Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Nero

[revelation2217]

From The Revelation of John p. 23-26, Henry Cowles D.D. (1882)
The Revelation of John: With Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical ... - Henry Cowles - Google Books

It remains to speak of the external evidence—that of the early Christian fathers. This is far from being uniform, clear and direct. Unfortunately the earliest fathers (Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp and Justin Martyr)—the very men whose testimony would have been most valuable—fail us altogether. They either omitted all allusion to this point as being well enough understood without their testimony, or what they wrote has perished. The earliest of the fathers whose testimony has been relied on is Ireneus, who wrote his book "Against Heresies," A. D. 175-180. His youth was spent in Asia Minor, but all his manhood and Christian work lay in Ancient Gaul [France]. From the dim light that reaches us it would seem that his statements as they were understood shaped the opinions of Eusebius and Jerome on this question, and that they naturally controlled the views of subsequent authors. Hence it becomes important to examine carefully what Ireneus said—the more so because it is at least supposable (I think even probable) that his testimony as to the date of the Apocalypse has been misunderstood.

The only passage appealed to as giving his testimony occurs in some remarks upon "the number of the beast" (Rev. 13: 18), which stand in our received text 066. The original Greek is this.

[. . .]

It may be translated thus :—

'' Therefore we do not imperil [the churches] by announcing the name of the Antichrist plainly, for if it were safe and wise at the present time to proclaim his name, it would have been done by him who saw the visions of the Apocalypse, for it is not a very long time since he was still to be seen, but almost in our own age. near the close of the reign of Domitian."​

This passage has been generally understood to say that the vision of the Apocalypse was seen in the age of Domitian, and it seems to have been the standard authority for that opinion with the Christian authors of the third and fourth centuries and onward. His testimony turns on the single point whether in the last clause it is he (John) who was still seen among the churches in the age of Domitian, or it (the vision) which was then first seen. The logic of the passage, the course of thought, should be mainly relied on to decide this question.

I understand the logic of Ireneus thus :— Obviously it was not prudent to give Nero's name during his life. But John lived down to the time of Domitian when Nero was thirty years dead. So far forth therefore the circumstances had materially changed. Now, says Ireneus, if the necessity for divulging the real name of Nero is so great and the danger from doing it so small that we ought to have the name brought out now, then the same was true in the time of Domitian, and John would have disclosed the name himself. Ho did not do it, for though Nero was dead, yet Rome still lived, a persecuting power. The danger from Nero's personal vengeance was long since passed away, but other Neros might arise on the same Roman throne; therefore John remained silent: so let us. Hence the logic of the passage requires that the thing seen in the last clause of this passage should be John yet living in his extreme old age, and not the vision itself. The supposition that it was the vision nullifies the argument of the passage. - Or thus: The argument assumes that it would have been dangerous and therefore unwise to give Nero's name openly during his life; also, that John lived a long time after Nero's death, so that if it were proper to give Nero's name when Ireneus wrote, it was equally so in the last years of John, and he would have given the name to the churches then himself. - Origen seems to take the same view of the case, and perhaps the same view of this passage from Ireneua when he says, "The king of the Romans as tradition teaches condemned John to the Isle of Patmos for his testimony to the word of truth; and John taught many things about his testimony, yet did not say who condemned him in all that he has written in his Apocalypse."

Several fathers of the third century and the fourth speak of John's writing this book in connection with his banishment to Patmos, which they locate in Domitian's reign. Yet some of them are not explicit as between Nero and Domitian. Clement of Alexandria says John was banished by "the tyrant"—a name appropriate enough to either, yet in usage applied less to Domitian and more to Nero.

A very ancient Latin fragment [quoted in Stuart's Apocalypse, 1: 266] comes down to us, probably of the second century, saying, "Paul, following; the order of his own predecessor John, wrote in the same way to only seven churches by name." This assumes that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul wrote the last of his seven letters to as many churches by name. The latest date of Paul's seven was about A. D. 64. He died under Nero's persecution. Eusebius [bishop of Cesarca, A. D. 314-340] in his history (book 3; chap. 18, and bk. 5: 8) speaks of John as being banished to Patmos and of seeing his visions there in the reign of Domitian, but quotes Ireneus (the very passage above cited) as his specific authority. Did he not misunderstand Ireneus? He also refers to a current tradition to the same effect, which however may have grown out of mistaking the sense of Ireneus.

Jerome [born A. D. 331; died A. D. 420] held the same opinion, apparently on the authority of Ireneus as above and of Eusebius. Victorinus of Petavio [died A. D. 303] in a Latin commentary on the Apocalypse, says that "John saw this vision while in Patmos, condemned to the mines by Domitian Caesar." Many others of a later age might be cited to the same purport, witnessing however only to a current tradition which so far as appears may have Come from the language of Ireneus, under a misunderstanding of his meaning.

On the other hand the Syriac translation of the Apocalypse has tins superscription: "The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the Island of Patmos to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor." Most of the Syriac New Testament (known as the "Peshito"), i. e., all the unquestioned books, are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second; but the Syriac version of the Apocalypse is not so old. Yet Ephraim the Syrian of Nisibis [died A. D. 378] wrote commentaries on nearly the whole Bible; often appeals to the Apocalypse; but wrote only in Syriac and probably was unacquainted with Greek and therefore must have had this book in the Syriac tongue. This superscription seems to testify to a current tradition in Syria at least as far back as his day, assigning the date of the book to the age of Nero.

Of later witnesses, Andreas of Cappadocia [flourished about A. D. 500], in a commentary on this book, favors the Neronian date. Arethas also, His successor [about A. D. 540], yet more decisively. He assumes the book to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, for he explains chapters 6 and 7 as predictions of that event.

