Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Who checks the facts?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
I've been in a conversation with a nonbeliever for a little bit of time, and one of the points he has been adamant about is the the bible is unreliable. Although I don't agree with this as part of the discussion has continued, one part I've recently tried to look into is when the New Testiment books came into existence. From that there is a fair amount of agreement from google sources that state scholars agree that the first gospel book was Mark around 70CE. From one source the New Testiment follows: some of the letters of Paul around 50-60CE; followed by Mark 65-70CE; Mathew, Luke and Acts around 80-90CE; then the Gospel of John, the letters of James, Peter, and John, as well as Revelations and Paul's letter to Hebrews came around 85-95CE.
https://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/ITB/html/earliestScriptures.htm

The issue I have with all of this is the dates of the letters, more then the dates of the gospel books. Even if the books were passed on through word of mouth (more or less), until someone actually wrote them down (arguably speaking) that still doesn't account for the letters to have a start date roughly 20 years after Jesus died and raised again, and an end date of 55-65 years after Jesus died and rose again. The letters unlike the gospel books can't be argued to be passed on my mouth before being written down because they started off written down, yet the dates seem like Paul didn't write until 20-30 years after Jesus died, and the other letters from Peter, John, and James occur late in their lives if they even lived that long.

So here's my question. How can we check the facts after they are accepted as facts? If it's noted that "scholars agree that ________" but over all don't give any more detail for why they agree or how to back it up then how can we check those fact to ensure they are accurate?
 
Hi NNS
This is complicated.
This is what Catholics talk about when they say that they have the Tradition of the Apostles and that they saved it for mankind. Since, as you stated, the bible was not written until the 300's and then by them.

I'd say you probably fell into the intellectual trap. The bible is an intelligent book, but it's not an intellectual book.
I'm sure you know that you're fighting against the Bible As Literature classes in universities. You can't do this.
The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written. It matters that the persons writing realized that when they died everything was going to be lost eventually and so they thought they'd better put everything down in writing for future generations.

There were many heresies floating around the first few hundred years. They were all removed from the church thanks to the Catholic or Universal church. That's why you have all the councils.

If you really want to check the facts, you have to start studying the early Church Fathers.
You could start with Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John personally.

But it's a long study and I'm not sure you want to get into it.

I know this is not what you want to hear, others will post. My main idea is that you should not be trapped into talking about this and concentrate on WHY the N.T. was written. Read The Road To Emmaus
(Luke 24:13-35) - Jesus told the disciples all about Himself and how He was foretold n the O.T. scriptures and what was supposed to happen to Him. This is all that matters. Tell them that we're not a BOOK RELIGION, as some call us, but we're A PERSON RELIGION and that person is Jesus Christ.

Wondering
 
Hi NNS
This is complicated.
This is what Catholics talk about when they say that they have the Tradition of the Apostles and that they saved it for mankind. Since, as you stated, the bible was not written until the 300's and then by them.

I'd say you probably fell into the intellectual trap. The bible is an intelligent book, but it's not an intellectual book.
I'm sure you know that you're fighting against the Bible As Literature classes in universities. You can't do this.
The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written. It matters that the persons writing realized that when they died everything was going to be lost eventually and so they thought they'd better put everything down in writing for future generations.

There were many heresies floating around the first few hundred years. They were all removed from the church thanks to the Catholic or Universal church. That's why you have all the councils.

If you really want to check the facts, you have to start studying the early Church Fathers.
You could start with Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John personally.

But it's a long study and I'm not sure you want to get into it.

I know this is not what you want to hear, others will post. My main idea is that you should not be trapped into talking about this and concentrate on WHY the N.T. was written. Read The Road To Emmaus
(Luke 24:13-35) - Jesus told the disciples all about Himself and how He was foretold n the O.T. scriptures and what was supposed to happen to Him. This is all that matters. Tell them that we're not a BOOK RELIGION, as some call us, but we're A PERSON RELIGION and that person is Jesus Christ.

Wondering
Genesis was written long after the events.it's really during the events of exodus that is was written.
 
