Dating the book of Revelation

This document is presented considering the question of when the book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John. Did he write it before the fall of Jerusalem (early date) or after the fall of Jerusalem (late date). To solve this question, one must look for proof. In this situation, there are 2 main sources of truth. We have internal proof which is proof found in the inspired book, the Bible, and there are external proofs which are writings by non-inspired men. We will first look at the external proof and will start with the most influential church father who is named Irenaeus.

Irenaeus, Bishop Of LyonsThe most obvious starting point in this study is with Irenaeus. He is considered to be the most important witness for several reasons.

1)   He speaks directly (it seems) to the issue at hand.

2)   He is an indisputable, important church father whose stature demands his hearing.

3)   He wrote the works about 180 to 190 A.D. not long after the destruction of Jerusalem.

4)   He claims to have known Polycarp who in turn may have personally known John, the writer of Revelation.

There are however a couple warnings that one must consider when using this witness.

1)   As a man with his writings, he is not inspired so he cannot escape the possibilities of error.

2)   As is mentioned below, his writing is not always clear. One must consider other sources to determine what he might have meant.

3)   We also have the problem of the quality of the translation.

4)   We need to consider the perspective or the bias of the person who is reading it.

When considering the person, we can mention a few problems with respect to Irenaeus.

1)   Irenaeus believed that Jesus taught in His forties, even to His fifties in age.

2)   Irenaeus states that Papias was “the hearer of John.” Eusebius does not share that opinion. According to Eusebius he wished he could have talked to any of the “presbyters”.

3)   Although Irenaeus knew Polycarp who had spoken to the Apostle John, a lot of time had elapsed (probably ¾ of a century) from his conversation with Polycarp and the time he wrote his book that people so often quote.

4)   Irenaeus believed that the book of Hermas was canonical that the head of the Nicolaitans was the Deacon Nicolas; and that the version of the Septuagint LXX. was written by inspiration.

5)   Guthrie admits that Irenaeus is too often uncritical in his evaluation of evidence (wrong doctrine).

6)   James Moffatt, observes that “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.”

Understanding that Irenaeus did not speak by inspiration, being just a fallen man subject to error like all of us, it’s also good to consider that many of the writings used as proof of late day Revelations were by men who had read and had been influenced by these writings that are in question by many. The most influential writing that people refer to is in his book called “Against Heresies”.

There has been a lot of debate about the translation of Irenaeus’ statement (which follows below). John A.T. Robinson states “this translation has been disputed by a number of scholars.”

The first set of problems has to do with the structure of the writing as follows.

“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.”

The first set of difficulties has to do with;

The late day proponents insist that Irenaeus is saying that it was the vision was seen near the Domitian’s reign (after the fall of Jerusalem).

The question that has been asked is “was it the vision that was not so long ago”, or “the apostle John that was seen not so long ago. “

Contrary to what the late day proponents are claiming, Irenaeus was probably saying (my paraphrasing) 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 he (John) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Keeping in mind that as stated, the fall of Jerusalem had just transpired not so long ago and apparently John did live till the end of Domitian’s reign, in fact also past the reign of the Emperor Nera and then to Trajan the following emperor.

Second problem, Irenaeus was not always clear in his writings.

According to Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut,” Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix.”

For this reason, that statement alone cannot be used as a strong proof of which was meant. The person John, or the apocalypse itself. Irenaeus was not clear in some of his writings, so we need to compare other sources to help us.

So now we list other sources, and we remember that some of these sources will be of a late date, some of which will probably have been influenced by the ambiguous statement of “that was seen”. Clement of Alexandria,

The Shepherd of Hermas, there is strong consensus that the Shepherd of Hermas was written in the 80s AD, and much of the writing seem to parallel the book of Revelation.  It appears that the Hermas was “clearly acquainted with the Revelation of John” Lawson, Apostolic Fathers, p. 220

For Revelation to have written by hand, to have been copied, to have made its way to Rome by the 80s, and to have influenced the writing of another work, this would be strong evidence that it existed a good deal of time before A.D.85 supporting a time before the destruction of Jerusalem 70 A.D.

The Muratorian Canon

Written between 170 A.D. states: the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.” Then he writes: John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, though he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. “

It is universally agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70 either in 67 or 68 A.D.

