THIS IS IN DRAFT FORM. ERRORS MAY STILL EXIST. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF ANY ERRORS – PLEASE CONTACT US.

Christians don’t greatly care about the dating of the gospels or any of the New Testament books really, except for Revelation. Why? It matters for only one main reason: if it is dated before the AD.70 destruction of the Temple, preterists and postmillennialists may have have a case to make for a radically different understanding of key eschatalogical passages, and the nature of the millennium. An earlier date does not prove preterism or postmillennialviews – their claims would still require substantiation. And it does no great difficulty for the futurist or historical premillennialist.

If Revelation is dated after AD.70, the entirety of preterist (and much of postmil) claims goes up in smoke.

From the 2nd to the 18th centuries, the later date has been majority consensus of church historians¹. I don’t care much for this type of evidence, as men can be sincerely intentioned, and be woefully incorrect. However, it is of importance to some Christians, and so I mention it here.

Before we get into the details, it’s worth considering the nature and content of Revelation and how the early church understood it.

Introduction

Revelation says it is a prophecy of “what is, and what will take place after this.” (v.19). Since Scripture says the book of Revelation is prophecy (1:3; 10:11; 22:7, 10, 18, 19) we must treat it as prophecy rather than history.

“The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him [John] to show his servants what must soon take place….because the time is near.” (Rev 1:1-3) and “I am coming soon.” (Rev 3:11; 22:12, 20)

It is agreed by all that John had his vision of Revelation while exiled on Patmos (since he says so himself in Revelation 1:9), and wrote it after his release. The big question is when was he exiled to Patmos, and when was he released?

Finally, before we get into the text and evidence, the early church of the first 100 years made no mention that AD70 was the fulfillment of Christ’s promised return, or of Revelation. To me, this is damning. One would expect at least some discussion, but we find almost zero testimony to that until Victorinus. Some early church writers discussed the dating (e.g., Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 30) and possible use of 666 to identify the antichrist and warned against trying to confidently search or assert the identify of the antichrist, but never mentioned its fulfilment being in AD70. And while Victorinus does assert some fulfillment in AD.70, he cannot identify the two witnesses of Revelation 11 saying they are future from his time, making his understanding of Revelation thoroughly disordered, and hardly compelling.

Evidence for pre-AD70 dating

Hitchcock² observes, “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line superscription in two Syriac versions of the New Testament in the sixth and seventh centuries. If the Neronic date were the original date of Revelation, one would expect a witness to this fact in Asia Minor, where the book of Revelation originated, and a witness much earlier than the sixth century.”

Some advocates for an earlier date, attribute a quote from Clement of Alexandria (AD.150-220) who plainly states that it was Nero who banished John to Patmos, not Emperor Domitian³. However, the attribution to Nero is inserted by others, and is not in Clement’s writings ⁴. The other early church writers place John’s exile during a “second” persecution which was done by Domitian⁵, making Nero an unlikely candidate to be identified as the “tyrant”.

Jerome credits Tertullian with the story of John being boiled in oil, and that it was done at the hand of Nero (Jerome, Against Jovinianus 1.26) and then exiled him (Commentary on Matthew, 20.23). However, no known Tertullian writings claim this. Jerome also says Domitian exiled John (On Illustrious Men, 9.6-7).

The heretic Cerinthus is often used to argue an early date by two possible lines:

• He wrote a pseudo-Apocalypse and could not have done so if he died before John returned from Patmos; and
• Irenaeus suggests that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (condemned in Revelation) was no longer an issue by the time of Cerinthus.

While Cerinthus was a heretic, the date of his death is unknown⁶, and many scholars put his death after John’s (AD.98 vs AD.100). However, Cerinthus and John were in Ephesus at the same time after Revelation when John and Polycarp refused to be in the same bathhouse as Cerinthus (Against Heresies, 3.3.4. cf. Church History, 3.28; 4.14). If Polycarp was there, Cerinthus must have been alive near the end of the century. And some critics of the idea that Cerinthis’ pseudo-Apocalypse post-dated John’s Revelation, argue that John wrote his in response to Cerinthis’ herectical teachings.⁷

Jesus condemns the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in Ephesus and Pergamum in Revelation 2. Some early date advocates have said that Nicholas taught the heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus, who Paul condemns in 2 Timothy 2:16-17 ⁸, but this is difficult to verify. If true, that would date the doctrine of the Nicolaitans to the time of AD.67. Preterists then argue that since the doctrine was around when Timothy ministered in Ephesus, the early date must be correct. However the entire argument hinges on the evidence that Nicolas did teach Hymenaeus and Philetus, which is far from certain, especially as Paul did not mention this.

