JFJ Forums

In regards to the Book of Revelation, the dating has generally been accepted as probably between 90 -  96 A.D. in Christian academic circles.  This dating is "comfortable" because it places such horrifying visions to an age when John would have likely suffered some sort of dementia, which none of the Apostles suffered.

What is the primary method to date Revelation as 90 - 96?  Generally, by taking Irenaeus out of context, as he relates the history given him by Polycarp (and others who knew John).  

“…As the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the Disciple of the LORD, that John conveyed to them that information.  And   he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.” (Against Heresies, 2.2.25)

“…Again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having  John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the Tradition of the Apostles.”  (A.H.,3.3.4)

In the next quote, an "it" instead of the pronoun "he"  is normally inserted, when "he" is the correct insertion based on the context.

"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 Apocalyptic Vision.  For *  [He} * was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, at the end of Domitian’s
reign. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this
man comes, we may avoid him, being aware who he is….” (A.H. 5.30.3-4)

    In Patmos, we find that John—in Revelation 1:9 -- experiences the "Affliction" or “Tribulation” of Thlipsei: from “Thlipsis” (in the Greek).  It is not the actual bondage of Chains, as we find with the Greek “Desmos (e.g. Acts 26:31, 22:30, and cf. 20:23).  Thlipsis is an emotionally and psychologically horrifying period of stress, where one feels as though a great weight were crushing down on top of them, while also being squeezed from all sides.  In short, John felt great humiliation.  

An examination of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria shows that John was "apheimi" or "sent away" as one "expelled" or told "to get out of town" by the local governor (of Asia), and returned after this one died...but was never expelled out of Asia again.  Thus, the unbroken tenure of John begins as calculated from that time.  Paul does not give up jurisdiction until Acts 20:17 ff., in the month of April 54 A.D. 

In the Fragments of Caius, we are shown that Paul read Revelation PRIOR TO HIS COMPLETING HIS ECCLESIASTICAL EPISTLES, and approved the book; and limiting Church epistles to 7 Churches: based on the work he approved.  We see this insight in Paul's passage of 2 Thessalonians 2 on Anti-Christ, for example.

(The "man of desolation" also a teaching out of Genesis 6:4"s "men of name", as well as from Daniel...and on and on we can go.)  

Revelation was written following the Ephesian uproar.  Date this activity, and you date the less than one year expulsion of John.   

Any one interested in a further probing of this kind of thread?                   

Interesting points. I have come across this question before. The writer of the book of Revelation (John), appears to believe that the Temple is still in existence at the time of his writing. The Temple is mentioned several times in Rev chapters 14, 15 and 16, although it is not clear whether all the references are to heavenly or earthly temples.

In Rev. 21:22 John writes, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.". This implies that John was expecting to see one - was he unaware that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in AD70?

I did a Google search and found several references to the question of a pre AD70 date for Revelation. Personally I prefer to go for the post AD90 opinion, that makes it the last book in the Bible to be written, and rounds it all off nicely.

In Nero, we see a pattern of behavior that limits this foolish and mischeivously wicked "boy Caesar" to 4 particular periods when he could have sat in judgement over the Apostles Peter and Paul.

In Suetonius' 12 Caesars, we see that in section 14 on Nero, that Nero held only 4 consulships.  After this period, we know that all were automatically placed into forced labor on Nero's home and reconstruction plans still later.

The periods of Nero's consulships were:
2 months in 55 A.D.
6 months in 57 A.D.  (which year Acts ends in).
4 months in 58 A.D.  
6 months in 60 A.D.


Now, if you take F.F. Bruce's position on Corinth and Ephesus, the most you can bump up the New Testament is by just one year to 58 A.D.  But wait...

In Jerome's "Illustrious Men" .5, we see that whenever he invoke's "the Passion", the Truth -- and not propaganda -- must be spoken.  While invoking "the passion of Christ", Paul is sent to Rome 25 years after the Passion, and Peter and Paul die on the 27th year after the Passion.  In other words, a 55 A.D. arrival, and a 57 A.D. death.

  Therefore, we must conclude a trial before "Caesar", by all practical analysis in dating the N.T., rests on a trial in 57 (and absolutely no later than 58) A.D.  We are therefore placed back in 57 A.D., in the last year that the Apostles in ROME could have been killed.

However, it is known by Suetonius in section 12 on Nero, that Nero did NOT HAVE ANY ONE PUT TO DEATH, NOT EVEN CRIMINALS for the single year's time that he had "Campus Martius" built.  And when was that?  In A.D. 58, after the projected time I date the death's of Peter and Paul.

However, Michael Grant argues that the Campus Martius was completed in A.D. 57.  If that is the case, we are back to a 57 or 58 date yet again.  The dating of the Cross to 33, still places the Apostles to a date absolutely no later than June 29, 60 A.D.  -- long before any fires of Rome in 62 or 64.  

So if Peter and Paul can be easily affirmed as dying much earlier than previously taught...then what else, such as the dating of Revelation, have the "experts too busy to research for themselves" missed?  Shalom.