Dating Revelation

[Soulsnaxx]

Some contend that the Apostle John wrote Revelation a few years before the Roman's destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that it is primarily a prophecy of that event. Others insist that the book was written about three decades later and, therefore, cannot be about AD 70. What evidence does each side hold to, and which side has the best evidence? These are questions Bible-teacher Steve Gregg dealt with during a brief discussion with a caller to The Narrow Path Radio program.

Are you an Early Dater or a Late Dater? Which position do you think has the stronger evidence, and why

https://youtu.be/c2wZ8ojdhcs



(Soulsnaxx produces video versions of select calls to The Narrow Path radio broadcast)

[Paidion]

First, let me say that I have no stock in this question whatever. I am a futurist with regards to most of Matthew 24 and nearly all of Revelation. Whether Revelation was written around 95 A.D. or prior to 70 A.D. makes no difference to the futurist. But it makes all the difference to those who think its predictions are about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The only reason I am entering into this discussion is that I am interested in the historicity of the matter, and think that mere speculation in order to fit one's personal eschatology should not be entertained.

This matter has been discussed and rediscussed. I think we are well acquainted with the arguments for each side of the issue.

Here is a short review of the historical evidence and the internal evidence for the late date (around 95 A.D.) There is no need for me to take the time to write it all out again.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... on-written

In my opinion there is NO evidence for Revelation having been written prior to 70 A.D.

Just as an example of preteristic reinterpretation of the historic evidence:
Irenæus ( 180 A.D.), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). But preterists twist this to say that Irenæus was actually saying that John the apostle is what was seen at the close of the reign of Domitian. How it can be understood to be John, when Irenæus clearly said that it was the apocalyptic vision that was seen, I guess I'll never know.

Also, preterists go to great lengths to try to show that Nero was the Antichrist. One of the most bizarre attempts is to show that 666 is the number of Nero's name.

First they take the GREEK name for "Nero" which is “ΝΕΡΩΝ” and put it together with the GREEK word for “Caesar” which is “ΚΑΙΣΑΡ”. Of course the total Greek numerical value will not do, since it will be greater than 1005. So they transliterate these GREEK words into Hebrew. Now Hebrew has no vowels. So they remove the vowels from “ΝΕΡΩΝ” to get “NPN” (or “NRN” in Latin characters). Then they remove the vowels from “ΚΑΙΣΑΡ” and so one would expect them to get “ΚΣΡ” (“KSR” in Latin characters). But no! Instead of using the latin “K”, they select a somewhat similar sounding Latin character “Q”! Why do they choose “Q” instead of “K”? Well, the HEBREW numerical value “NRN KSR” doesn't add up to 666, but the Hebrew numerical value of “NRN QSR” does! The Hebrew letter for “K” is either “Khof” or “Kas”. But neither will work to produce “666”. However, the Hebrew letter for “Q”, namely “Qof” does work.

We might ask ourselves:

1. Why should the number of the beast's name be calculated with Hebrew numeric characters? After all John, the author of Revelation, used Greek characters to express the number “666” itself! Namely ΧΞC.
Χ -chi (600)
Ξ - xi (60)
C _stigma (6) This character is not a part of the Greek alphabet, but was used to represent the number six.

2. Doesn't the method used to calculate the number of “Nero Cæsar” using Hebrew characters seem rather contrived?

3. Cannot a similar method be used to calculate the number of almost ANY name to be 666?

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

If you are interested in hearing a critique of your arguments, feel free to read the introduction to my book, "Revelation: Four Views." To say there is no evidence for the early date would indicate very inadequate research.

[Paidion]

Greetings Steve,
I possess your book "Revelation Four Views"; I have read this book from beginning to end, and commend you for your excellent presentation of the four views. I have also read other writings which date Revelation on one or the other side of A.D. 70. So I suggest that my research is perhaps more adequate than you think. I have yet to see any facts presented which I consider to qualify as evidence of an ante-70 A.D. date. I have seen only attempts to explain away the historic asseverations that assign the time of the writing to the latter part of Domitian's reign, although I do acknowledge, as you have pointed out, that the seven kings of Rev 17:10 could be interpreted to be the seven Cæsars of the Roman empire, of which Nero is the seventh, and who would therefore be "the other who had not yet come." But again, this is an interpretation. John saw visions, and I don't think any of us KNOW the significance of those visions. We are only guessing, and guessing in such ways as to fit our eschatology.

[steve]

In my opinion there is NO evidence for Revelation having been written prior to 70 A.D.

Perhaps you are using the word "evidence" where you actually mean "proof." I agree that there is no proof of either date of writing. However, there is certainly "evidence" appealed to by both sides.

[Homer]

From the OP:

What evidence does each side hold to, and which side has the best evidence?

Perhaps the question should be about facts rather than evidence, which is a more ambiguous term. As Paidion appears to be questioning, I would be very interested in knowing what facts support an early date, and, of course, the later date.

facts: from Latin factum, that which has been done, which excludes opinion.

As Jack Webb used to say: "Just the facts mam". Now you can date yourself by answering who was Jack Webb without googling for the answer.

[steve7150]

As Jack Webb used to say: "Just the facts mam". Now you can date yourself by answering who was Jack Webb without googling for the answer.







Getting scary but from Dragnet also with Harry Morgan but do you know why Webb's badge number was 731? Or was he Inspector Henderson from Superman?

[Paidion]

The difficulty, Homer, with asking "Which facts support (early or late) date?" is that it is not clear what the facts are, for example, such as that which was stated by Irenæus when he perhaps wrote, "If it necessary that [Antichrist's] name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For it was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." I do not have available the text in either Latin or Greek, so I cannot verify this, but those who have examined it, say the verb can mean either "it was seen" or "he was seen."

As I see it, the former is more likely for the following reasons:
1. Eusebius so interpreted it.
2. The word in the sentence is closer to "vision" than to "him" and in Greek, pronouns are usually placed closest to their antecedent.
3. It better fits the context of the passage. For it seems that Irenæus was saying that if it were necessary to know Antichrist's name in his day, John would have written it in the book of Revelation, since he had received the vision almost in his day, toward the end of Domitian's reign.

I don't know what the word is that was translated "announced", but if Irenæus had meant that John was seen, then he must have been saying that John would have had plenty of time to announce the name of Antichrist to the Christians since he had lived right to the end of Domitian's reign. But then if John had known Antichrist's name, why would he not have written it in the book of Revelation? However, it could be said that John didn't know since it was unnecessary for him to know.

The bottom line is that it is hard to become acquainted with the relevant facts.

[dwilkins]

Do you have any late date evidence not based on Irenaeus' comment?

Doug

[Paidion]

Do you have any late date evidence not based on Irenaeus' comment?

Yes, I do. I provided a link to this site in my original post, which provides such evidence:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... on-written

I will quote from it here:
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

VICTORINUS
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

JEROME
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).