But even if true, later date advocates will argue that this is resolved in two ways:

1. Eusebius writes that “At this time [the time of the bathhouse incident with John, Polycarp, and Certhinus] the so-called sect of the Nicolaitians made its appearance and lasted for a very short time” (Church History, 3.29.1), showing that Certhinus’ teaching was the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and was just prior to the end of the 1st century, and
2. through Irenaeus’ recount that Cerinthus had revived a teaching held by the Nicolaitans decades earlier (Against Heresies, 3.11.1) “that John seeks…to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans.”

Thus, even if the claim that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans existed at the time of Timothy, and continued a short while, Jesus can still call the heresy that Cerinthus revives and condemns in Revelation 2, as the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. And even if the Nicolaitans didn’t exist at the time of Timothy, Eusebuius’s statement that it lasted a short time, during the time of Polycarp, should end discussion of this line of reasoning for an early date.

Some preterists argue that the Muratorian Canon (ca. A.D. 170-200, although it has also been dated in the fourth century) teaches that Paul followed the example of John: “The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.” And, so they argue, since Paul was martyred circa AD.67, John must have written his Revelation before then. However, the last book Paul is considered to have written is 2 Timothy in about AD.67, whereas the earliest epistle is considered to be Galatians written about AD.48. Thus, if Paul modelled his writing to the seven churches based on John’s Revelation, reason would dictate that John must have written Revelation by the early 50s (or even by AD.47) well before Nero even started his reign (13 October AD.54), and no preterist contends for such an early date for Revelation as it would be the very first book of the New Testament, and have John’s exile and return before Nero even became emperor. This suggests either an error in the Muratorian Canon, or a rewriting of history by the same, rather than evidence for an early date.

Victorinus however, attributes the idea of seven churches to Paul, not John, saying:

“In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one… That he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches, he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches.”

Commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter 1, Paragraph 16

Victorinus, was plainly in error, for we know Paul wrote to more than seven churches. He states in Colossians 4:16 that he wrote to the Laodiceans, making any 7 church model attributed to Paul in error.

Ignoring that the Muratorian Canon lists the churches in neither the order they appear in the canon, nor in order that Paul authored the letters, Victorinus sees a parallel or a pattern between Paul and John—not plagiarism. While a preterist will argue that Paul is maintaining the type of seven churches, it should understood that Paul is confining himself to the model he has taught, not that he followed John’s Revelation. I personally doubt that this was a model taught by Paul for we know that Paul also wrote to the Laodiceans, and 8th church, making the idea of a 7-church model by Paul/John more likley the product of later thinking amount church writers.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) does not specifically mention the name of the emperor of the banishment, simply referring to the “tyrant”. However, he dogmatically states in his Miscellanies 7:17: “The teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero.”

By this, did Clement mean that all the apostles died before or under Nero? There is scant evidence this is true, and significant evidence against that, including that he served “after the death of the tyrant”. So what could Clement mean? Below we consider the 12 apostles and their deaths.

Apostle	Tradition or Likely Date of Death
Judas Iscariot	AD.33 Suicide (Hanged himself, according to the Gospel of Matthew)
James, son of Zebedee	AD.44–47 (Beheaded in Jerusalem)
Andrew	AD.60 (Crucified in Patras, Greece)
James, son of Alphaeus	AD.62 (Stoned to death in Jerusalem)
Simon Peter	AD.64–67 (Crucified upside down in Rome)
Matthew (Levi)	AD.60–70 (Martyred in Ethiopia or Persia, possibly by sword, axe, or spear)
Bartholomew (Nathanael)	AD.70 (Flayed alive and then crucified in Armenia or India)
Thomas	AD.70 (Stabbed with a spear in India or Mylapore)
Philip	AD.80 (Martyred, possibly by crucifixion, in Hierapolis, Phrygia), although an earlier date of AD.54 is also considered
John	AD.95–100 (Died of natural causes in Ephesus)
Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus)	Not well-documented; tradition suggests martyrdom
Simon the Zealot	Not well-documented; tradition suggests martyrdom

The only conclusion that can be reached is that the apostles who “embraced the ministry of Paul” aka, closely associated with Paul’s ministry, ended with Nero, and is not a reference to all apostles.

