8. John’s Appearance in AD 96

Another reason to believe that the Book of Revelation was written at the earlier date is because Jerome noted in his writings that John was seen in AD 96 and that he was so old and infirm that “he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people.”2 We must put this fact together with what Revelation 10:11 says: that John must “prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” It is difficult to imagine that John would be able to speak to many nations and many kings at any date after AD 96 since he was already elderly and feeble.

9. Timetable Comparison with Daniel

In Daniel, the author was told to “seal up the vision, for it is a long way off” (Dan. 12:4)—which referred to a 483-year wait until Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy. By contrast, in Revelation, John was told to “not seal up the vision because it concerns things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev 22:10). If 483 years was considered a long way off, meaning that the vision should be sealed, it makes no sense that 2,000 plus years would be considered “shortly to come to pass” and not to be sealed up. Clearly, Revelation shouldn’t be sealed because it was about to come to pass at the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

10. Only Seven Churches

The existence of only seven churches in Asia Minor (see Rev. 1) indicates a writing date before the greater expansion of Christianity into that region.

The Other Perspective

Those who believe in the later date of authorship for the Book of Revelation are mainly leaning on the fact that Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons (AD 120-202) claimed that John wrote while on Patmos under Domitian’s reign.4 This alone could seem compelling, except that Irenaeus is notorious for being terrible at accurately recording dates and times in his writings. Irenaeus is the same Church father who claimed that Jesus’ ministry lasted nearly twenty years, from the age of thirty until the age of fifty.5There is no internal evidence for a later date of authorship; one must lean only upon external evidence to force this conclusion.

Because of the overwhelming body of evidence, I firmly believe that Revelation was written during Nero’s reign and before his death in AD 68. I believe that Revelation was written regarding the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Yet, I also know that, at this time, I personally am not called to add my thoughts to the many great works written regarding the Book of Revelation from this point of view. For more information, I will suggest the writings of the experts in this regard:

The Great Tribulation by David Chilton

Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Revelation by Gordon Fee

Revelation for Everyone by N.T. Wright

Conclusion

Considering the evidence used to support both the earlier date and the later date for the writing of the Book of Revelation brings us to a simple conclusion. The most logical and historically responsible conclusion, based on all the evidence, is that Revelation was, in fact, written prior to AD 68 and many of the events foretold in it may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.


~The Date of Authorship for the Book of Revelation

 

[gideon123]

When was the Book written ...

well I've got the wall calendar that was hanging in John's bedroom in Patmos ... if that helps.

 

[redleghunter]

I thought that too, but the Bible often uses 'entire world' language when speaking of things that are not the entire world.

For example Did Cyrus really become king of all the earth? No, history shows just the middle east.
This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, who has given me all the kingdoms of the earth,

Within the context of what they knew of the world at the time? I would say to them that was the whole world. Within the context of the Greco-Roman world and what transpires in Revelation? Highly debatable as the events of 70 AD were local events not even affecting the rest of the empire.

The events of 70AD were indeed God's judgment coming on those who rejected the Son of God. Revelation 19 is about Christ returning and defeating the armies of the nations led by the beast and false prophet. Upon Christ's return He is to deliver Israel, not destroy her:

Zechariah 12: NASB
2“Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. 3“It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. 4“In that day,” declares the LORD, “I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5“Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the LORD of hosts, their God.’

6“In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. 7“The LORD also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8“In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them. 9“And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11“In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12“The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 13the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; 14all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.

Zechariah 14: NASB
1Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 4In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!

6In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. 7For it will be a unique day which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.

8And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.

 

[redleghunter]

"Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things."

John saw the Risen and Glorified Christ--that's which you have seen.
John received the letters for the 7 churches---that's the things which are.
John then was taken up to Heaven to see the things which will take place.

 

[mkgal1]

John saw the Risen and Glorified Christ--that's which you have seen.
John received the letters for the 7 churches---that's the things which are.
John then was taken up to Heaven to see the things which will take place.

