when Revelation was written

[Guest]

How can you be sure that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD? Aren't there many scholars that believe it was written later? The preterist view would fall apart if Revelation was written in 90 AD.

[Guest]

How can you be sure that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD? Aren't there many scholars that believe it was written later? The preterist view would fall apart if Revelation was written in 90 AD.

Some believe in an early date and some believe in a later date. Deciding which is correct should be done carefully, not by majority vote.

The only evidence I am aware of is a statement by Irenaeus that went something like:

"We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist [hidden in the number 666 in Rev.13:18], for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign."

The debate comes down to this sentence. What was seen? John's vision? John himself? The Antichrist? The Apocolypse?

To add to the uncertainty, those who originally translated the words into english complained about the poor condition of the manuscript evidence. They wrote:

"The work is no longer extant in the original. It has come down in an ancient Latin version with the exception of the greater part of the first book which has been preserved in the Greek...The text, both in Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain"

So this is not what I would call hard evidence of a late date writing.

[Guest]

"There is ample evidence that at that time {Domitian's reign} the apostle and evengelist John was still alive, and because of his testimony to the word of God was sentenced to confinement on the island of Patmos {Rev.1:9}. Writing about the number of the name of the antichrist in what is called the Apocalypse of John, Irenaeus has this to say about John in Book Five of his 'Heresies Answered':
"Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation (i.e. St. John). For this vision was not seen a long time ago, but almost in my own life time, AT THE END OF DOMITION'S REIGN." From the Greek text of Eusebius' 'History of the Church' Book 3, section 18.

Book 3 section 17 through section 20 detail the period of Church history from the rise and and fall of the Emperor Domitian Caesar...not Nero. There is no supposed ambiguity in the Greek or Latin texts of Eusebius's work, nor is the Greek of Irenaeus' "Against the Heretics" AKA 'Heresies Answered" hard to understand. It has only been since the modern Praeterist positions that this clear Church witness has been considered as hard to understand. I believe David Chilton is the first to say that both Eusebius and Irenaeus are unclear as to who or what is being spoken about. No Greek or Latin Scholar I have read has ever made a notation in these passages that the meaning is difficult because the text is unclear.....only a Praeterist requires this claim so as to nullify the 96 CE date of the Revelation.
All Church witnesses state that John was arrested in Ephesos during the reign of Emperor Domitianus and was exiled to the mines of Patmos. There is no historicity to the dating of John's exile to Patmos to the Neronian persecution of the Church in Rome and the Province of Italy. If you read the whole section on Domitian's reign, you will see the context of Eusebius and Irenaeus is clear. I wonder why this is not cited?
Secondly Laodicea was in ruins during the Neronian era from a great earthquake, and along with many other Asian towns nearby was being rebuilt. Laodicea did not regain her wealth and status in Asia again until the mid 80's. She was totally rebuilt and wealthier than in the time of Claudius. This fact shows that again a late date for the Revelation is internally proven. As is the reference to the martyrdom of the bishop of Pergamos, namely +Antipas. He was arrested, tried and convicted by the Provincial Governor as an Atheist and insurrectionist during the early years of Domitianus' reign. Not in Nero's rule.
Thirdly, the Church of Asia Minor was not under Imperial persecution under Nero, but was first subjected to Imperial persecution under Domitian.
Fourthly, John was not given Imperial clemency until the death of Domitian and the rise of Emperor Nerva in 96 CE. This too is attested to in Book 3 section 20: "After 15 years of Domitian's rule Nerva succeeded to the throne....At that time too the apostle John, efter his exile on the island, resumed residence at Ephesos, as early Christian tradition records." Did John dwell on Patmos from 64 CE under Nero Caesar all the way through to Emperor Nerva? That is a total of 8 Emperors and 35 years! There is not Church record of this......but David Chilton and all who espouse Praeterism must assume this right?
Fifthly, Praeterism is itself a post 16th Century creation of a Jesuit Priest, who was later cited as creating a heresy by his Church. Later it was adopted by certain late 17th Century and later 19th Century Protestants. As an Eschatological system it has no roots in any Ancient Church tradition, nor does it reflect the classical Latin Amillenialism of Augustine, the Roman Catholic Church, nor that of the Reformers and their mainline Churches.
There are two classes of Praeterism. There is Consistent Preaterism, now called Full Preterism. And there is Inconsistent Praeterism, now known as Partial Preterism.
Consistent Praeterists believe all things eschatologically have been fulfilled in the Jewish War of 67 - 70 CE...ALL THINGS! This is Heresy clearly, but it is consistent with their assumptions and the way the handle scriptures. It is logical and follows praeterism to it's rational conclusion.
Inconsistent Praeterists believe most eschatologically have been fulfilled in the Jewish War of 67 -70 CE...only the Second Advent and a General Resurrection remains on the indefinite horizon. This is partial preterism on account of the fact that it seeks to avert the logical conclusion of this eschatological system. It is inconsistent in it's 'allegorical' and 'spiritual' hermanuetics..seeking to create a synthesis with Amillenialism..which admits to a 96 CE date of the Revelation and the futurity of the Beast, Tribulation and Second Advent. This New or Positive Amillenialism is Inconsistent Praeterism with a Amillenialist flavor. It is closer to Post Millenialism that it wishes to admit...even basing it's scholarship on Post Millenialist Authors such as Chilton and others.
Whether Partial Inconsistent Preteristism or it's twin Full Consistent Preterism..they both are contrary to the Amillenialism of Augustine, the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Reformers. They both are seen by Orthodox Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans and other Western Traditional Churches as aberrations of eschatological study, and inconsistent with their founding faith and principles. Classic Amillenialism along with it's Apostolic predecessor 'Historic Premillenialism' both agree that the Church will see the rise of the Antichrist, endure a Great Tribulation and be caught up in the Second Advent of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, there to reign with Him forever and ever. Neither accept that 70 CE was anything more than the foretold desolation and ending of the Old Covenant System and the pruning off of the unbelieving from the Olive Tree which is rooted in Christ. Neither sees most eschatological things fulfilled in either the first (67-70CE) or second (131 - 135 CE) Jewish War with Rome. Nor do they deny the future events foretold in the Revelations...read Irenaeus yourself. Read the Didache too. They all reject praeterisms main assumptions. There are no partial or full praeterists in all of ancient Church history.