Internal evidence for dating

In Revelation 11 John, reveals a vision of the temple:

Then I was given a measuring reed like a rod, with these words: “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count those who worship there. ² But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Don’t measure it, because it is given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months…

Obviously John cannot measure a physical temple that has been destroyed, and so early date advocates say the temple must still have existed in John’s time. However, John was given the instruction to go and measure the temple. I’m not wholly familiar with Domitian’s exile conditions (or Nero’s), but I am doubtful that John would have received a weekend pass to leave Patmos and go to Jerusalem. In Ezekiel 40-42, an angel is measuring the temple, but at the time of writing the vision, no temple existed. At the time of writing Daniel 9:26-27 describing a future destruction of the temple, no temple existed then either. Thus, the command to measure the temple, cannot force a literal understanding of the existence of the temple at the time of the vision.

Additionally, while preterists claim that Revelation and the AD.70 temple destruction describe the same event, Revelation 11:13 states a massive earthquake will strike Jerusalem, and a tenth of the population will die. This is not how the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD.70. So, even if the reference to the Temple should be considered literal, the preterist claim to fulfillment must be rejected. Their only possible recourse is to claim that the destruction of Revelation 11:13 is not literal, but that then undoes their argument that the existence of the temple must be literal and existent, as proof of a pre-AD.70 date for Revelation.

Finally, most preterists argue that the 42 months of Revelation 11 is fulfilled between the spring of AD.66 and 10 August AD.70. But during this time, the temple courtyard wasn’t trodden by Gentiles.

Surely if John wrote after the destruction of the temple, he would have made some reference, or so the early date advocate argues. However, John was commanded to write prophecy, not 25-year-old history. Secondly, the primary audience appears to have been the seven churches located in western Turkey, not those living in Jerusalem. But their argument can also be reversed, if John wrote before the destruction of the temple, why was no reference made to that? A non-fulfillment of Revelation 11:13 (discussed above) is not evidence of fulfillment.

Persecution of the church is a strong theme of Revelation, and therefore the persecution by Nero must be the target of the description. While Nero was bad, many commentators have argued that Domitian was worse (Suetonius, Domitian 8.10; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1997), p.806.; Clement in 1 Clement 1:1, 1 Clement 7:1; Eusebius, Church History 4.26.9; Eusebius, Church History 3.17, 20 (citing Hegesippus and Tertullian); 4.26 (citing Melito of Sardis); Tertullian, Apologia 5; Pliny the Younger Epistle 10.96; Grant Osborne, Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), p.8.; Dio Chrysostom, Oratio 45.1).

Of course, if the later date is correct, by the time Revelation was written and communicated to the churches, both were dead, and it would describe future persecution of the church. Persecution, even extreme persecution, without more detail, by itself does not help date Revelation, for the church has suffered extreme persecution, especially under Islam, which almost wiped out Christianity wherever it spread.

Revelation 17 describes: “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. ¹¹ The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.”

Preterists argue Nero was the 6th king, and Galba the 7th king who continued only a short time, proving that Revelation deserves the earlier date. However, this is a dishonest approach. According to Revelation 17, there are only 8 kings. The eight goes to perdition. And that is the end. Even if (through creative counting of emperors) we assume the 6th king is Nero, it is difficult (impossible) to reconcile the number of kings with history. As can be seen in the table below, Otho the 8th king was not responsible for the destruction of the temple, making AD.70 claims of fulfillment impossible.

