Academic Trends in Dating Revelation

[darinhouston]

In the Introduction of Steve's latest GCS lecture, he discusses academic trends in the 18th and 19th centuries in recognizing an early vs. late date, respectively. We are going through this in our Bible Study group at church, and someone asked me if I knew what precipitated that shift. I have no idea, but I'd love to provide a response. I did some internet serarching and couldn't find anything even describing the recent history of the debate in scholarly circles.

Can anyone elaborate?

[Paidion]

I don't know either. But I would guess (not a wild guess but an educated guess) that the trend toward the acceptance of an early date for the writing of Revelation coincides with the trend to accept preterism. From what I have read, preterism was not widely propogated until the 17th century. Preterism REQUIRES the earlier date, whereas futurism is consistent with either the early or late date.

The only external evidence we have is for the later date. External evidence for the early date is totally absent. Preterists must set a date for the writing of Revelation prior to 70 A.D. so that they can interpret John's vision accordingly. They must also re-interpret the words of Clement of Alexandria and Irenæus, and dismiss those of Victorinus, Jerome, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, all of whom affirm the writing of Revelation to have occurred during the reign of Domitian.

[Duncan]

There is some movement back to the pre AD 70 date (See the Smalley quote below). Of course scholars rarely change their minds on major issues, thus often a generation has to pass on and change happens slowly. Here is something I wrote on the date. The AD 95 date does not make sense on a number of levels. See this article on how Revelation is about the curses that would come on unfaithful children of Israel when they broke the covenant. This happened in its ultimate sense at AD 70 http://planetpreterist.com/news-5109.html.

When Was Revelation Written?
The usual date given for the writing of Revelation is around AD 95 towards the end of the reign of Domitian. There is a big problem with this, however. It simply doesn't fit the timing that Revelation gives. Here is what Revelation says about when it was written:

Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
Revelation 17:9-11

It would appear that we have an easy answer here as to Revelation’s date; it was during the reign of the sixth king of Rome. Unfortunately the answer of who the sixth king was is open to debate.

Who Was the Sixth King?
Two questions have to be answered before one can begin the count of the eight kings. First, do we start the count with Julius Caesar or Augustus? Second, do we include the three short-lived emperors of AD 68-69 (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius)?

Looking at the first question, many modern historians argue that Julius Caesar was a dictator, not an emperor; thus they say Augustus was the first emperor. While this may be technically correct, many ancients did not make this distinction. Starting the count of the rulers of Rome with Julius Caesar is well attested to in first and second-century writings. Suetonius (c. AD 70-160) in his Lives of the Caesars starts with Julius. Dio Cassius (c. AD 150-235) in his Roman History also begins the count of the emperors with Julius.13 Josephus (AD 37-101) referred to Augustus as “the second emperor”14 (thus counting Julius as the first emperor). Josephus’ testimony is especially significant because he was Jewish and a contemporary of John.

Aune writes the following about how ancient authors reckoned the count of the Roman emperors.

One matter of importance is the way in which the ancient Greeks and Romans themselves enumerated the Roman emperors. Some considered Julius Caesar the first of the Roman emperors, while others regarded Augustus as the first. In the enumeration of nineteen emperors through the numerical value of their name in Sibylline Oracles 5.12-51, the list begins with Julius Caesar and concludes with Marcus Aurelius. Since the generic term Caesar was derived from the name of Julius Caesar, it was natural for ancients to consider him the first Roman emperor. Suetonius (born ca. A.D. 70; died after 122) began his Lives of the Caesars with the biography of Julius Caesar. Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-after 112) refers in Orations. 34.7 to Augustus as . . . “the second Caesar” ([G.] Mussies, Dio [Chrysostom and the New Testament, Leiden: Brill, 1972], 253) just as Josephus referred to Augustus as . . . “the second emperor of the Romans” (Ant[iquities of the Jews] 18.32), both clearly implying that Julius Caesar was the first emperor. On the other hand, Suetonius reports that Claudius wrote a history of Rome that began with the death of Julius Caesar (Claud. 41; see [A.] Momigliano, Claudius: [The Emperor and His Achievements, Westport: Greenwood, 1981], 6-7), suggesting that he regarded Augustus as the first emperor. Similarly, Tacitus began his Annals with Augustus, whom he considered the first emperor.15

While one can make a case for starting the count of the Caesars with either Julius or Augustus, the weight of ancient authority comes down on the side of starting with Julius. Because of this, and the fact that starting with Julius works consistently in both Daniel and Revelation, I count Julius as the first king. Ultimately I believe we are being shown the spiritual rulers behind the Caesars (note that the eighth king comes out of the abyss, Rev. 17:8-11). Thus, the distinction between a dictator and an emperor is moot to my position. Also, whether one wants to call him an emperor or not, Julius Caesar was the first Caesar.

