When Was Revelation Written

Two dates are generally accepted by modern scholars for Revelation. The first (and the most commonly accepted) date is during or shortly after the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). Proponents of this view usually date the book around the year AD 95. This date has support among many early church leaders including Irenaeus in the second century AD who affirmed that John wrote from Patmos during the persecution of Domitian.

A second viewpoint (primarily held by those of the preterist interpretive school) is that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem toward the end of the reign of Nero (54-68 AD). Some interpreters try to reconcile both dates by stating that the visions occurred during the 60s but that the publication of Revelation was under Domitian. This author maintains that type of reconciliation is not consistent with the concept of inerrancy of God's Word.

There is also a minority view espousing the opinion that the book was written during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 AD). However, this view is not generally accepted and is based on an incorrect interpretation of Revelation 17:9-11 where seven kings are represented. A few have suggested this referred to the rule of Vespasian (the seventh emperor after Tiberius who ruled during the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus) but there is no supportive evidence for this interpretation.

Summary of Dating Arguments
Early Dating (Before 70 AD)	Traditional Dating (circa 95 AD)
Literary Style - The written text of Revelation employs what many authors consider to be "substandard" Greek constructions and grammar, implying the author was unfamiliar with the language.   Temple Still Standing Argument - This argument is based on Revelation 11:1-2 where John is told by the angel to measure the temple, the altar, and the worshipers   Woman on Beast Argument - This argument is based on Revelation 17:1-6 and early date scholars identify the woman as Jerusalem.   The Nero Arguments - Most preterist scholars hold that the beast of Revelation refers to Nero who was the first emperor to persecute Christians. This means that in order to be a prophecy, Revelation had to be written prior to 68 AD. In this view the number 666 is symbolic of the numerical value of the name Neron Kesar (one Greek version of Nero's name).	Internal and external evidence strongly supports 95-96 AD as being the correct date for the writing.   Most early Christian writers accepted that Revelation was written during the time of Domitian toward the end of his reign. These include Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus and Jerome   The conditions depicted in the letters to the Asian churches in Revelation differ substantially from those represented in 60-70 AD.   Laodecian Church - Tacitus (Roman secular historian) wrote that the city was destroyed by an earthquake in approximately 60 AD and was rebuilt by citizens without assistance from Rome. Interestingly, there were 9 churches in Asia Minor established by Paul. Of these, Laodicea, Colossae and Hierapolis were all destroyed in the same earthquake and Colossae and Hierapolis were never rebuilt, leaving just 7 churches tracing their establishment to Paul's ministry.

Arguments for Early Date (Before 70 AD)

Literary Style - Scholars who propound this viewpoint assume that the "substandard" Greek grammar and constructions were due to less familiarity on part of the author with a new language. However, virtually of the Greek in Revelation is grammatically correct. This assumption has the problems that Revelation is primarily allegorical or symbolic and that prophecies usually are not in prose style of text. Therefore, one would not expect it to be the same as a prose text like one of the Gospels or like the Epistles. A further flaw in this argument is that it makes the text of Revelation more dependent on the human authorship than would be true for any of the other inspired writings. Remember that God through the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of all inspired writings.

Most of these problems are minor issues, such as disagreements in case, number, gender, or person. Other instances are not actual violations of grammatical rules but are better classified as variants in style. For example Revelation 1:4 might be literally translated: "From he who is, and from he was, and from he who is coming." In the Greek text, the case of the noun after the preposition from is wrong; the second expression is a finite verb and not a participle; and the third expression is used in the same way as the first. However, this is a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic or Hebrew manner of expressing the "I AM" name of God. The writer translated this title directly and literally into Greek without attempting to conform to the Greek idiom.

Temple Still Standing Argument - This argument is based on Revelation 11:1-2 where John is told by the angel to measure the temple, the altar, and the worshipers. Preterist scholars maintain this passage is literal and the Temple was still standing (the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman armies) since otherwise John could not have been commanded to measure it.