First you have to have faith that God would keep His hand in the process of forming the bible and maintaining its voice through the over 2000 year history of the church. Under God's guidance once the bible was more or less decided upon (meaning what books would be included and which ones would not) there was a very strict regimen put in place pertaining to the copying of the bible down through the years.

When it comes to discussing the validity, accuracy, and fidelity of the bible with a non-believer you must take into consideration the pearls-before-swine analogy. Those who are meant to understand will, those who don't just have not been given that gift by the Holy Spirit...yet.
 
Hi NNS
This is complicated.
This is what Catholics talk about when they say that they have the Tradition of the Apostles and that they saved it for mankind. Since, as you stated, the bible was not written until the 300's and then by them.

I'd say you probably fell into the intellectual trap. The bible is an intelligent book, but it's not an intellectual book.
I'm sure you know that you're fighting against the Bible As Literature classes in universities. You can't do this.
The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written. It matters that the persons writing realized that when they died everything was going to be lost eventually and so they thought they'd better put everything down in writing for future generations.

There were many heresies floating around the first few hundred years. They were all removed from the church thanks to the Catholic or Universal church. That's why you have all the councils.

If you really want to check the facts, you have to start studying the early Church Fathers.
You could start with Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John personally.

But it's a long study and I'm not sure you want to get into it.

I know this is not what you want to hear, others will post. My main idea is that you should not be trapped into talking about this and concentrate on WHY the N.T. was written. Read The Road To Emmaus
(Luke 24:13-35) - Jesus told the disciples all about Himself and how He was foretold n the O.T. scriptures and what was supposed to happen to Him. This is all that matters. Tell them that we're not a BOOK RELIGION, as some call us, but we're A PERSON RELIGION and that person is Jesus Christ.

Wondering


I like that. We always say the Bible belongs to the Church, not the other way around. And the Biblical view is that Christ gave us the Church (as He himself said), not a book. The Book can only keep people on track if they understand it correctly, which is where tradition comes in. The road to Emmaus is a perfect example. (I don't know the book you reference, I'm just talking about the Bible account.) The disciples did not recognize Christ while discussing Scriptures, they didn't recognize Him until he reenacted the Eucharist.
 
All the dates are given as probable and none is exact, but only a close range given to the timing of events, places and people.
 
Hi NNS
This is complicated.
This is what Catholics talk about when they say that they have the Tradition of the Apostles and that they saved it for mankind. Since, as you stated, the bible was not written until the 300's and then by them.

I'd say you probably fell into the intellectual trap. The bible is an intelligent book, but it's not an intellectual book.
I'm sure you know that you're fighting against the Bible As Literature classes in universities. You can't do this.
The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written. It matters that the persons writing realized that when they died everything was going to be lost eventually and so they thought they'd better put everything down in writing for future generations.

There were many heresies floating around the first few hundred years. They were all removed from the church thanks to the Catholic or Universal church. That's why you have all the councils.

If you really want to check the facts, you have to start studying the early Church Fathers.
You could start with Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John personally.

But it's a long study and I'm not sure you want to get into it.

I know this is not what you want to hear, others will post. My main idea is that you should not be trapped into talking about this and concentrate on WHY the N.T. was written. Read The Road To Emmaus
(Luke 24:13-35) - Jesus told the disciples all about Himself and how He was foretold n the O.T. scriptures and what was supposed to happen to Him. This is all that matters. Tell them that we're not a BOOK RELIGION, as some call us, but we're A PERSON RELIGION and that person is Jesus Christ.

Wondering

While I agree that I trust the early church when it eventually descided which books and collections of letters would be included in the bible. I trust that God had a hand in this, and that the Holy Spirit was involved in the counsels. I think which books would be included is closer to the date of 300, then the books themselves. What my complaint falls in is that the dates attributed to the letters to the churches.

