A quick response to your question this is what I see....Irenaeus reports that John received the revelation toward the end of the reign of Domitian. (Domitian's reign ended in A.D. 96) most scholars date Revelation in the mid-90s. Some, however, have argued for a date during Nero's reign, A.D. 54-68 and before the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
Hello Chopper. This is what I found on the dating of Revelation and Irenaeous.
Consider this passage from his writings.
"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 apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."
First, the translation problem. The statement “that was seen” (or “it was seen”) grammatically may refer either to one of two antecedents. It may refer either to “the apocalyptic vision” (i.e., Revelation) or to
“him who beheld the apocalyptic vision” (i.e., John). Here the verb may legitimately be translated either “
it was seen” or “he was seen.”
Second, if this reference speaks of the date of the
writing of Revelation and not the
date to which John the author lived, then we have an unusual situation. Earlier in the same chapter Irenaeus speaks of “ancient copies” of Revelation (
Heresies 5:30:1). Would he argue in one paragraph about the
ancient copies of the book and then a few paragraphs later about the book’s original composition
near to his own time? Surely the book was written earlier — in “ancient” times — even though John himself is presumed to have lived almost into Irenaeus’ day.
Third assuming the common translation of Irenaeus’ statement, we must note that a major element of his proof is his reference to eyewitnesses. But Irenaeus uses eyewitnesses in another place to prove that Jesus lived to be almost fifty years old!! Consider this passage from his writings - "But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught."
How reliable is Irenaeous then for dating Revelations if he writes that Jesus was 50 years old when he was crucified. Therefore, I believe Revelation can be dated more reliably from the Scriptures themselves. This is what I've discovered on this.
1 -The many "coming soon" and "at hand" passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. - there was nothing left of the Jewish state.
2- The Beast (which most if not all scholars agree represents Rome) was ruled by its 6th head ("head" = "king" see: 17:10) which was already in existence in John's day. Of the 7 heads (kings) only one was left - by 95 A.D. Rome was long past its 7th Caesar.
3 - A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.).
4 - There were still Judaizers in the church at that time (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) - impossible after 70A.D.
5 - The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11.
6 - If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere.
7 - Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around - yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D..
8 - Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking.
9 - The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60's.
10 -John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man.
I have to tell you that I myself am not completely reconciled to this view, but it is starting to make sense to me. Irenaeous was a stumbling block, but I think I can reconcile his writings by realizing that he may not have been saying that it was written in 95 AD (see second statement above on ancient copies). Now I must read Revelation carefully, because somewhere there must be a shift to the future for as we know, the 2nd coming of our Lord Jesus has not occurred yet.
Hope this helps in our endeavor to come up with an end time doctrine based on scriptures.
I like your sequence of events Eugene, it sounds very logical. I'm in the process of recording all the posts that, as a group, we concur. Thank you very much for your input. I value your thinking and participation on this forum project. (I hope it's all right to call it a "forum project").
If I started a thread on pre-trib, I'd get a lot of posts refuting it, some would agree. That's what happens with end time threads. My purpose in this thread is for ALL who are interested, to form an end times doctrine that WE in the forum can agree upon with new studies on each topic. Normally we just throw out what we've been taught. Look, we have ONE HOLY SPIRIT, it seems to me that if we pray for understanding, admit that we could be wrong and study each person's idea, we could, perhaps, see where that person is coming from and change our thinking. And hopefully not fall flat on our face.