You are hereBlogs / rcscrolls's blog / 9 reasons JOHNS REVELATION WRITTEN 60s AD


  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By rcscrolls - Posted on 22 July 2010

Revelation was probably written during the middle part of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament. However with multiple evidences we are giving we tend to believe otherwise.

From another Study on Revelations dating.

Baptists, along with most others who believe the late date setting theory, are now alone,
against hordes of others, and are admittedly coming to understand the implications of what an earlier date offers. Many of persons have not allowed themselves to think differently about Johns Revelation, how ever the crowded meetings are shifting the mindset of any real scholarly work. After a ll views are just that without evidence, however if we can compile evidence to close the case what does it change theologically, this is the most profound, for if Nero’s time was the great Tribulation spoken of by Christ in Matt 24 Daniel 7 and 9 and Johns Revelation, suddenly we have a real evidential base for new understanding. If Rome was indeed The scarlet beast on which She the Whore sits and rides as being Israel, Then the implications are astounding and in light of all theologies have to be rethought For who can deny that which has so much evidence nine, which are just a few, here given compared to just one statement by Irenaeus. Its within these bounds that proof meets and is in the pudding after all, if all or most is said and done then just what is "it" that all these theologians of today are talking about. We want evidence, we want truth, we w ant a fact, that’s what the Bible is all about. Just like the study of Jesus dust justice I just gave you. We at least I, have never heard of anybody telling me what Jesus meant or wrote in the dust not ever, I have heard however of assumptions and guesses. The Bible has our answers not articles of the 20 th or 21st century. The more we understand and show evidence of and in our Bible the more complete we are. We don't have the luxury of saying that we think something, we have to know it, and prove it, and it has to come from Scripture. Here are some reasons why I believe in the early date. Allow you r Pastor or self to study and show otherwise if you don't agree. You don't have to give up what you believe to accept an early date, how ever it may allow you to consider other possibilities. This as always is not to scrub you the wrong way, but to show what has been discovered since other ideas and traditions have been made.

1. Irenaeus' Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory) "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 Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)
All the other witnesses must be dealt with, those witnesses who regurgitate what Ire Says, are only repeating His words, which cannot be clearly understood at best. Other witnesses from History as Eusibius are those which are only recounting what Ire says, to the effect that we really only have one document by Ire, not mountains of reasons of other evidence.

2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

3. Epiphanies (A. D. 315-403)States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)

4. Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "
"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603).

5. Tertullian“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

6. An ancient document known as the Muratorian Canon which comes down to us from AD 170–210 states, "Paul, following the order of his own predecessor John the Apostle and revelator, writes to no more than seven churches by name." The seven churches that Paul wrote to were: Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossi and Thessalonica. John, in his addressing the writing of Revelation, wrote to seven churches as indicated in Revelation 1:4.
The implication of this statement in the Muratorian Canon is that John had written his book of Revelation BEFORE the completion of Paul's writings to the seven churches he had written to. Paul died under Nero's persecution. Nero's rule ended in AD 68!

7. There is also in existence, a number of Syriac translations of the book of Revelation which have the following inscription: "The Revelation, which20was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor." Most of the Syriac translations, which are known as the "Peshito," "Curetonian," the "Philoexenian" and the "Harclean" are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second, but the ones containing Revelation are not believed to be quite that old. 600AD But are indeed copies of the first or second centuries. The superscription on this manuscript does provide support that the dating of the Revelation goes back to the time of Nero.

8. Cerinthus was a first century AD author who wrote The Pseudo-Apocalypse. He died long before John did, and that is well before 95AD, and his Pseudo-Apocalypse contains many references to John's Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation).

9. Clement ascribes to John -- running all over Asia, riding a horse chasing after an apostate church leader -- makes more sense attributed to a man in his 50s or 60s than (50-65AD) than they do to a man in his 90s or 100s. Finally, elsewhere Clement states that the teaching of the Apostles was completed at the time of Nero.

10. There are many other reasons to accept an early Date not to mention even more witnesses from History past. We feel that 9 witnesses surly must be proof enough compared to the single reason of believing one obscured historical writing

So What about the evidence of Irenaeus ?

1. b When we have such an overwhelming amount of Historical witnesses who say otherwise, it is and becomes overwhelming, that one author can be taken as a witness above all other witnesses. Especially in light of History and the fact that, when we know that Irenaeus had several questionable writings which none the less include a writing where He indicates that Christ was 50 yrs old when He was crucified, and other comparable writings, to the deficiency of His abilities and or knowledge. We can take Him as a witness, but do we put Him above many witnesses, of course not. We accept that He did have credibility however when what's supposed to be a plain reason for accepting and early date, we prefer to have a mountain of evidence before we can accept a minuscule which at best is indiscriminate to determine just what the author meant. To ignore a plethora of evidence in light of a single minuscule obscured piece of evidence, we have to side with an early date, even the internal Evidence sides and points to and with the pre 65 Date. We cannot allow our eschatological view and or traditions any longer to mold us into a fixed frozen mindset, when everything in an age of Scientific enlightenment shows us otherwise.Even GODs WORD demands that by Two or three Witnesses let an issue be brought and made, we surly agree that 9 Different Witnesses for early dating compared to one witness for the late date 96 AD which was accepted by others after His time just no longer are substantial enough. RC Scrolls

This forgoing article Added 2004 Copyright © 1996 Defending R. Faith Ministries 01/16/1996
Hank Hanegraaff (2004)"More and more, people who have embraced the Futurist paradigm, when they recognize.. that the book of Revelation was not written in the mid-nineties, but rather was written in the mid-sixties, ..they have a different view of what the book of Revelation is

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43