The Dating of Revelation

[Yahkov]

In another thread, a conversation came up over when Revelation was written. I hold to the view that it was written between 90-100AD. Others believe Revelation was written prior to 70AD.

There seems to be external evidence that Revelation was written around 90-100AD. But then again that begs for a case of credibility.

There seems to be context evidence that Revelation was written prior to 70AD considering John made no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The reason why I still hold to 90-100AD still being the time when Revelation was written is because there could be at least two answers as to why John did not reference the destruction of Jerusalem. The first reason, I agree that Jerusalem's destruction was significant. I would imagine during these days it would have been common knowledge. The second reason, Revelation is about future events and he was commanded to write down what he saw, not what has happened in Jerusalem's history.

I believe some clues that may help us further, though also require external evidence, are the other churches listed in the seven letters and the faithful witness Antipas who was martyred.

I know what I present from my view isn't exhaustive or necessarily convincing, if I am to be honest with myself my view isn't necessarily complete. I would much rather learn from other points of view and evidence that will be shared in this thread.

 

[timothyu]

Revelation was written before the book of John

 

[1213]

...There seems to be context evidence that Revelation was written prior to 70AD considering John made no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem....

Difficult to say the correct date, but I think that is a good point. There are many reasons why given dates may be wrong. It is possible that we have not found the oldest written texts. That is why I would rather rely on logical conclusion than unclear results of some other dating method.

 

[nolidad]

In another thread, a conversation came up over when Revelation was written. I hold to the view that it was written between 90-100AD. Others believe Revelation was written prior to 70AD.

There seems to be external evidence that Revelation was written around 90-100AD. But then again that begs for a case of credibility.

There seems to be context evidence that Revelation was written prior to 70AD considering John made no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The reason why I still hold to 90-100AD still being the time when Revelation was written is because there could be at least two answers as to why John did not reference the destruction of Jerusalem. The first reason, I agree that Jerusalem's destruction was significant. I would imagine during these days it would have been common knowledge. The second reason, Revelation is about future events and he was commanded to write down what he saw, not what has happened in Jerusalem's history.

I believe some clues that may help us further, though also require external evidence, are the other churches listed in the seven letters and the faithful witness Antipas who was martyred.

I know what I present from my view isn't exhaustive or necessarily convincing, if I am to be honest with myself my view isn't necessarily complete. I would much rather learn from other points of view and evidence that will be shared in this thread.

I hold to c. 90 A.D. Preterism has to allegorize prophecies and do not have answers for many of the things written in the Revelation to make it a viable view

 

[timothyu]

Whether Caesar or a 'caesar' of the future (or perhaps now) the pattern of oppression always remains the same.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I view 70AD Jerusalem in Revelation 18 so it is irrelevant to me when it was visioned/written.

The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19

The Early Date of Revelation   |  Study Archive

• INTRODUCTION
• SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES
  
  
• STUDY TOPICS
  • Authorship: John the Apostle, Presbyter, Other
  • Babylon: Rome, Jerusalem, Other
  • Date of Composition: Before AD70, After AD70, Composite
  • Language of Origin: Greek, Syriac, Other
  • Antichrist: Nero, Nero Redivivus, Nero Rediturus, Etc.
  • Origin: Christian, Christian Redaction of Jewish Apocalyptic
    

Apocalypse: Early Date Advocates

Henry Cowles : The Book of Revelation | F.W. Farrar : Dating The Book of Revelation | Thomas B. Slater - Dating the Apocalypse to John | Gonzalo Rojas-Flores The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign

• 12/14/12: Preterism Review - Did Fitzmeyer and Bruce endorse the early date for Revelation?
• 11/11/12: Revere Franklin Weidner: Annotations on the Revelation of St John, the Divine (Chicago Lutheran: 1898) "There is some difficulty in determining the date of the Apocalypse. The majority of modern critical historians and commentators, diverse as may be their views on other points, agree in this, that the Apocalypse, no matter by whom written, was composed between the death of Nero (June 9, 68 A.D.) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70 A.D.)"
  
