Redating Revelation: the case for an early date

Introduction

The dating of Revelation is not merely an academic pursuit, for unlike any other NT writing, the date assigned to the Apocalypse has major interpretive implications; establishing the correct date is therefore crucial for developing an understanding of the message that Jesus Christ gave to his servants.

What do we mean by an early or late date?  An early date is considered to be a date prior to AD 70 and a late date is any date after AD 70.  This is not an arbitrary date as AD 70 marks a cataclysmic event – the destruction of the Second Temple and the commencement of the Jewish Diaspora.

The Destruction of the Temple

The impact of AD 70 on the psyche of the Jewish nation cannot be under-estimated; J. D. G. Dunn considers it “the most serious single crisis for Jewish identity”.[1]  Josephus[2] contended (through a proxy) almost ten years after the event that “…there could not be a Judaism without the temple” – it was an event of the utmost significance in the history of Judaism.[3]    J. A. Draper says that, “. . . to most, the loss of the temple must have seemed to be a permanent loss of the presence of God with his people”,[4] and according to M. Goodman there is “…every reason to suppose that the razing of the Temple horrified Diaspora Jews as much as their Judaean compatriots”.[5]

The sacrificial cult may well have continued in an inferior manner after AD 70 and it is known that sacrifice on the temple mount was briefly revived during the revolt of 132–35 BC but the temple itself was no longer present.  A. Guttmann maintains that the official cult after AD 70 ended and this is supported in the updated Schürer.[6] The temple building itself was not only the symbol of Yahweh’s presence but also a powerful political and nationalistic Jewish symbol.

The removal of the temple held equal significance for first century Christians, especially Jewish-Christians, as it resolved the perplexing problem of temple-worship. It also proved to be a powerful polemical tool against Judaism- removal of the temple confirmed the ‘New Covenant’. Henceforth, God could only be worshipped in ‘Spirit and Truth’ through Jesus Christ who, along with his church, constituted the eschatological temple. Christians did not support the Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the temple hastened the “parting of the ways” between Christianity and Judaism—in time, essentially, Christianity became a “Gentile religion” after AD 70.[7]

The status of the temple plays a crucial role in the trial of Jesus and Stephen, who are both accused of seeking its destruction.  The temples’ status is also a central motif in the epistle to the Hebrews…..even though the temple is not named in the epistle! [8] For rhetorical reasons the author of Hebrews prefers to employ allusions to the ‘tabernacle’ – if he had been more direct his polemic would have constituted “a massive ideological assault on the Jerusalem Temple and cultus”[9] bearing in mind that even veiled criticism of the temple cult by Stephen (Acts 6:13-14) resulted in a violent reaction. Hebrews preference for ‘tabernacle’ allusions over direct mention of the temple stresses the superiority of the nature of the structure that was chosen as Yahweh’s temporary abode (a tent) rather than David’s choice of a permanent ‘house’ (2 Sam 7:5-7 cf. Acts 7:44,49). The temporary nature of a structure that was moved, together with the Ark, in advance of the people in order to seek out a resting place (and that required disassembly and erection) has obvious analogies with Christ. Hebrews stresses the superiority of the ‘heavenly’ sanctuary over the ‘earthly’ sanctuary, an argument that would have been unnecessary if the Second Temple was no longer standing. The removal of the Second Temple ended the debate and the need for Christian apology, for Yahweh demonstrated conclusively that the earthly temple was no longer necessary (cf. Heb 12:25-27). In conclusion, we can be certain that Hebrews was written before the fall of the Second Temple in AD 70, and we can also be sure that the status of the Second Temple was a bone of contention between Jews and Christians as early as the trials of Jesus and Stephen and continued to be a stumbling-block until it was removed.

Most importantly the destruction of the sanctuary was anticipated in Daniel’s 490 year prophecy (Dan 9:24-27) and the same prophecy was employed by Jesus to warn of the coming destruction of the temple by Rome (Matt 24:15). The prophecy was expected to usher in “everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9:24b) the rule of God on earth, shortly after the destruction of the temple. Moreover, it was expected to result in an eschatological Jubilee Day of Atonement—“To finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity” (Dan 9:24b).