Looking at the second question, whether to figure Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in the count of the first six kings in Revelation 17:10, my answer is no. The combined rule of all three was about a year and a half. In Daniel 7, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are the three horns removed before the little eleventh horn (Dan. 7:7-8); this left that beast with eight horns which correspond to the eight rulers of Revelation 17:7-11. Actually, if one begins the count with Julius one never has to worry about Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in figuring who the sixth king was, as Nero is the sixth Caesar (and he reigned right before Galba, Otho, and Vitellius).

The First Twelve Caesars
In determining whether Revelation was written under Nero or Domitian, one has to look at the first twelve Caesars (as Domitian was the twelfth Caesar). The question is, where does “five [kings] have fallen, one is” (Rev. 17:10) put the date of Revelation?

1. Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)

2. Augustus (31 BC- AD 14)16

3. Tiberius (AD 14-37)

4. Gaius a.k.a. Caligula (AD 37-41)

5. Claudius (AD 41-54)

6. Nero (AD 54-68)

7. Galba (AD 68-69)

8. Otho (AD 69)

9. Vitellius (AD 69)

10. Vespasian (AD 69-79)

11. Titus (AD 79-81)

12. Domitian (AD 81-96)

With the solution I (and most other conservative preterists) propose, that one starts with Julius Caesar, the five fallen are Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, and the one reigning is Nero (AD 54-68). This fits perfectly the preterist contention that the book of Revelation was written near the end of Nero’s reign right before the Jewish war of AD 66-70. The latest one can legitimately make the “five have fallen, one is” of Revelation 17:10 would be to start the count of the emperors with Augustus instead of Julius. If one does not count the short-lived emperors (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) this would make the five fallen to be Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero, and the one reigning Vespasian (69-79). Notice that even using this late-date method of counting, one comes up with Revelation being written in the decade of the 70s. This is approximately two decades short of the proposed time of AD 95 that the late-date advocates maintain.

How Revelation 17:10 Should Read if Revelation Were Written
During Domitian’s Reign
If Revelation were written during Domitian’s reign, then Revelation 17:10 should either read “eleven have fallen, one is” (if one starts the count with Julius Caesar and includes the three short-lived emperors in the list) or “ten have fallen, one is” (if one starts with Augustus and includes the three short-lived emperors), or “eight have fallen, one is” if one starts with Julius and excludes the three short-lived emperors, or “seven have fallen, one is” (if one starts with Augustus and excludes the three short-lived emperors). Saying that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign simply cannot legitimately be made to fit Revelation’s text of “five have fallen, one is.” As Ladd notes, “no method of calculation satisfactorily leads to Domitian as the reigning emperor . . . .”17

If one wants to see what a book written during the reign of Domitian looks like, look at 2 Esdras (a.k.a. IV Ezra). In that book, the eagle (an obvious symbol of Rome) has twelve wings, representing twelve emperors (Julius-Domitian) and three heads, which are the last three of the twelve emperors (Esdras 11:1-9). The three heads represent the Flavian dynasty, Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian (2 Esdras 12:10-30). The writer of 2 Esdras believed that Rome would fall in his day during the reign of Domitian, the twelfth Caesar.

To summarize, depending on whether one starts with Julius or Augustus and includes or excludes Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, Domitian is either the eighth, ninth, eleventh, or twelfth ruler of Rome. There is no legitimate way to make him the sixth ruler (as Rev. 17:10 requires).

