When was the Book of Revelation written?

[David Kent]

I've looked at them based on your claim and don't see how you get the Church in any of them.

Paul said "You are the temple of God" several times. That is the church. There is no other temple. The early church writers recognised this,

 

[claninja]

Part 1

The debate of the dating revelation has been going on for over 1000 years. As a response, it is not my intention to prove a pre 70ad dating of revelation based on external evidence. I do not believe it can proven 100%. I also don't believe a post 70ad date can be proven 100%. My only intention is to show that there is reasonable doubt when it comes to the post 70ad dating of revelation.

The preterist perspective is simply this: Jesus stated in the olivet discourse that 'this generation', the generation of the apostles, would see the events leading up to the destruction of the temple, which was associated with coming of the son of man (Mattew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). Throughout the epistles, the disciples teach and believe that they are living in the last days (acts 2:16-17), the end of the age (1 corinthians 10:11), the last hour (1 john 2:18). In the revelation (revelation 1:1-4), Jesus tells John to prophecy about things that will 'soon take place' for the 'time is near'. This includes Jesus' coming, which would be associated with the fall of the temple.

The preterist understands that the coming of the son man at the destruction of Jerusalem correlates with the OT language of the coming of God 'on the clouds' or 'down from heaven' in judgment, whether it was againts certain peoples or nations ( examples: 2 samuel 22, Isaiah 13, Micah 1).

Preterists claim that the words “That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domation’s reign.” Refer to John, rather than to his vision. But when we consider the point Irenaeus was making, we see that this cannot be correct. He told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in “the apocalyptic vision.” Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, “for he was seen no very long time since...” He said “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.” Using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.

The reason that preterists comment on the ambiguity of the sentence, is that the greek verb 'was seen' is a third person singular verb that can refer to 'it' or 'he' or 'she', as the word, in the original greek, does not specify. This, along with the use of 'for' can make it difficult for the traditional interpretation, as when 'for' is introduced into the sentence, it allows for the interpretation of 'was seen' not to necessarily refer back to the preceding noun of 'the revelation' but to the main idea of the previous sentence. This could result in a meaning of, 'if it was necessary for the name of the beast to be revealed in the present time, John would have announced it to us, for he was seen not long ago, towards the end of Domitian's reign.' In other words, if it was necessary for John to name the beast, he would have told them himself, because he was with them not long ago.

Additionally, in the first line of chapter 30, Irenaeus refers to the number of the beast found in 'all the most approved and ancient copies'. If Irenaeus, in fact, was referring to the revelation 'that was seen not long ago', he does appear to contradict himself by calling the copies of the revelation ancient, of which the original would have been even older. However, if 'John' is the 'that which was seen not long ago', then it does remove the contradiction of the 'ancient copies'.

Regardless, whether Irenaeus was referring 'John that was seen', or the 'vision that was seen', the other issue involves Irenaeus' memory. For one, he learned from polycarp as a child and did not write anything down.

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse ... also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance ... I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind" (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, II)."

This lends support to the fact that Irenaeus could have remembered incorrectly what he was taught by the elders and learned in the gospels:

"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)"

Some of the more radical Preterists, determined to reject this testimony of Irenaeus, claim that his words "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day..." cannot refer to "the apocalyptic vision," because they claim that Irenaeus usually used the word "seen" with reference to persons, but not for things (like visions.) But this is clearly incorrect. For in this same "Against Heresies," Irenaeus repeatedly used the word "seen" with reference both to visions and to things seen in visions. He used it in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 10, saying, "This, too, was made still clearer by Ezekiel, that the prophets saw the dispensations of God in part, but not actually God Himself. For when this man had seen the vision of God, and the cherubim, and their wheels..." He used it again in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 12, saying, "However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might prefigure and show forth future events beforehand." He used it again in book 5, chapter 26, paragraph 1, saying, "He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: ‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast.'" He used it again in the same paragraph, saying, "Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar..." He used it again in book 5, chapter 28, paragraph 2 of this work, saying, "John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' "(All of these comments can be found in the same volume 1 of "Ante-Nicene Fathers" that was previously cited for "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus.) So, contrary to the claim made by these Preterists, Irenaeus often used the word "seen" in regard to things (like visions.)