Rabbinical Judaism adapted the prophecy by compressing the period between the destruction of the first temple (586 BC)  and the second temple (AD 70) in the Seder Olam chronicle (a Jewish calendar ca. 160 AD) to a mere 490 years, thus effectively revising history by omitting 166 years from the Persian era.  With the removal of the temple cult in AD 70 attention was refocused on the codification of the oral traditions know as the Mishna and the conclusion of the ‘Torah era’. This is hardly a satisfactory realization of a prophecy that signified the in-breaking of God’s rule on earth and promised, “To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy” (Dan 9:24b).  For early Jewish interpreters like Josephus the prophecy found a fulfilment in the destruction of the temple by the Romans; Jewish commentators, such as Rashi and Metzudos, held that the 490 years ended with the destruction of the temple.

In summary, first century Jews expected the destruction of the temple to coincide with the in breaking of God’s rule on earth, Rabbinical Judaism re-interpreted Daniel’s prophecy when this did not occur and refocused their energies away from the temple cult, towards the law and the synagogue. The destruction of the temple was a seminal event for Judaism and Christianity, and it marked not only the end of an independent Jewish nation, but the end of an era. The fact that the destruction of the temple is not referred to as a ‘past event’ in any of the NT writings is the most forceful argument for dating the whole of the NT before AD 70. J. A. T. Robinson sums up the lack of reference to the fall of the temple as follows:

One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period – the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple – is never once mentioned as a past fact.  It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event.  But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.[10]

Jewish Temple Imagery indicates an Early Date

Despite prolific Temple imagery/liturgy occurring in the Apocalypse, the impact has been marginal on interpretive approaches and the topos is barely noted in commentaries. Recently this neglect has been addressed (1997/1999) by studies from R. Brigg[11] and A. and A. Spatafora,[12] who investigate the use of Temple imagery in apocryphal and OT sources and the subsequent development of the Temple theme in the Apocalypse. The common feature shared by these recent works is recognition of the importance of temple imagery/liturgy in the Apocalypse, particularly the Day of Atonement, a feature also noted by H. A. Whittaker.[13]

Why is Jewish ‘temple imagery’ (cf. Rev 8:3; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7) so fundamental to the Apocalypse?  The vision of the ‘heavenly sanctuary’ was given before the destruction of the ‘earthly temple’ and before the Neronic persecution in order to reassure Christians. Hebrews follows the lead given in the Apocalypse by reminding readers that the ‘earthly tabernacle’ (temple) is but a copy and shadow (Heb 8:5) of the heavenly things (i.e., the temple that John ‘entered’ in his vision)—believers now have an ‘open door’ to the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 4:1; cf. Heb 4:16) and become ‘fellow worshipers’ with the angels (Rev 19:10; 22:9); the Jewish temple cult is no longer relevant and therefore Christians (particularly Jewish Christians) need not be distressed when it is removed.

The Apocalypse is structured around a three-and-a-half year cycle of Jewish Feasts, and is replete with implicit and explicit allusions and echoes to the Jewish Feasts. For example, Passover (Rev 5:1f); Tabernacles (Rev 7:15); Hanukkah (Rev 11:4); Purim (Rev 11:10); Atonement (Rev 8:1f); and Tabernacles (Rev 21:3; 21:6; 22:1; cf. the water pouring ceremony of John 7:37). The Fourth Gospel shares the same interest in Feast Days with the narrative punctuated by references to the Jewish calendar (John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22; 11;55ff).

First Century Expectations indicate an early date

Whereas many pious first century Jews expected the ‘end of the age’ in the first century, Christians held the expectation that Christ would return during their lifetime (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 24:34; 1 Thess. 4:15;[14] 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2). G. K. Beale has noted[15] that the formula translated in Rev 1:1 (and also 4:1 and 22:6) as “what must….take place” is found in only one other place in the Bible, namely in Greek versions of Daniel 2, where it occurs in verses 28, 29 and 45:

[…..]….he showed . . . what things must take place in the latter days (Dan 2:28, LXX)
[…..]…to show . . . …what things must take place quickly (Rev 1:1)

According to Beale, the verbs translated “show” are “semantic equivalents”, both used to describe the “role of the prophets in revealing what God has ‘shown’ them”. The important matter to note is the change from the expression “in the latter days” to “quickly,” which “appears to indicate that fulfilment has begun (that it is being fulfilled) or will begin in the near future. Simply put, John understands Daniel’s reference to a distant time as referring to his own era and he updates the text accordingly. What Daniel expected to occur in the distant ‘latter days’ — the defeat of cosmic evil and the ushering in of the divine kingdom — John expects to begin ‘quickly,’ in his own generation, if it has not already begun to happen.”

