Was Revelation Written Before or After AD 70?
Here are some reasons why Revelation could have been written before AD 70:
1. John makes no mention of the destruction of the temple. Such an apocalyptic event would likely be recorded.
2. The temple was destroyed in one generation as Jesus prophesied, yet John makes no mention of it.
3. In Revelation 11, John is instructed to measure the temple and altar. These events are spoken of as if the temple is still standing.
What say you?
1. John makes no mention of the destruction of the temple. Such an apocalyptic event would likely be recorded.
2. The temple was destroyed in one generation as Jesus prophesied, yet John makes no mention of it.
3. In Revelation 11, John is instructed to measure the temple and altar. These events are spoken of as if the temple is still standing.
What say you?
posted by Vijay Swamidass | 11:14 PM
12 Comments:
Vijay,
I dont think Rev pre-dates 70. Among my reasons, here are the coolest:
1. No ancient witness places it before 70. It is most frequently connected with Diaspora Jews/Christians in Asia Minor.
2. The Rev 11 passage is perhaps ironic...go measure the temple, just like in Ezekiel...the idea being that its not there.
3. REv is a book for a persecuted people. Though Nero did persecute Christians, his persecutions didn’t go much beyond Rome. Domitian in the 90's on the other hand did conduct large-scale, Gestapo-like persecutions.
4. The Reign of Domitian also fits because of the references to the beast with an apparently fatal wound who comes back to life…many people thought Domitian was Nero reborn.
5. The beast and the one who is able to make you worship the beast….many people think this is a reference to emperor worship which was the litmus test for persecution…again a post-70 thing.
There are more, but I will leave it there for now.
I think I always assumed that a post AD 70 Revelation meant that it did not have any fullfillment in the first century.
Thanks for the enlightening info, Steve.
Steve,
What are your thoughts on the part in the Stromata (7.17) where Clement assumes that the the teaching of the apostles ends with Nero?
Does this qualify as an ancient witness placing the date of Revelation pre-70?
If so--because I think you are right that there is not a wealth of early tradition supporting the earlier date--why does Clement almost assume a pre-70 date (i.e. where was this tradition coming from)?
Aaron,
Good post. A couple of thoughts:
1. The stromata deals with "the teachings" of the apostles meaning their actual talking. The paragraph previous talks about the teaching of Jesus. I think Rev is a whole other kettle of fish.
2. I think the passage is wrong. I havent looked at the textual tradition but it seems like the passage may be a bit corrupt. The dating of Jesus' ministry in it is frought with difficulties. Furthermore, Clement jumps from Nero to Hadrian. The gap seems awkward. Espicially since the Apostle's teaching did not end with Nero. We know John was teaching in Ephesus well into the close of the first century.
I have my theories as to what may be the problem in Clement but sufficite it to say that I dont think this passage does anything for the dating of Rev.
I'm not arguing with you Steve, just pointing out why some people disagree with your thoughts:
Re:# 1, there seems to be some ancient witness which suggests an early date for Revelation. First, “The Shepherd of Hermas” is most likely dated somewhere around AD 85 and strongly seems to allude to Revelation. Two ancient manuscripts cite a statement by Papias of Hieropolis which suggest John wrote pre AD 70. The writer of The Muratorian Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing Revelation prior to Paul’s death, which almost all date to be around AD 67-68. Tertullian makes a statement in “Exclusion of Heretics” which implies that John’s banishment occurred at the same time Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius of Salamis says that John prophesied during the reign of Claudius, which may be a reference to Nero, as he is often called by his adoptive name “Claudius” on inscriptions. Besides all this, there is early date evidence from The Syriac Tradition, Arethas, Theophylact, etc.
Re: #2, it’s possible the temple isn’t there, but several lines of evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. First, John speaks in the future tense when he speaks of the destruction of the city where the temple resides (“they will tread,” Rev. 11:2b). Rev 11:1-2 reflect Christ’s prophecy of AD 70 in Luke 21:24. Added to this, the context of Luke 21 all suggests a literal Jerusalem, temple, and armies. Note also the “42 months,” the exact time of the Roman siege.
Re: #3, Kenneth Gentry has argued that Nero’s persecution did in fact extend well beyond Rome, and argues that it was in fact more severe and better attested than the persecution under Domitian. I don't know what the evidence is in support of this point of view, but it's out there.
Re: #4 and the restoration of the beast, it has been argued that this would seem to better fit with “the year of the four emperors,” which immediately followed in the wake of Nero’s death. In other words, after Nero Rome went through four emperors in about 18 months and nearly collapsed, before order was restored under Vespasian.
Re: #5, it has been argued that worship of the emperor dates back to Julius Caesar, and was widespread long before Nero, although it is true that historical development of the practice continued to be introduced as time went on.
Again, I'm not arguing with Steve, and I know that he knows this stuff a billion times better than I. But I wanted to at least point out why some people take a pre-70 date.
Cheers,
Andrew
Awesome!
Andrew,
Are you a part of the some people who hold to a pre-70 date?
Aaron, I'm still investigating. I think it would be cool if it predated 70, but I don't want to believe it simply because it would be cool. Make sense?
Honestly, one of the reasons I give pause to the early date is because Steve doesn't hold to it. That carries some serious weight for me.
Don't let that comment go to your head, Steve.
I am tired and comments are not a good place to flesh all this out, but let me commit 2 fallacies by way of dealing with andrew's reasons (not that I am saying Andrew accepts these reasons...only that he put them forward):
1. the genetic fallacy: I think some people come to Rev wanting it to be pre70 because then it would dovetail nicely with their eschatology. They therefore emphasize ancillary traditions or follow problematic authors in order to gain credence for their position. (THis also might be ad hominem...take your pick)
2. the ad verecundiam fallacy: I dont know any trained ROman Historian who would agree with Andrew's #3-5.
I could say more...over a beer...and some nachos...at the Englander but typing would take too long. Enjoy.
If John was indeed identifying "worship of the beast" with emperor worship, one might argue that the Roman version wouldn't have to have been in full flower before Revelation was written. Couldn't John, as a scripturally literate Jew and Evangelist, have (by inferring from the past) anticipated its eventual persecutional force while it was still developing? Take, for example:
(I) Daniel's experience with Darius the Mede.
(II) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego's experience with Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian (with or without a Babylon=Rome analogy).
(III) Intertestamental conflict between the Jews and e.g. the Seleucids.
(IV) An assumption (reasonable for an ancient Jew?) that no polytheistic pagan empire would fail (i.e. not bother) to deify its emperor(s) for long.
Re: IV, I wonder how long the typical incubation period has been for emperor-worship cults throughout global history: Rome, Old/Middle/New Pharaonic Egypt, China, Babylon, Medo-Persia, etc. Anyone?
Steve,
Don't commit fallacies. Give us a good argument. Heck, I'll even buy the beer and nachos for ya if that helps.
Hey, send me your e-mail address please. I tried to send you some junk mail--I mean a nice, friendly letter and it got kicked back.
Doug
By way of moving my commments out of fallacy and towards actual arguement, I offer the following additional info:
1. The beast with seven heads and ten horns is clearly Rome...the city on seven hills. So I think JOhn does have in mind Rome and the "full-flowering" of emperor worship and is not just anticipating it.
2. Equating Rome with Babylon is a post-70 thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home