Plainly then the traditions of the early ages and the testimony of the fathers were not all in favor of the Domitian date. Some incidental circumstances strongly favor the earlier date; e. g., tbs account given in much detail by Eusebius [Ec. His. 3: 23], who quotes Clement to the effect that John after his return from this banishment in Patmos, mounted his horse and pushed away into the fastnesses of the mountains to reach a robber chief who had apostatized from the Christian faith. But Jerome represents John in the last years of his life (i. e., at the time of Domitian's persecution) as being so weak and infirm that he was carried by other hands with difficulty to his church-meetings to say in tremulous tones: "My little children, love one another." These traditions of the aged apostle, compared with each other and with the probabilities of the case, seem to forbid us to assign the date of the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian. The conclusion to which I am brought after much investigation is that the historic testimony for the Domitian date is largely founded on a misconception of the passage from Ireneus, and as a whole is by no means so harmonious, so ancient, and so decisive, as to overrule and set aside the strong internal evidence for the earlier date. I am compelled to accept the age of Nero as the true date of this writing.​

 

[Biblewriter]

You might be able to name one, or maybe even two historians who are not Preterists who date the Revelation to the reign of Nero. But that's about it.

 

[revelation2217]

From Introduction to the New Testament, Johann David Michaelis p. 521-524, (1802)
Introduction to the New Testament - Johann David Michaelis - Google Books

SECT. IX.
Of the time when the Apocalypse was written.

FROM what has been already said in the sixth section of this chapter, it appears that the question, at what time the Apocalypse was written, very materially concerns the question, whether it be a divine work. For if its first prophecies relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, it must have been written before the Jewish war: but if the author of it wrote aster the Jewish war, and, as is commonly supposed, in the reign of Domitian, the sixth chapter of the Apocalypse cannot possibly predict the destruction of Jerusalem, and in this cafe I do not fee how we can vindicate the assurance given in ch. i. 3,' the time is at hand,' and, ch. xxii. zo, * he that testifieth these things, faith, Surely I come quickly, Amen,' If the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, this coming of Christ may be understood of his coming to judge Jerusalem, to which the expression, * till 'I come,' used in St. John's Gospel, ch. xxi. 22, likewise refers. On the other hand, if the Apocalypse was written in the reign of Domitian, the coming of Christ admits of no other explanation than his coming to judge the world, or at least to put an end to the reign of the beast, and to establish his thousand years kingdom. But in the course of seventeen hundred years, neither of these events has taken place: and to assert that the term ' quickly' is consistent with so long a duration, because seventeen centuries are nothing in comparison of God's eternity, is a mere subterfuge, in which the love of truth is sacrificed to the support of a pre-assumed opinion.

As Lardner has already given a very full and very excellent examination of the question, when the Apocalypse was written b, it is the less necessary for me to be diffuse on this subject: and on two points I may refer the reader entirely to Lardner, namely, the examination of the sentiments of those ancient writers, who on the authority of Irenæus assert, that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of Domitian, and the investigation of Newton's hypothesis, which refers it to a much earlier period. Knittel likewise in his ' Criticisms on the Revelation of St. John,' has admirably written on this subject, and has introduced much new matter, which is of importance in estimating the various opinions, which have been maintained in respect to the time when the Apocalypse was written.

Six different opinions have been advanced.. 1. It has been asserted, that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. 2. Others refer it to the reign of Nero. 3. Others leave it undetermined whether it was written under Claudius or Nero, but contend, that it was written before the reign of Domitian, and before the Jewish war. 4. According to the usual opinion, it was written in the reign of Domitian. 5. It has been referred to the reign of Trajan. 6. To that of Hadrian.

I. The opinion, that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of Claudius, has no other testimony in its favour than that of Epiphanius, who in his fifty first, heresy uses the expression * after his (St. John's) return from Patmos under the Emperor Claudius,' and presently after says, 'when St. John prophesied in the days of the • Emperor Claudius, while he was in the island of Patmos.'

To this single testimony of a writer, who lived three hundred years later th>an St. John, two very material objections have been made. In the first place, no traces are to be discovered of any persecution of the Christians in the reign of Claudius: for though he commanded the Jews to quit Rome, yet this command did not affect the Jews who lived out of Italy, and still less the Christians. Consequently the banishment of St. John to the island of Patmos, can hardly be referred to the reign of Claudius. Secondly, that the seven flourishing Christian communities at Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. to which the Apocalypse is addressed, existed so early as the reign of Claudius, is an opinion not easy to be reconciled with the history which is given in the Acts of the Apostles, of the first planting of Christianity in Asia Minor. Besides, it is hardly credible, that St. John resided at Ephelus, (from which place it is pre-suppoled that he was sent into banishment) so early as the time of Claudius: for the account given, Acts xix, of St. Paul's stay and conduct at Ephelus, manifestly implies that no Apostle had already founded and governed a Christian church there. And when St. Paul left the place, the Ephesians had no bishop: for in an Epistle to Timothy written for that purpose, he gave orders to regulate the church at Ephesus, and to ordain bishops. This argument may perhaps be strengthened by observing that the second apocalyptical Epistle ch. ii. i, is addressed to the angel of the church of Ephesus, that is, as is commonly understood, to the bishop of that church. It has been doubted however, whether the expression [to the angel of the church], used in the Apocalypse, really denotes the bishop of the church: and I remember to have read in an English periodical publication, a short essay by an anonymous author, in which this expression is rendered by ' Messenger of the church,' the author being of opinion, that the seven churches, to which the seven Epistles in the Apocalypse are addressed, had sent messengers to St. John while lie was in banishment in the island of Patmos. But as each of these Epistles is addressed [to the angel of the church]; cannot denote a messenger sent to St. John, for with such a person the Apostle had a verbal communication, and was therefore under no necessity of writing to him.

2. The second opinion, that St. John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse there, in the reign of the Emperor Nero, is not liable to the objections, which arc made to the preceding opinion. It has however only one evidence in its favour: and this evidence, as Lardner observesd, is not only without name, but without date. I mean the subscription to the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, which is, 'The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.'