I agree with this. The text does not demand that 'seen' be used for people and not things. As you, many others, and even some preterists agree, 'seen' can be used for both people and things.

For Victornius wrote, “‘And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.’ He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Cæsar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.” (“Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 10:11, translated by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. 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 7.) This is thought to have been written in the late third century.

We need to notice two details in this statement. Victorinus said that “when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Cæsar Domitian,” and that “John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse.” Since Irenaeus did not state either of these details, they are conclusive proof that this statement by Victorinus was based on information other than the statement by Irenaeus.

To be absolutely fair, this is not conclusive proof. This is possible evidence, but not 100% proof. 2 issues arrive from this. Currently, prior to Victorinus, we have one possible source of post 70ad dating, that would be Irenaeus. Just because Victorinus did not specifically mention Ireneaus or give credit to him, does not mean that's not where he got his information from. This is an argument from ignorance, which allows for supporting evidence, but is not conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. the second issue is the 'mines of patmos'. Unfortunately, not much is known historically about Romans exiling criminals to patmos. Besides victorinus, there doesn't seem to be a mention of 'mines' on patmos by other church fathers, roman historians, or archaeology, not at least that I could find. If you do have another source for the mines of patmos, that would be great if you could provide it, as I could not find anything else.

In addition to the statement quoted above, Victorinus also wrote, “‘And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he is come, he will be for a short time.’] The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written—Domitian, to wit. ‘The other has not yet come,’ speaks of Nerva; ‘and when he is come, he will be for a short time,’ for he did not complete the period of two years.” (“Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” by Victorinus, comments on Revelation 17:10, tran. by Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. 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 7.)

This depends on one's interpretation of the 7 kings which are also 7 hills upon which the prostitute sits. Unfortunately, we are not given the names of the kings, only that that 5 have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come.

It is definitely a possibility, that the king, who is, refers Nero, as even St. Clement of Alexandria refers to Nero placing the abomination of desolation:

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

This would fit with the first 7 emperors who came from the Roman empire (to note Josephus states Julius was an emperor, which is important because the line up of emperors should be looked at the from lens of how the Jews viewed them):
1.) Julius
2.) Augustus
3.)Tiberius
4.) Caligula
5.) Claudius
6.) Nero (who is)
7.) Galba

However, this is all speculation, as the kings of the beast are not explicitly named.


To continue......

 

[Biblewriter]

That's not so. The interpretation of it is irrelevant to the date of its authorship. The late authorship assumptions are based on a statement concerning John by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.30). But there is a question of interpretation there as well, whether it means to say that John was seen during the reign of Domitian, or that the Revelation was seen during the reign of Domitian.

The particular word used in Irenaeus' writing can be translated either way, as "he" or "it," depending on the intent of the author. If "he," then it refers to John, if "it," then to the Revelation.

It is by no means definitive that the Revelation was written at the end of Domitian's reign.

I have already demonstrated that there were 4 independent ante-nicene sources, sll of which dated the Revelation to the time of Domatian. So the claim that this conclusion is simply based on what Irenaeus said, has slready been disproven.

 

[Biblewriter]

Part 1

The debate of the dating revelation has been going on for over 1000 years. As a response, it is not my intention to prove a pre 70ad dating of revelation based on external evidence. I do not believe it can proven 100%. I also don't believe a post 70ad date can be proven 100%. My only intention is to show that there is reasonable doubt when it comes to the post 70ad dating of revelation.