Now there is no reason rationalist praeterists need fear a 94-96 CE date of Revelation. As these folk deny prophesy as a foretelling gift, but a style of spiritually retelling past events. Maybe John wrote like the author of Daniel is said to have done. Maybe he wrote about the first Jewish War in a "prophetic" style so at to show what really happened back then eschatologically. Well that is what many say Daniel's author did as well as the other prophets did. But most who do believe in the gift of prophesy reject this view. So Preterists who say that most of the eschatological hopes of the Gospels and the Revelation refer to the events from the Crucifixion until the destruction of the Temple on Ab 9, 70 CE. need the Revelation to foretell these events and not retell these events. Thus they need a Claudian or Neronian Date to fit their theory. No matter the plain sense and internal evidences of the Johanine text, the pagan historical records, church historical records or modern archeological evidences to the contrary of their early dating theory...they still insist that their views are correct and quite orthodox. They must reject, confuse and dismiss all the datun which has held for 1900 years that John saw and wrote the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ during his exile on the Isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian Caesar. If they accept the 96 CE dating, then John was writing about that which was then taking place, that which was just about to take place and that which would take place at the end of the Last Days and beyond. This certainly is not what a Praeterist wants to deal with...it clashes with praeterist assumptions about the eschatology of the Gospels and Paul! God forbid! LOL!

So in short, the Apocalypse was seen and written down in the latter years of Emperor Domitian. There is no evidence or opinion to the contrary from any source within the Church's first 1600 years. All confusion as to the sense of Scripture and the meaning of Church records is of Late date as is the Eschatological System which developed said confusion as to the sense of Scripture and the meaning of Church records.

Are Praeterists Christian? Yes. Not because of their eschatology, but they are so by Grace through their obedient Faith in Christ and His Sacrifice. One's Eschatology does not place him in our outside the Church...it just places him on the fringe.

In Christ Jesus our Blessed Hope,
+Ken Huffman

[Guest]

Perhaps someone knows, but I have read that there are some scholars who do not believe that John the Apostle wrote Revelation, rather it was a John the Elder who also abided in Ephesus. This may account for an earlier date, but also for the writing style differences and the different use of grammar, syntax, and construction of Revelation in comparison to the Gospel of John, and the other Johannine texts. As far as the preterist view goes, there is some of the preterist view, especially in the Olivet discourse that I find logical. Some preterists that I have read (partial preterists) indicate that the "You shall see the son of man at the right hand of power" reference to the destruction of the temple signifying that Jesus is the Messiah and a validation of his Messiahship. Some think that there is not future references in the Olivet discourse that are beyond 70 A.D. Is it possible that the Olivet discourse and the corresponding text in Luke are seperate from Revelation? That Revelation may be speaking of future events whereas the gospels are not?