But since the Syriac version of the Apocalypse is now known to be- a part of the Philoxenian version, which was made by Polycarp at the beginning of the sixth century, and afterwards corrected by Thomas of Harkel the subscription to it cannot be said to be wholly anonymous, and it may be regarded as the evidence of a writer, who lived in the beginning of the sixth century. If the fame subscription was annexed to the more ancient version of the Apocalypse, used by Ephrem and the Manichees, it might be called indeed anonymous, but then its importance would be increased on another account, by its being so much more ancient.

The opinion that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of Nero has been strongly supported by Newton, and Harenberg, whose arguments have been ably examined mined by Lardner, to whom I refer everyone who wishes to know what may be said for and against the question. And as the inquiry is of such a nature, that an absolute decision is not to be expected, I (hall only observe that several arguments in favour of this opinion, especially those used by Harcnberg, prove nothing more, than that the Apocalypse, if it is a divine work, cannot have been written later than.the reign of Nero. Consequently, unless the divinity of the Apocalypse be taken for granted, such reasoning is without force.

3. According to the third opinion, the Apocalypse was written before the time of Domitian, and before the Jewish war, but whether in the reign of Claudius or in the reign of Nero, is left undetermined. Now, when the words of an evidence are so indecisive as to be capable of a two-fold interpretation, it is consistent with equity to admit that which is the most probable: and, since for the reasons above-mentioned, it is hardly possible that the Apocalypse should have been written in the / reign of Claudius, I will suppose that according to this opinion likewise, the Apocalypse was written in the reign of Nero.

Arethas, who according to some critics lived in the sixth, according to others in the tenth century, wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse, in which he expressly refers it to a period, prior to the commencement of the Jewish war. Lardner indeed observes, and not without reason, that Arethas is not a writer of sufficient antiquity to be here regarded as a witness: but as what Arethas fays seems to imply really ancient testimony, I will examine his account more minutely.

In his explanation of the sixth seal ch. vi, 12—17, Arethas says, that some understood it figuratively, and explained it of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus, though the edition of Arethas's Commentary, which I here quote, is that which is printed at the end of the second volume of the Paris edition of Œcumcnius, though most persons referred it to Antichrist.

Now whoever explains ch. vi. 12—17, as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, must presuppose that the Apocalypse was written before that event, for otherwise such an explanation would be an inconsistency. But I will not push this inference too far, because Lardner observes h, that Arethas might have believed the visions in the sixth chapter were representations not of future, but of past events. However there is another passage in the commentary of Arethas, which puts the matter out of doubt, and clearly shews that in his opinion the Apocalypse was written before the Jewish war. For after he has explained what is said of the four angels, which stood on the four corners of the earth, ch. vii, I-—3, as relating to what happened to the Jews as a punishment for their conduct toward Christ, and has interpreted the hundred and forty four thousand, who were sealed ch. vii, 4—8, of the Jews, who believed in Christ, and had no part in the unhappy fate of Jerusalem', he adds, 'For destruction by the arms of the Romans was not yet come upon the Jews, when he received these prophecies.' Here it must be remarked that Arethas was not an original commentator, but that he exhibited in his own work a synopsis of the commentaries of Andrew of Cæsarea,who lived about the year 500, and of others who had written on the Apocalypse. But the explanation of the sixth chapter.as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem was not taken from Andrew : for though Andrew quotes it in his commentary as an explanation, which had been given, yet he himself rejects it

We must conclude therefore, that Arethas borrowed this explanation, and consequently the previous supposition, that the Apocalypse was written before the Jewish war, from some more ancient writer. But we know of no other commentator on the Apocalypse before Andrew of Cæsarea, than Hippolytus, who lived at the end of the second century. It is therefore not improbable that Arethas borrowed it from Hippolytus: and if he did, it is supported by the authority of a very ancient writer.

Perhaps also Irenaeus may be quoted in favour of" the fame opinion, at least, if the construction which Knittel has put upon his words be the true one. This however is a question which will be examined in the next article. At present I will only observe, that is Iraeneus, the scholar of Polycarp really referred the Apocalypse to a period prior to the reign of Domitian, and if he thus ceases to be the grand support of the opposite opinion, that it was written during the reign of Domitian, an opinion adopted by his successors on his authority, we may with safety assume, that the Apocalypse was written before the time of Domitian, before the Jewish war, and probably in the reign of Nero.​

 

[revelation2217]

You might be able to name one, or maybe even two historians who are not Preterists who date the Revelation to the reign of Nero. But that's about it.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.​

 

[revelation2217]

The Early Date of Revelation | Study Archive

Arethas
"For there were many, yea, a countless multitude from among the Jews, who believed in Christ : as even they testify, who said to St Paul on his arrival at Jerusalem : Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe. (Acts xxi. 20.) And He who gave this revelation to the Evangelist, declares, that these men shall not share the destruction inflicted by the Romans. For the ruin brought by the Romans had not yet fallen upon the Jews, when this Evangelist received these prophecies : and he did not receive them at Jerusalem, but in Ionia near Ephesus. For after the suffering of the Lord he remained only fourteen years at Jerusalem, during which time the tabernacle of the mother of the Lord, which had conceived this Divine offspring, was preserved in this temporal life, after the suffering and resurrection of her incorruptible Son. For he continued with her as with a mother committed to him by the Lord. For after her death it is reported that he no longer chose to remain in Judaea, but passed over to Ephesus, where, as we have said, this present Apocalypse also was composed ; which is a revelation of future things, inasmuch as forty years after the ascension of the Lord this tribulation came upon the Jews."

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

Epiphanies (A. D. 315-403)
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)

Irenaeus' Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"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 Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603).

