• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • 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.

In what year was Revelations written

Ed the Ned said:
When was Revelations written, prior to 70ad or 96ad?

The Revelation was written prior to A. D. 70, probably around A. D. 64 or 65!
 
Thankyou, is there a reason why there is the wide time span between the two dates. I did a little research and found an equal amount of people promoting the 96AD date. Is this linked back to Johns age when he was a disciple of Jesus.
 
Ed the Ned said:
Thankyou, is there a reason why there is the wide time span between the two dates. I did a little research and found an equal amount of people promoting the 96AD date. Is this linked back to Johns age when he was a disciple of Jesus.

The late date is accepted by futurists who refuse to accept the time statements given in the Revelation. John was shown the things which were to SHORTLY take place because the time was THEN near. The most logical time frame that was short in time to John's day which allows for the horrendous things found in the Revelation is pre-A. D. 70 and the Jewish Wars with Rome which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Even if a late date is taken, late-daters must produce events that were shortly to happen that fit the details found in the book. What happened shortly after A. D. 96 that fits?

Also, most late-daters rely heavily if not exclusively on an ambiguous statement made by Irenaeus. From it they deduce that Irenaeus was claiming to have seen the apocalyptic vision toward the end of Domitian's reign. The ambiguity lies in the identity of the antecedent for "it/he." Was Irenaeus saying that John was seen or the vision was seen? Anyway, this is rather shaky "proof" upon which to determine the dating of the Revelation.

It is much better to look at the internal evidences which are numerous.

Matthew24:34
 
A.D. 96 from the isle of Patmos, some of the prophecies in this revelation of Jesus Christ have yet to be fulfilled--but they will come to pass--SOON
 
I've read that John wrote the draft in 61AD, then translated it, or had it translated (to Greek or Hebrew (I forget which) around 65.
 
Then again, how old was John? Was he a contemporary of Jesus? About the same age? If he was around 30 or so when Jesus died, add 66 years to that for the late date. John would have been 96. Pretty old to be told -

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Last time I checked, 96 y/o people aren't exactly running marathons at that point in life. Lol. Heck, maybe he was even older than 30 when he was with Jesus! Maybe he was 38! or 40! LOL. ;) :D
 
Now I see why our teachers impressed upon us so much to put dates on our papers! :D
 
JoJo said:
Now I see why our teachers impressed upon us so much to put dates on our papers! :D
:lol
You never know who will be reading your essays 2000 years from now! ;) :lol :-)
 
researcher said:
JoJo said:
Now I see why our teachers impressed upon us so much to put dates on our papers! :D
:lol
You never know who will be reading your essays 2000 years from now! ;) :lol :-)

Do you ever think about this when writing? Imagine somebody somewhere in the future picking up our journals, books, newspapers, whatever...and reading our thoughts from way back in 2009! I love history and I love the thought of being somebody else's historical interest.
 
researcher said:
Then again, how old was John? Was he a contemporary of Jesus? About the same age? If he was around 30 or so when Jesus died, add 66 years to that for the late date. John would have been 96. Pretty old to be told -

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Last time I checked, 96 y/o people aren't exactly running marathons at that point in life. Lol. Heck, maybe he was even older than 30 when he was with Jesus! Maybe he was 38! or 40! LOL. ;) :D


According to the church historian Eusebius--John was banished to the Isle of Patmos during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (A.D.81-96). Upon the death of Domitian(A.D.96) John returned to Ephesus and passed away A.D.100--He was indeed an old man.
Your brother in Christ, Westtexas
 
westtexas said:
A.D. 96 from the isle of Patmos, some of the prophecies in this revelation of Jesus Christ have yet to be fulfilled--but they will come to pass--SOON

Greetings, westtexas: What do you mean by "SOON?" What do Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 say?

John was shown the things which were in his day to SOON take place. Did he have a different meaning for soon than you do?