The preterist perspective is simply this: Jesus stated in the olivet discourse that 'this generation', the generation of the apostles, would see the events leading up to the destruction of the temple, which was associated with coming of the son of man (Mattew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). Throughout the epistles, the disciples teach and believe that they are living in the last days (acts 2:16-17), the end of the age (1 corinthians 10:11), the last hour (1 john 2:18). In the revelation (revelation 1:1-4), Jesus tells John to prophecy about things that will 'soon take place' for the 'time is near'. This includes Jesus' coming, which would be associated with the fall of the temple.

The preterist understands that the coming of the son man at the destruction of Jerusalem correlates with the OT language of the coming of God 'on the clouds' or 'down from heaven' in judgment, whether it was againts certain peoples or nations ( examples: 2 samuel 22, Isaiah 13, Micah 1).







The reason that preterists comment on the ambiguity of the sentence, is that the greek verb 'was seen' is a third person singular verb that can refer to 'it' or 'he' or 'she', as the word, in the original greek, does not specify. This, along with the use of 'for' can make it difficult for the traditional interpretation, as when 'for' is introduced into the sentence, it allows for the interpretation of 'was seen' not to necessarily refer back to the preceding noun of 'the revelation' but to the main idea of the previous sentence. This could result in a meaning of, 'if it was necessary for the name of the beast to be revealed in the present time, John would have announced it to us, for he was seen not long ago, towards the end of Domitian's reign.' In other words, if it was necessary for John to name the beast, he would have told them himself, because he was with them not long ago.

Additionally, in the first line of chapter 30, Irenaeus refers to the number of the beast found in 'all the most approved and ancient copies'. If Irenaeus, in fact, was referring to the revelation 'that was seen not long ago', he does appear to contradict himself by calling the copies of the revelation ancient, of which the original would have been even older. However, if 'John' is the 'that which was seen not long ago', then it does remove the contradiction of the 'ancient copies'.

Regardless, whether Irenaeus was referring 'John that was seen', or the 'vision that was seen', the other issue involves Irenaeus' memory. For one, he learned from polycarp as a child and did not write anything down.

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse ... also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance ... I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind" (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, II)."

This lends support to the fact that Irenaeus could have remembered incorrectly what he was taught by the elders and learned in the gospels:

"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)"





I agree with this. The text does not demand that 'seen' be used for people and not things. As you, many others, and even some preterists agree, 'seen' can be used for both people and things.



To be absolutely fair, this is not conclusive proof. This is possible evidence, but not 100% proof. 2 issues arrive from this. Currently, prior to Victorinus, we have one possible source of post 70ad dating, that would be Irenaeus. Just because Victorinus did not specifically mention Ireneaus or give credit to him, does not mean that's not where he got his information from. This is an argument from ignorance, which allows for supporting evidence, but is not conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. the second issue is the 'mines of patmos'. Unfortunately, not much is known historically about Romans exiling criminals to patmos. Besides victorinus, there doesn't seem to be a mention of 'mines' on patmos by other church fathers, roman historians, or archaeology, not at least that I could find. If you do have another source for the mines of patmos, that would be great if your provide it, as I could not find anything else.



This depends on one's interpretation of the 7 kings which are also 7 hills upon which the prostitute sits. Unfortunately, we are not given the names of the kings, only that that 5 have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come.

It is definitely a possibility, that the king, who is, refers Nero, as even St. Clement of Alexandria refers to Nero placing the abomination of desolation:

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

This would fit with the first 7 emperors who came from the Roman empire (to note Josephus states Julius was an emperor, which is important because the line up of emperors should be looked at the from lens of how the Jews viewed them):
1.) Julius
2.) Augustus
3.)Tiberius
4.) Caligula
5.) Claudius
6.) Nero (who is)
7.) Galba

However, this is all speculation, as the kings of the beast are not explicitly named.


To continue......

You have completely missed, or are trying to tiptoe around, the point of the “mines of Patmos” comment. It is conclusively proof that Victorinus was relying on a source other than Irenaeus.

 

[Biblewriter]

That's not so. The interpretation of it is irrelevant to the date of its authorship. The late authorship assumptions are based on a statement concerning John by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.30). But there is a question of interpretation there as well, whether it means to say that John was seen during the reign of Domitian, or that the Revelation was seen during the reign of Domitian.

