Was Revelations written in ad 96 or before?

[HisWitness]

when you state your answer to this question--pls give bible references or some kind of proof for your statement.

 

[TCassidy]

The Revelation, singular. There is only one. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ."

 

[asterisktom]

when you state your answer to this question--pls give bible references or some kind of proof for your statement.

You will not find this proof in the Bible. By its very nature, your question requires for evidence outside of the Bible. Below is an updated post I wrote on this subject:

An early date for Revelation Fits:
Pre-AD70, not 90s. Here is why...

​

An interesting phenomenon happens to the majority report. As the popularity of a certain view grows the number of authorities to that view likewise grows. Thus there is a seeming weight to the view itself but which is really due, not to argument, but to mere weight numbers, later writers merely following after those few earlier ones. It is not surprising that, as the eschatology itself changed, the view of the date of Revelation (and John) would likewise accommodate.

This eschatological downgrade should not seem surprising. This "ology" disintegrated along with ecclesiology (church power structure already forming - Ignatius's "Do nothing without your bishop!"), views on virginity, relics, etc.

Originally the later date view had only Irenaeus and Eusebius as advocates. But later others added their voice - but only on the basis of these two.

However, over against this view is the internal evidence itself, which I already presented earlier. Also some of the sources often brought forth by advocates for a later date are rather suspect. Or the ancient writer is made to say something he didn't, in fact, teach. For instance, one writer implied that Clement of Alexandria was a late-dater. He wasn't. He also wrote this in his "Stromata":

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero."

Now notice what is written here. If John was seen as an apostle - and surely he was - and if his teaching ministry was in the 90s, as the futurist position requires, then we have a glaring omission here.

Here is the Muratorian Fragment:

"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Who are those "seven churches" that John wrote to? Why, none other than the ones mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3! Note: I am not arguing for the validity of this "rule", just pointing out that Tertullian describes John, the writer of Revelation, as Paul's "predecessor". Tertullian is no marginal semi-biblically literate writer either. He is the same one who gave us some very valuable studied insights on the nature of the Trinity.

Tertullian

“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

One does not have a death like someone else by dying after that person!

Note the comparison:
Peter's death followed Christ's.
Paul's death followed John's.
Did Peter die in the 90s of the 1st-century? No. Neither did John. Both died decades before.

Others can be adduced, but hopefully this is enough for one to see that there is a good case for this earlier date, not only on the basis of internal indications, but external, historical witness.

This issue is not, strictly speaking, tied to Preterism. There are a number of scholars from various backgrounds who espouse an earlier date for Revelation. One, the famous Church historian Philip Schaff, even retracted his earlier published view (in his Christian History of the Church) when he became convinced of the earlier view.

I have two more posts on this topic here somewhere in BB, but this should do for now.

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't have time to substantively respond by Revelation (or "The Apocalypse" as it is in Greek) is likely written between AD 90-95. When one seriously considers the preterist view in light of a total weighing of evidence, it becomes abundantly clear it couldn't have been written by AD 70.

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't have time to substantively respond by Revelation (or "The Apocalypse" as it is in Greek) is likely written between AD 90-95. When one seriously considers the preterist view in light of a total weighing of evidence, it becomes abundantly clear it couldn't have been written by AD 70.

When I first started a serious Study of eschatology about 12 years ago, this was the first topic I tackled because if I was going to leave my Dispie view I had to be convinced that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. After my study it became abundantly clear it was written before AD 70.

 

[asterisktom]

I don't have time to substantively respond by Revelation (or "The Apocalypse" as it is in Greek) is likely written between AD 90-95. When one seriously considers the preterist view in light of a total weighing of evidence, it becomes abundantly clear it couldn't have been written by AD 70.

This isn't about preterism. It is about the dating of Revelation.

 

[asterisktom]

When I first started a serious Study of eschatology about 12 years ago, this was the first topic I tackled because if I was going to leave my Dispie view I had to be convinced that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. After my study it became abundantly clear it was written before AD 70.

Same here. I started out very much prejudiced against the early-dating view. But I was slowly swayed the other way by a number of factors:

1. The number of reputable scholars who hold to an earlier date.
2. The weight of the earliest sources seemed to favor it.
3. The general tenor and context of scripture fit better with a pre AD 70 writing of revelation.
4. An increasing number of quotations from ECF (like Tertullian's above) added more weight to an earlier date.

That last two came into place well after I became Preterist, but the first two were falling into place before.

 

[HisWitness]

well we know that in ad 70 the temple was totally destroyed--and in Revelation chapter 11 verse 1 the angel gives John a reed like unto a rod and tells him to measure the TEMPLE of God-verse 2 tells him to leave out the court,it was for the gentiles and the holy city was to be tread under foot 42 months(3 and half years)

now if there was still a temple and the gentiles had never tread it under foot--therefore Revelation was NOT written in ad 96-but had to be written just before ad 70 according to the authority of the scripture

that alone by itself is more than enough proof that Revelation was written some time before ad 70.