John did not write the Revelation in A. D. 96. Why do you believe that? Because some scholars have said so? And even if you insist on that date, what events happened SHORTLY and what time was then NEAR for the events of the Revelation to take place? A pre-A. D. 70 writing allows for the fulfillment of the events in the Revelation that were then to take place SOON!

If John wrote in A. D. 96, why does he make no mention of the horrors of A. D. 70? Does he mention a third temple in Revelation 11 without even mentioning the total destruction of Herod's Temple?

Why are the NT writers not allowed to mean soon in the same way you use the term?

Sincerely, Matthew24:34
 
westtexas said:
researcher said:
Then again, how old was John? Was he a contemporary of Jesus? About the same age? If he was around 30 or so when Jesus died, add 66 years to that for the late date. John would have been 96. Pretty old to be told -

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Last time I checked, 96 y/o people aren't exactly running marathons at that point in life. Lol. Heck, maybe he was even older than 30 when he was with Jesus! Maybe he was 38! or 40! LOL. ;) :D


According to the church historian Eusebius--John was banished to the Isle of Patmos during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (A.D.81-96). Upon the death of Domitian(A.D.96) John returned to Ephesus and passed away A.D.100--He was indeed an old man.
Your brother in Christ, Westtexas

Greetings, westtexas: From where did Eusebius get those dates? Probably from the same ambiguous statement of Irenaeus that all the church fathers used. It is best to consider the internal evidence for the dating of the Revelation. Furthermore, if the late date is taken, what things happened "shortly" and what time was "near" in A. D. 96? John was shown those things which were in his day to "shortly" take place because the time was "near." These events coincide with a pre-A. D. 70 time frame and the horrific destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple!

Matthew24:34
 
I am still trying to understand both points, similar to evolution when it was decided that evolution was right, people went back to prove it. There was total belief in the theory The theory was created before the evidence. arn't we doing the same thing here. If we have decided that the second coming happened in 70AD, we are now aligning history to our beliefs. The similar argument lies with the futurist. Why dont we just check the Bible first without any belief structure or theory in place and then analize and see if anything matches it. If Revelations was written before 70AD then could someone please explain to me as a 1st century person what they should have looked out for. I would like to put myself in their shoes in their time. Did the letters recieve the first Churches and the rest of revelation? If so what was there response to it as many lived outside the walls of Jerusalem? Was their an historian that wrote anything about it? Did the gentiles have bibles to read from and to take heed as to what was going to happen? Were the gospels in print so that the people of Jerusalem could look out for the signs? Or was it the elect disciples that through word of mouth preached the Gospel? If the gospel was known throughout the world did the disciples travel around the globe in a short period of time? Why arn't there relects or notes of these visits on other continents? In China there are symbols of Noahs Ark, yet nothing of first century Christianity, Why? These are genuine questions that I feel the average Christian needs answered in order to make a judgement on end time prophecy. I apologise there are so many preterest questions, but there just seem to be!

I pray to God that he may lead me in the right direction that will lead to the fullfillment of his word.
 
JoJo said:
Now I see why our teachers impressed upon us so much to put dates on our papers! :D


If you like it, then you shoulda put a date on it!
 
Matthew24:34 said:
westtexas said:
A.D. 96 from the isle of Patmos, some of the prophecies in this revelation of Jesus Christ have yet to be fulfilled--but they will come to pass--SOON

Greetings, westtexas: What do you mean by "SOON?" What do Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 say?

John was shown the things which were in his day to SOON take place. Did he have a different meaning for soon than you do?

John did not write the Revelation in A. D. 96. Why do you believe that? Because some scholars have said so? And even if you insist on that date, what events happened SHORTLY and what time was then NEAR for the events of the Revelation to take place? A pre-A. D. 70 writing allows for the fulfillment of the events in the Revelation that were then to take place SOON!

If John wrote in A. D. 96, why does he make no mention of the horrors of A. D. 70? Does he mention a third temple in Revelation 11 without even mentioning the total destruction of Herod's Temple?