I'm sorry.....I guess I'm a bit (maybe a LOT) slow to comprehend today. If John penned Revelation in 68 AD (as Hennegraff suggests) then how is that a stretch in light of that verse? Wouldn't that actually be support that Revelation WAS written prior to 70 AD?

 

[redleghunter]

I'm sorry.....I guess I'm a bit (maybe a LOT) slow to comprehend today. If John penned Revelation in 68 AD (as Hennegraff suggests) then how is that a stretch in light of that verse? Wouldn't that actually be support that Revelation WAS written prior to 70 AD?

Perhaps I should put chapter numbers on it:

John saw the Risen and Glorified Christ--that's which you have seen. Chapter 1
John received the letters for the 7 churches---that's the things which are. Chapters 2 through 3
John then was taken up to Heaven to see the things which will take place. Chapters 4 through 21

If Revelation was penned in 68 AD, then it is not prophecy. The events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem were already in motion in 68 AD. That allowed less than 24 months to deliver the letters and have them circulate back to Judea where the supposed fulfilled prophecies would occur. This would then put Revelation as more a 'forecast' of events already bubbling up. We don't need Revelation to give prophetic utterances of the destruction of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 21 already does a great job of that.

 

[claninja]

Most scholars put it in the 90s AD. Two on the list below have it before.

I always hear 'most scholars put it in the 90s' and yet I have never really seen this anywhere as a fact.

I'm quoting a response from another poster: parousia70 (to give him credit).

"Here is a partial list of scholars who adhere to the early date:

• Jay E. Adams, The Time Is at Hand (Philipsburg: 1966).
• D.E. Aune, Revelation 1—5 (WBC, 52A; Nashville: 1997) ; Revelation 6—16 (WBC, 52B; Nashville: 1998a) ; Revelation 17—22 (WBC, 52C; Nashville: 1998b).
• Greg L. Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (1999).
• Joseph R. Balyeat, Babylon - The Great City of Revelation (1991).
• Arthur Stapylton Barnes, Christianity at Rome in the Apostolic Age (Westport: 1938), pp. 159ff.
• R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: 1993).
• W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek—English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (1979).
• Ulrich R. Beeson, The Revelation (1956 PDF).
• Albert A. Bell, Jr., "The Date of John’s Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered," New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 93-102
• Charles Bigg, The Origins of Christianity, ed. by T. B. Strong (Oxford: 1909), pp. 30,48.
• F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City: 1969), p.411.
• Rudolf Bultmann (1976).
• R. Carré, `Othon et Vitellius, deux nouveaux Néron?', in J.-M. Croisille, R. Martin and Y. Perrin (eds.), Neronia V. Néron: histoire et légende (Collection Latomus, 247; Brussels: 1999): 152-81.
• David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Tyler, TX: 1985); and The Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth, TX: 1987).
• William Newton Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology (New York: 1903).
• Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Harvard Theological Review; Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 9; (Missoula: 1976) ; Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: 1984).
• W. Gary Crampton, Biblical Hermeneutics (1986), p. 42.
• Berry Stewart Crebs, The Seventh Angel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938).
• Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction ; Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
• George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century (London: 1913 PDF).
• George P. Fisher, The Beginnings of Christianity, with a View to the State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ (New York: 1916), pp. 534ff.
• J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation. Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: 1975).
• S.J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 116; Leiden: 1993) ; Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (New York: 2001) ; `Satan's Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation', JSNT 27 (2005): 351-73.
• A.J.P. Garrow, Revelation (New Testament Readings; London: 1997).
• Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition, (1989)
• Robert McQueen Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 237.
• Samuel G. Green, A Handbook of Church History from the Apostolic Era to the Dawn of the Reformation (London: 1904), p. 64.
• I. Head, `Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel's Thesis', JRH 28 (2004): 240-59.
• Bernard W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (London: Methuen, 1903).
• M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark ( Philadelphia: 1985).
• David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), pp. 218-219.
• B. Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der O fenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge, 52; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004).
• P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (transl. and ed. M. Steinhauser and M.D. Johnson; London: 2003).
• Francis Nigel Lee, Revelation and Jerusalem (Brisbane: 1985)
• Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing (2004 PDF)
• J.W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 10; Waterloo, Ont.: 2001) ; `Who's on the Throne? Revelation in the Long Year', in R.S. Boustan and A.Y. Reed (eds.), Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions (Cambridge: 2004): 123-41.
• A. D. Momigliano, Cambridge Ancient History (1934).
• Charles Herbert Morgan, et. al., Studies in the Apostolic Church (New York: 1902), pp. 210ff.
• C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: 1982), p. 174.56
• Robert L. Pierce, The Rapture Cult (Signal Mtn., TN: 1986)
• T. Randell, "Revelation" in H. D. M. Spence &Joseph S. Exell, eds., The Pulpit Cornmentary, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: 1950).
• James J. L. Ratton, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: 1912).
• J. W. Roberts, The Revelation to John (Austin, TX: Sweet, 1974).
• John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: 1976).
• G. Rojas-Flores, `The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero's Reign ', Bib 85 (2004): 375-92.
• C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: 1982).
• W. Sanday (1908). Introduction to the New Testament.
• J. J. Scott, The Apocalypse, or Revelation of S. John the Divine (London: 1909).
• Edward Gordon Selwyn, The Christian Prophets and the Apocalypse (Cambridge: 1900); and The Authorship of the Apocalypse (1900).
• T.B. Slater, `Dating the Apocalypse to John', Bib 84 (2003): 252-58.
• D. Moody Smith, "A Review of John A. T. Robinson’s Redating the New Testament," Duke Diviniep School Review 42 (1977): 193-205.
• A.G. Soeting, Auditieve aspecten van het boek Openbaring van Johannes (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam; 2001).
• Charles Cutler Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, (ch. 5); and The Apocalypse of John (New Haven: Yale, 1958).
• Cornelis Vanderwaal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (Ontario: 1978); and Search the Scriptures, vol. 10 (1979).
• J.W. Van Henten, `Nero Redivivus Demolished: The Coherence of the Nero Traditions in the Sibylline Oracles', JSP 21 (2000): 3-17.
• G.H. Van Kooten, 'The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John' (PDF): The `pro-Neronian' Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome' (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 30, No. 2, 205-248 (2007) ; 2005 `"Wrath Will Drip in the Plains of Macedonia": Expectations of Nero's Return in the Egyptian Sibylline Oracles (Book 5), 2 Thessalonians, and Ancient Historical Writings', in A. Hilhorst and G.H. van Kooten (eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 59; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 177-215.
• Arthur Weigall, Nero: Emperor of Rome (London: Thornton Butter-worth, 1930).
• Bernhard Weiss, A Commentary on the New Testament, trans. G. H. Schodde (NY: 1906), vol. 4.
• A.N. Wilson, Paul: The Mind of the Apostle (1977), p. 11
• J. Christian Wilson, `The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation ', NTS 39 (1993): 587-605.

Continued......."

Most base this on the testimony of St Irenaeus testimony in Against Heresies Book V, chapter 30, section 3:

3. It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved.
[...]
And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name Titan has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called Titan. 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. (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.30 (St. Irenaeus))

it appears, or at least I can only find, that this quote from Irenaeus is the main, if not only, evidence used to show a later date written for evidence. It appears that this is what some of church fathers based their belief on.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of the apostle John. That lends credence to Irenaeaus' claim and understanding of Revelation.

is there proof of this, or is this tradition based?

Irenaeaus also believed Jesus lived to 40-50 years old, so I take it with a grain of salt.

Another historic data point to consider is Revelation was considered part of the early church antilegomena. Or the disputed NT books. Reason usually given is the later date (late 1st century AD) and thus not known universally by the church:

I believe Hebrews and Peter were part of this as well.