Some commentators attempt to make their theory (of when Revelation was written) fit by starting the count of the emperors with one of the Caesars that came after Augustus.18 These attempts are illegitimate because their methods of counting the emperors have no historical precedent. Robinson writes the following on the “contortions” made by those who attempt to make Domitian the sixth ruler:

The contortions to which the commentators have been driven in the interpretation of ch. 17 are I am convinced self-imposed by the ‘discrepancy,’ as Beckwith calls it, between the clear statement that the sixth king is now living and what Torrey called their ‘stubborn conviction’ that the book cannot be earlier than the time of Domitian. Drop this conviction and the evidence falls into place.19

With the current rise of preterism, the early date for Revelation is regaining some of the acceptance it has had in the past. Smalley writes the following regarding the current reevaluation of the assumption that Revelation was written under Domitian:

It has been frequently assumed that the Apocalypse may be dated to the reign of the Emperor Domitian, the last representative of the Flavian house (AD 81-96), as a response to fierce persecution which took place during his reign. But this view has recently been challenged seriously, both because encouragement in the face of persecution may not be regarded as the single motive behind the composition of Revelation, and also on account of the insecurity surrounding the evidence of imperial oppression during the time of Domitian. This leaves the way open to revive the alternative view, common among nineteenth-century scholars, that Revelation was written between AD 64, as a result of the persecution under Nero, and AD 70, the fall of Jerusalem (see the summary of the research representing these two positions in Robinson, Redating [the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976], 224-26). As it happens, I believe that it is perfectly possible to locate the writing of Revelation in the reign of Vespasian (AD 69-79); and I have argued that the book emerged just before the fall of Jerusalem to Titus, Vespasian’s son, in AD 70 . . . I suggest that this conclusion fits the internal and external evidence for the dating of Revelation; it is also supported by the theological thrust of the drama itself. For the members of John’s circle, the earthly Jerusalem and its Temple would have been a central holy place in which to encounter God, and also a spiritual centre of gravity. If Jerusalem were about to be destroyed, the vision in Rev. 21-22 of a stunning and emphatically new holy city, where God’s people will dwell eternally in a close covenant relationship with him, would have provided exactly, and at the right moment, all the spiritual encouragement they needed.20

I find this quote interesting because Smalley is not a preterist but what he terms a “modified idealist” (i.e., he sees Revelation as talking about the timeless conflict between good and evil).21 I believe that Revelation was written approximately five years before AD 70 (c. AD 65). It is talking about the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week, a period of three and a half years that ends with the destruction of Jerusalem by the prince to come (Dan. 9:26-27). This was the soon coming forty-two-month period of AD 67-70 that Titus would spend destroying the Jewish nation (Rev. 11:1-2; cf. Dan. 7:23-25; 12:7; Rev. 11:7-18).

Could the Eight Kings Be Eight Kingdoms?
Some futurists, in an attempt to escape the fact that Revelation shows the Antichrist was “about to come” (Rev. 17:8 NASB), try to make the kings in chapter 17 into kingdoms.22 While kings can represent kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Dan. 7:17), there is no support for the hypothesis that the eight kings of Revelation 17:10-11 are eight kingdoms. Mounce notes the following on this: “The basic problem with this approach is that the Greek word under consideration [Gr. basileus] is everywhere throughout the NT translated ‘king’ not ‘kingdom.’”23 If John was talking about eight kingdoms he would have used the word for kingdom [Gr. basileia]—he did not. Added to this, Daniel 2 and 7 only show four kingdoms and then the coming of the kingdom of God, not eight kingdoms (Dan. 2:36-45; 7:3-12; 21-22). Revelation references this as it shows its beast with the characteristics of Daniel’s four kingdoms (Rev. 13:1-2). Revelation is showing us the fourth of these kingdoms, the one with ten horns (Dan. 7:7; Rev. 13:1).

The eight kings in Revelation 17:7-11 are the same rulers as those of Daniel’s fourth beast. The eighth king of Revelation is the same as the little horn of Daniel’s fourth beast (who became an eighth ruler after three kings were removed, Dan. 7:7-8).24 Thus, to try to make the eight kings of Revelation 17:7-11 into eight kingdoms is without scriptural support. It is an attempt to escape the fact that the coming of the beast, and thus the Second Coming (cf. Rev. 19:11-21), were first-century events about to happen. The NASB correctly translates Revelation 17:8 as, “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss . . . .” That this translation is correct is confirmed by the context; we are told there was only the short rule of one king between the then ruling king (when Revelation was written) and the soon coming individual beast (Rev. 17:8-11). The beast was about to come in the first century, not some two thousand years in the future (cf. 1 John 4:3). It was not a kingdom about to come out of the abyss; rather it was a king—a demonic king (cf. Rev. 11:7).