Modern commentators use the parallel Old Testament passage of Ezekiel 40-48 to show that a literal Temple did not have to exist (see Ezekiel 40:1-19). Ezekiel sees the Temple being measured after it had been destroyed by the Babylonians and before it was rebuilt. In the passage Ezekiel states the vision occurred in the 25^th year of the exile to Babylon. Israel was still in Babylonian exile, the Temple had been destroyed, and it would be the work of centuries to restore it. In both cases the temple was seen from a foreign land (Patmos in Revelation and Babylon in Ezekiel) and not from Jerusalem which lends credence to the symbolic nature of the measurements. Regardless, Ezekiel's vision implies that the Temple was in existence in a manner similar to revelation. Since these are very similar passages, it should be obvious that the physical Temple did not have to exist.

These scholars also neglect the fact that the New Testament teaches that the temple is a symbol of the church - I Cor. 3:16; II Cor. 6:16 - people are the temple; Eph. 2:19-22; II Thess. 2:3-4 - the church is the temple. The Revelation passage actually needs to be understood as a reminder of the message of Ezekiel. Both passages are symbolic of how God sees His people, not with the physical structure of the Temple.

Woman on Beast Argument - This argument is based on Revelation 17:1-6 where John sees a woman sitting on a scarlet colored beast which is covered with blasphemous names and which has seven heads and ten horns. In this school of interpretation, the image of Revelation 12:1-6 (where John sees a "woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head who was about to give birth" is both combined and contrasted with Revelation 17:1-6 (where John sees the great harlot arrayed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold and precious stone and pearls, that sits on many waters . . . [with a name written on her forehead, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH) to show a pre-apostate and post-apostate Israel. Therefore to early date proponents both women are symbolic of Jerusalem. Since Rome was never in a special relation with God to become apostate, these scholars argue that either Jerusalem in particular or Israel in general has to be the meaning of the images. According to the scholars who hold to this viewpoint, since Jerusalem was not destroyed until 70 AD, the book of Revelation could not have been written any later than 68-69 AD.

One problem with this is chapter 18 of Revelation (particularly Revelation 18:9-19) which implies a widespread, universal destruction due to the judgment on Babylon. This in turn strongly suggests that the city in chapter 17 is Rome. Both the Roman Empire and the Catholic church (the apostate "reincarnation" of Rome) were worldwide in scope, built on international trade and commerce, and on the control of that commerce.

The strengths of the argument for the early date and the passage in particular pertaining to Jerusalem are based on the usage of the words harlot and fornication, which both imply spiritual unfaithfulness and which typically are used in reference to Israel when it goes astray. However, the allegory clearly applies to any group which once was chosen of God and then turned away from His Word. Thus, the application of this portion of Revelation to the apostate Catholic church is clearly within the usage of both the Old and the New Testaments. Old Testament precedents use similar language to apply to Gentile cities as well as to Jerusalem, as noted in the following passages:

Isa. 23:11-12 - No more of your reveling, virgin daughter Sidon, now crushed! The context refers to Phoenicia and specifically to the Gentile city of Sidon as a virgin daughter, not to any city of Judah or Israel.

Nah. 1:1-3 - The prophecy concerning Nineveh. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. Nah. 3:1-7 - Woe to the bloody city…the wanton lust of a prostitute…the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft. "I am against you," declares the Lord Almighty.  "I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame… I will treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle. All who see you will flee from you and say, 'Nineveh is in ruins—who will mourn for her?' Note the reference to harlotry in reference to a Gentile city, one that also was an adversary of God's people.

A comparison with Old Testament prophecies concerning Babylon is instructive as well. For example, note the parallels in the following:

Jer. 51:63-64 - When you finish reading this scroll, tie a stone to it and throw it into the Euphrates. Then say, "So will Babylon sink to rise no more because of the disaster I will bring on her. Compare with Revelation 18:21 - Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again." 

Jer.51:7 - Babylon was a gold cup in the Lord’s hand; she made the whole earth drunk. The nations drank her wine; therefore they have now gone mad. Compare with Revelation 14:8 - A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries."

Jer.51:8 - Babylon will suddenly fall and be broken. Wail over her! Get balm for her pain; perhaps she can be healed. Also Isa. 13:19-22 - Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the pride and glory of the Babylonians, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; there no nomads will pitch their tents, there no shepherds will rest their flocks...Her time is at hand, and her days will not be prolonged. Compare with Revelation 18:2 - Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling for demons and a haunt for every impure spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.