Maybe my understanding of when Paul came on the scene and traveled as well as wrote to the churches in the cities he knew is off. Arguably 20-30 years could have passed if Paul wasn't around when Jesus was in His ministry, or if Paul was persecuting Christians for several years, and then traveled and wrote 20-30 years later. Arguably that could be accounted for if those were the cases. (I don't know enough to confirm or correct those possibilities.). However dates associated with the letters of Peter, John, and James has me past the point of giving the benifit of the doubt. I trust the bible, and perhaps I put more trust into it then I should. But letters are written first, not orally passed down then written. I don't know why I should trust the scholars if they give their facts and there's no fact finding paths to back up what they count as the facts that they give.

That said thank you very much for the references to the early church. I think I will eventually like to study what's known or what's gathered about the early church.
 
All the dates are given as probable and none is exact, but only a close range given to the timing of events, places and people.

I guess I just hoped for some kind of way to double check what they've found for those dates. Because without that it leaves me with the kind of conspiracy theory mentality of whether I can trust them (the bible scholars and researchers) at all.
 
I guess I just hoped for some kind of way to double check what they've found for those dates. Because without that it leaves me with the kind of conspiracy theory mentality of whether I can trust them (the bible scholars and researchers) at all.
You have to approach it with the understanding that God had His hand in the process from the beginning and would not let anything slip through the cracks, nor would He allow anything that is not part of His message to be included in His word.
 
I like that. We always say the Bible belongs to the Church, not the other way around. And the Biblical view is that Christ gave us the Church (as He himself said), not a book. The Book can only keep people on track if they understand it correctly, which is where tradition comes in. The road to Emmaus is a perfect example. (I don't know the book you reference, I'm just talking about the Bible account.) The disciples did not recognize Christ while discussing Scriptures, they didn't recognize Him until he reenacted the Eucharist.
No book. I meant Luke. I think I referenced it? Luke 24:13-35

W
 
I guess I just hoped for some kind of way to double check what they've found for those dates. Because without that it leaves me with the kind of conspiracy theory mentality of whether I can trust them (the bible scholars and researchers) at all.

It's not so much as being an exact date, but a close date in proximity to when each account was written by the Apostles. Early scholars who transcribed all the writings would date the New Testament writings from around 67AD to 97AD with John being the last Apostle alive. He was exiled to the isle of Patmos by the Roman Emperor Domitian for preaching the word of God in the Roman province of Asia where the seven Churches were located. It is said that John was in his nineties when he was exiled and probably released around 97 AD after Domitian died. John was born around 6 AD and died around 100 AD.
 
While I agree that I trust the early church when it eventually descided which books and collections of letters would be included in the bible. I trust that God had a hand in this, and that the Holy Spirit was involved in the counsels. I think which books would be included is closer to the date of 300, then the books themselves. What my complaint falls in is that the dates attributed to the letters to the churches.

Maybe my understanding of when Paul came on the scene and traveled as well as wrote to the churches in the cities he knew is off. Arguably 20-30 years could have passed if Paul wasn't around when Jesus was in His ministry, or if Paul was persecuting Christians for several years, and then traveled and wrote 20-30 years later. Arguably that could be accounted for if those were the cases. (I don't know enough to confirm or correct those possibilities.). However dates associated with the letters of Peter, John, and James has me past the point of giving the benifit of the doubt. I trust the bible, and perhaps I put more trust into it then I should. But letters are written first, not orally passed down then written. I don't know why I should trust the scholars if they give their facts and there's no fact finding paths to back up what they count as the facts that they give.

That said thank you very much for the references to the early church. I think I will eventually like to study what's known or what's gathered about the early church.
You said that letters are written first,not orally passed down and THEN written.

This is not really correct. Every concept, idea and doctrine in the letters was being passed down orally first. Nothing changed when the letters were written - they were a confirmation of what had been taught all those years.

Also, we should remember that we don't even have all the letters. Who knows how much written stuff was floating about back then. Remember what John said: John 21:25
And he did say why the letters were written:
John 20:31
1 John 5:13

Then we have that whole "unknown authors" debate. Like for James.
I stopped worrying about all this stuff many years ago.
Just keep in mind that they're not history books
and that God inspired the writings and the choice of the letters.

Maybe you shouldn't be trusting scholars so much,
John was WITH Jesus, I think you could trust him.

In fact, if you think of it, our faith rests in the Apostles and what they told us they saw and experienced.
We have to believe they were sane men with good intentions and passed down what they believed to be true. Otherwise, what would our faith depend on? It does depend on them - no matter WHEN they wrote their letters.

Hope you can glean something out of the above.

Wondering
 
From that there is a fair amount of agreement from google sources that state scholars agree that the first gospel book was Mark around 70CE. From one source the New Testiment follows: some of the letters of Paul around 50-60CE; followed by Mark 65-70CE; Mathew, Luke and Acts around 80-90CE; then the Gospel of John, the letters of James, Peter, and John, as well as Revelations and Paul's letter to Hebrews came around 85-95CE.

Several people would suggest earlier dates for the gospels, but there is general agreement that John was last, and that all the Gospels were written before about 95. An early fragment of John, from Egypt and dated to around 140, provides some confirmation for this, in that written copies of John must have existed for some time before that date.

I myself would date Luke to the time of Paul's letters, because I think his gospel was used to support the missionary activity (I also think Luke was written before Acts, and that Acts was written at the point in history where the action stops). That would put Mark even earlier. J.A.T. Robinson famously wrote a book suggesting that Matthew, Mark, and John were written sometime between 40 and the 60s, and Luke sometime during the 50s and 60s (see here). However, many people talking to non-Christians go with the widely accepted later dates.

The issue I have with all of this is the dates of the letters, more then the dates of the gospel books.

The Pauline letters are dated from the life of Paul. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was in about the year 50, and Paul probably died under Nero around 65. Here is a timeline, although I do not guarantee its accuracy.

If it's noted that "scholars agree that ________" but over all don't give any more detail for why they agree or how to back it up then how can we check those fact to ensure they are accurate?

Well, you would have to read some books that give the details of the argument. Or a good book on apologetics at least.
 
Last edited:
I've been in a conversation with a nonbeliever for a little bit of time, and one of the points he has been adamant about is the the bible is unreliable. Although I don't agree with this as part of the discussion has continued, one part I've recently tried to look into is when the New Testiment books came into existence. From that there is a fair amount of agreement from google sources that state scholars agree that the first gospel book was Mark around 70CE. From one source the New Testiment follows: some of the letters of Paul around 50-60CE; followed by Mark 65-70CE; Mathew, Luke and Acts around 80-90CE; then the Gospel of John, the letters of James, Peter, and John, as well as Revelations and Paul's letter to Hebrews came around 85-95CE.
https://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/ITB/html/earliestScriptures.htm

The issue I have with all of this is the dates of the letters, more then the dates of the gospel books. Even if the books were passed on through word of mouth (more or less), until someone actually wrote them down (arguably speaking) that still doesn't account for the letters to have a start date roughly 20 years after Jesus died and raised again, and an end date of 55-65 years after Jesus died and rose again. The letters unlike the gospel books can't be argued to be passed on my mouth before being written down because they started off written down, yet the dates seem like Paul didn't write until 20-30 years after Jesus died, and the other letters from Peter, John, and James occur late in their lives if they even lived that long.

So here's my question. How can we check the facts after they are accepted as facts? If it's noted that "scholars agree that ________" but over all don't give any more detail for why they agree or how to back it up then how can we check those fact to ensure they are accurate?

If they were dated around 70ce, thats only going from the manuscripts we have available.

So, there posibly could have been earlier scripture, and also, anytime within the 1st century would have still been filled with eye witnesses so even if they were penned long after the fact there still would have been eye witness. It would take time to write down all the accounts.
I dont think the time frame in which they were written give the gospels any less credibility.

And carbon datings not accurate to the date so I wouldnt say the letters were before the Gospels but if they were it just means the Gospels were penned later. I dont see anything major.
 
Last edited:
Well, after checking a study bible, I think I found what I was looking for. Some dates that at least have an estimated range within the author's lifetime instead of possibly a decade after the author died of a book or a letter died. The issue of fact checking either source of information is still something for me to look into. But I think the study bible has more information on where it got it's figures, so they are places to start.