Therefore, Rev 1:1a anticipates (via Daniel) an imminent fulfilment in the first century. This is reinforced by Rev 1:7, “Behold, He is coming with clouds” (NKJV), an allusion to Dan 7:13, followed by a description of the “Son of man” in Danielic terms in Rev 1:13-17 (cf. Dan 7:9; 10:6). Significantly, Jesus warned the judges at his trial that they, “…will see the Son of Man…coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64), indicating that they would personally experience his coming in judgement.  All of the allusions to Daniel in the first chapter of the Apocalypse point to an imminent first century fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecies.   The use of Daniel by Jesus in Rev 1:1 corresponds with Jesus’ use of Daniel in the Olivet Prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The conclusion is inescapable that the prophecy of Daniel/Olivet/Revelation had at least a partial fulfilment in the first century.

The Breach Principle

The “coming of the Son of Man” in AD 70 was an act of judgment that only partially realized the terms of Daniel/Olivet/Revelation.[16] First Century Christians expected the in-breaking of the kingdom to quickly follow. We might ask why the kingdom was not inaugurated immediately and if there is a scriptural precedent for this. Scripture does indeed have a precedent for delaying the promised inheritance….it is known as the breach principle:

After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know  my breach of promise. Num.14:34 (KJV)[17]

The same warning based on the same incident was given to first century Jewish-Christians in the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 4:3-8). The warning was not heeded—the Jewish nation was swept away—the Jewish-Christian church was swept away—the kingdom on earth did not materialise and Christianity became a ‘Gentile religion’. This frustrated first century eschatological expectations of Christians and Jews—the prophetic clock stopped ticking.  All the prophecies could (should) have been realized in the first century but they were not.

Both 2 Peter and Hebrews (and possibly others) were aware of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ”, and were consciously alluding to or echoing the warnings given by Christ regarding the coming judgement on Judaism in AD 70.[18]  Jewish-Christians were warned not to apostatize by reverting to Judaism as it would soon be swept away. In this context the words of Heb 1:2 take on new significance and resonate with meaning:

Has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds… Heb 1:2 (KJV)

The first verses of Hebrews should be placed in the context of Heb 12:25,

See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven… Heb 12:25 (KJV)

The one who ‘spoke on earth’ was either the Angel of the Presence who spoke on God’s behalf and bore the divine Yahweh name (Exod 23:20-23), or it was Moses who was God’s divine agent (cf. Acts 7:35). The one who speaks to the Hebrews from heaven is now the resurrected Christ who speaks with God’s authority through his servant John:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Pet 1:20-21 (KJV)

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet. Rev 1:10 (KJV)

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. John 16:13 (KJV)

In Heb 12:25-27 and 2 Pet 1:17-21 we have different examples to emphasize the same point (the example employed by Hebrews probably appealed more to Jewish-Christians). Hebrews draws on the wilderness experience and the revelation on Mount Sinai, Peter draws on the revelation on the transfiguration Mount:

Exodus 19	Hebrews 12	2 Peter 1 (Transfiguration)
18. Mt. Sinai	18. Mt Sinai	18. The holy mount
19. God answers Moses by a voice	25. Him (God) that warneth from heaven	18. This voice (God’s) which came from heaven we heard
18. Whole mount quaked greatly	26. Voice shook the earth
19. The people feared (Exod 20:19).	21. Moses feared	The disciples feared (Luke 9:35)
9, 16. A thick cloud	21. Tempest	A cloud (Luke 9:34)
If thou shalt indeed obey his voice… (Exod 23:22) (the voice of the angel of the presence who spoke to Moses on earth)	25. …refused Him who spoke on earth	17. This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him. (Jesus) (Luke 9:34)

Both Hebrews and 2 Peter emphasize that the resurrected Jesus now speaks with the full authority of God and has recently given a revelation from heaven to his servant John—they would do well to heed Jesus’ warning from heaven regarding the coming judgement on Judaism.

Internal versus External Evidence

The late dating of Revelation is usually established by reference to external evidence. The external evidence is by no means unanimous, with the strongest testimony being that of Irenaeus (ca. 180), which establishes a date of AD 96 under the persecution of Domitian. This evidence has been challenged: the testimony of Irenaeus is ambiguous and subject to alternative readings,[19] and the persecution under Domitian[20] was localized and not as severe as that under Nero.[21]

Essentially, the question of dating comes down to the relative weight that is placed on the external evidence as opposed to the internal (Biblical) evidence. With external evidence both the motive[22] behind the testimony and the accuracy[23] of the testimony can be challenged.  This is not the case with internal evidence—the authority of the testimony is not in question and the motive behind the testimony is pure. Nevertheless, we should remember that internal evidence is subject to other issues, such as direction of quotation (who is quoting whom?) and interpretation.

