Author Topic: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD  (Read 6226 times)

Pete

  • Sr. Member
  • Posts: 272
    • View Profile
1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« on: June 10, 2008, 04:40:15 PM »
(disappeared then restored from database)

Pete:
"Regarding John's audience, you may not be in it but I am:
Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ...

Preterist:
PUT YOURSELF IN 67 AD WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN AND YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NERO'S PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH = THE TRIBULATION.
DOMITIAN DID NOT PERSECUTE THE CHURCH - HE PRESECUTED EVERYONE.

Pete:
Regarding the early writers confirming the dating of Revelation, please review the following link (for openers), and then respond with historical support for it NOT BEING Domitian who banished John to Patmos.
http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret01.html

Preterist:

I'LL GET BACK TO YOU ON THIS...

June 10th moved to this forum.

Pete says please do.

You must necessarily rewrite history, or abondon your doctrine altogether.
In other words, if you cannot make a compelling case that history up until the 20th century was wrong, there is no need for us to discuss your doctrine further.
After all, it is only those that hold your doctrine that seek to rewrite history.

An exerpt from the link:
"The date of the writing of Revelation has been hotly disputed by preterists. Until the last century, Christian tradition has placed John's exile to Patmos during the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81-96).

The dispute over the date of the composition of Revelation is a crucial one. If it was composed by John after AD70 and the fall of Jerusalem preterism is at once refuted. Revelation is a prophetic book, predicting the coming of Christ in the future. A post-AD70 date makes equating the coming of Christ with the destruction of Jerusalem utterly impossible.

There is no question that Revelation was written while John was a prisoner of the Roman state, exiled to the prison island of Patmos. That much can be gathered from the first chapter of Revelation. "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."[1]

There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a large scale in the first century, Nero and Domitian. The other Emperors were either indifferent to Christianity, or did not consider it a serious threat to Rome. The first Roman persecution under Nero took place in the decade of the 60s, just before the fall of Jerusalem. Nero was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in Rome in AD67, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by being beheaded.

There is no record of Nero's banishing Christians to Patmos, only his brutality against the Christians of Rome. It was Nero who made a sport of throwing Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds, and who burned many at the stake along the road leading to the Coliseum merely to light the entrance.

After Nero's death Rome left the Christians alone until the rise of Domitian to power in AD81. Although not as cruel and insane as Nero, Domitian had some Christians killed, the property of Christians confiscated, Scriptures and other Christian books burned, houses destroyed, and many of the most prominent Christians banished to the prison island of Patmos.

All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John's banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero's reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John.

Eusebius the Christian historian, living only two hundred years after Domitian's reign, gathered evidence from both Christian and secular sources that were still extant at the time (some of which are no longer extant today). All of the sources at Eusebius' disposal placed the date of John's Patmos exile during the reign of Domitian. Eusebius' earliest source was Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John. But he also used other unnamed sources both Christian and secular to place the date of the Patmos exile of Christians during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). "It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] 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.' To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ." [2]

While Eusebius quoted Irenaeus' statement, notice that he also indicated that other secular histories at his disposal accurately indicated the banishment of Christians to Patmos occurred during Domitian's reign.

Eusebius continues: "Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: 'Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.' But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's horrors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition." [3]

Here again Eusebius mentioned an ancient Christian tradition, but did not quote his sources, that placed John's return from exile on Patmos after Domitian's fifteen year reign, and Nerva's rise to power (AD96).

There is more early evidence, both explicit and implicit, from other early writers prior to Eusebius, as follows:

Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw (Italy), agreed with Irenaeus. That Victorinus did not rely on Irenaeus for his information is clear from the fuller details of his statement not referenced by Irenaeus. "'And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.' He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor 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." [4]

A little farther, Victorinus again made the same claim. "The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba."[5]

Clement of Alexandria (AD150-220) recounted a story about John shortly after his return from exile, while a very old man. "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. 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." [6]

The expression "the tyrant's death" can only refer to the death of either Nero or Domitian, the only two "tyrants" that ruled in the first century. Eusebius related that upon the death of Domitian, the Roman senate voted to release those exiled by Domitian. This seems to parallel Clement's statement above. However, the above statement COULD refer to Nero, except for one fact. In the story that Clement related, he clearly stated that John was a very old and feeble man.