I'm sorry if you all though I was making a big deal out of nothing. It was a decently big deal to me, because if the theory of bible history, (and texts within history) don't match up with who is associated with writing the bible book, then there's an issue of trust. Either the bible books are wrong by being written after the Aposole claiming to have written it had died. Or the professionals who claim to be experts on the subject matter are wrong. When I started this search for information, my goal was to find some common ground of information between me and the non believer I was talking to. Instead I found a reason to doubt what's said of bible scholars, and the need for deeper reasurch to find what's authentic and what's fluff passed on as scholarly.
 
You're going to run into some difficulty NNS.

Don't let it bother you. It's difficult to know what the truth is.
Keep your eyes on THE TRUTH: JESUS.
All one has to believe is that the resurrection took place.
Study THAT.

Wondering
 
Well, after checking a study bible, I think I found what I was looking for. Some dates that at least have an estimated range within the author's lifetime instead of possibly a decade after the author died of a book or a letter died.

Non-Christian scholars usually go for later dates. Non-Christian scholars are also less likely to believe that the named gospel-writers wrote "their" gospel. And non-Christian scholars don't believe that Jesus truly prophesied the destruction of the Temple, and so think those prophecies were written after 70 AD. So there are ranges of scholarly dates out there, with the J.A.T. Robinson dates being at the early end. Like I said before, personally I think that Acts was written at the point that the action stops, and Luke was written before that (probably in the 50s).

I'm sorry if you all though I was making a big deal out of nothing.

Well, it really is a big deal in evangelism, so you were right to start digging.

Polycarp (69–155), who studied under the Apostle John, quotes from the gospels, so obviously they were all written by his time. Irenaeus of Lyons (130–200), a student of Polycarp, has this to say: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect [Aramaic], while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
 
Last edited:
I've been in a conversation with a nonbeliever for a little bit of time, and one of the points he has been adamant about is the the bible is unreliable. Although I don't agree with this as part of the discussion has continued, one part I've recently tried to look into is when the New Testiment books came into existence. From that there is a fair amount of agreement from google sources that state scholars agree that the first gospel book was Mark around 70CE. From one source the New Testiment follows: some of the letters of Paul around 50-60CE; followed by Mark 65-70CE; Mathew, Luke and Acts around 80-90CE; then the Gospel of John, the letters of James, Peter, and John, as well as Revelations and Paul's letter to Hebrews came around 85-95CE.
https://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/ITB/html/earliestScriptures.htm

The issue I have with all of this is the dates of the letters, more then the dates of the gospel books. Even if the books were passed on through word of mouth (more or less), until someone actually wrote them down (arguably speaking) that still doesn't account for the letters to have a start date roughly 20 years after Jesus died and raised again, and an end date of 55-65 years after Jesus died and rose again. The letters unlike the gospel books can't be argued to be passed on my mouth before being written down because they started off written down, yet the dates seem like Paul didn't write until 20-30 years after Jesus died, and the other letters from Peter, John, and James occur late in their lives if they even lived that long.

So here's my question. How can we check the facts after they are accepted as facts? If it's noted that "scholars agree that ________" but over all don't give any more detail for why they agree or how to back it up then how can we check those fact to ensure they are accurate?

NNS,

You ask about checking the facts after they are accepted as facts. When we investigate anything from history, there are certain criteria we use to determine if this information is reliable history? This is not the place to go into details, but I've attempted to address some of these in a few articles for the laity on:
If the Bible can't be checked out as an historical document, we might as well treat it as mythology or a fairy tale. Let's check a few examples:
  • If Abraham & Isaac are not real people who acted in history, who are they?
  • Was the journey to the Promised Land an historical event?
  • I have books in my library that deal with archaeology of the OT and NT. They would be useless publications if these 2 testaments didn't record historical data.
  • I recommend, Christian historian and exegete, Dr Paul Barnett's book, Jesus and the Logic of History (IVP).
I think it could be good for you to read some books on introduction to the Bible (Geisler & Nix), The Canon of the Bible (F F Bruce).

Luke 1:1-4 (ESV) tells us how Luke gathered his material.