Tertullian

But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy Church is that! on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.

Origen

One of the giants of church history

States: “The King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore testimony, on account of the word of truth, to the isle of Patmos. John, moreover, teaches us things respecting his testimony [i.e., martyrdom], without saying who condemned him when he utters these things in the Apocalypse. He seems also to have seen the Apocalypse . . . in the island.”

In this statement, it does not say who the King of the Remans is Nero or Domitian.

Victorious

“When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.”

First, this contradicts the other testimonies, also, it means that John was sent to the mines at an age of between 90 and 100 years old and after this to return to Ephesus with enough strength to reorganize the Asia churches and survive several years or more.

The Acts of John

This work which suggests a prior publication of Revelation suggests Revelation to be in the Domitianic time. The reasoning is that (they are saying) that John was banished twice, once under Nero and later under Domitian, thus giving us 2 traditions, one of Neronic and Domitianic exile. This document says that John appeared before Domitian who sent him away to an island, appointing for him a set time. If as suggested, John was also banished under Nero, who is to say which banishment provided the writing of Revelations?

Eusebius Pamphili

Bishop of Caesarea.

He mentions that Domitian had followed the cruelty of Nero and says: at this time the Apostle and Evangelist John was still alive and was condemned to live in the island of Patmos for his witness to the divine word.

The problem with his testimony is that Irenaeus’ writings and misinterpretation had already been well established. And also, Eusebius was far inferior a historian than his predecessors. Schaff, History 1:28.

In fact, Torrey adamantly states of the post-lrenaean, late date traditions: “the ultimate source in every case [are] the statements of Irenaeus.” Which as we said, are open to reinterpretation.

Epiphanies of Salamis

Epiphanies A.D. 367 mentions that John “who prophesied in the time of Claudius…the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed”

Nero’s full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Jerome

Jerome in 393 A.D. says of John that he was “a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more- over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in.”

The problem with this statement is the mention of the traditions of John being plunged into a jar of boiling oil. That account belongs to the tradition that claims it was Nero who sent John into the boiling oil. May be suggest a bit of confusion of this non-inspired writer?

Seriac

The History of John is a Syriac legend that follows the mission of the apostle John the son of Zebedee in the city of Ephesus. In this legend, it states: “After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles, Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he sent [and] took all that the procurator hand and imprisoned him; and laid hold of S. John and drove him into exile; and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste.

Here we have John’s banishment under Nero.

Arethas

According to A. R. Fausset, “Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event .“ He also states “When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Remans.”

Theophylact

A much later witness is Theophylact, Metropolitan of Bulgaria and noted Byzantine exegete (d. 1107). He gives evidence of a dual tradition on John’s banishment. He puts Revelation “under Trajan, but elsewhere gives a date which would bring it into the time of Nero.” With all that we just quoted, neither opinion is open and shut case and, in my opinion, an early date has the most evidence. But also remember that this is from non-inspired writers. All the evidence for a later book of Revelations is from external sources-uninspired writers.

The early date opinion has both internal and external evidences. This is where Christians should always start. We start with the Bible as follows:

We start with the theme of Revelation. It is generally agreed that Revelation 1:7 is the theme; “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen.” God’s “Coming in the clouds” is indicative of God coming in judgement. The Old Testament frequently uses clouds as indicators of divine judgment. God is said to be surrounded with thick, foreboding clouds as emblems of His unapproachable holiness and righteousness (Gen. 15:17; Ex. 13:21- 22; 14:19-20; 19:9, 16-19; Deut. 4:11; Job 22:14; Psa. 18:8ff.; 97:2; 104:3; Isa. 19: 1; Eze. 32:7-8). He is poetically portrayed as coming in clouds in historical judgments upon men (Psa. 18:7-15; 104:3; Isa. 19:1; Joel 2:1, 2; Nab. l:2ff.; Zeph. 1:14, 15). Thus, the New Testament speaks of Christ’s coming in clouds of judgment in history at Matthew 24:30 and 26:64, not to mention His Second Coming at the end of world history (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4: 13ff.).

And the verse also says;” And every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him.” We Remember when Pilate said that his hands were rid of the blood of Jesus and the Jews said, “His blood be on us and on our children” They who were responsible for the piercing of Jesus would see His coming in Judgement. Also remember in Acts 2:22-23 Peter said “…this man you …you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death…

Also in revelation 1:7 he talks about …the tribes of the earth”. The Greek word for “tribe” is the one that frequently refers to the Jewish tribes.