The story is about a young new convert whom John entrusted to a certain elder to disciple in the Faith. The man had formerly been a thief and robber. Upon John's return from exile on Patmos, he heard that this young man had returned to his old life of crime. Upon hearing this, he sharply rebuked the elder in whose custody he had left him. John immediately set out for the place where this robber and his band were known to lurk. Upon reaching the place, he was assaulted by the band of robbers. He demanded of them to take him to their leader. They brought John to the very man whom John had formerly won to Christ, and left in the custody of the elder. When the young man saw John approaching, he began to run away. John began to run after him, calling, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.” John then explained to him that forgiveness and restoration was still possible. Clement then stated, "And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church." [7]

From this account we see that upon John's release from exile on Patmos, he was a feeble old man. John could have been in his teens or twenties when Jesus called him. He and his brother James were working with their father as fishermen (Matt. 4:21-22). Assuming John was in his twenties, he would have been in his eighties in AD96. If he was in his teens when Jesus called him, he would have been in his seventies at the end of Domitian's reign. However, if the "tyrant" referred to by Clement was Nero, then John would have still been fairly young by the time of Nero's death, perhaps in his forties, fifties, or early sixties. He would hardly be spoken of as a feeble old man by Clement.

That John lived until after the reign of Domitian is also shown by Irenaeus' repeated references to his own mentor, Polycarp, being John's disciple.[8] Polycarp was born in AD65, and died in AD155. He was five years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. He was two years old when Nero died. His being tutored by John therefore must have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward.

More than one early writer mentioned the persecution of the Apostles under Nero. They spoke of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but made no mention of John's exile during this persecution.

As is obvious to the unbiased reader, the early external evidence that Revelation was written under the reign of Domitian is indisputable. No evidence exists, from the first three centuries of Christian tradition, placing the composition of Revelation during the reign of Nero. Nor is there any evidence (Christian or secular) that Nero exiled any Christians to Patmos.

Much more at the link.
http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret01.html
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 11:22:57 AM by Peter »
Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake
Please visit: http://www.beholdthebeast.com/
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/

Pete

  • Sr. Member
  • Posts: 272
    • View Profile
Re: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2008, 07:56:44 AM »
Preterist:

"PUT YOURSELF IN 67 AD WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN AND YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NERO'S PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH = THE TRIBULATION.
DOMITIAN DID NOT PERSECUTE THE CHURCH - HE PRESECUTED EVERYONE."

Pete:

You seem to be suggesting that John's PROPHETIC VISION is, instead, a historical account.

Please correct me if this is wrong, but as I remember you also thought that John's measuring of the temple of Rev 11:1 was literally measuring a literal temple.
Two problems.
1) The measuring occurs within John's VISION.
2) we know that the physical context surrounding John was the Isle of Patmos. No temple there to measure.

Additionally:

Nero ruled from 54 to 68AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

Even were your pop 20th century dating of Revelation were correct:
"PUT YOURSELF IN 67 AD WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN AND YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NERO'S PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH = THE TRIBULATION."

It would still be untenable:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

We can see that John is saying that they had heard that the (spirit of) antichrist, (but as you suggest, Nero) "shall come", that is, in John's FUTURE.

Even if your presumption that Nero was "The" "Antichrist" were correct, and even if your incorrect dating were correct and John was writing in 67AD, Nero reigned from 54 to 68. In the verse, John would then be indicating that Nero "shall come" even though Nero's reign would have begun 13 years before your claim of the dating of Revelation in 67AD. Perhaps even you can see the difficulty with that.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 01:21:44 PM by Peter »
Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake
Please visit: http://www.beholdthebeast.com/
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2012, 11:23:27 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Dating

Dating

According to early tradition, this book was composed near the end of Domitian's reign, around the year 95 AD. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69 AD, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[19] The majority of modern scholars accept one of these two dates, with most accepting the Domitianic one.[20]

Those who favour the later date appeal to the earliest external testimony, that of the Christian father Irenaeus (c. 150-202),[21] who wrote that he received his information from people who knew John personally. Domitian, according to Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339), started the persecution referred to in the book. While some recent scholars have questioned the existence of a large-scale Domitian persecution,[22] others believe that Domitian's insistence on being treated as a god may have been a source of friction between the Church and Rome.[23]