Note that these are not simply parallel passages. The intent of the language of Revelation paralleling Jeremiah is intentional and is designed to help the reader understand the fact that just as Babylon (a great, world-encompassing empire that was oppressing God's people) was judged, so to would Rome be judged. Scholars who attempt to apply this to Jerusalem simply go against all of the language and precedent of the Old Testament and New Testament writings.

Further, there is no internal support from Revelation that the woman of chapter 12 is the same as the apostate woman of chapter 17. A critical view of chapter 17 should include the entire context of Revelation 7:7-18:

Revelation 17:9 speaks about the interpretation of the harlot symbol and includes the statement that the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (i.e., the seven mountains on which the city "sits"). Rome was both commonly and poetically known as the "city of seven hills." 

Revelation 17:15 clearly states that the waters where the harlot sits are symbols for "people, multitudes, nations, and tongues." A simple word study of the usage of the term nations (from the Greek word εθvη [ethne], the root of the English word "ethnic") shows that it meant a "nation" which would normally be interpreted as a nation of Gentiles. This would be true both to Jews and to Christians who have studied the Old Testament in depth. Since the Jewish people would not have been associating with the nations around them (Jerusalem was in constant semi-rebellion), this does not seem to fit well with a hypothesis that the harlot represents the Jewish state. 

Revelation 17:18 declares that the woman is the great city that reigns over the kings of the earth. Again, this is much more apropos when describing Rome than Jerusalem. 

In Revelation 17:6 John sees the woman "drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." While there was certainly significant persecution in Jerusalem and this line alone could indicate either city, history is replete with descriptions of the sufferings of Christians at the hands of the Roman Empire. Again, Rome is the more logical choice for the symbol. 

In Revelation 17:16-17 the ten horns that John saw, along with the beast, act in concert to bring about the destruction of the harlot. While Israel is portrayed in prophecy and symbol as a harlot, it is never portrayed as being an unidentified beast. If it is portrayed as a beast, it is normally as a sheep or a flock of sheep. Examples include:

1.     Matt. 9:36 - When [Jesus] saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them. . . as sheep not having a shepherd.

2.     I Kings 22:17 - And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And Jehovah said, "These have no master; let them return every man to his house in peace."

3.     Ezek. 34:1-17 - The word of the Lord came to me: Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?...So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them… For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep… I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats.

There are at least 51 occurrences similar to the passages cited above, including the Old Testament apocalyptic books, so it simply is not logical for an inspired book to change the normal symbolism, particularly when Revelation is meant to be understood.

Syriac Peshitta Manuscript Argument - The Peshitta Manuscript is an early canon from Syria. The age of the Syriac Peshitta is not known with certainty, but for various reasons scholars accepted that the version of it containing New Testament texts was first produced during the mid-second century (between 125-175 AD). The Peshitta canon has what at one time was considered to be one of the earliest copies of Revelation. The manuscript in its introduction to Revelation stated that John was banished to Patmos by Nero during his reign. In the 19th century, this was seen as conclusive evidence that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. However, modern scholars have reexamined the text and now date the copy of Revelation with the problematic introduction to the 5th century (circa 411-435 AD) and maintain that the Syrian churches did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude or Revelation in the Peshitta canon as early as the middle of the second century.

The Nero Arguments

1.     The Number of the Beast from Revelation 13:18 (666) has been held by many to be symbolic of the numerical value of the name Neron Kesar (i.e., Nero). However, to make the name fit the theory, the spelling of the name has to be converted into Greek and then slightly altered. As will be shown later in this class, this interpretation of the number 666 is not accurate for other reasons as well, and there exists a much better interpretation of the symbol that is also in accord with other "obscure" New Testament passages.

2.     Revelation 17:9-11 states, "Here is the mind that has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits and they are seven kings; five are fallen, one is, the other is not yet come; and when he comes, he must continue a little while. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goes into perdition." In this view, the five kings that had "fallen" would be Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Galba would have been reigning with another emperor of Nero's "likeness" yet to come who would destroy both Jerusalem and Israel and institute a new persecution of the church. This is based on the so-called "Nero Redivivus Myth" that was reputedly circulated shortly after Nero's death.

3.     Redivivus Myth - In Revelation 13:1-4 the first beast (the sea beast) receives a mortal wound. To those holding to this position, the "mortal wound" was Nero's suicide. Early date commentators maintain that there was a rumor in Rome that either Nero would rise again or that he had faked his death, had gone to the Parthians, and he would return with a Parthian army to sack Rome.

