Thread: When was Revelation written?

~69 AD

or

~95 AD

???

pre-fall (of Jerusalem).

Denton, could you have picked an easier question? Just kidding, it is a really good question that has divided many folks for a long time. Before we go over the internal material in scripture let us go to the great Irenaeus, the guy who thought Jesus was crucified at the age of 50. Most of the quotations of the early church/ patristic fathers that claims the A.D. 95/96 date goes back to him. Therefore the real question in my option should be can we trust his testimony.

In Philip Comfort’s book New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, a really interesting book, on page 846 Philip writes about interesting textual variant. This particular variant changes the well known number of the beast to 616. Philip shows this variant, found in manuscript P115 and Codex C, can both apply to Nero. 666 is the “Hebrew transliteration of the Greek for ‘Neron Caesar’ ”, and 616 is the Latin equivalent or a different spelling of the same name.

In Chapter 30 of Book V of Against Heresies, makes mention of the fact that 666 could fit any number of names and mentions the 616 variant,

“1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [4700] [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] [4701]”- Irenaeus, Irenæus - Against Heresies: Book V

In the same book he mentions that the number could fit a variety of different names, but he never address Nero and it is evident that he places Domitian in his place.

Now if Irenaeus was born about AD 125-140 (depending on who you ask) and Polycarp, whom he was under as a disciple, died about AD 154-155 that amount of time is critical for establishing some of that information pasted to John the Apostle to Polycarp to Irenaeus himself. Which in turn may explain his mistake on the age of Christ crucifixion.

So we can give the credence to the early date of revelations if we consider the acceptance of the textual variant and its age, and put into question based on at least another mistake he has made.

Which then develops another question and this is when was John exiled to Patmos. We know what Eusebius says in his “The History of the Church” that it was at the end of Domitian’s reign. However he is quoting Irenaeus and is removed by more then 100 years of Irenaeus. In fact that the case from Hippolytis to Victorinus. Clement of Alexander no help for he does not name any names on who it was that exiled him ( see Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII). It is seems to be assumed and perhaps with good reason for he himself was not more then 60 years of his birth from the moment of John exile.

Another potential problem is the lack of evidence in history of Nero exiling people to Patmos. And of course if he didn’t that has some problems for the preterist position.

I think since Clement of Alexander gave no names with the assumption he is understood and there no record of someone directly challenging Irenaeus about his facts, which am sure someone like Papias could have done and would have the record of such a challenge survive through Eusebius or some other, am I sure the later date is the more accepted date.

The early date cannot really depend outside of the know variants to history. They try to use internal evidence which hopefully others will go over in more detail then me. For I am not prepared to write something in detail tonight.

1) The most common is argument for the early date is the standing of the temple in 11:1-2. If none does tackle it in the next few days I will.
2) Seven churches are mentioned, after the earthquake of AD 61 that destroyed 3 of the 9 cities where churches were established by Paul. On a side note I have seen one guy challenge Paul Apostleship in the grounds of the conditions of these churches. You may notice some math issues, Loadicea which was one of the 3 destroyed would have been rebuilt prior the fall of Jerusalem.

There are others that people use, but I don’t think its worth mentioning. However I have caught one group that Revelations 10:11 out of context and replace
“You must again prophesy about many people and nations and languages and kings” (ESV) with “Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings”(KJV). Therefore you can see a translational variant exists which do not in the recent translations.

Personally I side closer to the AD 96 because I think 2) is a silly argument and 1) can apply to something else as we observe in the history of interpretation on the passage.

Sorry it was long, but hopefully it was helpful.

Now hopefully my Signature pops out now.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.

after fall of Jerusalem.

before fall of Jerusalem

Before the Fall.

David,
Wow! Welcome to PB! I am going to try to digest what you are saying.

Denton,
I am tending to believe Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem as are most New Testament books. I am wading through the fresh-off-the–press (Apologetics Group/NiceneCouncil.com) He Shall Have Dominion by Ken Gentry. As in other of his books Gentry emphasizes that the events in Revelation were soon to occur according to John. Gentry writes “Original relevance, then, is the lock and the time-texts the key for opening Revelation’s heavy door. What clearer terms for contemporary expectation could John use other than those he employs in Revelation 1:1, 3:22-26, 10 and other places?” (p. 163)

Originally Posted by caoclan

pre-fall (of Jerusalem).

Originally Posted by jogri17

after fall of Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Before the Fall.

Tastes great!

Less filling!

Tastes great!

Less filling!

Before the Fall of Jerusalem.

I don't know much about this topic, but the portrayal of the Church at Ephesus ("repent... or I will come and take your lampstand from you...") would seem a little odd if this book were written in 69 A.D. That is, the church with such strong ties to Paul and Timothy as recently as the early 60's would have to have fallen pretty fast.