The particular word used in Irenaeus' writing can be translated either way, as "he" or "it," depending on the intent of the author. If "he," then it refers to John, if "it," then to the Revelation.

It is by no means definitive that the Revelation was written at the end of Domitian's reign.

You cannot give even one example of a claim of “internal evidence” of the alleged “early date” for the Revelation that would even appear to be correct, if the Preterist interpretion were not simply assumed.

And I have already proved that your claim that the “late date” is based entirely on the testimony of Irenaeus is incorrect. Did you even bother to read what I posted?

 

[claninja]

You have completely missed, or are trying to tiptoe around, the point of the “mines of Patmos” comment.

No, I understand what your saying. You are saying since Victorinus mentions the ‘mines of Patmos’ that he is using a different source than Irenaeus, as Irenaeus doesn’t mention the mines of Patmos. This is an assumption, not conclusive proof. Just like it’s an assumption for me to reason that Victorinus was influenced by Irenaeus. For it to be conclusive proof, Victorinus should have mentioned his source. It is ok to make assumptions as long as one doesn’t say it is ‘conclusive proof’. It can be used as evidence for your position, no doubt, but it cannot be labeled conclusive proof.

It is interesting to note, that no other historians, church fathers, or even archeologists, mention mines on Patmos. Unless there is a source that you know of that mentions mines on Patmos other than Victorinus?

If there is no other source on the mines of Patmos, I could make the assumption that Victorinus embellished Irenaeus’ story or the story changed by the time it got to Victorinus, like ‘Chinese telephone’.

I know the point your making, but to call it conclusive proof, is not appropriate. It’s possible evidence, but not 100% proof.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Paul said "You are the temple of God" several times. That is the church. There is no other temple. The early church writers recognised this,

We were talking about in the book of Revelation.

 

[David Kent]

We were talking about in the book of Revelation.

It is the same temple.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It is the same temple.

All these references to the temple are the Church?

Revelation 7:15
Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.

Revelation 11:1
[ The Two Witnesses ] Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

Revelation 11:2
But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

Revelation 11:19
Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.

Revelation 14:15
And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”

Revelation 14:17
[ Reaping the Grapes of Wrath ] Then another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

Revelation 15:5
After these things I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.

Revelation 15:6
And out of the temple came the seven angels having the seven plagues, clothed in pure bright linen, and having their chests girded with golden bands.
ns
Revelation 15:8
The temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from His power, and no one was able to enter the temple till the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.

Revelation 16:1
[ The Seven Bowls ] Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out the bowls of the wrath of God on the earth.”

Revelation 16:17
[ Seventh Bowl: The Earth Utterly Shaken ] Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, “It is done!”

Revelation 21:22
[ The Glory of the New Jerusalem ] But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

 

[David Kent]

This would fit with the first 7 emperors who came from the Roman empire (to note Josephus states Julius was an emperor, which is important because the line up of emperors should be looked at the from lens of how the Jews viewed them):
1.) Julius
2.) Augustus
3.)Tiberius
4.) Caligula
5.) Claudius
6.) Nero (who is)
7.) Galba

However, this is all speculation, as the kings of the beast are not explicitly named.

Julius was n ot an emperor, he was a dictator. That would make the one that is Galba. Anyway your reasoning nowhere macthes scripture. There were to be seven kings, then the eighth, There were quite a number after Galba.

There is no reason to believe that the kings of Rome were any different from any of the other kings in Daniel 2, and they were all dynasties.

The five that had fallen were those dynasties before the emperors, the sixth was the emperor, seven was begun by Constantine, then the ten Gothic kingdoms that overthrew Rome, who then gave their power to the papacy, the eighth.