Emperor	Rise to Power	End of Rule	Length of Rule
#0 Pompey the Great	63 BC (Jerusalem)	ruled via Hyrcanus II
#1 Julius Caesar	47 BC. (Egypt)	44 BC. (Assassination)	3 years
#2 Octavian (Augustus)	44 BC	27 BC.	17 years
#2 Augustus	27 BC.	AD.14	42 years
#3 Tiberius	AD.14	AD.37	23 years
#4 Caligula	AD.37	AD.41 (Assassination)	4 years
#5 Claudius	AD.41	AD.54 (Assassination)	13 years
#6 Nero	AD.54	9 June AD.68 (Assassination)	15 years
#7 Galba	AD.68	15 January AD.69 (Assassination)	0.5 years
#8 Otho	AD.69	16 April AD.69 (Suicide)	0.2 years
#9 Vitellius	AD.69	22 December AD.69 (Assassination)	0.7 years
#10 Vespasian	AD.69	AD.79	10 years
Jerusalem destroyed	AD.70
#11 Titus	AD.79	AD.81	3 years
#12 Domitian	AD.81	AD.96 (Assassination)	15 years

Jesus said it was soon…or did he?

Even those who pierced him

Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him.
And all the tribes of the earth
will mourn over him.
So it is to be. Amen.

Revelation 1:7

Which parts should we understand to be literal? Certainly, the preterist will say that “even those who pierced him” is literal. But obviously do not consider the “every eye will see him” as literal in any sense. However, those who actually pierced him, the Jews and Romans 40 years earlier, were highly unlikely to actually even be in Jerusalem, whether by old age or other reason. But the preterist doesn’t consider the other parts of this verse to be literal, namely, that every eye will see him, or that all the tribes of the earth will mourn over him. These clauses the preterist takes symbolically or metaphorically. But more importantly, the Zechariah 12 passage being quoted does not remotely fit the events of AD.70. Preterist use of this passage to claim an early date, is untenable.

Revelation 6 & 11 – Jewish Persecution

Preterists claim that Revelation 6 & 11 point to Jewish persecution of the church, and that after AD.70, Jews have never been in a position to persecute the church. However, this is an extreme misrepresentation of these chapters; nothing in Revelation 6 suggests Jewish persecution, and Revelation 11 suggests gentile persecution of the church, not Jewish.

Judaism in the chuch

Preterist argue that after AD.70 the push for Judaisers in the church disappated, and the condemnation of those who claim to be Jews, in Revelation 2:9; 3:9, therefore requires an early date. However, the scant references are by no means evidence of Judaizers in the church, rather that these people are condemned precisely because they claim to be Jews, and are not. There are a couple of other reasons to understand this differently than an attempt to Judaize the church:

1. Jews were exempted from emporer worship, and Christians may have been tempted to pretend to be Jews to escape the requirements, and therefore seen as traitors to the faith. However, until after AD.90, Christianity was seen as a sect of Judaism, and so they would unlikely to be considered traitors to Christ until after AD.90 when a curse was added to the Shemoneh ʿEsreh to get rid of any Christian Jews in the synagogue.
2. Just as Paul warned the church in Rome about boasting against the root and branch, it appears that these gentiles claimed to be the true Israel, rather than those born Jews by blood. And throughout the history of the church, we have always had both groups: gentiles who claim to be the true Israel/Jews, and those who claim gentiles must follow Jewish law.

To seal or not to seal?

Daniel 12:4 commands the writer to “seal the book until the time of the end“, which preterists contend was just 483 years later. They contrast this with the command to John, “Don’t seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near” (Revelation 22:10). Their argument goes: if Daniel was told to seal up something that was to come to fulfillment just 483 years later, surely John would have been told to likewise seal up something that would take 2000+ years. However this arguement is flawed on several grounds:

1. Fulfillment of Daniel 12:4 is more than 2500 years, as the context is clearly the return of Christ, not his first incarnation, “at that time all your people who are found written in the book will escape. ² Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to disgrace and eternal contempt.” (Daniel 12:1-2)
2. There are clear prophecies in Revelation that pertain to the churches relevant at the time. The preterist assumes that the only option is either it is all future, or all imminent, rather than both. Premillennialism teaches that the prophecies to the churches were the immediate context, and so not sealed. However the language of Revelation 5 onwards is very Daniel-esque, which is sealed.
3. The arguement ignores that some of Revelation is sealed. “Seal up what the seven thunders said, and do not write it down” (Revelation 10:4)

Only seven churches

It is difficult to believe this is even an arguement used. Preterists argue that only seven churches were mentioned because the greater expansion of Christianity had yet to happen. This claim is actually laughable. In the first instance, Paul had written to many other churches that aren’t mentioned in Revelation 2-3, and it would be niave to think they were the only churches, when Scripture itself records that the gospel had gone throughout all Asia, “This went on for two years, so that all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord.” Acts 19:10 etc. Secondly, the early church taught that John only wrote to seven churches as a model of all churches (discussed above), not that it should be inferred that because only seven churches were mentioned, therefore it demonstrates an early date.