After.

After

69 ad

I've never really thought about it. My reference Bible says most scholars believe that it was written in 95 AD so I just believed it.

What are the implications of it being written before or after the fall? Does it completely change the message of the book depending on the stance one takes?

Those who hold to the earlier writing date see the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling a number of things described in Revelation. If it was written after the fall of Jerusalem, then Revelation can't be referring to those 70 AD events.

I guess I should have made this a poll with most of the responses...

I could have guessed that most bapt. would say after and most presb. would say before.

What I want to know is why do most study bibles state 95/96 if the internal evidence points to an early date?

I don't know yet who to trust, but listening to Nicene Council podcasts has been pretty compelling to the early date.

I noticed despite the fact you hold to a pre of post fall perspective your just indicating what your position is without giving the evidence for that. Let us try to sharper each other up by giving a reason and a defense for the hope that is within us. Whatever position you hold has some clear consequences in how you interpret not just Revelations, but also the rest of the book.

I had in my pervious post I gave mention to the fact that I ran across a group, honestly I don’t remember their names, who denied Paul status as an Apostle and he used the book of Revelations as his primary evidence. As Louis indicated in his post, thanks for the post by the way( I have not reached my 15 posts yet to get that thumbs up icon):

“I don't know much about this topic, but the portrayal of the Church at Ephesus ("repent... or I will come and take your lampstand from you...") would seem a little odd if this book were written in 69 A.D. That is, the church with such strong ties to Paul and Timothy as recently as the early 60's would have to have fallen pretty fast.”

There would be something odd about how quickly the church has fallen away, especially with the fact that 69 AD is only about a couple or few years after the death of Paul and Peter. I do not know when Timothy left the area, but if he was there about that time, the same letter would have a direct impact on his status as a pastor in Ephesus, In Revelations 2:2 the same church is praised for rooting out false Apostles. If people apply this to Paul, then that directly has an impact on what is in The NT canon, including 2 Peter. However we do not see such a challenge in the church, and Paul writings were considered precious scriptures along side as the other writing of the NT, with some exceptions considering on the period of church history of the acceptance or popularity of a book/text. In fact I see this absence of documented criticisms of Paul by those within the Patristic period, of who we consider orthodox, for what we see is an acceptedness
of Paul as an Apostle of the church; therefore implying that the later date, after Jerusalem’s fall historically, would make much more sense.

What we believe does have consequences and I think we need to recognize that fact and becareful not to give blanket general answers for the position we take. Remember historically the pre-Jerusalem perspective in the history of the church is the minority view in the area of orthodox. I cannot say the same about Reformed people as a whole in history only because I have not looked into the writing of Calvin, or even Turretin, along side of many of the greats on this issue. However I have a feeling that they would hold to the latter date on the side of the majority Church History view.

Carol, thank you for the warmed welcoming to PB.

I am sure I am going to be saying more on this subject soon.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.

Before Jerusalem fell.

I refer you to Mounce's commentary on Revelation in NICNT. He gives, I think, a compelling argument for the later date. Preterists of both stripes have an agenda to push when arguing for the earlier date. However, as one preterist friend of mine has said, "The preterist system does not stand or fall with the date of Revelation."

-----Added 6/19/2009 at 12:05:15 EST-----

Dr. Kim Riddelbarger discusses this in this lecture: http://links.christreformed.org/realaudio/20071019.mp3

I just hear the Riddlebarger’s lecture that Svan posted thanks Svan by the way. It is really good to listen and I highly recommend you all, especially you pre-fall guys to listen and respond to it. He covers why I thought that 2) that I made in my first post in this link is silly.
“2) Seven churches are mentioned, after the earthquake of AD 61 that destroyed 3 of the 9 cities.”

Even though yes Laodicea was rebuilt quickly, there is an issue of their re-establishment of their level of wealth and prestige. Which would make sense for the later date and why I think the early date in response to the seven city argument present is silly.

Personally am surprised their was no attack on my Irenaeus argument. For those of you who want the hole in it, yes I criticize my own work, I have not found any patristic response to Irenaeus’ 50 year mistake; even from the great Papias. But don’t worry this HT guy is still searching for one. However due to Clement use it seems to imply that there was an established understanding on when it was written, even though he doesn’t say who; which is the fact why I wouldn’t use him as testimony as Riddlebarger does for later authorship. I would also not use Eusebius either because of his citation to Irenaeus as his testimony instead of another of that time. I think Kim needs to be a bit more careful about it unless he has some info I have not ran across yet. That just slight historical methodology concern that I noticed that I had. His argument he uses against the pre-fall date of Rev. 11 is good and I will probably write something similar to what he said soon. Therefore for all you pre-fall guys this is a challenge for you to put out your best arguments for the position you hold, otherwise join me on my position.

