Some Thoughts on the Dating of the Book of Revelation (Part One)
The Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Introduction
Preterism — Pre-A.D. 70 Dating:
A theological position is only as strong as its weakest point. The preterist interpretation of John’s figures of antichrist and the beast (i.e., Revelation 13) is based upon the assumption that John (the presumed author of Revelation) was given his apocalyptic vision before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A pre-A.D. 70 date allows preterists to identify the beast of the Book of Revelation with Nero, thereby limiting antichrist to the series of heretics mentioned in John’s epistles who will plague Christ’s church until the Lord’s return (1 John 2:18-22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). According to preterists, the visions given to John recorded in Revelation 13-18 lay in the past and were fulfilled before A.D. 70. There will be no future manifestation of a Nero-like beast or a personal Antichrist who will persecute the church immediately before our Lord’s return at the end of the age.
If it can be shown that the Book of Revelation was written after A.D. 70, the preterist interpretation of the beast as entirely a figure of the past becomes untenable. While the case for a future antichrist and manifestation of the beast is surely strengthened by a post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation (through the elimination of a competing view), the case for non-preterist varieties of amillennialism (such as my own) are not dependent upon the date when the Book of Revelation was written.
It should be noted that not all of those who advocate a pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation would fall into the contemporary “partial preterist” camp, often associated with postmillennialism. Ken Gentry, the author of a significant book arguing for a pre-A.D. 70 date, Before Jerusalem Fell (1998) certainly does.[1] But a number of other noted advocates of an early date would not, such as John. A. T. Robinson,[2] J. M. Ford,[3] and the three famed New Testament scholars who dominated biblical scholarship in the English-speaking world from 1860-1900, J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort.[4] In my estimation, many of the prophecies regarding the beast and antichrist are indeed tied to first century events, but as apocalyptic images, what they represent continually resurfaces throughout the subsequent ages. For example, see my essay, Hitler as an Antichrist Figure.
Futurism — Post A.D. 70 Dating:
While many New Testament scholars and commentators readily acknowledge that there is no way to determine with certainty when the Book of Revelation was written, and are, therefore, willing to acknowledge that a pre-A.D. 70 date for its composition is possible,[5] the consensus of current and historical New Testament scholarship is that John’s vision was recorded well-after A.D. 70, perhaps as late as the mid-nineties of the first century.[6] To this end, many commentators approvingly cite the sage words of J. P. M. Sweet. “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition [for the later date] stemming from Irenaeus.”[7]
Counting the number of scholars who hold one view over another to see where the majority come down is not an argument in favor of a given position. But this can tell us where the consensus of opinion falls and therefore indicate which side assumes the burden of proof. In this case, critical scholarship is largely in agreement with the vast majority of evangelical scholars who hold that Revelation was written as much as 25 years after Jerusalem fell to the Romans, probably during the time of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96) about A.D. 95.[8] While there is no “smoking gun,” proving beyond all doubt the post-A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation, a high probability case can be made for the later date based upon the internal evidence within the Book of Revelation itself, a case which is only strengthened by our ever-growing knowledge of the first-century world (external evidence).
Many of the arguments used by those who argue for a pre-A.D. 70 date for Revelation are quite plausible at first glance. After careful consideration, however, these arguments are not supported by the majority of the external facts nor by the internal evidence. It also must be noted that arguments used for dating Revelation are strictly probabilistic in nature. To determine when Revelation was likely written requires a final judgment based upon a careful and objective weighing of the facts, with the outcome based upon the preponderance of the evidence.
This question cannot be settled by creating a case to justify the pre-determined outcome that our Lord returned in the clouds to judge Israel in A.D. 70–which is the sense I get from several preterist writers arguing for an early date for Revelation. In order to prove that the Lord returned in A.D. 70, preterists must prove that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. Therefore, having already made a determination about the date of the Lord’s return, an argument is then constructed for a pre-A.D. 70 date for the composition of Revelation. But upon closer inspection, the case for pre-A, D. 70 dating is intrinsically circular and not supported by the facts at hand (internal and external evidence).
Next: Some Thoughts on the Dating of the Book of Revelation (Part Two). Arguments for a Date of Pre-A.D. 70 and Responses
** This material is taken from the appendix of my book, The Man of Sin (Baker, 2006) and revised for publication here
______________________________________________
[1] Ken Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: American Vision, 1998). See also Gentry, The Beast of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994).
[2] John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), 221-253.
[3] J. M. Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible, Vol. 38 (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1975), 21-46.
[4] For an assessment of the influence of these three men, see Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 34 ff. The important volumes from the famed threesome are: F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John, I-111 (London: Macmillian, 1908), xi-xxxiii; J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 51-70; J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 3; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1962), lxxxiv-lxxxvii.
[5] See for example, D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1992), 476. See also Beale, Revelation, 4. While Carson, Moo, Morris and Beale, all acknowledge that the earlier dating is possible, both volumes affirm that the cumulative weight of the evidence is clearly on the side of the later dating.
[6] Beale writes, “the consensus among twentieth-century scholars is that the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Domitian around 95 A.D. A minority of commentators have dated it immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.” Beale, Revelation, 4.
[7] J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1979), 27.
[8] So-called critical scholars include the commentaries from R. H. Charles, H. B. Swete, G. B. Baird, Martin Kiddle, and J. P. M. Sweet, while conservative evangelical scholars include George Ladd, John Walvoord, G. R. Beasley-Murray, Alan Johnson, Robert Thomas and Robert Mounce.