 

[Winman]

one argument not commonly seen is the decline of the seven churches in Revelation. It would be remarkable that these churches could have fallen away so soon. This was pointed out by Enoch Pond in 1871.

It is obvious that the seven Churches of Asia were in a very different condition, when the Apocalypse was written, from what they were in the time of Nero and of Paul. The Church at Ephesus had ‘lost its first love.’ The Church at Smyrna had those in its communion who belonged to ‘the synagogue of Satan’. The Church at Pergamos harboured not only the Nicolaitanes, but those who held ‘the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel.’ The Church at Thyatira suffered ‘the woman Jezebel’ to teach, to seduce its members to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. The Church at Sardis had only ‘a few names’ left which had not defiled their garments; while the members of the Church at Laodicea had become so lukewarm and offensive to Christ, that He was ready to ‘spue them out of His mouth.’

In short, these Churches had all of them declined—sadly declined, from what they were when Paul wrote his Epistles to some of them; and time must be allowed—a considerable time, in which to account for their defections. If we suppose the Apocalypse written during the persecution under Nero,—only a few years subsequent to the writing of Paul’s Epistles,—the requisite time is not furnished. But if the book was written thirty years later, in the persecution under Domitian, the declension can be accounted for, at least on the score of time.

The testimony of the Fathers on the point before us is just what, in view of the facts above detailed, we might expect. With few exceptions, it is unanimous in ascribing the exile of John, and the writing of the Apocalypse, to the time of Domitian. We commence with Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. He had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He must have been familiarly acquainted with the circumstances of John’s banishment, with the time of it, and the person by whom it had been decreed. He could not have been mistaken on these points, nor is there any mistake or ambiguity in his testimony. ‘The Apocalypse,’ he tells us, was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, near the end of the reign of Domitian.’[9] This testimony has never been set aside, and never can be. It is enough of itself, considering the circumstances, to decide the question before us.

But this testimony does not stand alone. It is concurred in by nearly all the more distinguished Fathers. Victorinus says repeatedly, that John was banished by Domitian, and in his time saw the Revelation. Hippolytus speaks of John as having been exiled to Patmos under Domitian, where he saw the Apocalypse.[10] Eusebius, speaking of the persecution, says: ‘In this persecution, John the apostle and evangelist, being still alive, was banished into the isle of Patmos.’[11] Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, says: ‘Domitian, in the fourteenth year of his reign, raised the next persecution after Nero, when John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.’ In another work, he says: ‘John was a prophet. He saw the Revelation in the isle of Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian.’[12] Sulpicius Severus says, that ‘John, the apostle and evangelist, was banished by Domitian to the isle of Patmos, where he had visions, and where he wrote the Revelation.’[13]

 

[webdog]

well we know that in ad 70 the temple was totally destroyed--and in Revelation chapter 11 verse 1 the angel gives John a reed like unto a rod and tells him to measure the TEMPLE of God-verse 2 tells him to leave out the court,it was for the gentiles and the holy city was to be tread under foot 42 months(3 and half years)

now if there was still a temple and the gentiles had never tread it under foot--therefore Revelation was NOT written in ad 96-but had to be written just before ad 70 according to the authority of the scripture

that alone by itself is more than enough proof that Revelation was written some time before ad 70.

Everything in Revelation is figurative but the measuring of the temple?

 

[HisWitness]

********************

 

[HisWitness]

also in Revelation chapter 11 verse 8--the 2 witnesses bodies shall lay in the streets of THE GREAT CITY(city has not been destroyed or temple)so Revelation chapter 11 is PROOF that Revelation was not written in ad 96 but sometime before ad 70

 

[kyredneck]

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young.”

Heheh, in other words Young says it's a 'stupid mistake' by Sulpicius Severus and others that has resulted in A DOMINO EFFECT of bad information concerning the dating of Revelation down through the centuries.

 

[kyredneck]

There is compelling internal evidence that not only is much the book of Revelation concerned with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, but that it was written prior to this event:

And I saw another sign in heaven....and them that come off victorious from the beast... they sing the song of Moses the servant of God....Rev 15.1-3

The song of Moses is being sang in heaven in the 15th chapter of Revelation. This is very significant. The song of Moses had only one purpose and time, and that was to 'testify before Israel as a witness against them' when they had utterly corrupted themselves and evil had befallen them in the 'latter days':

16 And Jehovah said unto Moses.....this people will rise up, and play the harlot ...and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day.....and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?
18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought.....
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you...... that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
21....when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.....
29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished. Dt 31

The Song of Moses is quoted by Christ and the Apostles in reference to 'that generation' of Jews of their day.