Revelation was written sometime after that. St. John (who lived until about 95 AD) is explaining the spiritual realities behind those events. He shows us using symbolic language the eternal struggle that began with Satan's rebellion and ended with the establishment of the Church.
That said, I must admit that Revelation (IMHO) rather clearly predicted the fall of the Roman Empire, so maybe it remained secularly "predictive" if you will until the death of one of the main actors in the story - the rapacious Roman Empire.
It's just a thought.
Have your read Scott Hahn's work on Revelation? I think he pretty much sums up the more traditional view.
“Revelation was written sometime after that [after 70 A.D.]. St. John (who lived until about 95 AD) is explaining the spiritual realities behind those events.”
There’s a considerable amount of scholarship to the contrary. Many have noted how unlikely it is for the book to have been written AFTER 70 A.D. and never mention the fall of the Temple as a fact. From that, and many other textual arguments, they conclude it was written before 70 A.D. I wish I still had the reference; but there is quite a well written PhD thesis on the subject.
Of course, if Revelation (after the letters) concerns the future, then no mention of the Temple’s destruction makes more sense.
IMO, the argument that makes the least sense is that the book is actually talking about stuff that had already happened—John does explicitly say these things are to come. That happens right after the letters to the seven churches and as an introduction to the rest of the book. “Come up here and I will show you what must take place AFTER this.” 4:1.
Thanks for the reference to Scott Hahn. I will read it.