 

[David Kent]

Revelation 11:1
[ The Two Witnesses ] Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

Revelation 11:2
But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

After the reformation depicted in Revelation 10. The reformers
gradually realise that the pope was the Antichrist, and realised that his followers were not true Christians. This resulted in Martin Luther excommunicating the pope, and that would include all his minions. The popes at that time were a very wicked lot, not like the globe trotting superstars they like they try to be now. Just over years ago no pope left the Vatican Palace for 56 years.

Do you not realise that the temple was destroyed. Jesus said he would raise the temple in three days. He was speaking of his boby, and his body is also the church. This is where God dwells today, in His people. There will never be another physical temple.

Remember Revelation is a signified book, Rev 1:1 that means it was told by signs. John sometimes says what he saw in the visions and sometime what he did, in otherwords acting out the prophecy.

Much of OT prophecy is symbolic like sun moon and stars being people.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Nero's full name Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus

he was popular in the eastern provinces a legend arose that he would return as Nero redivivus, nero resurrected and reborn.

Emperor Domitian styled himself as the reborn Nero and may have adopted his name specifically to refer back to Nero.

 

[David Kent]

Nero's full name Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus

he was popular in the eastern provinces a legend arose that he would return as Nero redivivus, nero resurrected and reborn.

Emperor Domitian styled himself as the reborn Nero and may have adopted his name specifically to refer back to Nero.

Nero's name was Nero (/ˈnɪəroʊ/; Latin: Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

 

[AFrazier]

You cannot give even one example of a claim of “internal evidence” of the alleged “early date” for the Revelation that would even appear to be correct, if the Preterist interpretion were not simply assumed.

And I have already proved that your claim that the “late date” is based entirely on the testimony of Irsnaeus. Did you even bother to read what I posted?

I read it, yes. You are giving too much weight to circular evidence. Just because someone a hundred years after the fact said something, that doesn't make it a fact. Keep in mind that authors like Epiphanius have all sorts of facts messed up, just as authors from the Chronographer of 354 to Orosius all use a Catonian epoch that skews our dating system (and is the likely source of Dionysius' "error").

Irenaeus holds weight because of his chronological proximity to Polycarp, and Polycarp's to John. Beyond these men, the same cannot be said with absolute certainty.

As for internal evidence.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 — I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Unless you know of some other men caught up into the paradise of the third heaven to hear unspeakable words, there is better than a plausible likelihood that Paul is referring to the Revelation.

The dating of the composition of 2 Corinthians, minus fourteen years, puts the vision here mentioned in the reign of Claudius.

From a preterist perspective (the dating of the composition of Revelation notwithstanding), its authorship in the reign of Claudius is consistent with some of the interpretations given. The seven heads are seven kings. Five had already fallen, one was, and one was yet to come. And then there would be an eighth.

Given that Marc Antony was considered a Caesar by the Jews, that gives us Julius, Augustus, Marc Antony, Tiberius, and Caligula (five that had already fallen by the reign of Claudius). Then there is Claudius (one that is at the time of the writing), and Nero (one that is yet to come, whose name just happens to count to 666). After this there was an eighth (Vespasian), and he brought destruction.

Consequently, this enumeration agrees also with Daniel. There are ten horns, and an eleventh horn comes up, pushing three out of the way. The first seven are the same Caesars mentioned from Julius to Nero. The eighth, ninth, and tenth horns are Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian then rises up and pushes those three out of the way, becoming the eighth by their removal.

BUT ... this is not a discussion about the Revelation in that sense. I was mostly just demonstrating an example of internal evidence with corroboration. Per Paul, I have the utmost confidence that the Revelation was written in the reign of Claudius, likely between 52 and 54 CE.

 

[AFrazier]

Julius was n ot an emperor, he was a dictator. That would make the one that is Galba. Anyway your reasoning nowhere macthes scripture. There were to be seven kings, then the eighth, There were quite a number after Galba.

There is no reason to believe that the kings of Rome were any different from any of the other kings in Daniel 2, and they were all dynasties.