When was Revelation written?

Perhaps the clearest internal indicator for dating is Rev 17:10-11 which places the Apocalypse during the reign of the sixth Roman emperor—Nero (54-68), as the “one that is” (e.g. in power at the time of writing), commencing the count with the first emperor, Julius Caesar. The problem for commentators is identifying the “seventh” emperor, who “has not yet come”, with various candidates being suggested none of whom is particularly relevant.[24] This “other” who, “has not yet come” and will exist for only a “short time” is associated with the re-emergence of the beast. The future protagonist is equated with the “eighth” (head) and is “of the seven” (heads).  The problem is caused by the failure to recognise the prophetic interruption caused by the breach of promise.  The “one who is to come” and the reincarnated beast are eschatological figures that appear right at the end, just before the appearance of Jesus—the “short time” is analogous with the three-and–one-half year witnessing that sees the “resurrected” beast murder the witnesses (Rev 11:7).  The witnessing is based on the “Faithful Witness” (Rev 1:5) who was murdered in Jerusalem (cf. Rev 11:8) by an imperial power in collusion with an institutionalized religion (beast). First century events act as a kind of transparency through which to view the end and Nero is the archetype for the blaspheming, persecuting “man” (666) who “has not yet come”.

Nero’s persecution of Christians was not accidental. A minority sect like the Christians would not have come to his attention, were it not for the trouble that Judaizers stirred up (cf. Acts 18:2). The suggestion to use Christians as a scapegoat and blame them for the great fire probably came from his mistress, Poppea, who was a recent convert to Judaism.[25]

It is often asserted that Nero’s name does not calculate the gematria value of 666 (Rev 13:18), but the Aramaic spelling of Nero Caesar – Nrwn Qsr (attested at Qumran) does, moreover, when the Latin spelling of ‘Nero Caesar’ is transliterated into Hebrew it calculates the alternative numerical value 616 a textual variant found in some manuscripts![26]  So both the Aramaic and the Latin form indicate the number of a man – Nero Caesar. However, the numerical riddle 666 is supra-historical in its significance, going beyond identifying the particular (a man) to identifying the universal hubris and self-divinization of man.[27]

Such was the tyranny of Nero that myths accreted about his reappearance (that he was possibly not dead) and as early as 69 AD an imposter emerged to be quickly followed by other pseudo-Neroes. Commentators often aver that passages such as Rev 13:3, 14 and 17:8, 11 (describing the beast that survived a mortal wound) form the basis of the Nero Redivivus (Nero Returns) myth.  The myth is employed by late date advocates (as a prophecy after the event) and by early date advocates! K. L. Gentry suggests that the myth was already well established early in the reign of the superstitious Nero, who sought predictions from astrologers.[28]

The explanation offered here is that the Book of Revelation (given early in the reign of Nero) contributed to the myth of his “return”. By coincidence (sic) the number of man calculated the value of Nero Caesar (who was an archetype) and together with the prophecies concerning the reincarnation (recovery/resurrection) of the beast this encouraged the spread of the Nero Redivivus myth amongst pagan pretenders, who acquired (and misunderstood) it from Christian sources. This testifies to the terror that Nero invoked even after his death. The beast with its seven heads equates to the totality of the beast-heads in the vision of Daniel 7 representing the sum total of the “kingdoms of men”.  In the first century, the “beast” was Roman and the Harlot (unfaithful woman) supported by imperial power (riding the beast) was Jerusalem— the perfect combination of ruthless Gentile power and institutionalized Jewish religion. This duality (Jerusalem/Rome) found common purpose when they crucified the Lord and threw the Christians to the lions but their agreement did not last and Rome eventually destroyed Jerusalem (cf. Rev 17:16).  The events of the first century are a preview of future events.

Conclusion

Serious problems exist in accepting a late date for Revelation. The vantage point of the seals is retrospective (just before the Nero persecution), looking backwards to the foot of the cross.[29] This gave first century Christians the reassurance that the ‘resurrected Lamb’ was immediately empowered to lead and encourage his church through the coming tribulations (not 66 years later!). Jesus was aware of all the hardships and martyrdoms endured by the primitive church—persecutions that would “fill up the measure of his sufferings” until the coming retribution of 70.