Tertullian
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

George Edmundson (1913)
"I mean the Apocalypse of St. John. The Apocalypse is full of references to historical events of which the author had quite recently been himself an eyewitness at Rome, or which were fresh in the memories of the Roman Christians with whom he had been associating, and it can be dated with great exactitude from internal evidence as having been written at the beginning of the year 70 A.D." (The Church in Rome in the First Century PDF)

David E. Aune (1977)
“The keystone of Robinson’s enterprise is an argument from silence: none of the books of the New Testament refers, either implicitly or explicitly, to the catastrophic event of the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman legions under Titus in A.D.70. Had they written after that date, so the argument runs, they would surely have at least alluded to that crucial event.” (Review of Redating the New Testament, by John A.T. Robinson, “When Was the New Testament Written?” Christianity Today 21, April 15, 1977; p. 43)

“On balance, the virtues far outweigh the faults. The book deserves wide circulation among students of the New Testament, since scholarly opinion (whether conservative or liberal) should regularly examine its assumptions and conclusions. In passing, it is perhaps important to note that Robinson makes elaborate use of the scholarship of Theodore Zahn, perhaps the most brilliant conservative New Testament scholar in the last century.. Let us hope that he will be heard.” (Review of Redating the New Testament, by John A.T. Robinson, “When Was the New Testament Written?” Christianity Today 21, April 15, 1977; p. 45)

Dr. E. Earle Ellis (1980)
“At the same time in some New Testament books the silence about the destruction of Jerusalem is very surprising; that is, in books where Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction appears (Matthew, Mark, Luke), where the critique of the temple or its transitory character is a major theme (Acts, Hebrews) and where God’s judgments on a disobedient Jewish nation are of particular interest to the writer (Acts, Jude). In these cases the absence of any illusion to the destruction would seem to be a fairly strong argument that such books were written before that event took place. The fall of Jerusalem is important in another respect. It marked not only the catastrophic destruction of a city but also the end of the Jewish world as it had been known.” (“Dating the New Testament”, New Testament Studies, 26; p. 488)

Joseph A. Fitzmeyer (1978)
“I must admit that what Robinson writes about the Book of Revelation makes a great deal of sense. Here is a case where I might be incliuned in the future to admit a pre-seventy dating.” (Review of Redating the New Testament, by John. A.T. Robinson, “Two Views of New Testament Interpretation: Popular and Technical, Interpretation 32; 1978, p. 312)

George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church ." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 8.)

James Moffatt (1911)
"For recent defences of the Neronic date, see Hort (cp. JC. 160 f.), Simcox, Selwyn (op. fit. pp. 215f.), and B. W. Henderson (Life and Principate of Nero, 439 f.). The Domitianic date is argued, in addition to older critics like Mill, Hug, and Eichhom, by Hofmann, Lee, Havet, Milligan (Discussions. 75-148), Alford, Gloag (Introd. Joh. Writings}, Salmon (INT. 221-245), Schafer (Einl. 347-355), Godet, Holtzmann, Comely, Belser, Jillichex, Weizsacker, Harnack (ACL. ii. i. pp. 245 f.), McGiffert (AA. 634 f.), Zahn, Wernle, von Soden, Adeney (INT. 464 f.), Bousset, von Dobschuu, Well- hausen, Porter, R. Knopf (NZ. 38f.), Abbott, Kreyenbtlhl (Das Evglnt der Wahrheit, ii. 730 f.), Forbes, Swete, A. V. Green (Effusion Canonical Writings, 182 f.), and A. S. Peake (INT. i64f.), as well as t, from outlying fields, by J. Reville (Origines de repiscopal, i. 209 f.), F. C. Arnold (Die Neronische Christcnverfolgung, 1888), Neumann (LC., 1888, 842-843, reviewing Arnold), Ramsay (ORE. pp. 268-302, ET. xvi. 171-174, Seven Letters, 93-127), S. Gsell (Kfgne de timpereur Domititn, 1895, pp. 307 f.), Matthaei (Preussische Jahrb., 1905, 402-479), and E. T. Klette (Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero, 1907, 46-48).(An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p.508)

Robert Mounce (1977)
"the Cambridge trio (Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort) were unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the reign of Nero or the years immediately following." And "such a threefold cord of scholarly opinion is not quickly broken" but that he (Swete) is "unable to see that the historical situation presupposed by the Apocalypse contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus which assigns the vision to the end of the reign of Domitian." Mounce seem to agree with Swete on this (p. 21).

J. A. T. Robinson (1976)
"It is indeed generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation. . . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city drew nigh." (Redating the New Testament pp.. 240-242).

"It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at (as a past fact)? (Redating, p. 10).

"One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a past fact. . . . [T]he silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark". (Ibid., p. 13.)

“If the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening.” (The Last Days According to Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998; p. 147)

 

[revelation2217]

Study Archive

G.H. Van Kooten
"The only comparable independent patristic information (on the dating of Revelation) seems to be provided by Clement of Alexandria, according to whom 'on the tyrant's death, he [i.e. John] returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos' (What Rich Man Can Be Saved? 42). Clement, however, does not specify this tyrant's identity, and it is only Eusebius who, when quoting Clement, assumes, in the light of Irenaeus' claims, that this tyrant is Domitian (Church History, 3.23.5). Clement himself appears to apply the contents of Daniel's prophecies, which also resonate in Revelation, to the year of the four emperors in Stromata 1.21: 'Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination: and.. he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem.'" (The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John PDF)

H.A. Whittaker
"In A.D. 66, the well supported early date for the writing of Revelation, Jerusalem also was a city which 'had a kingdom over the kings of the Land.' Indeed, not only was Jerusalem a city with special authority over the various tetrarchies adjoining Judaea, but also the temple had an amazing degree of authority over Jewish communities in all parts of the Roman empire." (Revelation, page 214).

A.N. Wilson (1977)
"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, p. 254)

Herbert B. Workman (1906)
"St. John’s banishment to Patmos was itself a result of the great persecution of Nero. Hard labour for life in the mines and quarries of certain islands, especially Sardinia, formed one of the commonest punishments for Christians. . . . He lived through the horrors of two great persecutions, and died quietly in extreme old age at Ephesus." (Persecution in the Early Church, pp. 18, 19).

