When was Revelation Written
Arguments for an early date.
Many within the Evangelical community promote a late date of John receiving and writing the Revelation; usually early to mid-90 AD. This late date is based almost exclusively on a quote by Irenaeus from his work "Against Heresies." This quote is later cited by early church historian Eusebius, who also happens to be a late-date advocate.
This isolated quote has played a primary role in supporting and advancing a late-date view. Since Irenaeus' DOB is approximately 130 AD, it is understandable why many would consider him an authoritative source for a late date.
Some consider Irenaeus’s quote so significant they cite him as their only authority. This however is also likely because no other credible source is available (we cite another less credible one, seldom mentioned, towards the end). Any other claim based on such slim support - i.e. only one source - would not be considered strong even if the claim were sound.
Basing one’s position on only one source makes a closer look at the meaning of this quote not only necessary but vital. If it can be demonstrated the common interpretation of this sole quote is inadequate, it makes a late date unnecessary if not virtually impossible.
The primary part quoted is:
“…For that was seen not a very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.”
When one first realizes late date advocates look to this quote almost exclusively, it may be surprising. Alone, it is vague at best and does not tell us much. Isolated and without context, the meaning is unclear if not confusing.
The common interpretation is the word “that” (underlined above), is referring to The Revelation (the vision and book) received and written by John. If “The Revelation” was received towards the end of Domitian’s reign in 96AD that would likely date the Revelation somewhere near the early to mid-90s. Because of this, many put the date of its writing between 90 and 94 AD. If so, the book could not have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem
Irenaeus being Greek and Greek being the common language of his day, we will make a simple and brief comment on a key aspect of this quote.
The translation of the word “that” is inconclusive due to specific characteristics of Greek grammar. "That” is not the required translation at all. The word could easily be translated “he” (i.e. John) or “it” as well as “that” (the Revelation). Therefore, translating it as “that” is a 50/50 proposition and far from conclusive. In light of this, we must go elsewhere to determine its meaning.
Let's take a look at the context of the quote to see if this sheds any light on this very unclear quote.
This quote is taken from chapter XXX, end of paragraph 4 of Irenaeus’s book “Against Heresies.” It is important to point out that the topic of focus in the context is how to determine the name of the beast and not the date of the writing of the Revelation. This is indicated in the heading below. Emphasis added.
“BOOK V, CHAP. XXX.--ALTHOUGH CERTAIN AS TO THE NUMBER OF THE NAME OF ANTICHRIST, YET WE SHOULD COME TO NO RASH CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE NAME ITSELF, BECAUSE THIS NUMBER IS CAPABLE OF BEING FITTED TO MANY NAMES. REASONS FOR THIS POINT BEING RESERVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. ANTICHRIST'S REIGN AND DEATH.”
Now to the entire context of this quote:
“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number (i.e. 666) being found in all the most approved and ancient copies(3) [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; (i.e. that indeed the number 666 is in all approved copies of Revelation) while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six…”
What Irenaeus is saying is since the number 666 is in the oldest and most recognized copies of Revelation, and the number is also confirmed by those who meet John himself, it is within reason to use this number to determine the actual name of the Antichrist by properly calculating (according to a common alpha-numeric mode of calculation) the verbal equivalent of the number itself (numbers in those days had specific alphabetical values assigned to them). Indeed, what Irenaeus is wrestling with within this entire chapter is the specific name of the beast and the means or method by which to best determine that name.
It is important to point out there is no comment or concern throughout this entire chapter over the date of the book itself. The only question being discussed is how to determine the name of the beast.
Irenaeus continues his argument regarding the beast's name:
"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 Revelation (i.e. John who was given the revelation). "For 'that' was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, *Against Heresies 5:30:3)
Again we see the focus of the discussion continues on how to best determine the
specific name of the “Antichrist.” After Irenaeus decides he has a reasonable way to determine the name (i.e. by applying the alphabetical equivalent of the number 666), he stops himself. He concludes there is no reason to take the chance of trying to determine the name of the Antichrist in this manner. He argues we could have simply asked John since it wasn't that long ago that he was with us. (It is accepted by both sides of this discussion that John lived up until this time). Irenaeus's point is if knowing the name was that important, we could have asked John and he could have told us himself.
Irenaeus concludes since the specific name was not given by John, it wasn't worth speculating about. He reasons that just as John confirmed that the number 666 was in the original text we could have known with equal certainty the name of the Antichrist if John wanted us to, so there’s no point in guessing i.e. it’s apparently not that critical to know or John would have told us.
Given the whole context of this quote, using “John” or “him” in the place of “that” makes far more sense than the commonly held interpretation of “that” used to support it, was referring to the entire revelation and book itself.
Here it is again with "that" substituted with "John."
"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 (John) who beheld the Revelation. "For 'he' (i.e. John) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3).
Here it is again with "that" substituted with "John."
"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 (John) who beheld the Revelation. "For 'he' (i.e. John) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3).