Testing Apostles

Preterists argue that the word to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 shows that apostles were still alive: “You have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and you have found them to be liars.” To the contrary, it strongly suggests there were none, if any, who passed the test.

Papias says John was martyred before AD.70

Preterists have asseted that Papias says John was martyred before the destruction in AD.70⁹. However, I can find no reference to support such a claim.

It should be noted here that Irenaeus reports that Papias was a hearer of John, however Papias denies this¹⁰. Papias said that he prefered the oral testimony of those acquainted with the apostles over written testimony. This has lead to some highly questionable claims in Papias’ writings, including, “Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out“, and that depending on how profitable a servant of God a Christian was, would depend on whether they would live in heaven, paradise, or the city.¹¹

Evidence for dating after AD90

External Evidence

Irenaeus (circa AD.180) personally knew Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John); he wrote “… for if it were necessary that his [the antichrist’s] name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.“(Against Heresies, 5.30.3)

Getting the obvious part out of the way: Irenaeus, speaking of the antichrist went into greater detail elsewhere, but made it clear that he did not consider the antichrist to have been fulfilled by Titus, and counselled people against using gematria to identify the antichrist. If Irenaeus did not consider the antichrist to have come before his time, this fact should give preterists, postmillennialists, and amillennialists some pause.

Back to the text above. Some early date advocates argue that Irenaeus means that John was seen during Domitian’s reign, rather than the vision was seen. However, most Greek scholars argue that it was the vision that the “seen” refers to, not John himself – in fact, this wasn’t even considered an issue until preterist Johannes Wetstein raised the issue in 1751.¹² Irenaeus uses “see” in the same way John does when referring to how he saw the vision (Revelation 1:7; 11:19; 12:1, 3; 19:10; 22:4, 9). Irenaeus also states that John lived during the reign of Trajan (AD.98-117) (Against Heresies, 2.22.5; 3.3.4), in Ephesus, years after Domitian’s death.

Could Irenaeus have been mistaken in his understanding of John being exiled under Domitian? While Irenaeus relied on those who said “you are not yet fifty years old” in John 8, to be able to ascertain Jesus’ age with some reasonable degree of reliability. Thus, Irenaeus, relying on the skill of the speaks, says that Jesus “did not then want much of being fifty years old” ¹³) has made hermeneutical error not a historical error. Moreover, Irenaeus reasoned Jesus was born in the year 4/3 BC, 41^st year of Augustus (Against Heresies 3.21.3) which would make Jesus about 36; But Irenaeus was quite specific; not just about that the vision was received during Domitian’s reign, but near the end of the reign. As a young man Irenaeus lived in Smyrna (one of the churches mentioned in Revelation 2:8), where Revelation originally circulated, and where John’s disciple Polycarp ministered, and would have been very familiar with Revelation in that context. Irenaeus is also otherwise considered a very reliable testator, and considerable evidence would need to be required to discount his account.

Polycarp (born AD.69) is reported by Irenaeus and many other early church writers to be a disciple of John. This would be very difficult if John was martyred before AD.70.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the ‘Father of Church History’, identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23) and cited Clement as also testifying to this.

Tertullian (AD.150-212) records that Peter and Paul faced martyrdom and John was boiled alive before being exiled ¹⁴. Tertullian only claims they both died in Rome, not that Peter and Paul were martyred at the same time (approx AD.67). Early date advocates say Tertullian indicates these happened about the same time, but since Peter and Paul (a Roman citizen) were both executed, why would John (a Jew) not be executed? Nero had made a name for himself, in executing Christians, so John’s non-execution suggests no interaction with Nero. Whereas Domitian was known for exiles and banishments.¹⁵

Jerome (AD.340-420) said, “In the fourteenth then after Nero [making it about AD.82], 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). And further, “John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet… He saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in.”(Against Jovinianus 1.26)

Jerome gave the actual context of John’s banishment, and Eusebius gave more details of the context of John’s release, namely, a Roman Senate decree.

Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18), and added, “After Domitian had reigned…, the Roman Senate decreed that the sentences of Domitian be annulled and that those who had been banished unjustly return to their homes and receive back their property. Those who have committed the events of those times to writing relate this. The story of our ancient writers relates that at that time the Apostle John, after his exile to the island, took up his abode at Ephesus.” (Ecclesiastical History 3.20.7-8; 3.32.1)

Victorinus (in his commentary on Revelation circa AD.304) adds to this saying after Domitian was assassinated (11th September AD.96), his death released John from Patmos (Commentary on Revelation 10:11), by sentate decree, and John afterward delivered the Apocalypse. The text of Revelation 1:9 is also suggestive that John didn’t write about the visions he had seen on Patmos until after his release. Thus, if John were banished under Nero, he would have had to have been released after Nero’s death (post 9 June AD.68), and committed Revelation to writing to all the seven churches before AD. 70 and makes the understanding of Paul’s writings to be modelled in John (as communicated by the Muratorian Fragment), impossible.

Victorinus also mentions that John had “grown old” when he was released from Patmos and continued his ministry in Ephesus, which he claimed was a fulfillment of Revelation 10:11. If John had been exiled during Nero’s time (something there is no record of Nero ever doing, while Domitian was known for exiling people), he would have been only about 60 years old, hardly “old”, even by their standards. For Paul wrote to Timothy that female widows should not get a “pension” until 60 years old, and met other criteria (1 Timothy 5:9).

The Muratorian Canon is often used by early date advocates, but apart from the issues already mentioned, there are additional issues that bear special mention, that actually suggest a later date. As already mentioned, the Muratorian Canon (sometimes called the Muratorian Fragment) claims that Paul modelled his writing to seven churches based on his predecessor John. There are 4 main problems with this:

1. This would have to place Revelation either before, or very early into Paul’s writing to the seven churches, making the date for Revelation as early as AD.47 (Galatians dates to AD.48), before any other book of the NT was written, but definitely before AD.60. No early date advocate claims such an early date. And in addition, the Muratorian Canon author specifically names the order of the books written, and gets the order wrong. As we already know, Galatians and Thessalonians were written first—not “fifth” and “sixth.” Moreover, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians were written while Paul was in prison at the end of his life in the early AD 60s—not “second,” “third,” and “forth.”
2. However, if true that Paul modelled his books on John, it is indeed very odd that Paul never mentions Jesus’ letters from Revelation to churches that he himself wrote to later, namely: Ephesians (Revelation 2:1-7) and Laodicea.
3. Paul actually writes to other churches, including Laodicea (Colossians 4:16), and this is not one of the books of the NT, suggesting that the claim that Paul wrote to seven churches following John’s model is a claim borne from theological discussion in later centuries, rather than Paul’s or John’s alleged model.
4. Paul left Timothy in charge of the church in Ephesus, to whom no less than 3 books of the New Testament were written written between AD.60 and AD.67. According to early church writings, after being released from Patmos, John lived in Ephesus the rest of his life, meaning he would have been there when Paul went to Ephesus, and during Timothy’s ministry. And Paul never mentioned such a titan of the faith being present there, suggesting that John lived there after those books were written.

McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). In fact, of the 13 writers of the first 1000 years of the church, only two, could be supportive of the Neronic date (namely Syriac translations of the NT (AD.508), and Arethas (AD.900)).

Internal Evidence

John lived in Ephesus after release from Patmos for the rest of his life. If John wrote Revelation down in the 50s or early 60s, the Apostle John would have been in Ephesus when Paul and Timothy were ministering there. But John is not mentioned in Paul’s letters to the church in Ephesus or his letters to Timothy. And why would Paul leave Timothy there to oversee the church, if John were there? And it makes Jesus’ letter to Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) extremely odd given the lack of apostolic presence, when Paul, Timothy and John should have been there.

Paul writes twice to Timothy (in AD.62-67) about men who “teach strange doctrines” (1 Timothy 1:3) and the “doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1), mentioning some false teachers by name: Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17). If John was in Ephesus, it seems very odd that Paul would not at least mention John, in dealing with these false teachers. And if these letters were contemporaneous with Revelation, as early date advocates claim, it then makes no sense of Jesus to say in Revelation 2:1-7, “You cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false… You hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” when they were tolerating Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus. The conflicting testimony from Paul and Jesus indicates theses are not contemporaneous writings; it is more likely, that the ministry of Timothy was successful in testing the claims of false teachers, and Revelation is the later writing.