[Guest]

Greetings!
Yes, some hold to the notion that there was an Ephesian Presbyter named John who was the editor of Saint John's Gospel, as well as author of the Letters ascribed to him. Proculas was the scribe of Saint John Zebedee according to tradition, and wrote down John's Gospel and Letters. It was John himself who wrote the Apocalypse in his crude Galilean Koine Greek. Who knows if Proculas was John the Presbyter of Ephesos.
This Two John theory is novel in Church history and is due to confusion in some Church records as to the tomb of John. There were two claimant tombs...thus some feel there may be two Johns. But the same universal Church record that states John wrote the Apocalypse himself on Patmos Isle during Domitians reign, also states unanimously that John was the source of the 4th Gospel and the 3 Letters. There is no Presbyter John, he is a myth developed by those who developed higher textual criticism. I have read all of the Johanine material in Koine Greek, and yes the Apocalypse is in a more crude and uncouth style full of aramaic syntax and word order so foreign to Koine Greek. But John was Aramaic speaking firstly and Greek secondly....his Gospel and Letters show an editors touch as well as personal references to this fact within the texts themselves.
Yes Messiah foretold the events of the Jewish War of 67-70 CE. Yes He foretold Israel's second Diaspora for their refusal to recognize Him and the hour of their Divine visitation. This is not a Praeterist proof, but a clear prophetic witness. Events which will happen just before the return of the Son of Man are also prophesied by Messiah, as they are also in Acts, in Paul's Letters and the Apocalypse itself.
Facts are facts...Praeterism (Consistant & Inconsistant) is a recent eschatological system first developed and then denounced within the Counter Reformation Roman Catholic Church as a futile and heretical answer to the Reformation Protestantism's Historicist/Futurist Amillenialism which attacked Rome as either Babylon, the Sea Beast or the Land Beast...it all depended on which Protestant party one was dealing with. It was only later that it was adopted by the very Protestants it was meant to refute. It is this modern date of this belief system and the hermanuetics developed to defend it that is the main reason it is untenable. It is as novel and untenable as Dispensational Premillenialism which was first put forth partially by a Jesuit Scholar, then adopted by the Irvingite Apostlic Church and their Darbyist Plymouth Brethren. The paper trail of both sets of beliefs go no further than the Counter Reformation...neither are Apostolic.


In Messiah,
+Ken Huffman

[Guest]

A good book on the suject is:
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
by Kenneth L. Gentry that you can get from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

It's also available for free (download) from freebooks.commentary.net:

http://freebooks.commentary.net/freeboo ... 06_47e.htm

[Guest]

A better book on the Apocalypse and Eschatology in general is the late Dr. George A. Ladd's "The Blessed Hope". It is concise, consistent and gives great attention to the Grammer, Syntax and Plain sense of the Koine Greek text of the N.T.
He does refer to the Ancient Church testimonies from the Apostolic era (90's - 100 CE) to the 4th Century CE as to the dating of the Apocalypse and the generally accepted "Historic" Premillenialism verses the later Alexandrian inspired A-Millenialism of the late 3rd thru the 6th Centuries.
He explores most eschatologies in contrast to Scripture, general ancient Church Testimonies and the Historic Premillenial position. He shows their late origins, eisogetics and inconsistent hermanuetic styles. He does al this in a scholarly and charitable way....never condemning those who espouse those eschatological systems nor claiming that they are not christians.

Ken

[Guest]

A better book on the Apocalypse and Eschatology in general is the late Dr. George A. Ladd's "The Blessed Hope". It is concise, consistent and gives great attention to the Grammer, Syntax and Plain sense of the Koine Greek text of the N.T.
He does refer to the Ancient Church testimonies from the Apostolic era (90's - 100 CE) to the 4th Century CE as to the dating of the Apocalypse and the generally accepted "Historic" Premillenialism verses the later Alexandrian inspired A-Millenialism of the late 3rd thru the 6th Centuries.
He explores most eschatologies in contrast to Scripture, general ancient Church Testimonies and the Historic Premillenial position. He shows their late origins, eisogetics and inconsistent hermanuetic styles. He does al this in a scholarly and charitable way....never condemning those who espouse those eschatological systems nor claiming that they are not christians.

Ken

While that may be a good book on post-trib escatology (which I think is very possibly the correct view, but I haven't nailed down my escatology yet), the topic in question is the dating of the book of revelation. The book I listed is 350+ pages dedicated to the dating of the book of revelation, including what the early fathers believed and covers internal and external evidences. So it may very well not even matter when the book of Revelation was written, but it's interesting to study none the less.