Of particular interest is the importance of the Day of Atonement which thematically informs the Trumpet section. The Day of Atonement is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year and is a national holiday. Why does the liturgy of a Jewish Feast related to national atonement form a central theme in the Book of Revelation? The Day of Atonement has no relevance to any other nation, nor is it relevant to the church or the “church age”. Instead of forgiveness, the Day of Atonement in the Apocalypse results in a process of national punishment and retribution.

In 1973 the nation of Israel suffered a surprise attack on the Day of Atonement – it was a war they almost lost. The Day of Atonement war was the divine response to prayers asking for national forgiveness and it is this event that re-started the prophetic clock. We are now living in the period immediately prior the witnessing to the Jewish nation.

Many interpretations of Revelation are politically motivated – the Continuous-Historic approach originated as Protestant polemic against the Catholic Church[30] and the Catholic response was full Preterism[31] (the notion that it was completely realized in 70). Exegetes should move away from politically motivated interpretations and adopt an approach grounded in a biblical hermeneutic. Revelation was obviously not completely realized in the first century but it is just as obvious that it was written early and that it had an application to our first century brethren and sisters and to the Jewish nation (and still does).

---

[1] “If the emergence of post-exilic Judaism, and the Maccabean crisis provided two of the main crises for Jewish identity, the third most serious single crisis of the second temple period was the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and its aftermath”—J. D. G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, A.D. 70 to 135 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 185.

[2] Josephus expresses his own views through the words of his character (Eleazar son of Yair), who contends that there could not be a Judaism without the temple, so that the people in Masada were the final Jews on the earth.  (C. Ap.  2.193-198) In his summary of the Law in Contra Apionem he included the Temple cult as the first item in his list of the essentials of Jewish worship (C. Ap. 2.193-198).

[3] W. D. Davies, “Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (eds. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 43-64.

[4] J. A. Draper, “Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John,” Neot 31/2 (1997): 285

[5] M. Goodman, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple” in Jews and Christians (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 27-38 (38).

[6] A. Guttmann, “The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult” HUCA 38 (1967): 137-148. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.- A.D. 135), (revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar (and M. Black (vols. I-II), M . Goodman (vols.III.1-2)); 4 vols; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-87), I:521-523.

[7] Revelation is addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor as the Lord anticipates the demise of the Jewish state and the Jerusalem church. In Rev 2:9 and 3:9—‘Jew’ is employed as an honorific term for the religious ideal. Jesus is warning against false Jewish converts (a fifth column)—they were not true ‘Jews’ but still belonged to the ‘synagogue of Satan’.  It is unlikely that the term ‘Jew’ would be employed in this sense after the destruction of the temple (post 70). The seven churches reflect first century circumstances, for example, Laodicea was so rich that they took pride in being able to rebuild the city after the earthquake of 60 without help from imperial funds (Tacitus, Ann. 14.27; cf. Sib. Or. 4.107f).

[8] S. Motyer commences his article on the Temple in Hebrews with the words; “The presence or absence of the Temple in Hebrews is one of the most intriguing and significant exegetical and historical puzzles posed by the letter”—“The Temple in Hebrews: Is it There?” in Heaven and Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology (eds. T. D. Alexander & S. Gathercole; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 177-189 (177).

[9] Motyer, “The Temple in Hebrews: Is it There?”, 180

[10] J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: Xpress Reprints, 1976), 13.

[11] R. A. Brigg, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation (Studies in Biblical Literature; Vol. 10; New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1999).

[12] A. and A. Spatafora observe that, “All other studies and commentaries appear to analyse the individual recurrences, but they fail to see a relationship between them”—A. Spatafora and A. Spatafora, From the ‘Temple of God’ to God as the Temple: A Biblical Theological Study of the Temple in the Book of Revelation (Rome: Loyola Press, 1997), 7-9.

[13] H. A. Whittaker, Revelation: A Biblical Approach (Lichfield: Biblia, 1973), 104-105.

[14] In 1 Thessalonians (an early epistle) Paul expected that at least some of his audience (including himself?) would still be alive when the Lord returned. The immediacy of the problems facing the Thessalonians, including their communal living arrangements, indicated that first century Christians expected an early return.

[15] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary of the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 153-4, 1130.

[16] For connections between the Olivet prophecy and the Seals see, T. Gaston, Come and See (Hyderabad: Printland Publishers, 2007), 104-5, and Whittaker, Revelation: A Biblical Approach, 67-68. Unlike the synoptics, the Fourth Gospel did not feel it necessary to include the Olivet prophecy because John had already incorporated it into the Seals!