The five that had fallen were those dynasties before the emperors, the sixth was the emperor, seven was begun by Constantine, then the ten Gothic kingdoms that overthrew Rome, who then gave their power to the papacy, the eighth.

Julius was a Caesar. That's the part that's relevant. There's a reason all future emperors were called Caesar.

And the eighth was an eighth, not the eighth. The relevance of the eighth is that he would bring destruction, which Vespasian did.

 

[claninja]

Julius was n ot an emperor, he was a dictator. That would make the one that is Galba. Anyway your reasoning nowhere macthes scripture. There were to be seven kings, then the eighth, There were quite a number after Galba.

As I stated in my post, naming the kings is only speculation as scripture doesn't explicitly name the kings. The only clue we get, is that 'one is'.

IF we are going to speculate and attempt to name the kings, it is important understand how the Jews understood the succession of roman emperors, and not necessarily secular history, as the prophecy was written by a Jew. According to Josephus, a jew, Julius was a Caesar. in Antiquities of the Jews Book XIV.10.2, Josephus writes: "Caius Julius Caesar, imperator and high priest, and dictator the second time, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Sidon, sendeth greeting.

Julius caesar played a big role in the downfall of the Roman republic. The Roman republic was not ruled by any one king or emperor. Following the Roman republic's fall, the roman empire came to fruition. It was ruled by emperors.

If we count from who the Jews thought was the first 'king of Rome' we start with julius caesar. That would make nero the one who is in revelation 17.

Again, this is all speculation, as the kings are not explicitly named in revelation.

 

[Biblewriter]

I read it, yes. You are giving too much weight to circular evidence. Just because someone a hundred years after the fact said something, that doesn't make it a fact. Keep in mind that authors like Epiphanius have all sorts of facts messed up, just as authors from the Chronographer of 354 to Orosius all use a Catonian epoch that skews our dating system (and is the likely source of Dionysius' "error").

Irenaeus holds weight because of his chronological proximity to Polycarp, and Polycarp's to John. Beyond these men, the same cannot be said with absolute certainty.

As for internal evidence.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 — I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Unless you know of some other men caught up into the paradise of the third heaven to hear unspeakable words, there is better than a plausible likelihood that Paul is referring to the Revelation.

The dating of the composition of 2 Corinthians, minus fourteen years, puts the vision here mentioned in the reign of Claudius.

From a preterist perspective (the dating of the composition of Revelation notwithstanding), its authorship in the reign of Claudius is consistent with some of the interpretations given. The seven heads are seven kings. Five had already fallen, one was, and one was yet to come. And then there would be an eighth.

Given that Marc Antony was considered a Caesar by the Jews, that gives us Julius, Augustus, Marc Antony, Tiberius, and Caligula (five that had already fallen by the reign of Claudius). Then there is Claudius (one that is at the time of the writing), and Nero (one that is yet to come, whose name just happens to count to 666). After this there was an eighth (Vespasian), and he brought destruction.

Consequently, this enumeration agrees also with Daniel. There are ten horns, and an eleventh horn comes up, pushing three out of the way. The first seven are the same Caesars mentioned from Julius to Nero. The eighth, ninth, and tenth horns are Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian then rises up and pushes those three out of the way, becoming the eighth by their removal.

BUT ... this is not a discussion about the Revelation in that sense. I was mostly just demonstrating an example of internal evidence with corroboration. Per Paul, I have the utmost confidence that the Revelation was written in the reign of Claudius, likely between 52 and 54 CE.

My citation of the many independent ancient sources on the date of the Revelation proved one thing. And that is that it was fixed tradition in the early church, that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian. And that is why essentially every historian who is not a Preterist agrees with that conclusion.

But only Preterists care when it was written. to any and every futurist, of whatever persuasion he or she may be, the question of when the Revelation was given is incinsequential. But since Preterism could not even possibly be correct without the Revelation having been given before A.D 70, they endlessly labor to prove what is unquestionably contrary to the overwhelming bulk of the historical evidence.

Your reference to the timing of Paul's being caught up is an attempt to change the subject. It has zero bearing on the "internal evidence." and all the rest of what you said about the "internal evidence" only even seems to be correct if you assume the correctness of your application of the 7 kings and of the number 666.

 

[AFrazier]

My citation of the many independent ancient sources on the date of the Revelation proved one thing. And that is that it was fixed tradition in the early church, that the Revelation was given during the reign of Domatian.

A December 25th birth of Christ was also a "fixed tradition" in the early church, as was a March 25th crucifixion. By the fourth century, it was also the opinion of the church that Jesus held the Last Supper on a Tuesday and stayed in prison for several days before being brought before Pilate on Friday morning.

You are also assuming autonomy in the sources, as though none of them could have possibly consulted something predating themselves. Your approach is what they call "confirmation bias." You see what you want to see.

Your reference to the timing of Paul's being caught up is an attempt to change the subject. It has zero bearing on the "internal evidence." and all the rest of what you said about the "internal evidence" only even seems to be correct if you assume the correctness of your application of the 7 kings and of the number 666.

There is no attempt to change the subject here. You said that no internal evidence could be given. I demonstrated some internal evidence. Paul knew of a man who had been caught up to the third heaven, to paradise, where he heard things it was not lawful to speak. This person had this vision as many as fourteen years prior to Paul's writing of 2 Corinthians, putting said vision in the reign of Claudius. That is internal evidence of a person having a vision in paradise prior to 70 CE that was of enough significance that Paul thought it worthy of mention, and that is not likely to have been experienced by many; ergo, it is a valid argument that Paul is referring to the Revelation itself.

I might also add that in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Paul speaks of the man of sin who exalts himself above all that is called God. The context is very clear. He is speaking of a specific anti-Christ individual, and this information is found in only two places in scripture; Daniel, and Daniel's parallel in the Revelation.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 — Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

But only Preterists care when it was written. to any and every futurist, of whatever persuasion he or she may be, the question of when the Revelation was given is incinsequential. But since Preterism could not even possibly be correct without the Revelation having been given before A.D 70, they endlessly labor to prove what is unquestionably contrary to the overwhelming bulk of the historical evidence.

1) The "historical evidence" is not overwhelming. There is the evidence of Irenaeus, which can be interpreted differently. That's it. The rest is likely derivative and circular.

2) It seems to me that you're laboring more tenaciously than I am to prove that it wasn't written prior to 70 CE. Your motive is every bit as self-serving as the preterists. They seek to demonstrate that their hypothesis is plausible. You seek to demonstrate that it is not. They are seeking validation. You are seeking to discredit. So begging your pardon, but both sides very clearly care when it was written.

 

[Biblewriter]

A December 25th birth of Christ was also a "fixed tradition" in the early church, as was a March 25th crucifixion. By the fourth century, it was also the opinion of the church that Jesus held the Last Supper on a Tuesday and stayed in prison for several days before being brought before Pilate on Friday morning.

You are also assuming autonomy in the sources, as though none of them could have possibly consulted something predating themselves. Your approach is what they call "confirmation bias." You see what you want to see.

I most certainly did not assume autonomy in the sources. What I said was the fact that the first four sources, which were all ante-nicene, that is, from less than 200 years after the apostolic period, showed clear evidence of relying upon different sources of information. And even Irenaeus was not an original source, for he only remembered, without writing it down, what had been told him by someone that claimed to have actually heard John preach.

The hard fact is, that all of history is based on the testimony of various witnesses, whose accounts almost never agree. So historians weigh the bulk of the evidence, and make their decisions on that.

And regardless of what you say, what Paul said is most definitely not "internal evidence" for the dating of a different book by a different human writer. (for it all came from the Holy Spirit.)

 

[AFrazier]

And regardless of what you say, what Paul said is most definitely not "internal evidence" for the dating of a different book by a different human writer. (for it all came from the Holy Spirit.)

And this is the end of my argument with you. You very clearly cannot be objective.