Robert Young’s L i t e r a l Translation of the Holy Bible translates it: “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!”

We even see this in Zechariah 12:10-11

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

So then, the theme of Revelations focuses on the fact that Jesus was about to judge His enemies, including “those who pierced Him”. This was a warning of impending judgement on Jerusalem. Early date. A second internal proof is that of the expected time that the judgement would take place: Revelation 1:1 …”the things which must shortly take place”…

Revelation 2:16 …”I am coming to you quickly”…

Revelation 3:11 …”I am coming to you quickly”…

Revelation 22:6 …”the things which must shortly take place”…

Revelation 22:7, 12, 20 …”the things which must shortly take place…”

…”I am coming quickly”…

…”Yes, I am coming quickly”…

Now if we believe that God has given His Word to common man, it’s easy to see that in this He means that it’s coming soon, close to the day. This is basic hermeneutics. Remember in chapter 1 we read that God gave this revelation to Christ to show His servants what will shortly take place.

I find that some, when they find a truth in the Bible, that doesn’t fit what they believe, they will leave the natural obvious meaning of the words and concoct something that fits with the way they want to believe. One such massaging of this word “shortly” is that people will quote 2 Peter 3:8 and say, “yes but a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. By doing this, they take this verse totally out of its context. This 2 Peter verse has to do with the fact that God is not subject to time, in fact He created it, And He can patiently wait. It has nothing to do with the angel speaking to John and saying, “these things will shortly take place”. In fact, the very people who misquote this verse claiming that “time words” like “shortly” cannot be taken literally” will then go to Revelation 20 and strongly assert that the thousand years spoken about absolutely must be taken literally! Inconsistency!

The scholar Kurt Aland in I History of Christianity says of this word “shortly”:

In the original text, the Greek word used is taxu, and this does not mean “soon, “in the sense of “sometime,” but rather “now,” “immediately.” Therefore, we must understand Rev. 22:12 in this way: “I am coming now, bringing my recompense.” The concluding word of Rev. 22:20 is: “He who testifies to these things says, ‘surely, I am coming soon.’” Here we again find the word taxu, so this means: I am coming quickly, immediately. This is followed by the prayer: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” . . . The Apocalypse expresses the fervent waiting for the end within the circles in which the writer lived — not an expectation that will happen at some unknown point X in time (just to repeat this), but one in the immediate present. There is also the word eggus which means “near”

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of’ the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “DO not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.”

The word is a combination of two words which means “at hand”

Thayer expands on the idea of the word: “of Time; concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass.” He lists Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 in his series of examples. The word is used frequently of chronologically near events, such as approaching summer (Matt. 24:32), the Passover (Matt. 26: 18; John 2:13; 11:55), the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), etc.

How could events related to the collapse of the Roman Empire two or three hundred years in the future be considered “at hand”.

Then there’s also the word Mello:

Revelation 1:19 “Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall take place after these things.”

Revelation 3:10 “Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.”

Kenneth Gentry says: “when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is: “be on the point of, be about to. the words appear in near proximity with statements made up of the two other word groups indicating “nearness.” It’s very difficult to say this “shortly” and “is about to happen” is talking about something that is going to happen in maybe 2 or 3 thousand years. Third, the identity of the 6th King:

Revelation 17:6-13: saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. 7 Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 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. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.

In the explanation of this passage, we know that the seven hills are the hills of Rome, Palatine, Aventine, Caelian, Esquiline, Viminal, Quirinal, and Capitoline.

Then we have the seven kings which according to writers like the historian Josephus, were: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and finally Galba. At the time John is writing Revelation, 5 kings are fallen, one IS and another will be but only for a short time. If we count the kings, Nero is that 6th the IS, and the one to come is Galba, who history records reigned only for a short period of time, only 7 months.

So, from these verses it’s easy to see that the emperor who was alive while Revelation was being written, was the 6th king Nero. Nero died at 68 AD 2 years before the destruction of the temple.