That's a starter.

Oz
 
Hi NNS
This is complicated.
This is what Catholics talk about when they say that they have the Tradition of the Apostles and that they saved it for mankind. Since, as you stated, the bible was not written until the 300's and then by them.

I'd say you probably fell into the intellectual trap. The bible is an intelligent book, but it's not an intellectual book.
I'm sure you know that you're fighting against the Bible As Literature classes in universities. You can't do this.
The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written. It matters that the persons writing realized that when they died everything was going to be lost eventually and so they thought they'd better put everything down in writing for future generations.

There were many heresies floating around the first few hundred years. They were all removed from the church thanks to the Catholic or Universal church. That's why you have all the councils.

If you really want to check the facts, you have to start studying the early Church Fathers.
You could start with Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John personally.

But it's a long study and I'm not sure you want to get into it.

I know this is not what you want to hear, others will post. My main idea is that you should not be trapped into talking about this and concentrate on WHY the N.T. was written. Read The Road To Emmaus
(Luke 24:13-35) - Jesus told the disciples all about Himself and how He was foretold n the O.T. scriptures and what was supposed to happen to Him. This is all that matters. Tell them that we're not a BOOK RELIGION, as some call us, but we're A PERSON RELIGION and that person is Jesus Christ.

Wondering

Wondering,

You state, 'The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written'. What causes you to reach that conclusion?

Was Jesus not a person in history who walked the streets of Jerusalem and died on an actual cross? Did King David actually live? Was Paul a real historical person? What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

How about the events of the Book of Acts? Did they happen in history or is that some other kind of reality?

Oz
 
Last edited:
I found this about how the book of Revelation was dated by one source. Perhaps the same sort of approach can be taken with other books.


The Authorship Date of the Book of Revelation
I have come to understand that the majority of the Book of Revelation was written regarding events that took place at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The scope of the book in your hands is not able to adequately address this topic; however, I do want to briefly discuss the issue of authorship. To believe that Revelation is about the AD 70 destruction, the main issue that must be addressed is the date of authorship. If the book was written in AD 96, as many modern teachers claim, then there is no way that my point of view could be valid. Yet, I believe that the overwhelming body of evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Revelation was more likely written before AD 68. Therefore, it is important to take a few minutes to establish the date of its writing.

The primary reason some Bible teachers claim that the Book of Revelation was written around AD 96 is because John noted in Revelation 1:9 that he was on the island of Patmos at the time he received the Revelation. There is some historical evidence that John was exiled to Patmos under the reign of Domitian between AD 81 and AD 96. Therefore, the book might have been written during that time—or so some claim. In reality, there are also historical documents that tell us that John was exiled to Patmos at a much earlier date. Here I will share ten evidences that Revelation was written before AD 68.

1. The Syriac
We have the witness of one of the most ancient versions of the New Testament, called The Syriac. The second-century Syriac Version, called the Peshitto, says the following on the title page of the Book of Revelation:

"Again the revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor Nero."

We know that Nero Caesar ruled over the Roman Empire from AD 54 to AD 68. Therefore, John had to have been on the island of Patmos during this earlier period. One of the oldest versions of the Bible tells us when Revelation was written! That alone is a very compelling argument.

2. Revelation 17:10
When we look at the internal evidence, we find that there is also a very clear indicator regarding the date of authorship, found in Revelation 17:10: "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while" (Rev. 17:10).

This passage, which is speaking of the line of rulers in Rome, tells us exactly how many rulers had already come, which one was currently in power, and that the next one would only last a short while. Take a look at how that perfectly fits with Nero and the Roman Empire of the first century.

The rule of the first seven Roman Emperor's is as follows:
Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
Augustus (27 BC-AD 14)
Tiberius (AD 14-37)
Caligula (AD 37-41)
Claudius (AD 41-54)
"Five have fallen..."

Nero (AD 54-68)
"One is..."

Galba (June AD 68-January AD 69, a six month ruler-ship)
"the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while."

