In the ".... AD70 theory" thread, John Wilson says, "I have never in 30 years heard any scholar put Revelation prior to AD 70. The general consensus among almost all scholars is that the book was written in the 90's."

I'm not particularly interested in that thread -- or at least I don't think I am; I'm not really sure what it's all about. But I think the question of the date of Revelation might be relevant to several other past threads, so perhaps the question merits a thread of its own.

Yes, sometime around AD 96 seems to be the popularly accepted date today, but this hasn't always been the case. There is some evidence (usually just ignored) for a much earlier date, and some quite reputable scholars of the past have argued for earlier dates. H.C. Thiessen, in his "Introduction to the New Testament" lists the following scholars who believe the Revelation was written around 68 or 69: Westcott, Lightfoot, Hort, Salmon, and others. Loren Brink, author of "Rethinking Revelation in the light of the Old Testament Prophets" lists the same ones Thiessen does, plus the following: Moses Stuart, Robert Young (author of Young's Concordance), and Sir. Isaac Newton (!! -- though I don't know what Newton's credentials in Biblical criticism might be). By the way, Thiessen himself prefers the A.D. 96 date, while Brink prefers a date before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

According to Thiessen, a variety of different dates have been suggested, depending partly on how one interprets the seven heads of the beast in chs. 13 and 17. The emperor of John's exile does not have to have been Domitian. Others have been suggested, including Nero. Nero has often been suggested as "the beast" -- it are a couple of ways to get 666 out of his name -- but is usually ruled out as impossible if the book was not written until 30 or so years after his death. The Greek of Revelation is different to that of John's gospel and other letters, leading some to think it might have been written first.

Brink's book is very interesting. He compares the images used by the Old Testament prophets to describe the fall of Jerusalem and of Judah to Babylon in the O.T. because of apostacy, with parallel images used by the prophets to describe the fall of Babylon itself and other pagan states. He believes that the images used are distinctly different. He then compares those images with the images used in various parts of Revalation. His conclusion is that the first part of Revelation uses the same images as are used in the O.T. of the fall of Jerusalem and Judah, while the second part uses the same images as are used in the O.T. to describe the fall of Babylon and other pagan states. His conclusion, based on this finding, is that the first part of Revelation is about the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the fall of apostate Judaism, and that the second part, using the same images as described the fall of pagan, idolatrous Babylon, describe the fall of idolatry and emperor worship in the Roman Empire.

I haven't had time yet to thoroughly study Brink's ideas, so am not sure yet whether or not I accept them myself, and I'm certainly not ready to argue them for him, but the suggestion does make sense and I find it an attractive theory.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

Answers

The suggestion that Revelation depicts the fall of Jerusalem in its earlier chapters and the fall of Babylon and whoever else in later chapters is certainly a strong possibility, Benjamin. I would suggest to you, however, that it does necessarily follow that the book was written before ad70. It may well be that John is recounting some of the history of the church, if not all of mankind, in order to set uo thematically or historically what is to follow. Such a recounting would surely (imo) include a depiction of the fall of Jerusalem.

A good observation in Revelation studies . . . but only a possible, not a probable, argument for early writing.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000