Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[eclipseEventSigns]

It was written around 95 AD. That was the accepted date for the early church. There is no syriac textual tradition for Revelation. It was not found with the syriac texts. There were a few other books that also were not present, and thus have no textual tradition. There is no way to know where it came from, other then it was 7th century or later.

So many generalized statements which are incorrect. As with most things, it's all in the details.
The Aramaic New Testament ("syriac text") does not have Revelation, I & II Peter, II & III John. But that does not mean they aren't Scripture or written in 95 AD.
It just means that they were written AFTER the collation of the rest of the documents into one book. This took place between 50-55 AD around the time Thaddeus and Thomas oversaw this in Edessa. And this was before Thomas began his missionary journey to the East through Parthia and India and maybe even China. Revelation was written during the early 60's AD. Well before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The book of revelation was not a part of the Syrian Peshitta New Testament, and came later. Again, I believe it was 6th century or later. The Peshitta New Testament was from 4th or 5th century. Anyone could have added that it was during the time of Nero, and that wouldn't make it true. Again, Irenaeus said it was towards the end of the reign of Domitian.

This is incorrect. The Syriac Peshitta version has a title page for Revelation that says, "Again the Revelation, which was upon the holy John the evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the Emperor NERO."

Nero's rule lasted from AD 54-AD 68, meaning Revelation was written sometime during this span of years. If you want to refer to external sources, there are several others which also indicate that Nero was reigning while John was writing Revelation.

And you are incorrect in your estimation of what Irenaeus wrote.

Here is Irenaeus's quote from "Against Heresies" (Book V, Chapter 30) that many lean so heavily upon to so-called "prove" a late date composition for Revelation. This quote is ambiguous at best, especially when compared to Irenaeus speaking about those "ancient COPIES" of the Apocalypse in the very same "Against Heresies" section.

"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 italicized word "that" in the above quote IS NOT THERE in the language Irenaeus originally wrote. It was inserted at the translator's choice, who could have chosen to insert either "that" or "he" in translating this. The sentence could have equally been written correctly as "For HE" (speaking of John) "WAS SEEN no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

This manner of translating this quote as "HE" being seen, (and not Revelation) is to be preferred, because Irenaeus had already said earlier in this "Against Heresies" Chapter 30...

"Such, then being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who SAW John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; ..."


This particular John which Irenaeus says was seen almost in his days, towards the end of Domitian's reign, is mistakenly being mixed up with another man named "John" in the ministry of the early church. I believe Irenaeus and others were mixing up John Mark (sister's son of the beloved Barnabas) with John the beloved disciple, author of Revelation.

This singe mistaken translation of Irenaeus is the lynch-pin to the entire argument for a late-date composition for Revelation. It's a tragedy that this misunderstanding has sent so many off into left field in their comprehension of Revelation, which is a history book of fulfilled events since AD 70 - all but the single verse of Revelation 10:4 which is dedicated to the future after AD 70.

You can't have Irenaeus saying that the Apocalypse had been written "almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" and also have "ancient copies" of the Apocalypse existing at the same time. It has to be one or the other - not both.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

This singe mistaken translation of Irenaeus is the lynch-pin to the entire argument for a late-date composition for Revelation. It's a tragedy that this misunderstanding has sent so many off into left field in their comprehension of Revelation, which is a history book of fulfilled events since AD 70 - all but the single verse of Revelation 10:4 which is dedicated to the future after AD 70.

Actually it is not the "lynch-pin". The main reason scholars (and uninformed Christians who listen to them) believe in a late date for Revelation is that they MUST have all the Gospels written AFTER 70 AD. These unbelieving scholars consider Jesus to have talked about the destruction of the temple. And Jesus could never have known about that before the fact. So Revelation also then has to be after 70 AD and after the supposed date of the Gospel writing.

Obviously Jesus was not just referring to the 70 AD temple destruction, but events still future to our modern period as well. But the main point is that relying on unbelieving scholars for "truth" about scripture has made a mockery of the entire field of the New Testament textual study.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Actually it is not the "lynch-pin". The main reason scholars (and uninformed Christians who listen to them) believe in a late date for Revelation is that they MUST have all the Gospels written AFTER 70 AD. These unbelieving scholars consider Jesus to have talked about the destruction of the temple. And Jesus could never have known about that before the fact. So Revelation also then has to be after 70 AD and after the supposed date of the Gospel writing.

It's true - those who follow a late-date composition for Revelation (and all the Gospels) have unknowingly played into the hands of the textual criticism camp who would deny Christ Jesus's deity and omniscience. Even though that is not their intended purpose, it is an unfortunate result.

But I disagree that it is "obvious" that Jesus was revealing to John events still future to our modern period. The only verse in which prophesies were "sealed up" for fulfillment in the distant future to John's first-century audience was the Revelation 10:4 verse. Everything else in Revelation had either happened in the past, was then taking place in John's days, or was soon "about to take place hereafter" (Rev. 1:19).

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

It's true - those who follow a late-date composition for Revelation (and all the Gospels) have unknowingly played into the hands of the textual criticism camp who would deny Christ Jesus's deity and omniscience. Even though that is not their intended purpose, it is an unfortunate result.

But I disagree that it is "obvious" that Jesus was revealing to John events still future to our modern period. The only verse in which prophesies were "sealed up" for fulfillment in the distant future to John's first-century audience was the Revelation 10:4 verse. Everything else in Revelation had either happened in the past, was then taking place in John's days, or was soon "about to take place hereafter" (Rev. 1:19).

That's obviously NOT the case. The majority of the event of Revelation has not even happened yet.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That's obviously NOT the case. The majority of the event of Revelation has not even happened yet.

This is also what I was taught and believed for the first 40 years of my Christian life.

Not anymore, ever since I started reading the scriptures again while comparing them to the original languages in which they were written. John's interpreting angel puts a definite time requirement on when any of those visions of the future were going to take place. ALL of them (except for the "sealed up" prophecies of Rev. 10:4) were "about to be" fulfilled in John's days. The time for those prophecies to be fulfilled was "AT HAND" (Rev. 1:3 and 22:10), which meant that Revelation's prophecies were presently in the process of being fulfilled - in John's days according to scripture parlance.

When the author of a book tells you in both their introduction and conclusion just how they intend their writing to be interpreted, we can't disregard that - especially when the author is God Himself.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

This is also what I was taught and believed for the first 40 years of my Christian life.

Not anymore, ever since I started reading the scriptures again while comparing them to the original languages in which they were written. John's interpreting angel puts a definite time requirement on when any of those visions of the future were going to take place. ALL of them (except for the "sealed up" prophecies of Rev. 10:4) were "about to be" fulfilled in John's days. The time for those prophecies to be fulfilled was "AT HAND" (Rev. 1:3 and 22:10), which meant that Revelation's prophecies were presently in the process of being fulfilled - in John's days according to scripture parlance.

When the author of a book tells you in both their introduction and conclusion just how they intend their writing to be interpreted, we can't disregard that - especially when the author is God Himself.

And what "original languages" - plural - are those? Revelation was originally written in Aramaic. Have you studied the text in Aramaic?

 

[Josheb]

It doesn't really matter when Revelation was written by John.

The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened.

That is incorrect, and it's a post hoc argument (fallacious).

 

[3 Resurrections]

And what "original languages" - plural - are those? Revelation was originally written in Aramaic. Have you studied the text in Aramaic?

Greek and Hebrew for the entire Bible (Hebrew being the sister language of Aramaic). Though I was once restricted by my instructors to only the KJV for many years, I now refer a lot to the literal translations such as the YLT, and I favor the LXX (since this was what the disciples were using in their first-century days). But when doing a more detailed study of any passage, I will often read through many of the translations as well, just to get a more balanced perspective.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

This is also what I was taught and believed for the first 40 years of my Christian life.

Not anymore, ever since I started reading the scriptures again while comparing them to the original languages in which they were written. John's interpreting angel puts a definite time requirement on when any of those visions of the future were going to take place. ALL of them (except for the "sealed up" prophecies of Rev. 10:4) were "about to be" fulfilled in John's days. The time for those prophecies to be fulfilled was "AT HAND" (Rev. 1:3 and 22:10), which meant that Revelation's prophecies were presently in the process of being fulfilled - in John's days according to scripture parlance.

When the author of a book tells you in both their introduction and conclusion just how they intend their writing to be interpreted, we can't disregard that - especially when the author is God Himself.

You make some assumptions which are not necessarily correct. The "time" is in reference to something. You say it refers to fulfilled prophecy. Where does it say that?
The overall period that Revelation deals with is the Day of the Lord. The Last Days. The verb tense in the original Aramaic is past tense. "The season or period has come". Obviously all those prophecies were NOT fulfilled at the point when John wrote the text. So what was it that had been complete at that point? The Last Days had arrived. They were now living in the last part of the 7000 years of human history.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Greek and Hebrew for the entire Bible (Hebrew being the sister language of Aramaic). Though I was once restricted by my instructors to only the KJV for many years, I now refer a lot to the literal translations such as the YLT, and I favor the LXX (since this was what the disciples were using in their first-century days). But when doing a more detailed study of any passage, I will often read through many of the translations as well, just to get a more balanced perspective.

Again, you make statements where are incorrect. The disciples did NOT use the LXX. The Jews did not touch anything Greek. They spoke and wrote Aramaic. Hebrew was still the language used in religious services. But daily life was in Aramaic, not Greek.

 

[CrowCross]

That is incorrect, and it's a post hoc argument (fallacious).

As i said and still stand by it...."The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened."

 

[3 Resurrections]

The disciples did NOT use the LXX. The Jews did not touch anything Greek.

Oh yes, they certainly did. Try Hebrews 1:7 for example. It refers to the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43, which includes the added statement, "...and let all the angels of God worship him."

If the Jews weren't speaking or writing Greek, then how do you explain Christ holding up the coin and asking "Whose image and superscription is this?" Enough of the Jews were conversant in Greek, or they would not have been able to answer Christ's question. And after the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, all the known languages of the day were being used by the saints with the gift of tongues.

 

[3 Resurrections]

As i said and still stand by it...."The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened."

Not really the subject of this post...

 

[CrowCross]

Again, you make statements where are incorrect. The disciples did NOT use the LXX. The Jews did not touch anything Greek. They spoke and wrote Aramaic. Hebrew was still the language used in religious services. But daily life was in Aramaic, not Greek.

Here's a video you might find interesting. Contained in it the video compares the LXX to the masoretic.

I can't say I agree with everything..though it was interesting.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Hebrews 1:7 for example.

Sorry, this is Hebrews 1:6 instead...

 

[Josheb]

As i said and still stand by it...."The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened."

You can stand by it all you like but that does not make it so. What most Dispensationalists means when they make their fallacious post hoc protest is, "Preterists cannot prove what Dispensationalists think will happen did happen." That is a enormously different from "Preterists cannot prove what scripture says has happened." We're not Dispensationalists. We don't twist, mangle, splice, and abuse God's word the way Dispensationalists do. When scripture explicitly states the events described were going to happen quickly because the time was at hand, we read that exactly as written, accept it exactly as written, and believe it exactly as written.

Modern futurists do not.

When scripture explicitly states some of the events described in Revelation had already transpired, some of them were happening at that time, and what remains was coming afterwards, we read that exactly as written, accept it exactly as written, and believe it exactly as written.

Modern futurists do not. They protest with post hoc fallacy, "When? You can't prove when?"

We do not need to prove anything happened because we accept God's word exactly as stated. When God said the time was near then the time was near and there is absolutely no reason to make it say or mean anything different than what is explicitly stated. The fact is we can provide an account for what happened when as described in Revelation but even if we were to do so the modern futurist will not listen. S/he will not listen because the explanation does not reconcile with his pre-existing Dispensationally-biased interpretation. Our views reconcile well with scripture. They do not reconcile well with Dispensationalism. BIG difference.