  
• 9/30/12: The literary remains of Samuel Taylor Coleridge "I see no reason for doubting the real date of the Apocalypse is under Vespasian.. it seems to me quite lawless to deny it."
• 2/10/12: The Importance of Revelation’s Date | Against Dispensationalism "Our blog seeks to explain, promote and defend postmillennialism, which is optimistic about the future conquest of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
• Firmin Abauzit: An Historical Discourse on the Apocalypse (1730) Reputed by Wikipedia (falsely) as the earliest Full Preterist. Another PreteristArchive.com addition to the WWW! (NOTE: 100 PAGES IN JPG FORMAT) Thomas Ice: "Firmin Abauzit (1679-1767) of Geneva, who was a friend of Rousseau and Voltaire, published a commentary on Revelation in 1730 titled Historic Discourse on the Apocalypse, in which he advocated a more complete preterist view than his predecessors."
• James Glasgow: The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded (1872 PDF) - Early Dating Advocate, Sets at AD 51. "Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks presents an irrefragable proof that the whole of the New Testament, the Apocalypse included, must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish kingdom." "When did the seventy weeks end ? No date later than that of the fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) can with any truth or plausibility be supposed, for these weeks were "determined on the holy city." But many say they ended earlier, — at the death of Christ. Against this, however, in the above, and some other particulars, there lie weighty objections, as Scaliger, Hales, and others have shown. Let us look at the objects which were to be accomplished before these weeks ran out. " // "Many of the visions and words of the prophets are still receiving fulfilment ; and not until the end of the gospel age is all prophecy fulfilled. Some were fulfilled at the death of Christ, some in the fall of the city and dispersion of the people, and some in the progressive influx of the Gentiles ; while many regarding Gentiles and outcast Jews are yet to pass into fulfilment."
  
  
• James MacDonald: Date of the Apocalypse From Internal Evidence (1869 PDF)
  
  
• J.D. Michaelis - The Apocalypse (1801 English Edition PDF) "the Apocalypse contains prophecies with which the very persons to whom it was sent were immediately concerned. But if none of these prophecies were designed to be completed till long after their death, those persons were not immediately concerned with them, and the author would surely not have said that they were blessed in reading prophecies of which the time was at hand, if those prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after the lapse of many ages"
  
  
• Bernard Henderson - The Life and Principate of Emperor Nero (1903 PDF) "The verses (of Revelation) 17. 10, can be differently explained. Almost certainly Caesar is not the first, but Augustus, so we have "five fallen," "one is," "one is not yet come and is to continue a short space," and " the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth and is of the seven " (certainly = Nero, cf. 13. 3 ; 17. 8). The list then is, on the two rival theories, (a) Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero = the five. Galba = he who is; Galba's successor (naturally unknown ex hyp.) = the one to come, but he can only last a short time because the end is fast approaching, and besides the pseudo-Nero is already active. Nero again = the eighth. (b) Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero = the five. Vespasian = he who is. His successor is undefined because " the writer did not like to say the reigning Emperor would be overthrown." Nero again = the eighth. For the Domitian theory I fail to see any possibility of a satisfactory list at all."
  

“The chief obstacle to the acceptance of the true date of the Apocalypse, arises from the authority of heaven.” Frederic W. Farrar

Had the Apostle James read the Book of Revelation?
The Only Two N.T. references to "Crown of Life":

Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (James Died in A.D.60s)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yahkov said: ↑
In another thread, a conversation came up over when Revelation was written. I hold to the view that it was written between 90-100AD. Others believe Revelation was written prior to 70AD.

There seems to be external evidence that Revelation was written around 90-100AD. But then again that begs for a case of credibility.

There seems to be context evidence that Revelation was written prior to 70AD considering John made no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The reason why I still hold to 90-100AD still being the time when Revelation was written is because there could be at least two answers as to why John did not reference the destruction of Jerusalem. The first reason, I agree that Jerusalem's destruction was significant. I would imagine during these days it would have been common knowledge. The second reason, Revelation is about future events and he was commanded to write down what he saw, not what has happened in Jerusalem's history.

I believe some clues that may help us further, though also require external evidence, are the other churches listed in the seven letters and the faithful witness Antipas who was martyred.

I know what I present from my view isn't exhaustive or necessarily convincing, if I am to be honest with myself my view isn't necessarily complete. I would much rather learn from other points of view and evidence that will be shared in this thread.

Please visit this site on Preterism...The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology

I hold to c. 90 A.D. Preterism has to allegorize prophecies and do not have answers for many of the things written in the Revelation to make it a viable view

Yeah, there outta be a "Law"......