Of the first seven kings, five had come (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius), one was now in power (Nero), and one had not yet come (Galba), but would only remain a little time (six months). The current Caesar at the time of John's writing was the sixth Caesar, Nero.

3. Those Who Pierced Him
Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen (Revelation 1:7 YLT).

We already examined the Hebrew idiom, "coming on clouds," so we know that this speaks not of the return of Christ for the final judgment day, but of God coming to bring judgment on a city or nation (see Chapter 2 for more on this).

The phrase "those who did pierce him" refers to the people of the first century. According to this passage, they were expected to be alive at the time of Revelation's fulfillment. How is that possible if Revelation was not going to come to pass until 2,000 or more years later? Consider also that "those who did pierce him" weren't even alive in AD 96 because they would have been killed in the slaughter of AD 70. This verse is a clear indicator of Revelation being written before AD 70.

4. Jewish Persecution of Christians
The Jewish persecution of Christianity in Revelation 6 and 11 indicates a pre-AD 70 authorship. The Jews were not in a position to persecute the early Church after they were slaughtered in AD 70. In fact, since the AD 70 slaughter, the Jews have never been in a position to be able to persecute Christians.

5. Judaizing Heretics in the Church
The activity of the Judaizing heretics in the Church (see Rev. 2:6,9,15; 3:9) would not have been as large of an issue after Paul's epistles had been circulated. Therefore, an early date of authorship allows for the heretics to be a larger problem.

6. Existence of Jerusalem and the Temple
The existence and integrity of Jerusalem and the Temple (see Rev. 11) suggest a date before the destruction of AD 70.

7. Time-related Passages
The internal time-related portions of Revelation indicate that the events it foretells will come to pass shortly (see Rev. 1:1,3; 22:10,20). If this was read with an unbiased perspective, one would conclude that Revelation was not written about events 2,000 years in the future.

8. John's Appearance in AD 96
Another reason to believe that the Book of Revelation was written at the earlier date is because Jerome noted in his writings that John was seen in AD 96 and that he was so old and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people." We must put this fact together with what Revelation 10:11 says: that John must "prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings." It is difficult to imagine that John would be able to speak to many nations and many kings at any date after AD 96 since he was already elderly and feeble.

9. Timetable Comparison with Daniel
In Daniel, the author was told to "seal up the vision, for it is a long way off" (Dan. 12:4)—which referred to a 483-year wait until Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy. By contrast, in Revelation, John was told to "not seal up the vision because it concerns things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev 22:10). If 483 years was considered a long way off, meaning that the vision should be sealed, it makes no sense that 2,000 plus years would be considered "shortly to come to pass" and not to be sealed up. Clearly, Revelation shouldn't be sealed because it was about to come to pass at the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

10. Only Seven Churches
The existence of only seven churches in Asia Minor (see Rev. 1) indicates a writing date before the greater expansion of Christianity into that region.

The Other Perspective
Those who believe in the later date of authorship for the Book of Revelation are mainly leaning on the fact that Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons (AD 120-202) claimed that John wrote while on Patmos under Domitian's reign. This alone could seem compelling, except that Irenaeus is notorious for being terrible at accurately recording dates and times in his writings. Irenaeus is the same Church father who claimed that Jesus' ministry lasted nearly twenty years, from the age of thirty until the age of fifty. There is no internal evidence for a later date of authorship; one must lean only upon external evidence to force this conclusion.

Because of the overwhelming body of evidence, I firmly believe that Revelation was written during Nero's reign and before his death in AD 68. I believe that Revelation was written regarding the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Yet, I also know that, at this time, I personally am not called to add my thoughts to the many great works written regarding the Book of Revelation from this point of view. For more information, I will suggest the writings of the experts in this regard.
The Great Tribulationby David Chilton
Days of Vengeance by David Chilton
Revelation by Gordon Fee
Revelation for Everyone by N.T. Wright

Conclusion
Considering the evidence used to support both the earlier date and the later date for the writing of the Book of Revelation brings us to a simple conclusion. The most logical and historically responsible conclusion, based on all the evidence, is that Revelation was, in fact, written prior to AD 68 and many of the events foretold in it may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top