Why are the NT writers not allowed to mean soon in the same way you use the term?

Sincerely, Matthew24:34
The Key to the Interpretation
"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" (Rev. 1:19).
1. PART I. "The things which thou hast seen"; that is, Christ in the midst of the seven candlesticks (Rev. 1:12-18, 20), as seen by John before he began to write.
2. PART II. "The things which are"; that is, the things concerning the churches then existent and those which should exist throughout the Church Age to the rapture. This division takes in only Rev. 2-3.
3. PART III. "The things which shall be hereafter"; that is, the things which shall come to pass after the rapture of the church. This division includes all of the events of Rev. 4-22. One has only to believe this three-fold natural division as given by Christ to understand the book fully, especially as to the time of the fulfillment of the things of each division. The moment these divisions are forgotten and the reader begins to disarrange them and insert certain things into the one or the other that are not part of the division, he will become confused as to the divine order of these "things" which are so clearly given in consecutive order, and he will miss the true intent of the "things" written therein. That we refrain from confusing these "things" is absolutely imperative if a true understanding of them is to be gained.
To further prove that everything in Rev. 4-22 must be after the churches, and therefore after the rapture of the church, we have this fact confirmed in Rev. 4:1. After John had recorded the vision of Christ in Rev. 1, completing the first division of the book, and after he had recorded all that Christ told him to write to the churches in Rev. 2-3, completing the second division of the book, he was told in Rev. 4:1 that he was to see "things which MUST BE hereafter," that is, after the things of the churches of the second division of the book. Therefore, if everything from Rev. 4:1 on through the rest of the book MUST BE after the churches, then all the events of Rev. 4-22 must be after the churches. If they MUST BE after the churches, then they cannot happen during the time of the churches. If they cannot happen during the time of the churches, then the church is no longer on the Earth during the fulfillment of the things which MUST BE after the churches.
Rev. 4:1 literally reads in the Greek, "AFTER THESE THINGS [the things concerning the churches of the previous division] I saw, and behold a door opened in heaven, and the first voice [of Rev. 1:10] which I heard was as a trumpet speaking with me, saying, Come up hither, and I will show to thee WHAT THINGS MUST TAKE PLACE AFTER THESE THINGS," that is, after the churches which he wrote about in the previous chapters.
These three divisions of Revelation mentioned above do not overlap, nor are they concurrent. One division must be completely fulfilled before the other begins. So if one will be fair and understand that every event of Rev. 4:1 on through the rest of the book MUST BE fulfilled after the rapture of the church, and if he does not bring one of these events back and place it among the churches as being fulfilled before the rapture, everything in the book will automatically clear up. Fully 95 percent of the false theories of Revelation have come into being because interpreters have failed to recognize the natural three-fold division of the book. It is true, most interpreters emphasize these divisions in the beginning of their interpretations of the book, but when it comes to keeping all the events of Rev. 4-22 after the churches they generally all fail to stick by this fact. They will place some of the events of the seals, trumpets, and vials back in the Church Age and explain them as being fulfilled before the rapture. They will explain the woman and the man child in connection with the church of this age, whereas Jesus told John they were part of the "things" which MUST BE after the churches. They will interpret the dragon, the beast, the false prophet, or some other event of Rev. 4-22 as being fulfilled along with the churches, while the truth is they are part of the things which MUST BE after the churches. If the reader will watch this he will at least be sensible enough to place these events of Rev. 4-22 where they belong - AFTER THE CHURCHES - and therefore, after the rapture of the church.
â€â€Dake's Topics
 
XTruth said:
The Key to the Interpretation
"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" (Rev. 1:19).
1. PART I. "The things which thou hast seen"; that is, Christ in the midst of the seven candlesticks (Rev. 1:12-18, 20), as seen by John before he began to write.
2. PART II. "The things which are"; that is, the things concerning the churches then existent and those which should exist throughout the Church Age to the rapture. This division takes in only Rev. 2-3.
3. PART III. "The things which shall be hereafter"...
â€â€Dake's Topics
So "The things which are" is actually "The things which are, and are not yet, but not so not yet as to be hereafter"? Sorry, Dake's key doesn't work. :verysad
 