James Burton Coffman (1984)
“The epic work of John A.T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament is one of the most significant works this century with regard to the date of the New Testament, all of which he affirms to have been written before A.D.70, a conclusion which we believe to be correct.” (Commentary on John; Abilene, TX: ACU Press; p. 12)

Conybeare and Howson (1870)
"Concerning the Book of Revelation I will say nothing, except to invite attention to the arguments by which Doctor MacDonald endeavors to fix its date. The reasoning seems to me to be very well drawn out, which assigns the writing of this part of the Holy Scripture to a time intermediate between the Gospel and the Epistles of St. John." (Life and Writings of John, p. xxxiii, Introduction)

George Edmundson (1913)
"I mean the Apocalypse of St. John. The Apocalypse is full of references to historical events of which the author had quite recently been himself an eyewitness at Rome, or which were fresh in the memories of the Roman Christians with whom he had been associating, and it can be dated with great exactitude from internal evidence as having been written at the beginning of the year 70 A.D." (The Church in Rome in the First Century PDF)

Rev. Prof. George P. Fisher (1864)
XI. "The mythical theory is inconsistent with a fair view of the temper and character of those immediately concerned in the founding of Christianity. Christ chose twelve disciples to be constantly with him, in order that an authentic impression of his own character, and an authentic representation of his deeds and teaching might go forth to the world. We find them, even in Paul, designated as “the Twelve,” and a marked distinction is accorded to them in the early written Apocalypse.* * 1 Cor. xv. 5, Rev. xxi. 14. The Revelation, it is allowed by the Tubingen School, was written about A. D. ‘70." (The Conflict with Skepticism and Unbelief. Second Article: The Mythical Theory of Strauss, P. 250)

John Fiske (1876)
"Applying the imagery of Daniel, it became a logical conclusion that he must have ascended into the sky, whence he might shortly be expected to make his appearance, to enact the scenes foretold in prophecy. That such was the actual process of inference is shown by the legend of the Ascension in the first chapter of the "Acts," and especially by the words, "This Jesus who hath been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same manner in which ye beheld him going into heaven." In the Apocalypse, written A. D. 68, just after the death of Nero, this second coming is described as something immediately to happen, and the colours in which it is depicted show how closely allied were the Johannine notions to those of the Pharisees. The glories of the New Jerusalem are to be reserved for Jews, while for the Roman tyrants of Judæa is reserved a fearful retribution. They are to be trodden underfoot by the Messiah, like grapes in a wine-press, until the gushing blood shall rise to the height of the horse's bridle. " (The Unseen World, 107)

Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)

"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

Hank Hanegraaff (2004)
"More and more, people who have embraced the Futurist paradigm, when they recognize.. that the book of Revelation was not written in the mid-nineties, but rather was written in the mid-sixties, ..they have a different view of what the book of Revelation is actually dealing with in terms of substance." (Voice of Reason, 11/21)

William Hurte (1884)
"That John saw these visions in the reign of Nero, and that they were written by him during his banishment by that emperor, is confirmed by Theophylact, Andreas, Arethas, and others. We judge, therefore, that this book was written about A.D. 68, and this agrees with other facts of history.. There are also several statements in this book which can only be understood on the ground that the judgment upon Jerusalem was then future." (Catechetical Commentary: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1884)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (1871)
"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) EUSEBIUS [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA'S story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Cæsar. Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64). But the possible allusions to it in Heb 10:37; compare Re 1:4,8 4:8 22:12; Heb 11:10; compare Re 21:14; Heb 12:22,23; compare Re 14:1; Heb 8:1,2; compare Re 11:19 15:5 21:3; Heb 4:12; compare Re 1:16 2:12,16 19:13,15; Heb 4:9; compare Re 20:1-15; also 1Pe 1:7,13 4:13, with Re 1:1; 1Pe 2:9 with Re 5:10; 2Ti 4:8, with Re 2:26,27 3:21 11:18; Eph 6:12, with Re 12:7-12; Php 4:3, with Re 3:5 13:8,17:8 20:12,15; Col 1:18, with Re 1:5; 1Co 15:52, with Re 10:7 11:15-18, make a date before the destruction of Laodicea possible. Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See TILLOCH'S Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." (introduction to Revelation)

Arthur Cushman McGiffert (1890)
"Internal evidence has driven most modern scholars to the conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore taking place under Nero instead of Domitian." (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, ch.5. Eusebius notes, 148, footnote 1.)

Jim McGuiggan
”Suppose Irenaeus said the Revelation was seen toward the end of the reign of Domitian. What is Irenaeus said it – does that make it infallibly correct? (The Book of Revelation, p. 184)


James M. MacDonald (1870)
"The question whether the Apocalypse was written at an early date or in the very closing period of the apostolic ministration has importance as bearing on the interpretation of the book. A true exposition depends, in no small degree, upon a knowledge of the existing condition of things at the time it was written ; i.e., of the true point in history occupied by the writer, and those whom he originally addressed... If the book were an epistle, like that to the Romans or Hebrews, it might be of contemporary little importance, in ascertaining its meaning, to be able to determine whether it was written at the commencement of the apostolic era or at its very close.

"It is very obvious that if the book itself throws any distinct light on this subject, this internal evidence, especially in the absence of reliable historical testimony, ought to be decisive. Instead of appealing to tradition or to some doubtful passage in an ancient father, we interrogate the book itself, or we listen to what the Spirit saith that was in him who testified of these things. It will be found that no book of the New Testament more abounds in passages which clearly have respect to the time when it was written." (Life and Writings of John, p. 151-152)

"So clear is the internal evidence in favor of the early date of the Apocalypse. And no evidence can be drawn from any part of the book favoring the later date so commonly assigned to it." (Life and Writings of John, p. 167)

"And when we open the book itself, and find inscribed on its very pages evidence that at the time it was written Jewish enemies were still arrogant and active, and the city in which our Lord was crucified, and the temple and the altar in it were still standing, we need no date from early antiquity, not even from the hand of the author himself, to inform us that he wrote before the great historical event and prophetic epoch, the destruction of Jerusalem." (Life and Writings of John, p. 171-172)