Duncan McKenzie, The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination, Volume II: The Book of Revelation, 22-29.

Endnotes:

13. Dio Cassius, Roman History 5.

14. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 2, 2. An online version of Josephus’ writings can be found at Early Jewish Writings.com (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html)

15. David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Bible Commentary, vol. 52 C, gen. ed. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn Barker, NT ed. Ralph Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 946.

16. The thirteen-year gap between the reigns of Julius Caesar and Augustus (44-31 BC) was a period when Augustus shared the rule of the Roman Empire, first with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, then just with Mark Antony. In 31 BC, Augustus became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Josephus did not recognize this as a gap (although he acknowledges that Augustus shared rule for the fourteen years), giving the length of Augustus’ reign as “fifty-seven years” (Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 2, 2). This indicates that Josephus reckoned Augustus’ reign as beginning upon Julius Caesar’s death. Augustus was Julius Caesar’s designated successor and the ruler over Rome proper even when he was sharing rule over other parts of the empire with others.

I might add that the numerical calculation of 2 Esdras 11:17 (“After you [the second king, i.e., Augustus] no one shall rule as long as you have ruled, not even half as long”) only works if you begin Augustus’ rule immediately after Julius’ death. This makes the length of Augustus’ reign to be fifty-seven years; none of the other twelve Caesars ruled for even half as long. If the author of 2 Esdras were recognizing a fourteen-year gap, that would make Augustus’ reign about forty-three years in length. Upon that calculation, the second longest reign (that of Tiberius, AD 14-37 = 23 years) would be longer than half of Augustus’ reign. Thus, like Josephus, the first-century author of 2 Esdras was not recognizing any gap between the reigns of Julius and Augustus.

17. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 229.

18. For various methods of counting the kings see Aune, Revelation 17-22, 945-50; G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 868-78; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, The Anchor Bible, vol. 38, ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 289-91.

19. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 247-48. Robinson starts the count of the kings with Augustus; he sees Revelation as being written in late AD 68 under Galba.

20. Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 2-3.

21. Ibid., 15-16. Smalley writes: “Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the timeless conflict between the forces of good and evil, God and Satan. But this involves a final consummation in judgement (sic) and salvation, even if that finality is not depicted in terms which are precisely chronological.”

22. J.A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 393.

23. Mounce, Book of Revelation, 317. Mounce notes, “The argument for kingdoms is usually built upon Dan. 7:17, where the four beasts are said to be four kings although they do in fact stand for four kingdoms.” He notes, however, that the Greek versions of Daniel (LXX and Theodotion) have “kingdoms” in Dan. 7:17, not “kings.” Thus, if John had meant “kingdoms” instead of “kings” in Rev. 17:10 he would have most probably used the Greek word for kingdom. If kingdoms are meant in Rev. 17:10-11 then it would mean only one short kingdom would exist between the fall of Rome (c. AD 476) and the Antichrist. That would put the Second Coming (when Jesus defeats the Antichrist) somewhere in the fifth or sixth century!

24. As I mentioned earlier, the parallels between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation are the following:

1. The little horn/beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11).

2. The little horn/beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

3. The little horn/beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).

4. The little horn/beast has a three-and-a-half-year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25, 13:5).

5. The little horn/beast is defeated in AD 70 by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-13, 19-20).

6. The little horn/beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-20).

7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4).

[Paidion]

So Duncan, you think there is internal evidence within Revelation to indicate an early date for its composition?

Here is a website in which it is argued that the internal evidence favours a LATE date:

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

[dwilkins]

The Peshitta Aramaic version of Revelation claims that it was, "The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist on the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar." The most conservative dating for an Aramaic Revelation is in the 60's AD. The latest one is in the 400's AD. I lean towards the earlier. Either way, from the first few hundred years there existed an explicit claim that Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, so any claim that this is an invention of desperation from the 1800's is silly.

Doug

[steve]

It is true that most of the evidence for the early date is internal evidence (which, for those with a high view of biblical authority, is of greater weight than external evidence), there is some external evidence as well.