That way we can sharpen each other and help our brother out.

Any way my Irenaeus arguments still rings true in the fact that it would have been well known and I think to some degree they would be better aware of their holocaust, because of love one that experience persecution just as today where many of the facts are historically of the German Holocaust within the generation of the babyboomers are known. Just as a historical generational comparison, which would have had more of a significant impact then say the age of Christ. Primarily because of the emotional attachment to family and the passing of stories, which families in ancient times did a better job of then we do today. Well let the best argument win.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.

Pick up and read "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. Here he has written a thorough and compelling defense of the pre-70 AD position that has (to my knowledge) yet to be challenged by any late date advocates (even though he wrote it about 10 yrs ago).

After.

This one thing is a very important thing to remember: if the majority of modern Biblical scholarship agrees on a certain date, it does NOT mean that they are right.

The arguments for a 95-96 dating of Revelation are strong, but can be answered.

Dr. Kenneth Gentry answers those arguments and does a very good job at giving everyone a strong, valid reason to believe that the book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Anyone who decides to make their decision on this matter should give him a chance before coming to a closed decision on this.

As Carol mentioned, you can find his book from the Apologetics Group/NiceneCouncil.com He Shall Have Dominion

Beale argues for the later date.

I didn't realize that so many held to a pre-fall date. I thought that was a preterist thing. Shows what I know.

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

This one thing is a very important thing to remember: if the majority of modern Biblical scholarship agrees on a certain date, it does NOT mean that they are right.

The arguments for a 95-96 dating of Revelation are strong, but can be answered.

Dr. Kenneth Gentry answers those arguments and does a very good job at giving everyone a strong, valid reason to believe that the book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Anyone who decides to make their decision on this matter should give him a chance before coming to a closed decision on this.

As Carol mentioned, you can find his book from the Apologetics Group/NiceneCouncil.com He Shall Have Dominion

He Shall Have Dominion does a good job and touches on the question of dating, but Before Jerusalem Fell is 100% devoted to answering the question on the dating of Revelation.

I was originally planning on writing this argument on the temple tonight, but it seems to me that either people do not understand how to present an argument for their case or out of laziness and devotion to their own tradition do not see how to present a case for their position. Making an appeal to someone else work and then not giving examples of particular points is a perfect example of the “read my book or read this book” approach to do theology or apologetics. You must give examples if you want some level of feedback on communication. If the terminology is that complex or difficult translate it so people can understand it. This shows if you truly understand the position you claim to hold to. Do not take it as a personal attack because I am not giving out names on one side or another, even though I have made my case quite clear and have yet to see a response from those of a differencing option to what I wrote. Instead I criticize my own to better explain the argument I put forth so that we call could be edified. I am not saying we must support the complete option of Christian orthodox scholarship, but that does not mean however we through it in the closet and ignore what they say on the subject at hand. In fact to do so would be quite foolish, for God gave us a mind so that we could glorify him with reason and truth.

The biggest pushes without a shadow of doubt in my option for the early date are those of a preterist position, or so has been my experience louis_jb. This can be a perfect example of our overriding traditions superseding a text; which we as reformed people would be wise to recognize and be careful over regarding any position we take.

I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later. However I do accept book donations with the promise I will read it someday.

Now to the event we have all been waiting for. Drum roll please!
Revelations 11:1-2

“Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.’”

First let us ask a extremely important question on how we should interpret this text. Is this passage meant to text literally or symbolically? And the next question you must ask if your answer is literally is if the events clearly indicate that of the fall of the temple as is indicated by history? Let us go down the literal rabbit trail to begin with and then see what conclusions we receive. How long were the Romans at the temple? It wasn’t 2 and half years. In fact if I remember my dates right, it was a nine month siege. Josephus talks about the destruction of the temple and the slaying there in detail in Book IV, chapters 4 and briefly 5. But then you may stay that the temple did not mean temple, it meant Jerusalem. However the war with the started in about AD 66 and if one was to use the 67 date that still does not match up with the month requirement of 42. Another important fact to consider is by looking at the same chapter but further down of Revelations:

“Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.” 11:19

This passage must be looked at two because it part of the same vision. I find it interesting that the temple, when it was opened had the ark, which was missing for hundreds of years and was never of my option in the second temple. This seems to indicate a non-literal second Jerusalem temple, but I won’t end there. Even if it was present, then Titus would have made mention of it when he was taking the gold out of the temple.