"There appear to have been but seven church in Asia... when the book was written. It is dedicated to these seven alone by the careful mention of them one by one by name, as if there were no others... The expression 'the seven churches' seems to imply that this constituted the whole number, and hence affords one of the most striking incidental proofs of an early date.. Those who contend for the later date, when there must have been a greater number of churches than the seven in the region designated by the apostle fail to give any sufficient reason for his mentioning no more. That they mystically or symbolically represented others is surely not such a reason." (ibid., p. 154)

 

[revelation2217]

The Early Date of Revelation | Study Archive

Francis Nigel Lee
It is difficult to see why the A.D. 130ff Irenaeus would have referred (as he did) to "ancient copies" (rather than simply to "copies") – tithe original autograph had itself been written on~ "towards the end of Domitian’s rule." . . . For then, the first "ancient copies" would and could only have been made after A.D. 96 — whereas Irenaeus implies that those ancient copies were made before that date! Moreover, even if the copies were made only after A.D. 96 – they could hardly have been called "ancient" by the time of Irenaeus (born 130 A.D.). Still less could such first copies then (at a date only after 96 A. D.) appropriately have been described by Irenaeus as "the most approved and ancient copies." Surely the compilation of many copies would thereafter require even further time. And the further determination of such of those approved and ancient copies as Irenaeus refers to as the "most approved and ancient copies" of the original, would need a further long time to take place. (Francis Nigel Lee, " Revelation and Jerusalem" (Brisbane, Australia by the author, 1985).

"Advocates of the Early-Church-in-general's earlier (Neronic) date for the book of Revelation, include: Epiphanius, Andreas of Caesarea, Arethas of Caesarea, Theophylact, Annius, Caponsacchius, Hentenius, Salmeron, Alcazar, Grotius, Hammond, Wettsteign, Harenberg, Herder, Hartwig, Guerike, Moses Stuart, Adam Clark, Zuellig, Luecke, Bleek, Duesterdieck, Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Van Andel, A.D. Barnes, J.M. Ford, C. Vanderwaal, Leon Morris, J.A.T. Robinson, F.N. Lee, K.L. Gentry, Jr.., and David Chilton. Significantly, the A.D. 400 Church Father Epiphaneaus gave a very early date to the Book of Revelation based on Mt. 24:7 & Acts 11:28 & 18:2. cs. Rev 6:2-8."

Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)

"Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428.)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (p. 397-398)

A.H. Strong (1907)
" Elliott's whole scheme [based on his "interpretation of `time and times and half a time' of Dan. 7:25, which according to the year-day theory means 1260 years..." p 1009, ed], however, is vitiated by the fact that he wrongly assumes the book of Revelation to have been written under Domitian (94 or 96), instead of under Nero (67 or 68). His terminus a quo is therefore incorrect, and his interpretation of chapters 5-9 is rendered very precarious. The year 1866, moreover, should have been the time of the end, and so the terminus ad quem seems to be clearly misunderstood--unless indeed the seventy-five supplementary years of Daniel are to be added to 1866. We regard the failure of this most ingenious scheme of Apocalyptic interpretation as a practical demonstration that a clear understanding of the meaning of the Prophecy is, before the event, impossible, and we are confirmed in this view by the utterly untenable nature of the theory of the millennium which is commonly held by so-called Second Adventists, a theory which we now proceed to examine. (Systematic Theology, A.H. Strong, ©1907, published 1912, The Griffith & Rowland Press, Boston, p 1010.)

B.F. Westcott (1825-1903)
"The irregularities of style in the Apocalypse appear to be due not so much to ignorance of the language as to a free treatment of it, by one who used it as a foreign dialect. Nor is it difficult to see that in any case intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is, however, very difficult to suppose that the language of the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time in a Greek-speaking country into the language of the Apocalypse. . . .

"Of the two books the Apocalypse is the earlier. It is less developed both in thought and style. The material imagery in which it is composed includes the idea of progress in interpretation. . . .

"The Apocalypse is after the close of St. Paul’s work. It shows in its mode of dealing with Old Testament figures a close connexion with the Epistle to the Hebrews (2 Peter, Jude). And on the other hand it is before the destruction of Jerusalem." (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1908] 1980), pp. clxxiv-clxxv.)

Robert Young (1885)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as state in the title of the Syriac version of the book ; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)

C.F.J. Zullig
"The Book (of Revelation) bears on it, not in one place, but in many, nay in its whole structure, an undeniable proof of having been written before the fall of Jerusalem." (Th. i., p. 137)

 

[revelation2217]

The Early Date of Revelation Study Archive

Jay E. Adams (1966)
"[the temple still standing in Revelation 11:1 is] unmistakable proof that Revelation was written before 70 A.D." (The Time is at Hand, p. 68).

"The Revelation was written to a persecuted church about to face the most tremendous onslaught it had ever known. It would be absurd (not to say cruel) for John to write a letter to persons in such circumstances which not only ignores their difficulties, but reveals numerous details about events supposed to transpire hundreds of years in the future during a seven year tribulation period at the end of the church age." (The Time is at Hand, p. 49)

"It is to remain unsealed because 'the time is at hand.' That is, its prophecies are about to be fulfilled. The events which it predicts do not pertain to the far distant future, but they are soon to happen. The message is for this generation, not for some future one." (The Time is at Hand, p. 51)

Adam Clarke (1837)
(On Revelation 1:7) "By this the Jewish People are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state." (6:971.)