[_Steve]

Nicole,

You are quite correct that the preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation is 100% vulnerable to invalidation if the book could be shown to have been written later than 70 AD. It is obvious that the book could not be predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD if it was written after that event.

This argument cuts both ways, however. It means that, if it can be demonstrated on exegetical grounds that Revelation is predicting the fall of Jerusalem, then the book must necessarily have been written before that event, and argues strongly for the early date of writing.

That most modern scholars would date the book at about 96 AD does not prove much. There are vogues of scholarly opinion, and in the 19th Century most scholars favored a date in the reign of Nero (d.68 AD). The evidence for the later date rests principally upon the above-mentioned quotation from Irenaeus, and a few other arguments, most of which are unimpressive to me.

The early date is supported principally from internal evidence within the book. For example, the fact that the temple was still standing (Rev.11:1-2) and the presence of possible allusions to Nero (13:18/ 17:10). Additionally, the frequent references to the near fulfillment of the prophecies in John’s day seem to suggest a 70 AD fulfillment (what other events “shortly” after John’s day were “at hand,” and could possibly have been indicated in these visions?). This impression is confirmed by comparison with other parts of the Bible (e.g., the Olivet Discourse, which predicts 70 AD in terms very like those found in Revelation). There are also admirable confirmations from the history recorded by Josephus, though other views of Revelation are not without historical or contemporary parallels as well.

I may not be possible to be 100% sure of the dating of the book from available evidence, but I believe the evidence for the early date (mostly found within the scriptures) is much stronger than that which supports the later date (mostly found outside the scriptures).

[Guest]

All I can say is that until Praeterism there has existed no other date for the exile of John to Patmos Isle that 81 -96 CE.
The Church of Smyrna did not exist until after the Fall of Jerusalem. Polycarp states this clearly, as he is one of the first bishops of this Johnine establiched churches of Asia Minor. Smyrna's church was formed after the Fall of Jerusalem when John relocated to Ephesos. Laodicea and nearby cities were destroyed by the Earthquake in the mid 60's CE, and was not rebuilt and attained it's great wealth until after the rise of the Emperor Titus.
John taught Papius of Ephesos as well as Polycarp of Smyrna. In turn Polycarp taught Irenaeus of Smyrna before he sailed for Gaul and eventually became Bishop of Lyons. Thus the facts concerning John's life in Ephesos and Patmos were known very well in Asia Minor and throughout the Church in general. Irenaeus speaks as an authority from Smyrna, disciple of Polycarp who was himself disciple of St. John. If this direct testimony is to be rejected, then one must reject all testimonies of such a close nature...like Luke's.
There is no other view in the Church prior to Praeterism other than this. It is based upon Eye witness accounts (Papius' & Polycarp's as passed on to Irenaues + the united testimonies of the Church in Asia Minor) There is no reason to doubt their assertions unless doctrinally you must.
One cannot write to a Church that does not exist (Smyrna in early 60's CE). Laodicea was not wealthy and proud until it was rebuild in grand style under Imperial Aid in the late 70's to mid 80's. In Nero's time it was in ruins. Also, the first persecution of the Church in Asia Minor and throughout the Empire began under Domitianus. Nero's attacks on Christians was localized to burned out Rome and her environs. These facts are recorded by early Christian and Pagan Historical records.
19th Century Protestant opinions are not what the late date for the Apocalypse is based upon....nor does some of their "higher textual criticism" destroy the exclusive tradition of the Church based upon the eye witnesses of the facts in Asia Minor.
There is no reason to judge Papius', Polycarp's, Irenaeus's and all early Churchmen's accounts concerning the Domitian exile of John to Patmos. Irenaeus has been proven accurate concerning the heretical sects and so why his he mistrusted about his own Church's history? As for the Latin translation of Irenaeus' writings concerning John's Visions during Domitian's reign, they are not confusing as to meaning as Gentry, Chilton and other Praeterists have in modern times submitted. These citations are in the original Greek form in Eusebius's History of the Church. I have read the Greek and find no confusion as to intended meaning....John saw the Visions during Domitian's reign....very close to the time of Irenaeus (60+ years prior). Only praeterists claim that Irenaeus is confusing...either they do not read Greek or are not fluent in Latin....the English text of the Whole Passage is claer and set in Domitian's reign according to Eusebius who spoke Greek.

In Messiah,
+Ken