When Jesus explicitly states, "You will be handed over to tribulation," we read those words exactly as written, exactly as stated. We don't abuse them and try to make them about some unidentified "you" two millennia later. And we definitely do not force those words to mean that "you" will be raptured away to avid the tribulation to which Jesus explicitly stated they be handed over. Likewise, when Jesus says the disciples would see and see and see and hear and hear and see and hear repeatedly and then says, "...then there will be a great tribulation........ So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out......." we don't twist, mangle, pervert, and abuse that to mean the disciples will be off the planet. Jesus plainly stated the disciples would go throough the great tribulation. That is what he said and that is what he meant, and that is exactly what Preterists read, accept, and believe. Likewise, when John hears, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," we read that exactly as written, we accept it and believe it exactly as written. We do NOT twist it, mangle it, pervert it, and abuse it to make it mean something different than what is explicitly states: the disciples go through the great tribulation. Pre-tribulationalism is a lie!

So you stand on that ignorant protest all you like but it's worthless, and you' got no business criticizing others until you get your own house in order.

We can prove an early date for Revelation. We can also prove much, if not all, of what we believe about those events transpiring in the first century. It simply will not be Dispensationalism we are proving. You will have to put aside all those prejudices and give the evidence and objective evaluation.

Modern futurists do not do that.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The overall period that Revelation deals with is the Day of the Lord. The Last Days. The verb tense in the original Aramaic is past tense. "The season or period has come". Obviously all those prophecies were NOT fulfilled at the point when John wrote the text. So what was it that had been complete at that point? The Last Days had arrived.

The prevailing emphasis of Revelation is the judgments in the "last days" of Israel as the "holy people" when their power was going to be shattered (Daniel 12:7) in the Great Tribulation period of AD 66-70. The city of Jerusalem and the Israelites as a people were both going to be destroyed. God spent that "time, times, and half a time" of Daniel 12:7 (a total of 3-1/2 years) to accomplish this destruction and judgment upon Old Jerusalem and His people. By AD 70, those "times" were over and done with, and the Great Tribulation period with its "days of vengeance" had accomplished its purpose.

Deuteronomy 32 was devoted to preserving that "song of Moses" which predicted far in advance the "latter end" of Israel as a people (Deut. 32:29) when God would exact vengeance upon them. This is why the "song of Moses" was being victoriously sung for a final time in Revelation 15:3, once God had brought that judgment on His people in their "last days".

The "last days" had advanced to the "last hour" by the time 1 John 2:18-19 was being written. If anyone thinks this "last hour" has been lingering for more than 2,000 years and counting, then they don't know how to evaluate the passage of time at all.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

The prevailing emphasis of Revelation is the judgments in the "last days" of Israel as the "holy people" when their power was going to be shattered (Daniel 12:7) in the Great Tribulation period of AD 66-70. The city of Jerusalem and the Israelites as a people were both going to be destroyed. God spent that "time, times, and half a time" of Daniel 12:7 (a total of 3-1/2 years) to accomplish this destruction and judgment upon Old Jerusalem and His people. By AD 70, those "times" were over and done with, and the Great Tribulation period with its "days of vengeance" had accomplished its purpose.

Deuteronomy 32 was devoted to preserving that "song of Moses" which predicted far in advance the "latter end" of Israel as a people (Deut. 32:29) when God would exact vengeance upon them. This is why the "song of Moses" was being victoriously sung for a final time in Revelation 15:3, once God had brought that judgment on His people in their "last days".

The "last days" had advanced to the "last hour" by the time 1 John 2:18-19 was being written. If anyone thinks this "last hour" has been lingering for more than 2,000 years and counting, then they don't know how to evaluate the passage of time at all.

Yes, you do not know how God counts time. Look it up. He says it in two places. Two witnesses needed to establish a matter.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Oh yes, they certainly did. Try Hebrews 1:7 for example. It refers to the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43, which includes the added statement, "...and let all the angels of God worship him."

If the Jews weren't speaking or writing Greek, then how do you explain Christ holding up the coin and asking "Whose image and superscription is this?" Enough of the Jews were conversant in Greek, or they would not have been able to answer Christ's question. And after the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, all the known languages of the day were being used by the saints with the gift of tongues.

So not true. The LXX sometimes matches the New Testament text. Other times it doesn't. There is no absolute proof. But what does match the majority of the time - the Aramaic Peshitta.