Galatians 4:24 which-any is an allegory.
For these are the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating<1080> who-any is Hagar 30 but what saith the Writing? 'be Casting Out! the maid-servant and the son of her....[Genesis 21:10]

Hebrew 12:18 For not ye have come toward to being handled a mountain, and to having been kindled to fire and to murkiness and to darkness and to tempest.
19 And of a trumpet blaring and to sound of declarations, of which the ones hearing refused no to be added to them a Word.

Revelation 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood [Matthew 21:21/Galatians 4:24, 25/Hebrews 12:18]
=============================
Old Testament Allegory

"You should know that the first book of Moses consists entirely of spiritual allegories. He who wants to know what such stories mean must figure in himself the old and the new man, and compare Christ and Adam (in him) with each other. He will then understand all that; but without this he will see merely a story for children: it being, however, so full of secrets, that no man could describe them all, from his childhood up to old age, even if he had come into the world with a full Comprehension of them.”
Jacob Boehme.

What do people make of this assertion? It seems in the early days of the Christian faith some people (Marcion for example) went so far as to reject the Old Testament as being unworthy of God. If taken literally the text was almost impossible to integrate with the picture of God given by the NT. Maybe this was because they lacked the proper hermeneutic to understand the Old Testament?

Franz Hartmann in his book ” Jacob Boehme , Personal Christianity a Science”explains it this way:

“Each individual man is a little world in itself, containing the types of everything that exists in the Macrocosm. A man may be regarded as being a whole kingdom full of many peoples and personalities.. Within himself is Moses and the Israelites, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the patriarchs and the kingdom of heaven and hell. Thus the events described in the Bible, and looked upon by the pious as being things of a past history, are actually descriptions of eternal processes taking place in the constitution of man”

 

[nolidad]

Please visit this site on Preterism...The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology
Yeah, there outta be a "Law"......

Galatians 4:24 which-any is an allegory.
For these are the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating<1080> who-any is Hagar 30 but what saith the Writing? 'be Casting Out! the maid-servant and the son of her....[Genesis 21:10]

Hebrew 12:18 For not ye have come toward to being handled a mountain, and to having been kindled to fire and to murkiness and to darkness and to tempest.
19 And of a trumpet blaring and to sound of declarations, of which the ones hearing refused no to be added to them a Word.

Revelation 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood [Matthew 21:21/Galatians 4:24, 25/Hebrews 12:18]
=============================
Old Testament Allegory

Well your quoting a literal translation without regoard to having to change it to English order is unimpressive.

And for Galatians -they were literal events and literal promises made to Isaac and Ishmael! Paul uses them as an allegory to describe the old and new covenants. But they were real literal events.

Rev. 8:8. You don't believe God can do something supernatural? I for one believe that it is most likely a comet or some other space rock and turns the waters to a blood color!

You want to narrow that study of that site down alot? I am not going to read through a whole site to find out which point you are trying to prove.

 

[nolidad]

Revelation was written before the book of John

Proof?

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[timtams]

I hold to c. 90 A.D. Preterism has to allegorize prophecies and do not have answers for many of the things written in the Revelation to make it a viable view

What makes you think it was c. 90AD?

 

[nolidad]

What makes you think it was c. 90AD?

Here is a good short synopsis of evidence.

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

 

[timtams]

Here is a good short synopsis of evidence.

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

Thanks, that's a useful (though I believe flawed) summary.

 

[ewq1938]

Here is a good short synopsis of evidence.

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

Solid info there.

 

[timtams]

Solid info there.

It's seriously flawed in many ways. But it's useful to know why so many are convinced of the late date.

 

[ewq1938]

It's seriously flawed in many ways. But it's useful to know why so many are convinced of the late date.

No, it's not flawed. It gives very solid evidence for the later date.

 

[nolidad]

Thanks, that's a useful (though I believe flawed) summary.

Well when we have been taught one way to think, it is hard to change our minds. that is our flaw as men! I studied both arguments (pre 70 AD and 90-95 AD) and I am convinced that the arguments for the later dates are more fundamentally sound and historically sound!

When I became a Christian I came in with a clean slate- I had been a practicing Satanist and had gone through many Easter religions! I was bereft of bible knowledge and because I had been besieged by so many cults and occults I had to know! So I studies, studied,studied!

 

[timtams]

edit

 

[nolidad]

It's seriously flawed in many ways. But it's useful to know why so many are convinced of the late date.

What evidence do you give to say it is seriously flawed?