The Muratorian Canon. In addition to these internal considerations, there are also a number of external evidences for the earlier date of composition. One of the most ancient surviving documents of the ancient Latin church is called the Mura- torian Fragment, which provides a list of the New Testament books accepted as canonical by the church around the year 170. In this fragment, we read: “Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches.” The assertion that Paul, who probably died around AD 67, in writing to seven named churches, was following the lead of his predecessor John, who had also (earlier) written to seven churches, can only be understood to mean that Revelation was written before Paul’s death—that is, in the sixties. This testimony is as early as that of Irenaeus, upon whose statements the case for the later date largely rests. The contrasting testimony of Irenaeus is usually preferred over that of the Muratorian Canon, however, due to Irenaeus’ connections to persons closely associated with John.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) relates an anecdote about the later years of John’s life, beginning with the words, “Hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus . . .” Since the story goes on to relate a very active (almost athletic!) physical life of the Apostle, many scholars believe that “the tyrant” alluded to must have been Nero, not Domitian. At the time of Domitian’s death, John would have been nearly one hundred years old, yet Clement’s story describes him as riding on horseback in hot pursuit of a young bandit who was a lapsed Christian. If Nero was Clement’s “tyrant,” then Clement is saying it was under Nero’s rule that John was banished to Patmos and wrote the Revelation.

Other New Testament books. Interestingly, there are possible cases of the citation of passages from Revelation by other New Testament writers, who are known to have died before AD 70. James, in his epistle, refers to “the crown of life which the Lord has promised” to give to those who endure testing (James 1:12). There is no such statement of the Lord on record, other than that found in Revelation 2:10, which promised “a crown of life” to those who endure trial. Was James familiar with the book of Revelation?

Similarly, the apostle Peter may be referring to Revelation 21 (if not Isaiah 65) when he mentions God’s “promise” of “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). While Peter might have promises either in Isaiah or in Revelation in mind, his reference to the new heavens and new earth as being the dwelling place of “righteousness” might favor the latter, since righteousness is not a prominent part of the description given in Isaiah.

Since James and Peter both died prior to AD 70, and could not be quoting from the book of Revelation unless it had been written prior to their deaths, these examples can be included among the external evidences for an early date of Revelation.

[dwilkins]

Regarding 2nd Peter, if you outline the epistle you'll find that the topics are line up with the order of similar topics in Revelation, and that chapter 3 is a very close match for Revelation 20. In my opinion, 2nd Peter is a short commentary on the important parts of Revelation (how to attain love, avoid Balaam, and understand Rev. 20), which Peter had read, made to his readers before his death.

Doug

[Duncan]

It is instructive to compare the beast of 2 Esdras (which has 12 rulers) with the beast of Revelation (which has 8 rulers, only 6 of which had come). Why? Because most scholars agree that 2 Esdras was written during the time around the end of the reign of Domitian (the time that most maintain Revelation was written). If Revelation was written around the same time as 2 Esdras then the two beasts (and the rulers they represent) should be very similar--and they are not. Here is something from volume II of my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming).

In looking at the book of Revelation the question inevitably arises as to when it was written. Two dates are usually given. The first, and most popular, says it was written under Domitian around AD 95. The second says it was written around AD 65 during the reign of Nero. The Domitian date has greater scholarly support but it makes little sense when one actually looks at the content of Revelation. In this paper I will look at 2 Esdras (which is part of the Apocrypha), a book that was clearly written during the reign of Domitian (at least chapters 11-12, see below).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/es2011.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/es2012.htm

I will compare the beast of 2 Esdras (an empire with twelve rulers) with the beast of Revelation (a empire with eight rulers). If Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, its beast should be similar the beast of 2 Esdras in terms of the number of rulers, and clearly it is not.