"Bengel has said much on these points, but to very little purpose; the word in the above place seems to signify delay simply, and probably refers to the long-suffering of God being ended in reference to Jerusalem; for I all along take for probable that this book was written previously to the destruction of that city." (Revelation 10)

Henry Cowles (1871)
"The conclusion to which I am brought after much investigation is that the historic testimony for the Domitian date is largely founded on a misconception of the passage from Irenaeus, and as a whole is by no means so harmonious, so ancient, and so decisive, as to overrule and set aside the strong internal evidence for the earlier date. I am compelled to accept the age of Nero as the true date of this writing." (The Book of Revelation)

David Crews (1994)
"The view accepted without much question by many Christians is that the Revelation was written in or around A.D.96, during the reign of the Caesar Domitian. This date of authorship would, of course, prevent the book from referring to the events of the Jewish War.. Simply put, the case for a late Domitian date hangs by a very slender thread. It is determined from a single statement by the Bishop of Lyons, named Irenaeus.. This statement is not an eyewitness testimony from Irenaeus, but is his recollection of what was said by an ever earlier man, Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John personally." [Prophecy Fulfilled - God's Perfect Church (Austin, TX: New Light Publishing, 1994), pp. 256,257]

F.W. Farrar (1886)
"there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the (early) date of the Apocalypse." (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 387)

"We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero." (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 408)

The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive. (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 434)

Ken Gentry (1989)
"My confident conviction is that a solid case for a Neronic date for Revelation can be set forth from the available evidences, both internal and external. In fact, I would lean toward a date after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in late A.D.64 and before the declaration of the Jewish war in early A.D.67. A date in either A.D.65 or early A.D.66 would seem most suitable." (Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989), 336.)

“John emphasizes his anticipation of the soon occurrences of his prophecy by strategic placement of these time references. He places his boldest time statements in both the introduction and conclusion to Revelation. It is remarkable that so many recent commentators have missed it literally coming and going! The statement of expectancy is found three times in the first chapter – twice in the first three verses: Revelation 1:1,3,19. The same idea is found four times in his concluding remarks: Revelation 22:6,7,12,20. It is as if John carefully bracketed the entire work to avoid any confusion.” (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 21-22).

“Think of it: If these words in these verses do not indicate that John expected the events to occur soon, what words could John have used to express such? How could he have said it more plainly?” (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 24).

"It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D.68. He is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) "has not yet come." (Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989; 158.)

Ovid Need Jr. (2001)
"I will say in opening that Revelation chapter eleven almost requires that the date of the book be pre 70 AD, for there the temple and altar are still standing, as well as the city where our Lord was crucified, v. 8. (International Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. Revelation, book of. 1917.)

Admittedly, there are good arguments for both an early and a later date of the Revelation. However, I believe Biblical evidence requires an early date, before 70AD. As an introductory statement, let me mention that prophecy is from the time it is written, NOT FROM THE TIME IT IS READ.

A pre 70 AD date would make the purpose of the Revelation the same as was Isaiah's prophecy -- that is, to see the faithful people of God through the extremely difficult times ahead as their then known world was going to be shaken to its very foundation by the judgment of God against Babylon. (Revelation: Date, Time and Purpose)

Ernest Renan
"It may be that, after the crisis of the year 68 (the date of the Apocalypse) and of the year 70 (the destruction of Jerusalem), the old Apostle, with an ardent and plastic spirit, disabused of the belief in a near appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds, may have inclined towards the ideas that he found around him, of which several agreed sufficiently well with certain Christian doctrines. " (Life of Jesus )

R.C. Sproul (1998)
"If the book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening. Not only does Revelation not mention the temple's destruction as a past event, it frequently refers to the temple as still standing. This is seen clearly in Revelation 11 ...Gentry gives impressive evidence to support this conclusion." (Last Days, pp.147-149)

Moses Stuart (1845)
"The testimony in respect to the matter before us is evidently successive and dependent, not coetaneous and independent. . (1:282. 81)

"If now the number of the witnesses were the only thing which should control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must, so far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix upon the time of Domitian. But a careful examination of this matter shows, that the whole concatenation of witnesses in favour of this position hangs upon the testimony of Irenaeus, and their evidence is little more than a mere repetition of what he has said. Eusebius and Jerome most plainly depend on him; and others seem to have had in view his authority, or else that of Eusebius." (Ibid. 2:269..)

"I say this, with full recognition of the weight and value of Irenaeus’s testimony, as to any matters of fact with which he was acquainted, or as to the common tradition of the churches. But in view of what Origen has said. . . , how can we well suppose, that the opinion of Irenaeus, as recorded in Cont. Haeres, V. 30 was formed in any other way, than by his own interpretation of Rev. 1:9. (1:281)

"Now it strikes me, that Tertullian plainly means to class Peter, Paul, and John together, as having suffered at nearly the same time and under the same emperor. I concede that this is not a construction absolutely necessary; but I submit it to the candid, whether it is not the most probable." (1 :284n.)

"It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D. 68. He is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) "has not yet come." (2:324)

”A majority of the older critics have been inclined to adopt the opinion of Irenaeus, viz., that it was written during the reign of Domitian, i.e., during the last part of the first century, or in A.D.95 or 96. Most of the recent commentators and critics have called this opinion in question, and placed the composition of the book at an earlier period, viz., before the destruction of Jerusalem.” (A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols; Andover, MD: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1845; p. 1:263)

“The manner of the declaration here seems to decide, beyond all reasonable appeal, against a later period than about A.D.67 or 68, for the composition of the Apocalypse.” (A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols; Andover, MD: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1845; p. 2:326)

Milton Terry (1898)
"the trend of modem criticism is unmistakably toward the adoption of the early date of the Apocalypse." (p. 241n.)