The Historical Evidence for Revelation having been written after A.D. 90

Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202 ) concerning the name of the Antichrist, by adding up the numerical values of Greek letters of names summing to 666, wrote this about John's writing of Revelation:

...for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign. Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 70, Section 3

Irenaeus states that John, who wrote The Apocalypse beheld the apocalyptic vision towards the end of Domitian's reign. Domitian reigned from A.D. 81 until his death in A.D. 96. Although "toward the end of Domintian's reign may not have been in 96, it was surely later than 90.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217) wrote that "a true witness of the tradition of the apostles" is that John, Christ's disciple remained with the church at Ephesus until "the times of Trajan" Now Trajan was emperor of Rome from A.D. 98 to A.D. 117. Other early writers affirm that John lived until he was a very old man.

Clement of Alexandria also wrote concerning John, Christ's disciple:

For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.

So John returned from banishment to Patmos (where he wrote Revelation) after the tyrant's death. Domitian was certainly a tyrant, but was he "the tyrant" to whom Clement referred in the quote above?
It could well have been, although some say it was Nero:

Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 263-339) also quoted Irenaeus' statement that John saw the revelation at the end of the reign of Domitian:

It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation,
at the end of the reign of Domitian.â€Â

The Historical Evidence for Revelation having been written prior to A.D. 70

There is none. There is a complete lack of evidence. Preterists simply affirm that it is so, for if they accepted a date after 90 A.D. they would have to admit that the prophecies in Revelation were not fulfilled in 70 A.D.
 
Paidion said:
The Historical Evidence for Revelation having been written prior to A.D. 70

There is none. There is a complete lack of evidence. Preterists simply affirm that it is so

Oh Boy......Totally, absolutely 100% INCORRECT.


The book of Revelation was written by St. John between AD 66-68, in the final years of the Neronic persecution. The internal evidence of the book cements the early date, and the external evidence for this date is firmly attested to by many well-known scholars and early Church writings. Here's just a wee a sampling of the external and internal evidence that supports the early date under Nero's reign.

Quotes from Scholars on the Date of Revelation

Robert Young (late 1800s)
"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. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)

Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)

"Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called 'the most soul-stirring of all ancient history.' But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (The History of the Christian Church, Vol I; 6:38)

George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)

Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1871)
"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 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. (3) 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 Caesar. (4) 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)...(5) 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." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible - 1871)

A.N. Wilson (1977)
"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated? Such a radical view inspired J.A.T. Robinson's 'Redating the New Testament,' which made a spirited case for supposing that all the books of the canon were completed before 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 254)

"The historian who tries to date and place John's Revelation is guided by the author to a quite specific time span. The words of Revelation are written down four years after the Roman fire, and shortly after Nero's own death. We know that they were written before the ultimate calamity of the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70...He writes of the earthly temple as still in existence [Rev 11:1-2]." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 11)

"In Paul's lifetime, and Nero's, there was no such thing as the New Testament--even though some of its individual writings (perhaps all of them in some primitive form) could be dated to before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle - p. 19)


Testimony from Early Church History


Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403)
"[John], who prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]...the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed." (Epiphanius, Panarion/Heresies 51:12,33)

Clement (150-215)
"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." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

(On the Timing of John's Banishment)
"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, 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 [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603)

Note on the Muratorian Canon: Sometime between A.D. 170 and 200, someone drew up a list of canonical books. This list, known as the Muratorian Canon, is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. Yet, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68.

Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century)
"The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)

Arethas (sixth century)
"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" (From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1871)

(On Revelation 6:12) "Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian."

(On Revelation 7:1) "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ."