 

[sdowney717]

I'm sorry.....I guess I'm a bit (maybe a LOT) slow to comprehend today. If John penned Revelation in 68 AD (as Hennegraff suggests) then how is that a stretch in light of that verse? Wouldn't that actually be support that Revelation WAS written prior to 70 AD?

You bring up a preterist as support for an early writing of Revelation??
Of course a preterist believes that very thing.
The Error of Preterism

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps I should put chapter numbers on it:

John saw the Risen and Glorified Christ--that's which you have seen. Chapter 1
John received the letters for the 7 churches---that's the things which are. Chapters 2 through 3
John then was taken up to Heaven to see the things which will take place. Chapters 4 through 21

If Revelation was penned in 68 AD, then it is not prophecy. The events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem were already in motion in 68 AD. That allowed less than 24 months to deliver the letters and have them circulate back to Judea where the supposed fulfilled prophecies would occur. This would then put Revelation as more a 'forecast' of events already bubbling up. We don't need Revelation to give prophetic utterances of the destruction of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 21 already does a great job of that.

Ok, but let's take a look at how the book is constructed. If you take it as literally fulfilled you have seriously issues with the death toll described. The messages to the churches are no issues, they fit the period perfectly. The seals, chapter 6, the trumpets about chapter 24 and the vials of wrath are clearly not something that can happen historically. There is mention of a resurrection we know hasn't happened yet and this antichrist guy the likes of which the world has never seen.

It's clearly futuristic in IRS predictions regardless of the date of it authorship.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

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

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

90s.

The external evidence is that the early church fathers give it a late date, during Domitian’s reign.

The internal evidence is several. A few of the churches mentioned in Rev 1-3 would not have existed in the late 60s. The more general persecution that would’ve reached Asia is more characteristic of Domitian’s reign than Nero’s.

 

[redleghunter]

I always hear 'most scholars put it in the 90s' and yet I have never really seen this anywhere as a fact.

I'm quoting a response from another poster: parousia70 (to give him credit).

"Here is a partial list of scholars who adhere to the early date:

• Jay E. Adams, The Time Is at Hand (Philipsburg: 1966).
• D.E. Aune, Revelation 1—5 (WBC, 52A; Nashville: 1997) ; Revelation 6—16 (WBC, 52B; Nashville: 1998a) ; Revelation 17—22 (WBC, 52C; Nashville: 1998b).
• Greg L. Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (1999).
• Joseph R. Balyeat, Babylon - The Great City of Revelation (1991).
• Arthur Stapylton Barnes, Christianity at Rome in the Apostolic Age (Westport: 1938), pp. 159ff.
• R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: 1993).

Continued......."



it appears, or at least I can only find, that this quote from Irenaeus is the main, if not only, evidence used to show a later date written for evidence. It appears that this is what some of church fathers based their belief on.




is there proof of this, or is this tradition based?

Irenaeaus also believed Jesus lived to 40-50 years old, so I take it with a grain of salt.



I believe Hebrews and Peter were part of this as well.

Thanks for the list! A lot of 19th century Tubingen school names on the list. Do you have the dates they claim or do I have to do visit all the books? For example, the list I provided went to a link which listed the date range and scholars:

Scholars' Dates for Revelation

The early church external evidence is listed below:

Perhaps Hegesippus via Eusebius as well:

The first person to describe the date Revelation was written in AD 95 is a man named Hegesippus who lived AD 120-190. While there is a limited number of writings that exist today from Hegesippus, Eusebius Pamphili of Caesaria (who lived AD 300-340) heavily relied on Hegesippus’ material when writing his Ecclesiastical History (Andrew James Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Supplements to Viligiae christianae, ed. J. Van Oort, J. Den Boeft, W. L. Petersen, et al., vol. 67 [Leiden: Brill: 2003], 1-36). In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

he mentions a written source that he uses to state that John the apostle was banished to the island of Patmos under the reign of Domitian. The written source that Eusebius uses is most likely Hegesippus’ work written sometime in the second century (Hitchcock, “Domitianic Date of Revelation,” 11-16).​

More: From Eusebius Church History (Book III)

Chapter 17. The Persecution under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.