In determining whether Revelation was written under Nero or Domitian, one has to look at the first twelve Caesars (as Domitian was the twelfth Caesar). The question is, where does “five [kings] have fallen, one is” (Rev. 17:10) put the date of Revelation?
1. Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2. Augustus (31 BC- AD 14)
3. Tiberius (AD 14-37)
4. Gaius a.k.a. Caligula (AD 37-41)
5. Claudius (AD 41-54)
6. Nero (AD 54-68)
7. Galba (AD 68-69)
8. Otho (AD 69)
9. Vitellius (AD 69)
10. Vespasian (AD 69-79)
11. Titus (AD 79-81)
12. Domitian (AD 81-96)

With the solution I propose, that one starts with Julius Caesar, the five fallen are Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, and the one reigning is Nero (AD 54-68). This fits perfectly the “five have fallen, one is” and supports the position that the book of Revelation was written near the end of Nero’s reign right before the Jewish war of AD 66-70. The latest one can legitimately make the “five have fallen, one is” of Revelation 17:10 would be to start the count of the emperors with Augustus instead of Julius. If one does not count the short-lived emperors of AD 68-69 (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) this would make the five fallen to be Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero, and the one reigning, Vespasian (69-79). Notice that even using this late-date method of counting, one comes up with Revelation being written in the decade of the 70s. This is approximately two decades short of the proposed time of AD 95 that the late-date advocates maintain.
Notice that Revelation’s beast has eight rulers (although two had not come yet, Rev. 17:10-11). In contrast, 2 Esdras’ beast that has twelve rulers. This is quite significant because most scholars agree that 2 Esdras was written during the time of Domitian. Bruce Longnecker writes the following along these lines:

The text [of 2 Esdras] may render a more precise dating by means of the imagery of chs. 11-12, which depicts a mighty eagle (symbolic of Rome) being crushed by a mighty lion (symbolic of the messiah). In the course of this long symbolic passage, we are shown three heads of the eagle that gain control of the whole earth through terrible power and oppress its people; the expectation of this passage is that the culmination of history will be within the reign of the third head. The behavior of the eagle’s three heads in 11.29-35 corresponds to what we know of the three Roman emperors, (Vespasian 69-79 CE), (Titus 79-81 CE), and Domitian (81-96 CE), allowing this part of the text to be dated to the end of Domitian’s reign.
Bruce W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 13-14.

For the most part the understanding of 2 Esdras’ beast is pretty easy if one knows a little Roman history. Esdra’s beast it is an eagle—a not so subtle symbol for Rome). 12 kings would reign in it (2 Esd. 12:11-12, 13-14). The twelve kings are Julius through Domitian (and include the short-lived emperors Galba Otho and Vitellius; see the list above). That Julius is the starting point can be seen in the fact that the second king would have the longest reign in this kingdom; none of the other kings would rule for even half as long as him, 2 Esd. 11:13-14, 15-16, 17 (Augustus reigned for 57 years; none of the other 11 Caesars ruled for even half as long). In the midst of the reign of this kingdom it would be in danger of falling. It would not fall, however, but would be brought back to power (2 Esd. 12:17-18, 19). This is talking about AD 68-69. With the death of Nero in mid AD 68 it looked like Rome might actually fall. In the words of Tacitus, the year AD 69 brought about “the near destruction of Rome.” AD 69 it is known by historian as “the year of four emperors.” Three short lived emperors came and went before Vespasian brought back stability to the Empire (they were Galba, Otho, and Vitellius; I argue that they are the three horns removed before the little 11th horn in Dan. 7:8, 20, 24).

The three heads of Esdras’ beast are three kings who would restore the kingdom (2 Esd. 12:22-23, 24-25, 26-27, 28). This speaks of the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian) and how they would restore the Roman Empire after its near collapse. The writer of 2 Esdras was writing in the time of Domitian (AD 81-96) and was expecting the Messiah to destroy Rome around this time—towards the end of the reign of Domitian (2 Esd. 12:31-35). The larger of the three heads refers to the father Vespasian, (2 Esd. 12:26). Of the two heads that remained after the greater head was gone, one would devour the other (2 Esdras 11:29-30, 31-32, 33-34, 35). Titus had a short reign of about two years with an unexpected death. It had been rumored that Domitian had Titus poisoned.

