Historical dating for the gospels
It is simply inadequate to rest in the (unfounded) claim that virtually "everybody" knows that Revelation dates from this or that time. A number of distinguished authors can be cited as supporters of the late date for Revelation.
Cohen and Hendriksen list Alford, Godet, Hengstenberg, Lenski, Zahn, Lange, Swete, Holtzmann, Moffatt, Ramsey, Warfield, Barnes, Orr, Porter, Theissen, and Hoyt. We could easily swell the list by adding the names of Elliott, David Brown, Milligan, Harmack, Bousset, Beckwith, Tenney, Ladd, Summers, Caird, Walvoord, Mooris, Mounce, and others.
His was truly a book of the times and for the times. D., placing John's writing at the end of Nero's rule or briefly following it - but at any rate prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple, even if Galba or Vespasian should be identified as the emperor under whom John suffered and wrote.
the earlier period before Jerusalem's fall (i.e., the reign of Nero or Shortly following).
At the turn of the century not only were the three most renowned Biblical scholars of the day - Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort - agreed as to the Neronian date for Revelation, the same conclusion was reached by the superb church historian, Philip Schaff, and by the acclaimed expert in hermeneutics, Milton Terry. An all-star cast of Christian scholars defended the early date for Revelation!
Terry asserted in 1898: "The preponderance of the best modern criticism is in favour of this view." The early date has always enjoyed important scholarly support.
So then, if one reads "the holy city shall they tread under foot" (Rev. One is the reign of Domitian, preferable the latter part, around the year 96. ) who brought recovery to the empire from the threat of civil war ("the death-stroke" of the beast "was healed," Rev. But this hardly differentiates the sixth and seventh kings in terms of the shortness of the latter's reign (Rev.
The reader ought to appreciate the concrete setting of the book and the historical perspective which its author would have had. We can see this if we but consider the reference in Revelation to the city of Jerusalem, its temple, and the Roman Empire - all of which, in their own order, are prophesied to be destroyed. What one thinks of the prophecies in Revelation will naturally be affected, then, by the choice of a date for the writing of the book either prior to, or subsequent to, this event in 70 A. Milton Terry observed: The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. Such opinions are far too late and unargued to warrant serious attention.Even if we were to fall into such a logical fallacy, can we accept a census of secondary opinions which is limited in its scope (say, to the commentaries read by one author)?Questions could be multiplied regarding the common, exaggerated claims about the scholarly support for the late date of Revelation. One need only get beyond the cocoon of his own circles of contact and his own lifetime to find that the preceding overstated claims for the late date of Revelation are unbelievable. Claudius41-54 Nero54-68 Galba68-69 (7 months) Otho69 (3 months) Vitellius69 (8 months) Vespasian69-79 Titus79-81 Domitian81-96 Nerva96-98 Trajan98-117 51.12) - Edinburgh, 19872), which dated Revelation between 50 and 54 A. These two "advantages" work against each other, however, when we remember that one of those seven Asian churches (at Ephesus) was clearly founded by Paul! Such a view might explain why Paul was forbidden to go into Asia (Acts 16:6) - since John was already laboring there - and why Revelation 1-3 mentions only seven churches in Asia (as yet).