Chapter 18. The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.

2. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:

3. If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.

4. To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.

5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.​

[...]

Chapter 23. Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.
1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.

2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.

3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.

4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words: But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.

5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and read the account which runs as follows:

6. Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.
CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)
​

it appears, or at least I can only find, that this quote from Irenaeus is the main, if not only, evidence used to show a later date written for evidence. It appears that this is what some of church fathers based their belief on.

It could be as the later fathers also believed Irenaeus on the authorship of the Gospels. However, as seen above Hegesippus may just be Eusebius' source in Ecclesiastical History.
Let us not forget...these theologians or church fathers were much closer in history to the actual events than 19th century AD textual skeptics.

is there proof of this, or is this tradition based?

Irenaeaus also believed Jesus lived to 40-50 years old, so I take it with a grain of salt.

Irenaeus says so himself in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3 paragraph 4.

Yeah, the church fathers are a great source of information and they were fallible men like us. But to compare the age of Jesus to events Irenaeus was closer to and being a bishop himself? Don't think that impeaches a good witness in Irenaeus.

I believe Hebrews and Peter were part of this as well.

There were more and here's a good link:

Disputed Books of the New Testament

 

[redleghunter]

Ok, but let's take a look at how the book is constructed. If you take it as literally fulfilled you have seriously issues with the death toll described. The messages to the churches are no issues, they fit the period perfectly. The seals, chapter 6, the trumpets about chapter 24 and the vials of wrath are clearly not something that can happen historically. There is mention of a resurrection we know hasn't happened yet and this antichrist guy the likes of which the world has never seen.

It's clearly futuristic in IRS predictions regardless of the date of it authorship.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Indeed I too view Revelation chapters 4-22 as yet future. The clincher for me is chapter 19 Christ comes as conquering King and destroys the nations under the beast. In the preterist view chapter 19 is the destruction of Jerusalem if I am not mistaken.

Revelation 19 reads a lot like Zechariah 12 and Zechariah 14 where the Lord is coming to deliver Jerusalem from the nations.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe Hebrews and Peter were part of this as well.

More on that from an early source in Eusebius:

Chapter 25. The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.
1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.

2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.

5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers — we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)​

 

[DamianWarS]

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

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

scholars seem to think it was before 70 and it was updated a few times in later years.

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed I too view Revelation chapters 4-22 as yet future. The clincher for me is chapter 19 Christ comes as conquering King and destroys the nations under the beast. In the preterist view chapter 19 is the destruction of Jerusalem if I am not mistaken.

Revelation 19 reads a lot like Zechariah 12 and Zechariah 14 where the Lord is coming to deliver Jerusalem from the nations.

It makes no sense that these prophecies were fulfilled historically, the kingdom prophecies and especially the Revelation make sweeping claims that cant be dismissed as already fulfilled.

 

[klutedavid]

Actually that's a fairly common argument, it is odd that the destruction of the Temple isn't mention anywhere in the New Testament. In Revelations it isn't quite so much an issue since the focus is on the revelation recieved. The date of authorship is most often between 80 and 90 AD primarily because of the quote you offered. I don't think we have anything conclusive and I think Hank made a solid argument, even though I realize it's hard to nail down academically.

In your opinion what might the following verses be referring to?

1 Thessalonians 2:16
hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.

 

[mark kennedy]

In your opinion what might the following verses be referring to?

1 Thessalonians 2:16
hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.

That sounds like persecution, did you have a larger point here?

 

[klutedavid]

That sounds like persecution, did you have a larger point here?

Persecution or wrath?

This is possibly describing the destruction of Jerusalem and way before Revelations is even written.