The earlier date, first proposed in modern times by John Robinson in a closely argued chapter of "Redating the New Testament" (1976), relies on the book's internal evidence, given that no external testimony exists earlier than that of Irenaeus, noted above, and the earliest extant manuscript evidence of Revelation (P98) is likewise dated no earlier than the late 2nd century. This early dating is centered on the preterist interpretation of chapter 17, where the seven heads of the "beast" are regarded as the succession of Roman emperors up to the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD,[24] Caligula through Vespasian.

Some interpreters attempt to reconcile the two dates by placing the visions themselves at the earlier date (during the 60s) and the publication of Revelation under Domitian, who reigned in the 90s when Irenaeus says the book was written.[25]

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2012, 09:39:51 AM »

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2012, 04:46:25 PM »
Copy and pasted from this site: http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/DatingTheBookOfRevelation.html

Dating the Book of Revelation

by Steve A. Hamilton

The date when the book of Revelation was written has been a controversial subject for centuries. The insight I have gained and relate in this article is not likely to change the debate in favor of any certain date. However, after reading many different sources on the subject, I have not found anyone who has addressed Hegesippus’ testimony as it relates to the dating of the book of Revelation.

Eusebius was a fourth century historian who preserved many early writings. He is credited with quoting Irenaeus’ testimony (abt. 180 A.D.) that John wrote the book of Revelation near the end of Domitian’s reign. Domitian was executed in 96 A.D. “Eusebius quoted also Hegesippus’ testimony [abt. 150 A.D.] that John returned to Ephesus upon being released from exile after the accession of Nerva in A. D. 96 (HE III. xx).” Nerva was the successor to Domitian and served as the Roman Emperor from 96 A.D. to 98 A.D.

Barring any evidence to the contrary or attacks on the credibility of Eusebius, this information presents a real problem for those who hold to the early date (abt. 64-68 A.D.) for the writing of the book of Revelation. John has told us he “was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:9). Please notice the past tense implies John wrote what he experienced after he was off the island. The only logical conclusion is that John wrote the book of Revelation after 96 A.D.

Arthur M. Ogden, the well known author of “The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets” among members of the churches of Christ, advances the early date in his commentary on the book of Revelation. He states, “If the late date is accepted, it would be impractical and meaningless to interpret the book in the light of the fall of Israel.” Therefore, I would expect Brother Ogden to make a most convincing argument to contradict the quotes given by Eusebius. He acknowledges “the strongest arguments for the late date” are made concerning Ireanaeus’ testimony. However, he gives a weak defense by implying through another commentator who uses Robert Young’s statement (late 1800), that Ireaneus really meant Nero. Brother Ogden goes on to question the reliability of Ireanaeus’ statement. Yet, he never even mentions Hegesippus’ testimony by the same historian (Eusebius).

Logically speaking, if the early date is correct and Hegesippus’ testimony is also correct then John was in exile for some thirty years. If John wrote the book of Revelation while on the island (as early date proponents support) then we are left wondering how he got the document off the island in time for it to provide comfort to the reader before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.). Of course, we are assuming that John had access to scarce writing materials while he was a prisoner on a secluded island. And if we can locate John in any other place other than the Isle of Patmos between 64 A.D. and 96 A.D. then we would know for sure that the early date is inaccurate.

If we add the testimony of Victorinus (late 3rd century) and Jerome (late 4th century) we come to the same logical conclusion. Both of these men expressly testify that John was sent to the Isle of Patmos by Domitian. In fact, Jerome identifies the 14th year of Domitian’s reign as to when John was sent to Patmos.

The only external evidence Brother Ogden uses in support of an early date is the Syriac Version. He writes, “The Syriac Version of the New Testament, which is the oldest version of the New Testament, dating all the way back to the second century, places the Revelation in the period of Nero, 68 A.D.” The oldest Syriac Version of the New Testament is called the Peschito. “The Old Syriac Peschito version does not contain the Apocalypse.” Subsequent Syriac versions do include the Book of Revelation but not the oldest one that dates back to the second century.