[17] [Ed. AP]: Another example of delay is Isa 48:9, “For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off”.

[18] A strong case has been made for both the epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John being directed at the Jewish-Christian community at Ephesus. The epistle to the Hebrews has extensive allusions to the warning given to the Ephesians in Rev 2:1-7. See, P. Wyns, “The Fourth Gospel and Hebrews” and “The Fourth Gospel and Revelation” in The Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation Annual 2009, (ed. A. Perry et al; Sunderland: Willow Publications, 2009), 154-163, 163-170 (168-169). For intertextual links between 2 Peter and Revelation 2, see Robinson, Redating, 227.

[19] See the alternative reading put forward by Robinson, Redating, 221-222.

[20] A number of late date advocates either contradict themselves or do not even attempt to use the Domitian persecution to establish the date. See J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1979), 24-25; G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 8; R. H. Fuller , A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1966), 187; L. Morris, Revelation (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press), 36; and D. H. van Daalen, A Guide to Revelation (London: SPCK, 1986), 3. L. L. Thompson has demonstrated clearly that there was no empire-wide persecution of Christians inaugurated by Domitian—The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 95-115. D. Warden concludes, “…a Domitianic persecution based on literary evidence from the milieu of the imperial capital is essentially irrelevant”—“Imperial persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter and Revelation” JETS 34/2 (1991): 203-212, (212). See also J. C. Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation” NTS 39 (1993): 587-605.

[21] K. L. Gentry concludes his assessment of the evidence with the words: “The evidence of a general persecution against Christianity under Nero is strong and almost universally recognised. Its cruelty, extent, and length are most compatible with the requirements of the Revelational record. Not only so, but the Domitianic evidence is meagre and, if accepted, Domitian’s persecution pales by comparison”—K. L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 298-9; see also 17-18, 24-38.

[22] T. B. Slater asserts; “Moreover, Thompson has shown conclusively that the writings of the Roman historians who were Irenaeus’ primary sources had themselves intentionally given a poor depiction of Domitian in order to ingratiate themselves to Trajan and his new imperial family. Thus, for these reasons, Irenaeus is not the most reliable source for dating the Apocalypse to John and can only be used as a supporting witness, if then”—“Dating the Apocalypse to John” Bib 84 (2003): 252-258 (254).

[23] Robinson, Redating, 221, remarks, “the external testimony is only as strong as the internal and must be assessed critically”. R. B. Moberley states, “We would not normally regard so distant, belated and second-hand opinion as, by itself, evidence”—“When was Revelation Conceived?” Bib 73 (1992): 376-393 (367, 381).

[24] See Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 146-164.

[25] Josephus (Ant. 20.8 .11) recounts how Poppea pleaded with Nero on behalf of Ismael the high priest and Helcias the temple treasurer, who were held hostage at Nero’s court, in order to force the Jews to demolish a wall that blocked Herod Agrippa’s view of the Temple precinct.

[26] For detailed analysis of 666 and 616 see Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 193-203.

[27] Empire building (cf. the beasts of Daniel’s vision) is an act of human assertion and glorification (cf. Dan 4:30; 1 Kings. 10:14) and something that Jesus refused (Matt 4:8-10).  

[28] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 300-317 (305).

[29] The first seal commenced at Passover, at the resurrection, and the last seal was completed 42 years (?) later on the day after Passover (Josephus, Wars 10.9.1.), with the fall of the last fortress and suicide of the Jewish defenders at Masada. The seals are all related to the church history recorded in Acts and the secular history recorded in Josephus. The conquering Gospel (Rev 6:2; Acts 9:15), Herodian Persecution (Rev 6:4; Acts 12:1-2), Claudian famine (Rev 6:5-6; Acts 11:28), disintegration of the Jewish state (Rev 6:8 cf. Josephus, [Thackeray Loeb edition] who reports assassins, robbers, a false prophet [253-70] and the suppression of rebellions in this period [253, 260, 263, 269f]), Nero persecution (Rev 6:9-11; 1 Pet 5:8) and the Jewish war concluding with the fall of Jerusalem and last fortress at Masada (Rev 6:12-17)—six Seals, each lasting approximately seven years.

[30] Martin Luther and John Calvin adopted a Historicist approach during the Reformation.

[31] A Preterist response was issued during the Counter Reformation by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar.