When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning that which is past) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).
A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.
In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.
External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitians reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos after the tyrant was dead (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the Father of Church History, identifies the tyrant as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, Americas most prominent preterist, admitted that the tyrant here meant is probably Domitian. Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an old man. If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.
Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitians reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate. The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudiuss reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).
Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.
Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.
The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of Johns writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.
Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Neros persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).
Arguments for the Early Date Answered
In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.
Writing Style Differences
It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospelwhen the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.
In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:
B. B. Warfield contends that:
R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.
Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:
No Mention of Jerusalems Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.
In response we note the following points.
First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.
However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalems destruction in 11:8, where the great city, in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodomnot merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).
Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:
Nero Associated with 666
Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.
To come up with such an interpretation one must:
add the title Caesar to Neros name; compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and alter the spelling of Caesar by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.
All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.
Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).
In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written
Jesus said that it would happen it their generation, and they believed this. In the book of Revelation he told them these things would happen soon. Why is this so hard to accept????
Thanks for you reply about the dating of Revelation. You have cited ancient writers but most if not all of them were relying on a third hand ambiguous statement by Ireneaus from around AD 160-180. Not only can his statement have different interpretations, Irenaeus is known to have made other historical errors such as saying that Jesus lived to be about 50. A much earlier witness was Papias who said the John was martyred by the Jews, which would have to have been when they could have accomplished this—before AD 70 when they were in control before Jerusalem’s fall. I did not go in depth in this article about the dating of Revelation, but I have multiple articles at my site in section B, including “Revelation: It’s Central Theme Illuminated,” “Who is the Harlot Babylon of Revelation,” “Who Were the 144,000 of Revelation,” “When Was Revelation Written,” etc. Here is the link:
https://prophecyquestions.com/2016/02/01/articles-by-charles-meek