The church in Smyrna, where Polycarp ministered as bishop (and met Irenaeus), did not exist when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians in AD.60-61. Polycarp writes in a letter to the Philippians (AD.110) that the Smyrnaeans (which is why he uses the “we”) weren’t believers when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians in AD.60-61.

[You Philippians] are praised in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 11

This makes an early date exceptionally difficult to argue. If Revelation is dated to AD.65 as claimed by preterists, how could Revelation 2:8-11 mention Smyrna, if no church existed there in AD.60-61 when Paul wrote to the Phillipians? That would require an exceptionally quick growth. Or if Revelation is dated before AD.60 (per the Muratorian Canon), Revelation could not have had to have a letter to the church in Smyrna, because it didn’t exist when Paul wrote to the church in Phillipi. However, even preterists don’t argue for such an early date for Revelation. So the only reasonable conclusion is that the later date is the more likely.

In Paul’s letter to the Colossians (dated: AD.60-61) he mentions a thriving church in Laodicea at this time (Colossians 2:2; 4:13, 16). If Revelation was written in AD.65, this church must have plummeted spiritually in just a few years. In fact, they had become so bad, that Christ threatened to vomit them out of his mouth! (Revelation 3:16). Or, if the preterist understanding of the Muratorian Canon is correct, Revelation has to predate Paul’s letter to the Colossians of AD.60-61, and means Jesus’ Revelation rebuke of the Colossians was successful in reviving the church, and for some reason Paul felt no need to mention Jesus’ words of Revelation to them here either.

Finally, Laodicea suffered a massive earthquake in AD.60, and according to records took over 30 years to rebuild¹⁷. While it can’t be denied that the Laodicean’s may have been stubborn, proud and independent, even after the earthquake, which is why they received no aid, a late date for Revelation makes greater sense having recovered from the effects and costs of rebuilding after the earthquake. And, an earlier date based on the preterist understanding of the Muratorian Canon, means that Revelation would have had to predate the earthquake (and Paul’s letter to the Colossians where he mentions the Laodicians), and yet no hint of the impending devastation (unless you take “vomit you out of my mouth” is to be taken as fulfilment) is in Revelation 3:14-22, which would be inconsistent with Paul’s description of a thriving church in Laodicia in AD.61. In all, a late date is the more likely explanation. The church in Laodicia was severely damaged by earthquakes in AD.494 and 613, and eventually destroyed by Islamic invasion during the 600s.

Conclusion

The evidence and testimony of the early church makes the later dating of Revelation the most likely. The implications for this are significant. Any understanding that Revelation speaks to the events of AD.70 should be dismissed out of hand, because it is a book of prophecy, not history. This also has implications for the understanding the nature of the millennium, the antichrist, the abomination of desolation, the beasts, and understanding the book of Daniel and others.

Date of Revelation

1. Grant Osborne, Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), p.6.
2. Mark Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary (December 2005), p.74.
3. https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/book-of-revelation/dating-revelation-authorship/
4. “Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?”, Section 42
5. Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 9)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus
7. Hill (2006), pp. 29, 30 citing Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11, para 1 [it is my view that this argument can only be used for the writing of the gospel of John, not John’s Revelation]; Baukham, Richard (2007). The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Baker Publishing Group. p. 67.
8. Hippolytus, De resurr. fr. 1
9. http://www.churchleadership.org/apps/articles/?articleid=57879
10. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
11. Papias, fragment 5
12. Johannes J. Wetstein, Nouum Testamentum Graecum, vol. 2 (1751), 746. Cited in Dean Furlong, The Identity of John the Evangelist: Revision and Reinterpretation in Early Christians Sources (Lanham, MD: Fortress Academic, 2020), p.105.
13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5-6
14. The Prescription Against Heretics 36.3
15. Dio Cassius, Roman History 67.3.3, 13.3, 14.3, 14.4.
17. Mark Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary (December 2005), p.187./efn_note]. If the AD.65 date of Revelation is correct, Revelation 3:17 makes little sense writing, “Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked…” to a earthquake devastated church. Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus mentions that the Laodiceans didn’t receive any assistance from Rome to rebuild¹⁶Tacitus, Annals 14.27.1