Now consider at the beast of Revelation. It has eight rulers (as opposed to the twelve of 2 Esdras). We are told that only the sixth king was reigning when Revelation was written, however (Rev. 17:8-9, 10-11). Starting with Julius, the sixth Caesar was Nero. The prophesied events of Revelation fit perfectly the events that would happen shortly after the death of Nero in mid AD 68. Whereas 2 Esdras says its empire would be in danger of falling in the middle part of its reign (2 Esd. 12:17-19), notice that the danger to the beast in Revelation was one of the things that were about to happen (cf. Rev. 1:1, 3). In Revelation darkness was about to come on the throne of the beast (Rev. 16:10). This speaks of the confusion that came on the Roman Empire with the death of Nero. One is hard pressed to show a time when darkness came upon Rome during the reign of Domitian. Philip Carrington, commenting on Revelation 16:10, writes the following about how it fits the time right after the death of Nero:

And the Fifth poured out his Bowl on the Throne of the Beast and his Kingdom was Darkened: This Egyptian plague of darkness symbolizes the anarchy and civil war that befell the empire after the suicide of Nero in A.D. 68. It meant a lull in the warfare in Palestine; for both Vespasian and Titus went to Alexandria. Vespasian went to Rome and became Emperor; Titus returned to Palestine also with the rank of Emperor. No doubt the Zealot prophets in Jerusalem hailed the rise of the three pretenders, and the civil war to which Vespasian had to attend, as the end of the Roman Empire and an intervention of God.
Philip Carrington, The Meaning of the Revelation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 264. Originally published by SPCK, 1931.

The death of Nero and then the rise of the Flavians can also be seen in the mortal wound and then miraculous recovery of the beast in Revelation 13:3. This death and resurrection of the beast in Revelation corresponds the kingdom in 2 Esdras almost falling but then recovering (again, in the middle of its reign) in 2 Esdras 12:17-19. This was something that was a while past when 2 Esdras was written but was about to happen when Revelation was written. Speaking of this time, Revelation 13:3 reads, “And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.” Smalley writes the following on Revelation 13:3 and how it fits the “exact” kind of historical situation that happened right after Nero’s death:

One problem involved in making a connection between Nero, or any imperial individual, and the slaughtered head in verse 3 is that the second possessive pronoun in this sentence, (auto, ‘its’), refers to the beast. In other words, it was not the head which was restored from a mortal wound, but the beast itself (similarly verse 14). In that case the text could mean that an individual, like Nero, was fatally injured (in this case, by his own hand), but that later the Roman Empire he represented recovered its life and stability. An exact situation of this kind occurred in AD 68-69. After the death of Nero in June 68, anarchy and bloodshed took hold in the territories; and this continued throughout the time of the rebellious imperial caretakers, Galba, Otho and Vitellius (AD 68-69). But, when he came to the throne in July 69, Vespasian slowly restored the Empire to peace.
Smalley, Revelation to John, (2005), 338.

There are a lot of other points I could make (see my book on Revelation http://www.amazon.com/The-Antichrist-Se ... ap_title_1) for now let me just may one other one. Revelation 11:2 says that the city of Jerusalem about to be trampled under foot for 42 months; this makes perfect sense if Revelation was written around AD 65. The siege by Vespasian and Titus would last 42 months (the 3 ½ years of AD 67-70). Revelation 11:2 makes absolutely no sense if Revelation was written around AD 95 (as Jerusalem had been flattened some 25 years earlier). How is it that a city that was no longer there was about to be trampled under foot? It makes no sense!

In summary, the beast of 2 Esdras has twelve rulers. It was written during the reign of Domitian—the twelfth Caesar. In contrast the beast of Revelation has eight rulers, only six of which had actually come to the throne (Julius through Nero).
If Revelation were written during Domitian’s reign, then Revelation 17:10 should either read “eleven have fallen, one is” (if one starts the count with Julius Caesar and includes the three short-lived emperors in the list) or “ten have fallen, one is” (if one starts with Augustus and includes the three short-lived emperors), or “eight have fallen, one is” if one starts with Julius and excludes the three short-lived emperors, or “seven have fallen, one is” (if one starts with Augustus and excludes the three short-lived emperors). Saying that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign simply cannot legitimately be made to fit Revelation’s text of “five have fallen, one is.” As Ladd notes, “no method of calculation satisfactorily leads to Domitian as the reigning emperor . . . .” (George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (1972), 229).

[darinhouston]

Thanks, but does anyone have any further insight into the shift in scholarship from the 19th Century to the 20th Century? I haven't been able to find this discussed or documented anywhere. Is it in Gentry's book, perhaps?

[dwilkins]

There's a bit about it in Steve's book. Gentry does go into more detail. I suspect that it was critical for Dispensationalists to gain ground against preterists, so later in the century I expect that you will find a number of their adherents pushing a late date view.

Doug