After verses 1 and 2 of chapter 11, we see two witness. Where was Elijah and Moses at the destruction of the temple, assuming of course that who the two witnesses were? We have no record of such two men in sackcloth prophesy for 1260 days (verse 4). Also we know the beast declares war against these two, where is the history of this declared war?

I think the best way to read chapter 11 is in light of the context that it not meant to be literal, but to be read in light of the Old Testament writings and the prophets. In fact I give verses 10-11 of chapter 10 wit the reading of the scroll as a good justification to read chapter 11 in that light. Especially when we see reflections of Ezekiel 40:3 and Daniel type language, which is apocalyptic language categorically. Even the “temple of God” in heaven as its seen in the text is not meant to imply the temple on earth that was destroyed. We must read scripture in the format that scripture reveals it is to be read in. That is the first thing you learn we you take hermeneutics. Context is everything, and not taking this passage or that out of context or attaching genres which which were not meant to be connected together, unless it is clearly indicated as some try to do with Matthew 24 and the destruction of the Jerusalem to chapter 11 of our text. You need more evidence of usage of passages in order to make such a connection and communicate it clearly. Let face it some preterist act just like dispensationalists in their practice of such.

Hopefully I have made my brief argument clear concerning why Rev. 11 can not be used as evidence to a pre 70s date. I may go after chapter 17 soon. If you all have any questions please present it on the board and give a reasonable response if you disagree with me. Don’t just say you do and then say nothing or appeal to a guy that many of us probably have not heard of and maybe on some fridge out there. Hope to hear from you soon.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.

Always held to the late date as the only viable one. All of my teachers held to the late date and treated the early date as kind of silly special pleading by sectarians.

In recent years I have been reconsidering a range of issues and have begun accumulating a small library of materials with arguments in favor of the early date for a sustained consideration.

I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later.

Before Jerusalem Fell it's free.

When was Rev written, does it matter.

Originally Posted by historyb

I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later.

Before Jerusalem Fell it's free.

When was Rev written, does it matter.

When it starts to affect your interpretation of a text, then yes it does matter. When must interprete a text based on the context and style of literature it was wrutten in. And if we do hold to a historical/grammatical approach, when it was written will affect not only our interpretation, but also how it is applied practically based on our interpretation.

Wow this may be the shortest post yet. lol

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever

Before 70 AD! The temple is still standing in the book of Revelation.

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

Before 70 AD! The temple is still standing in the book of Revelation.

Vil why dont you give a reason why its the second temple versus the idea it is God's people or the Church. Please respond to the post I made a couple post earlier dealing with why it is propably not the lit. temple. I would love to see someone address what I said on the issue.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever

Before Jerusalem fell.

Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!

I never said what my thought is, I go with the majority before the fall

Originally Posted by Calvin'scuz

Pick up and read "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. Here he has written a thorough and compelling defense of the pre-70 AD position that has (to my knowledge) yet to be challenged by any late date advocates (even though he wrote it about 10 yrs ago).

Actually this is what Riddelbarger challenges in the above mentioned audio lecture...

I'm on vacation in MS right now, and am using the hotel computer and don't have my library handy, so I'll try to stumble through this...

My vote- AD 69 specifically. Here are some of my reasons why...

I'm not a Preterist, and the whole Nero thing doesn't make sense to me. Even if Rev does refer to some of the events of A.D. 70, Nero was long dead by then and his dynasty died with him. However, the rebellion in Jerusalem had been going on for some time, while in Rome there was much political upheaval as various men of power attempted to secure the throne of the empire. Coupled with the Christian persecution which by this time was in full swing makes the moment ripe for apocalyptic teaching.

The Throne of Rome was secured in A.D. 69 by Vespasian after Galba, Otho and Vitellius failed to do so. The traces of the Julio-Claudian dynasty were wiped out as the Flavian dynasty took control. A.D. 69 was a violent year for Rome, and violent times demand desperate measures and strong faith. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful- the fall of Jerusalem, the return of the exiles, the conquering of Samaria, etc. Such prophecies, when given, point to a further and final fulfillment in Christ. It seems odd to me that the Lord would put such a prophecy into the hands of the Church and in doing so break the pattern already established- an immediate fulfillment that forshadows the greater fulfillment in His coming. Thus I find a later date very unlikely.

Theognome

I have started to come to the pre fall of Jerusalem position having studied Matthew 25 and in my limited understanding, being able to reconcile the words of Christ.

The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!

Ya? Well Irenaus said that John wrote it during the reign of Domitian, so it has to be a late date, and Irenaus has to be more right than Sproul. Plus my magic toenail told me it was written at a late date, and it's never wrong.

-----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.

Such as........?