Dating of revelation

It is simply inadequate to rest in the (unfounded) claim that virtually "everybody" knows that Revelation dates from this or that time. A number of distinguished authors can be cited as supporters of the late date for Revelation.Cohen and Hendriksen list Alford, Godet, Hengstenberg, Lenski, Zahn, Lange, Swete, Holtzmann, Moffatt, Ramsey, Warfield, Barnes, Orr, Porter, Theissen, and Hoyt.[13] We could easily swell the list by adding the names of Elliott, David Brown, Milligan, Harmack, Bousset, Beckwith, Tenney, Ladd, Summers, Caird, Walvoord, Mooris, Mounce, and others.At the turn of the century not only were the three most renowned Biblical scholars of the day - Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort - agreed as to the Neronian date for Revelation, the same conclusion was reached by the superb church historian, Philip Schaff, and by the acclaimed expert in hermeneutics, Milton Terry.[33] An all-star cast of Christian scholars defended the early date for Revelation!

dating of revelation-77

[25] One could easily get the impression from such categorical statements and indictments (as I did early as a student) that the late date for Revelation is virtually an points to a Domitian date for the book.

Indeed, attempting to sway their readers with an all too easy appeal to a (selective) "consensus" on the question, Summers says that "the Domitian period is the date most generally accepted by New Testament criticism for the writing of Revelation,"[26] and it is described as "the majority opinion" by Walvoord,[27] while Mounce claims that it is "accepted by most writers"[28] and Boer says it is "favoured by most students of the book."[29] Such sweeping claims are initially implausible.

So then, if one reads "the holy city shall they tread under foot" (Rev. One is the reign of Domitian, preferable the latter part, around the year 96. ) who brought recovery to the empire from the threat of civil war ("the death-stroke" of the beast "was healed," Rev. But this hardly differentiates the sixth and seventh kings in terms of the shortness of the latter's reign (Rev.

11:2) in a natural sense and as genuine prophecy he will need to decide whether John was speaking of the Jerusalem that is now past to us rather contemporaneous (perhaps future) to us. 13:2) and was followed by the two year reign of Titus ("the other," seventh king who will "continue a short while," Rev. The counting on this view commences with Augustus since he was the first official emperor, and the three rules of the anarchy are skipped because Seutonius wrote of their period as a mere interval and the provinces never recognized them as emperors. , "a little while") since Galba and his successor, Otho, reigned for only 2 matter of months.

If responsible scholarship should support a date for Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. In order to understand the various proposals, the reader would do well to remember the history of the Roman/rulers, as here listed for the relevant periods: First Triumvirate60-46 B. The essence of the "early date" for the writing of Revelation is the belief that John composed the book sometime to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. Philip Schaff, once an advocate of the later (post-70 A. The tribulation of the six years preceding the destruction of Jerusalem extended over the whole Roman empire and embraced wars and rebellions, frequent and unusual conflagrations, earthquakes and famines and plagues, and all sorts of public calamities and mysteries untold.

D., there would be no need to imply the rebuilding of the city and temple so that they could be destroyed again - an implication taken by some to manifest exegetical "double vision." To postulate a "revived" Roman empire and a "restored" Jewish temple and community, when the contemporary facts fit every requirement perfectly, seems to be a work of supererogation. D., Domitian) dating of Revelation who subsequently publicized how strong internal evidence from Revelation had persuaded him to amend his outlook and advocate the early date,[9] summarized the view in this way: The early date is best suited for the nature and object of the Apocalypse, and facilitates its historical understanding. It seemed, indeed, that the world, shaken to its very centre, was coming to a close, and every Christian must have felt that the prophecies of Christ were being fulfilled before his eyes.

This work was published 1898-1904, when the dominating opinion regarding the book of Revelation was indicated in these words: "the majority of modern critics are of the opinion that the book was written in the time of Nero." That Nero is denoted by the beast and its number is "the almost a fixed assumption of critics," "the ruling critical opinion," and "almost a fixed assumption of critics." Having endorsed the preterist approach to the book as most correct, an author says "In general these [preterist] writers date the book before 70"; indeed , as to the date for Revelation, the "ruling view of critics" has been 66-69 A. Torrey observes that, if there are few dissenting voices from the late date in our generation, It was not so in former years, Swete. Many of the foremost German scholars of the same period were in essential agreement with this dating, as is well known.

D.[31] The conclusion maintained at the turn of this century regarding the date when Revelation was written was decidedly in favor of the early date. The evidence seemed to permit no other conclusion.[32] If one is willing to do a little research, an amazing list of advocates for the early date of Revelation can be discovered.

Knee-jerk conformity to one's church or school traditions and leaping at preconceived conclusions cannot honestly take the place of open-minded, diligent analysis of the evidence available to us.

Tags: , ,