The Narrow Path Ministries

In reading about the dating of Revelation, I come across the point of view that if Rev was not actual prophecy then it does not belong in the Bible. I do believe that it was written pre-70AD and is prophecy.

But what if it was indeed written in Domition's reign about the fall of Jerusalem as an inspired book? That is it would be looking back at the fall of a city and pulling aside the curtain for a glimpse of what was happening in the spiritual realm. In this it would be kind of like the prologue and epilogue to Esther (which I don't believe is inspired). I haven't actually come across this view, it is just my own thought.

Is there anything necessarily suspect about this view? Or maybe I'm just trying to have my preterist cake and eat it too.

Yes, you are a cake eater -- the opposing view would be that if it were written after AD70 then it could still be a prophetic look at something we haven't experienced yet (or haven't noticed). In many respects, if your preterism relates to AD70 as the fulfillment, then yes you are vulnerable to the dating.

alaskazimm wrote:In reading about the dating of Revelation, I come across the point of view that if Rev was not actual prophecy then it does not belong in the Bible. I do believe that it was written pre-70AD and is prophecy.

But what if it was indeed written in Domition's reign about the fall of Jerusalem as an inspired book? That is it would be looking back at the fall of a city and pulling aside the curtain for a glimpse of what was happening in the spiritual realm. In this it would be kind of like the prologue and epilogue to Esther (which I don't believe is inspired). I haven't actually come across this view, it is just my own thought.

Is there anything necessarily suspect about this view? Or maybe I'm just trying to have my preterist cake and eat it too.

Wikipedia states that: "According to early tradition this book was composed near the end of Domitian's reign, around the year 95 AD. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69 AD, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[21] The majority of modern scholars accept one of these two dates, with most accepting the Domitianic one.[22]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

So, both views have historical plausibility.

As you said, I believe that prophecy can be an explanation of something that has previously happened. Example: if there was a true prophet who could explain 3 meteors hitting in 3 locations in 24 hours (I think I've got those facts straight,) or Hurricanes or 9/11 being God's judgment on America for homosexuality (as Westboro Baptist thinks.) I don't believe that. But those would be prophecies. Forth-telling, rather than foretelling as I remember it being taught.

As a side-note, Elaine Pagels gave a great talk on the place that "revelations" (there are many) played in ancient times at a SALT (Seminar on Long-term Thinking.) As in a previous post, I'm sourcing someone who likely is rejected here, but who I feel is insightful from a different viewpoint.

http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/aug/2 ... velations/

In reading about the dating of Revelation, I come across the point of view that if Rev was not actual prophecy then it does not belong in the Bible. I do believe that it was written pre-70AD and is prophecy.











I think it was written pre 70AD but i'm a historicist. I agree it was meant to be prophetic but if it was about Jerusalem 70AD & the Old & New Covenant and the destruction of the temple then it is symbolically repeating things clearly spelled out earlier in the bible in no uncertain terms.

morbo3000 wrote: if there was a true prophet who could explain 3 meteors hitting in 3 locations in 24 hours

Oh, that's easy and you don't even need to be a prophet -- just a good old fashioned conspiracy theorist -- we shot at it to change (or control) its trajectory (I believe nasa has a project for just such a thing) -- perhaps with a laser beam and fragments came off. OK, maybe we even were trying to get it to break up and land so we could mine the valuable elements in them. (google that)

darinhouston wrote:

morbo3000 wrote: if there was a true prophet who could explain 3 meteors hitting in 3 locations in 24 hours

Oh, that's easy and you don't even need to be a prophet -- just a good old fashioned conspiracy theorist -- we shot at it to change (or control) its trajectory (I believe nasa has a project for just such a thing) -- perhaps with a laser beam and fragments came off. OK, maybe we even were trying to get it to break up and land so we could mine the valuable elements in them. (google that)

It's too bad we can't stone conspiracy theorists the way we can prophets who get the message wrong.

I vote for a date around 63AD. I think between Robinson and Gentry that there is more than enough scholarship to make this reasonable. However, I think it would also be interesting to look closely at why the book was left out of the canons of the biggest elements of the church (EO and Church of the East) in the first few hundred years. I don't think there has been enough written on this dynamic.

Doug

I have wondered if it would be so bad if it was written as an inspired "post-telling", if it was understood at the time by the readers (or certain readers) to be the case. The readers might have read it in the way that we read The Pilgrim's Progress or The Great Divorce, as the author intended. So I suppose I could see it as inspired prophecy (revealed truth) about 70 AD (preterist) and the Christian life in general (idealist). Of course, there's no proving exactly when the vision was seen nor when the writing occurred, and as far as I know, there seems to be a decent case that it was written pre-70, so it's kind of a moot point.

m3000 wrote:
It's too bad we can't stone conspiracy theorists the way we can prophets who get the message wrong.

You tempt me.

Singalphile wrote:I have wondered if it would be so bad if it was written as an inspired "post-telling", if it was understood at the time by the readers (or certain readers) to be the case. The readers might have read it in the way that we read The Pilgrim's Progress or The Great Divorce, as the author intended. So I suppose I could see it as inspired prophecy (revealed truth) about 70 AD (preterist) and the Christian life in general (idealist). Of course, there's no proving exactly when the vision was seen nor when the writing occurred, and as far as I know, there seems to be a decent case that it was written pre-70, so it's kind of a moot point.

m3000 wrote:
It's too bad we can't stone conspiracy theorists the way we can prophets who get the message wrong.

You tempt me.

But if it says its telling about things that must shortly come to pass... then it's lying. No?

darinhouston wrote:But if it says its telling about things that must shortly come to pass... then it's lying. No?

Not necessarily, imo. If it is understood to be "post-telling" and written from the point of view that Jerusalem was still standing, then I think it falls within acceptable autorial liberty by the standards of the day. The entire book would then be what chapter 12 is - a look back at what the events on earth portended in the spiritual realm.