This proves an early date for Revelation. Fourth, the mentioned Temple in Revelation 11

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.2 But the court, which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

In these verses the Temple is still standing. In face its noteworthy to mention that nowhere in all the New Testament writings, including John’s writings, do we ever have mention of the Temple having been destroyed (past tense).

John A. T. Robinson says: It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at. [i.e., as a past fact – KLG]?

Location of the Temple:

The Temple, altar, and court are said to be located in “the holy city’. Jerusalem is often called “the holy city”. And this temple is to be given over to the Gentiles. Those who think this is the Temple that is to come in the future are missing the point that this temple will be given over to the Gentiles.

In “and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” We read similar things in Matthew and Luke

Luke 21:24 …”and Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles…

In this same chapter, we further hear during the judgement of the witnesses killed and it says …”and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”

This is a clear reference to the Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified. One has to go to great lengths to twist this verse into saying the city where our Lord was crucified is going to be in a future temple way in the future.

Another interesting fact to note was the time Jerusalem would be “tread under foot” by the Gentiles. Bruce in his book “History” says “Vespasian entered northern Israel on his march to Jerusalem going forth “conquering and to conquer” (Rev. 6:2). According to Bruce, Vespasian “arrived the following spring [i.e., the spring of A.D. 67] to take charge of operations.” This marked the official entry of Roman imperial forces into the campaign. Jerusalem and the Temple finally fell and were utterly destroyed by Titus, Vespasian’s son, in late summer, A.D. 70: “Titus began the siege of Jerusalem in April, 70. The defenders held out desperately for five months, but by the end of August the Temple area was occupied and the holy house burned down, and by the end of September all resistance in the city had come to an end.” Now from the time of this official imperial engagement in the Jewish War (early Spring, A.D. 67) until the time of the Temple’s destruction and Jerusalem’s fall (early September, A.D. 70) is a period right at the symbolic figure of 1260 days (or 42 months or 31/2 years).

The same 42 months – 42 months being trampled, and 42 months the Romans destroy- is no accident.

Conclusion:

In this paper I have shown just a little of how overwhelming the evidence is for an early (before the destruction of Jerusalem) writing of the book of Revelation. My main sources were Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson and Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth L Gentry. Due to time required to put it together and the time for some to read it, I did not go through much depth but upon request, if this isn’t enough to convince, there is much much more.

Louis Berkhof’s helpful study, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, teaches that hermeneutics “is properly accomplished only by the readers’ transposing themselves into the time and spirit of the author.” Simply stated, the task of interpreters of the bible is to find out the meaning of a statement (command, question) for the author and for the first hearers or readers, and thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern readers.” Needless to say, removing the setting of the book twenty or more centuries into the future is not conducive to a correct apprehension of its interpretation.

“One of the basic principles of sound interpretation is that a later interpreter must find out what the author of an earlier writing was trying to convey to those who first read his words. ”GG Both the recognition of the parties (author and recipients of the letter) and the purpose of a written document are essential to the proper grasp of the message. Isbon T; Beckwith has well-stated the matter: “For the understanding of the Revelation of John it is essential to put oneself as far as possible, into the world of its author and of those to whom it was first addressed. Its meaning must be sought for in the light thrown upon it by the condition and circumstances of its readers, by the author’s inspired purpose, and those current beliefs and traditions that . . . influenced the fashion which his visions themselves took.”  Supporters of early dating

Rev. Jay E. Adams, C. Gregg Singer, George W. Knight III, Hort, Lightfoot, Wescott, B. W. Henderson, A. Weigall, George Edmundson, A. D. Momiglino and more.

Late day proponents that are not even sure;

Leon Morris:” There appear to be two dates only for which any considerable arguments are available, in the time of the Emperor Domitian, or in or just after that of Nero. while the evidence is far from being so conclusive that no other view is possible, on the whole it seems that a date in the time of Domitian, i.e., c. A.D. 90-95, best suits the facts.

Arthur S. Peak: It may be granted that the case for a date in the reign of Domitian has been sometimes overstated. But this date is probably to be accepted.

J.P.M. Sweet “We have assumed so far that the book was written well after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but the evidence is far from conclusive.

Authors who say that John was banished under Nero:

The apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version, 1897, History of John, the Son of Zebedee in Syriac This paper is an introductory defense of an early date writing by the apostle John of the Book of Revelation. By Robert L Lepine