The reason Brother Ogden made such a bold statement concerning the Syriac Version of the New Testament is due to a title inserted into a translation known as the Syriac Vulgate Bible that was dated to the 6th century. The uninspired title asserts that John wrote the Apocalypse in Patmos where he was sent by Nero Caesar. The title is not part of any earlier manuscript from which that version was translated. Therefore, it is 6th century evidence and not 2nd century evidence as implied in his statement.

The external evidence used in this article to support a later date for the writing of the book of Revelation is from the 2nd century to the 4th century. The external evidence against an early date for the writing of the Book of Revelation is pretty solid.



PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4106
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2013, 01:27:10 PM »
Here's some unverified copy and paste that was posted in response to my thread on this topic.

This from one poster:

"The early date was held by the Muratorian Canon and Epiphanius (who is quoting Hippolytus of Rome according to scholarship). Jerome quotes "ecclesiastical histories" as saying that John was banished to Patmos by Nero. Syriac inscriptions from the sixth century or so state that Revelation was seen under Nero. Andreas states that many interpreted Revelation of the fall of Jerusalem. Dorotheus before 1100 states John was banished about 64/65. Scholars including Lightfoot, Hort, Schaff, Bousset, Adam Clarke, Isaac Newton--all of these before Robinson, and many more could be named."

"Yes, Eusebius argued for the late Domitianic banishment of John--interesting he doesn't cite anyone for clear support."

"I have noted the Syriac inscription to Revelation, and Dorotheus. I can provide the title of a book which tries to provide an exhaustive treatment, if you wish."

From another:

"The late date opinion was founded on a misunderstanding of Ireneous's statement that If it was necessary for the people of his day to know the name of the anti-christ[he speculated that it would be a Titan] that it would have been revealed to them by him who had seen the vision, for [that, he or it] was seen no so long ago, almost in our day, in the reign of domitian. The subject and topic of Ireneous' discourse is deciphering the name from that number of the beast, and he says that if his name was to be known, it wouild have been named by HIM who saw the vision, for [THAT disciple, as John called himself; OR HE, referring John] was seen in the reign of domitian. See quote included below. " It" is a questionably used pronoun in translation of Iraenous, which would refer to the vision; but John w is the subject of the sentence. In section 4 [see below] the writer says that "HE" does give them the number [not the name] now, so that when he comes, they may avoid him. The "he, that, it"] of the last sentence of section 3 seems to be the identical subject of the pronoun of the first sentence of paragraph 4.

John lived till domitians reign and there is evidence that he was imprisoned under Nero and again by Domitian on the aisle of Patmos, which adds confusion to the events. See discussion at blog.

Furthermore; Clement sayst that after being released from Patmos by "the tyrant", that he engaged on a series of years of church visitation and support, including event of possibly 10+ yrs in which he by horseback, sought a disciple which he had left in the care of the church of Ephesus, but who upon reaching adulthood, engaged in negative activities. John, taking responsibility upon himself requested a horse, and found him and restored him to faith and the way more honoring to the father. Those activities simply CANNOT FIT into the timeframe of a man from age 95 to 100, and which he was carried to churches on a stretcher during his last years.

Furthermore, Vicotrinus makes a statement in @ 270 AD that the Revelelation refered to events of the decline and fall of Jerusalem, but that it was also a foretype of the events predicting the fall of the Roman empire. He says that to miss this understanding would invoke confusion. Though I don't personally find the necessity or support for the end of the mosaic covenant to be a foretype applicable to the Roman empire. The end of the Roman empire is also foretold in Dan 7:26; and the Roman empire fell in @475AD. And this end of the Roman empire [WORLD] is what several of the ECFS were further predicting {without authority} in their writings. But I know of no authority for them to teach a 'replay' the events in judea upon Rome."

From a full preterist that apparently doesn't know that all bible prophesy was supposed to have been fulfilled by 70 AD. Let alone that he believes he is authorized to juggle verses around and understand them out of chronological order, to suit his preconceived notions and personal brand of preterist doctrine.

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 4106
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: 1 - Dating of the book of Revelaion to ~95AD
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2015, 07:07:37 AM »
Dating Revelation as per partial-preterist:
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/?p=3079