-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is Historical Evidence John Wrote the Revelation in The 90's?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
I just need to make a correction here. Preterists (at least this Preterist) didn't "want" any date for Revelation. That is, I was quite willing to go where ever the facts led me. That is what made me a Preterist, I wasn't swayed by peer pressure - I mean "reputable scholarship".
Now, speaking of wanting, you are apparently looking for proof of a view already decided on, otherwise you would have asked for all kinds of evidence - and then weighed the evidence as a judge.
However, for your side, most if not all the evidence will lead down to Eusebius, the 4th century church historian. On the other side, you have the internal indications from the books themselves (Revelation, Gospel of John), as well as corroborating comments from contemporary writers (Clement, etc.).
I forget who told me that an early date for Revelation had no credible modern scholarship on its side, but here is one of several:
http://www.eschatology.org/all-arti...on/889-the-dating-of-revelation-guest-article
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
It is also significant that Christ and the apostles quoted from the song of Moses several times to 'that generation' of Jews.
“........The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement of Alexandria's'S story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Cæsar. Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64). But the possible allusions to it in Heb 10:37; compare Re 1:4, 8; 4:8; 22:12; Heb 11:10; compare Re 21:14; Heb 12:22, 23; compare Re 14:1; Heb 8:1, 2; compare Re 11:19; 15:5; 21:3; Heb 4:12; compare Re 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:13, 15; Heb 4:9; compare Re 20:1-15; also 1Pe 1:7, 13; 4:13, with Re 1:1; 1Pe 2:9 with Re 5:10; 2Ti 4:8, with Re 2:26, 27; 3:21; 11:18; Eph 6:12, with Re 12:7-12; Php 4:3, with Re 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; Col 1:18, with Re 1:5; 1Co 15:52, with Re 10:7; 11:15-18, make a date before the destruction of Laodicea possible. Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero……..” Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
Last edited by a moderator:
When I first tackled this subject I assumed the evidence was overwhelming for a late date, however after studying the subject I found the late date boils down to 1 controversial paragraph written by Irenaeus.
Totally forgot about Irenaeus. I remember it now.I like Gentry's comments: "Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date [of Revelation]!"
Eusebius's remains the earliest unambivalent supporter of the later date for Rev.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Steve, you are correct.
I don't want to pass up this opportunity to state again that the arguement isn't pre-mil vs a-mil or preterism, the real debate is Covenant vs. Dispensationalism. You know, what does the Bible teach, not the ECF's or the Reformers.
The last sentence is very good. Then again, that is why Preterists get so much flak. They bring up what Jesus taught ("in this generation") and what Paul taught ("We shall not all sleep...") and what John taught ("the time is near") and are countered by quotes from modern scholars. By their modern traditions they make the testimony of Christ and His apostles of no effect. They just blink away the clear meaning of scripture.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
That is not the reason why preterists get so much flak. However, if you want to believe that that is the reason, please, don't let me get in your way.
Preterists who get flak everyday for being Preterists know more about why we get flak. But, go ahead, oblige me. Why do you think we get it?
thomas15
Well-Known Member
My area of interest is not to debate the preterist, which is in my opinion a sub-set of Covenant thinking. I have no interest in sticking up for or debate against the ECF's or the Reformers or the historical thinking of the church.
What I'm interested in is the differences between Covenant and Dispensational theology and how they relate to the actual words of the Bible. So although preterism is in my opinion on thin ground from both a history and Biblical perspective, my interest lies at a theological position placed before preterism, that is reformed covenant theology. Which by the way comes down to this: according to covenant theology, Jehovah God has given up on Israel, changed His mind about the promises made and so forth due to their unbelief and disobendience. My question is what makes anyone in the church so sure that they are any better than Israel was that he (Jehovah) will give them the top spot, because from where I stand, I think the church is in real trouble. Correct me if you think the church (which you as a preterist think is Israel) is not in trouble.
The apostles make the case for pre 70 date pretty well
Clearly any honest reading of the epistles would make it obvious that they taught Christ would return in their generation. Most of their generation is dead by the 90s. That would be a stretch to still consider the 90s the first generation and not the second generation. If the apostles are inerrant and divinely inspired then they can't be wrong--or else if they are the you can't trust them on their other teachings either.
For evidence of historical events. Read the history of the Roman campaign through Judea and it matches the events in Revelation too closely for any honest reading to think Revelation does not describe those events.
But a word of warning--I don't know any Preterists who set out to be Preterists we just couldn't deny the facts and that forced us to become Preterists. You could become one of us.
Clearly any honest reading of the epistles would make it obvious that they taught Christ would return in their generation. Most of their generation is dead by the 90s. That would be a stretch to still consider the 90s the first generation and not the second generation. If the apostles are inerrant and divinely inspired then they can't be wrong--or else if they are the you can't trust them on their other teachings either.
For evidence of historical events. Read the history of the Roman campaign through Judea and it matches the events in Revelation too closely for any honest reading to think Revelation does not describe those events.
But a word of warning--I don't know any Preterists who set out to be Preterists we just couldn't deny the facts and that forced us to become Preterists. You could become one of us.
[QUOTE="Logos1]For evidence of historical events. Read the history of the Roman campaign through Judea and it matches the events in Revelation too closely for any honest reading to think Revelation does not describe those events.
[/QUOTE]
I read Josephus through a few years ago and it never occurred to me that I was reading a description of Revelation.
Rev 14:16-18 is happening now to our brethren in many parts of the world. It has also been happening on and off throughout the ages. Some people thought they were living through Revelation during the Thirty Years War; others during the Napoloeonic Wars, and they struggled to make 'Bonaparte' add up in some way to 666 (and managed it, as I recall!). In Britain today, some people are trying to make the European Union out to be the Beast out of the Sea, or Babylon or something and they are able to make a surprisingly good case for it.
If we try to make Revelation fit just one part of history,either past or present, and squeeze the facts in order to make them fit, we commit an egregious error. Its teachings and warnings are for the whole age until our Lord's glorious and visible return.
Steve
[/QUOTE]
I read Josephus through a few years ago and it never occurred to me that I was reading a description of Revelation.
Rev 14:16-18 is happening now to our brethren in many parts of the world. It has also been happening on and off throughout the ages. Some people thought they were living through Revelation during the Thirty Years War; others during the Napoloeonic Wars, and they struggled to make 'Bonaparte' add up in some way to 666 (and managed it, as I recall!). In Britain today, some people are trying to make the European Union out to be the Beast out of the Sea, or Babylon or something and they are able to make a surprisingly good case for it.
If we try to make Revelation fit just one part of history,either past or present, and squeeze the facts in order to make them fit, we commit an egregious error. Its teachings and warnings are for the whole age until our Lord's glorious and visible return.
Steve
That my friend is exactly how it happens. It hit me like a ton of bricks one day after reading Josephus. I immediately turned to Matthew 24 and was shocked.