"It is therefore not to be supposed that the language, or style of thought, or type of doctrine must needs resemble those of other production of the same author .. the difference of language is further accounted for by the supposition that the apocalypse was written by the apostle at an early period of his ministry, and the gospel and epistles some thirty or forty years later." (Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 255)

"A fair weighing of the arguments thus far adduced shows that they all excepting the statement of Irenaeus, favor the early rather than later date. The facts appealed to indicate the times before rather than after the destruction of Jerusalem." (ibid.,258)

Now, there is no contention that Galatians and Hebrews were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and, to say the least, the most natural explanation of the allusions referred to is to suppose that the Apocalypse was already written, and that Paul and many others of his day were familiar with its contents. Writers who cite passages from the apostolic fathers to prove the priority of the gospel of John are the last persons in the world who should presume to dispute the obvious priority of the Apocalypse of John to Galatians and Hebrews. For in no case are the alleged quotations of Gospel more notable or striking than these allusions to the Apocalypse in the New Testament epistles." (ibid.,260)

“The verb was seen is ambiguous and may be either it, referring to the Apocalypse, or he, referring to John himself.” (Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 238)

C. Vanderwaal (1989)
“We cannot accept all the arguments of J.A.T. Robinson in his book Redating the New Testament (London, 1976), but we agree with his conclusion that all the books of the New Testament were written before the year A.D.70.” (Cited in James E. Priest, “Contemporary Apocalyptic Scholarship and the Revelation,” in Johannie Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack, ed. James E. Priest; Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press; p. 199, n. 75)

“The book of Revelation presents a clear testimony to the churches in the first century. To be more specific, I am convinced that Revelation was written in the seventh decade of the first century – before the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, which Jesus talked about in Matthew 24.” (Hal Lindsey and Bible Prophecy; St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press, 1978; p. 12)

 

[Straightshot]

Response to the OP

Because they want to support their false teachings and traditions .... preterism and replacement theology

The non-Christian historian simply has no knowledge of the Lord's prophetic word and is ignorant of the same

 

[Biblewriter]

revelation2217 has posted lots of people who claimed that the Revelation was written before the festruction of Jreusalem. But he has not quoted even one who was not a Preterist.

And if you carefully read the statements he did post, you will see that many, if not most, of them based their conclusions on preterist asumptions.

The proof that the Revelation was given during the days of Domatian is not based on futurist assumptions, but on the united voice of every unambiguous statement on the date that comes from a reliable source and that can be proved to have been made before the sixth century.

And as I proved in the thread titled "Why Historians date the Revelation to the Reign of Domatian," these sources reveal an absolute minimum of four independent sources of information, not one, as the Preterists erroneously claim.

 

[stillwaters45]

You might be able to name one, or maybe even two historians who are not Preterists who date the Revelation to the reign of Nero. But that's about it.

There are two threads that purport to discuss the viewpoint of historians on the dating of Revelation, and yet neither thread does this. Modern historians are generally secular scholars who hold university posts within a history department and try to write books. This is what a historian is. They aren't 'futurist' or 'preterist.' The view of most historians today is that there was no such thing as a Domitianic persecution. Do you understand this, Biblewriter? Here is the typical sentiment of a historian:

"However, there is no historical evidence for any persecution of Christians during Domitian 's reign"
Gregory Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, 1991, 233.

Remember, 'historian' is someone who studies 'history'; a 'New Testament scholar' is someone who studies the NT.

You talk about what historians say and it's clear you have no idea about modern historiography.

 

[stillwaters45]

I understand the logic of Ireneus thus :— Obviously it was not prudent to give Nero's name during his life. But John lived down to the time of Domitian when Nero was thirty years dead.

This can't have been Irenaeus' meaning because (as Westcott, for example, points out) Irenaeus elsewhere brings John's life down to the reign of Trajan, not Domitian. The logic nowhere requires that John kept the matter secret during Nero's reign--and that would contradict Irenaeus anyway for (contrary to Cowles), he considered the Antichrist yet future. He therefore didn't make Nero the name and would not have needed to conceal it on that basis.

 

[Biblewriter]

There are two threads that purport to discuss the viewpoint of historians on the dating of Revelation, and yet neither thread does this. Modern historians are generally secular scholars who hold university posts within a history department and try to write books. This is what a historian is. They aren't 'futurist' or 'preterist.' The view of most historians today is that there was no such thing as a Domitianic persecution. Do you understand this, Biblewriter? Here is the typical sentiment of a historian:

"However, there is no historical evidence for any persecution of Christians during Domitian 's reign"
Gregory Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, 1991, 233.

Remember, 'historian' is someone who studies 'history'; a 'New Testament scholar' is someone who studies the NT.

You talk about what historians say and it's clear you have no idea about modern historiography.

The dating of the Revelation cannot even possibly be based on scripture, for the scriptures do not state when it was written.

But you will notice that at least most of the alleged "historians" who advocate the early date base this on interpretations of scripture, while all the historians who advocate the late date base theirs on statements by ancient writers.

But no historian could even possibly be an expert on all phases of history. So even real historians, both ancient and modern, make mistakes. The statement you quoted:

"'However, there is no historical evidence for any persecution of Christians during Domitian 's reign'
Gregory Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, 1991, 233."

Is an example of such an error. For in the thread titled "Why Historiand date the Revelation to the Reign of Domatian," included clear historical evidence of persecution of Christians during Domatians reign.

So it might be a good idea to stop pretending to be such an advanced scholar and actually consider what the ancient writers said. As I pointed out in the other thread, even if you succeded in getting rid of Hyppolytus, there would still be evidence of three independent sources of information, not just one, as Preterists incorrectly claim.

 

[Straightshot]

The preterist is set out to destroy the Lord's more sure word of prophecy

And the majority of the leaders of the professing church today are preterists .... or those who talk of the Bible's irrelevancy for a post modern world

Does this surprise you?

A definite sign of the times ..... and time for the Lord to bring judgment upon an unbelieving world

 

[ebedmelech]

The fears futurism looms it's ugly head again. Thank God we're not in the middle ages...because futurist would call this heresy and persecute those who oppose their teachings about this.

Revelation was written between 64-67 AD as I see it, and John clearly tells us he was in the tribulation in Revelation 1:9:
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

John was right there when Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, 25...Luke 21:5-34, and Mark 13...HE KNOWS what the tribulation is Jesus spoke of...and he states the tribulation was already happening as he was banished to Patmos.

Call it "preterism" or whatever you want...but if you look for TRUTH...the fact is it's what scripture says, and the idea this is a future event is simply error!!!