4.     One slightly more correct preterist interpretation is that this refers to Domitian who reinstituted persecution like Nero and thus was a "reincarnation" of Nero.

5.     Another probable interpretation (continuous historical) is that Revelation 1-11 refers to the destruction of physical Rome, while the healing of the mortal wound refers to the rise of persecuting power in apostate "spiritual" Rome - the apostate Catholic church which would drive the true church into the wilderness.

 
Arguments for Traditional Dating (circa 95 AD)

Both internal and external evidence strongly supports 95-96 AD as being the correct date for the writing. Both early Christian testimony and most conservative modern scholars affirm the later, or traditional, date.

Church Fathers:

1.     Irenaeus (AD 180) affirmed, "That apocalyptic vision was seen not very long since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies) This witness is particularly valuable since Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who in turn was taught by John. In the middle of the second century there were very likely some people still alive who had heard John speak, so the testimony of a person this closely connected with the author would be subject to considerable scrutiny and would have doubtless been discarded had it not been corroborated. The testimony of Irenaeus who is so close to the apostolic age is almost conclusive in itself particularly since he seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

2.     Clement of Alexandria (155-215 AD) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos "after the tyrant was dead" and Eusebius, known as the "Father of Church History," identifies the "tyrant" as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23). Clement further speaks of John as an "old man." If Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

3.     Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote, "When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated" (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

4.     Jerome (AD 340-420) said, "In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9)." 

5.     The extensive writing of Justin Martyr is of particular interest. Justin was martyred in 148 AD, and his writings were composed not long before. His activities as a Christian philosopher and evangelist had considerable influence and distribution in the early church, judging from his many travels and labors. The Scriptures to which he clearly refers are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Colossians, II Thessalonians, Hebrews, and Revelation. His importance lies in the fact that he refers to a well-defined corpus of sacred books as early as 148 AD and generally accepts "modern" time frames for the writing of the various books to which he refers.

6.     Other Early Christian Support - Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (AD 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign. Exceptions among early church writers were Epiphanius who dated Revelation during the reign of Claudius. This date is too early since the churches in Asia were not yet in existence (see Acts 16:6-7). For example, Ephesus was not well-evangelized until Paul arrived (Acts 18:24-19:10). The time of the ministry of Paul in Ephesus was time of origin of the Asian Churches to which Revelation was addressed. Another exception was Dortheus who misquoted Irenaeus as affirming Revelation was written during Trajan's rule.

Internal Evidence for the Traditional (Later) Date

The conditions depicted in the letters to the Asian churches in Revelation differ substantially from those represented in 60-70 AD in Acts, Paul's Pastoral (i.e., Timothy/Titus) Letters, and I Peter. These new conditions include:

1.     New Opposition - Nicolaitans (probably an early Gnostic group).

2.     New compromisers - "Jezebel", the "teaching of Balaam."

3.     New hazards - There was a threat of death if a Christian did not worship the emperor. There is no evidence for widespread emperor worship under Nero as was begun under Domitian.

4.     The various references to growing cold, losing first love, having name of being alive but being dead, and indifference all suggest a significant passage of time from the beginning of the churches in Asia, something that does not accord with a date during Nero's reign since most of the Asian churches would have been in existence for less than 30 years.

5.     Laodecian Church - Tacitus (Roman secular historian) wrote that the city was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 AD and was rebuilt by citizens without assistance from Rome. It would require some time before the city would be prosperous again (Revelation 3:14-18). The pride from such a rebuilding effort would affect the citizens, principally the younger generation who would be Christians toward the end of the first century.

6.     Ephesian Church - This church was not founded until the latter part of Claudius’s reign. Paul spent a lot of time there and this was his base for evangelizing much of the region of Asia Minor. When he wrote to them from Rome in approximately 60-62 AD he commends their love and faith instead of admonishing them for any lack of love (Eph. 1:15-16). Yet, when Revelation was written, they were reproved for having left their first love. This would seem to not be consistent with the passage of just a few years.

 

It is the view of this author that the evidence points to Revelation being written around 95-96 AD. Most of the rationale for an earlier date is really to support the preterist view, not an indication that the date accepted by most scholars is not correct.