(On Revelation 7:4) "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

Papias (first century)
"Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)



Examining the Evidence for the Late (Domitian) Date (AD96)


All belief in the late date rests upon one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174. All those that hold to the late date do so because of this one uncertain phrase by Irenaeus, and it is highly controversial as to what Irenaeus said. Apologist H. Daniel Denham notes that the testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the late date, and goes on to admit some problems with this "bastion of evidence." First, the Greek language of Irenaeus can be understood to refer not to the Revelation, but to John being seen on Patmos. Second, he observes it is possible that Irenaeus has been misunderstood. Scholar Robert Young stated that the name Domitianou, referring actually to Nero, was mistaken by later writers for Domitian. Irenaeus' quote is listed below, with a few comments from well-respected scholars:

Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

H. Daniel Denham (1979)
"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg
"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the...ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus' estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation: Four Views, p.18)

F.W. Farrar (1831-1904)
On Early Church Fathers that openly rejected Irenaeus' testimony
"The Alogi at the close of the second century rejected it [Revelation] only on internal grounds, and their judgment is of no importance. Gaius (circ. 200) appears to attribute it to Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 247) was inclined, on the grounds of style, to assign it to some other John, but speaks of it with reverence. Eusebius wavers about it, placing it among the spurious books in one passage, and among the acknowledged books in another. Cyril of Jerusalem (386) deliberately excludes it from the Canon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 381) omits it. Amphilochius, in his Jamb. ad Selecus, says that 'most' regard it as spurious. Junilius, even in the sixth, says that among the members of the Eastern Church it was viewed with great suspicion. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) never cites it. Theodoret (457) alludes to it very slightly. It is not found in the Peshito. The Nestorian Church rejected it. It is not mentioned in the sixth century by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Nicephorus (ninth century) in his Chronographia omits it. Even in the fourteenth century Nicephorus Callistus, while accepting it, thinks it necessary to mention that some held it to be the work of 'John the Presbyter,' regarded as a different person from 'John the Apostle.' " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

"...the authority of Irenaeus was not regarded as decisive, even if his meaning be undisputed. Tertullian places the banishment to Patmos immediately after the deliverance from the cauldron of boiling oil, and Jerome says that this took place in the reign of Nero. Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero. To these must be added the author of the 'Life of Timotheus,' of which extracts are preserved by Photius. Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that 'John was banished by the tyrant,' and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian. Moreover, if we accept erroneous tradition of inference from the ambiguous expressions of Irenaeus, we are landed in insuperable difficulties. By the time that Domitian died, St. John was, according to all testimony, so old and so infirm that even if there were no other obstacles in the way, it is impossible to conceive of him as writing the fiery pages of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus may have been misinterpreted; but even if not, he might have made a 'slip of memory,' and confused Domitian with Nero. ... We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero. " (F.W. Farrar; The Apocalypse)

Internal Evidence for the Early (Neronic) Date

As stated earlier in one of the above quotes, scholar Robert Young (best known for the Young's Analytical Concordance and his Literal Translation of the Bible) believes Revelation was written during Nero's reign. Furthermore, he claims that the internal testimony of the book is "wholly in favor of the earlier date." The following points are evidences from within the Book of Revelation itself that confirm the early date of its writing:

(1) The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70.

(3) The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation chapter 11. John is sent to measure the city and temple, and Jerusalem is said to be under siege at the time of writing. It would not be possible for John to speak of these as still standing after 70 AD, for they were utterly destroyed at that date. And, if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening--the destruction of Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest disaster in antiquity, and surely the greatest disaster in Israel's history. To imagine St. John overlooking the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple while he discusses both as if they were still standing, is impossible. Rather, St. John is prophesing their impending doom just two or three years before they were made utterly desolate.

(4) There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original possibly surviving past that time.

(5) Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. For certain, none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

(6) Almost all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked directly to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet Discourse demonstrate that it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of these same events.

(7) The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are as follows: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while--Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.
 
Back
Top