If the Revelation was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (as early date advocates propose), that means they had as much as 25 years to find out.
Again, the context clearly shows that the focus of this discussion
is not the date of the Revelation but the name of Antichrist and how the name could best be determined.
Also when you consider the sentence just before talks about how “he (i.e. John) who beheld the Revelation” could have given the specific name if necessary; it makes perfect sense this quote would continue along this same line of reasoning. Especially considering it begins with “for” showing a direct tie to the preceding sentence i.e. Irenaeus is reasoning that the name could have easily been obtained from the author himself “for” it wasn’t that long ago that John had been seen. To interject an entirely different line of reasoning regarding the date of the writing The Revelation does not fit the line of reasoning in the previous sentence nor the context of the entire quote.
Below is the entire quote with “he” in place of “that.” Since the Greek allows for this interpretation and it fits the context of the overall quote far better, we offer this alternate interpretation to show its logic. The primary quote cited as proof of a late date is highlighted in yellow.
“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies(3) [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; (i.e. that indeed the number 666 is in all approved copies of Revelation) while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six…”
"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 (John) who beheld the Revelation. For he (John) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)
As we can see, the highlighted portion fits the context of the discussion regarding the antichrist and how to determine who he is and not with the very different topic of the date the book was written.
In conclusion, Irenaeus himself never directly indicated in any of his writings - outside the questionable interpretation of this quote - what his view was concerning the date of the book itself. It is simply not discussed in "Against Heresies" or in anything else written by him. This view is only advocated by others, not Irenaeus himself. Others simply cite this quote as their "proof" that Irenaeus held to a late date but this does not appear to be Irenaeus's view based on any of his writings.
It appears pretty evident, after close examination, that this quote has nothing to do with the date of the writing of Revelation.
On a side note, it is interesting that there would be such intense discussion of who the antichrist was (i.e. what was his name) unless they believed the party in question would be someone they might recognize living among them in their day. It is not likely it would occupy them with knowing the name of someone in the far-off distant future if they believed the book was intended for an audience hundreds or thousands of years later in the distant future. What would be the point of knowing the name of someone they would never meet or have a clue who this person was even if they knew the name? Such a name would be meaningless to them even if known or at least would not likely create such earnest curiosity. On the other hand, if this were a person living in their time, that would be someone many would be curious to know the identity of. The intense curiosity supports the view that those who lived around the time the book was circulated thought the book addressed current events (events soon to take place) vs events in the distant future.
In my opening comments, I mentioned the Irenaeus quote was the primary support for a late date. The only other external evidence offered is a reference to Hegesippus
made by church historian Eusebius. There is no actual quote by Hegesippus supporting a late date but simply a dubious and highly speculative reference to Hegesippus that is so obscure it is rarely discussed much less considered as having any real weight in support of a late date.
made by church historian Eusebius. There is no actual quote by Hegesippus supporting a late date but simply a dubious and highly speculative reference to Hegesippus that is so obscure it is rarely discussed much less considered as having any real weight in support of a late date.
Though the weight of this secondary reference is marginal at best, if you wish to see some discussion on Hegesippus both pro and con, I offer the following links for your consideration. It's far less significant than the Irenaeus quote.
Con
What about an early date? Are there any sources or people in the early church that clearly held to an early date?
- The Syriac Version of the New Testament (dated back into the second century) places the date of Revelation in the period of Nero who reigned between 64 and 68 AD. It has a superscription which reads: "The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the
- Epiphanies (who wrote ca 315-403) believed Revelation to be written at the time of Nero, ca 65-68 AD (Heresies 51:12).
- The Muratorian Canon (which was a collection of New Testament books in about 170 AD) says that the book was written in the days of Nero as well.
- Clement of
So where does that leave us? If the external evidence is unclear at best to support a late date and not at all conclusive, where else can we turn to determine the date of Revelation? We would need to look and see if there is any internal evidence within the book and the rest of scripture. Are there any hints of an early date? There are several worth considering.
1. (Rev 1:1) The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (tachos) take place
2. (Rev 1:3) … for the time is near (eggus).
3. Rev 2:16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon (tachu) and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
4. Rev 3:11 I am coming soon (tachu). Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.
5. Rev 22:6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon (tachu) take place."
6. Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon (tachu). Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."
7. Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near (eggus)..
8. Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon (tachu), bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
9. Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon (tachu)." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
8. Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon (tachu), bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Particularly note the contrast of the above reference in Revelation with Dan 12:4 “But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end…” The events of that particular vision given to Daniel were far away yet, therefore Daniel was told to seal it up. This is important considering both Dispensationalists and Preterists alike believe Daniel and Revelation are dealing with the same events. However, the instructions given to Daniel are the opposite of those given to John in The Revelation time-wise but virtually identical subject-wise. John was told near the very end of the book not to seal it up “for the time is near” i.e. get the word out. Something important is about to happen! The chorus of that famous Temptations song of the 70’s “Get ready, cause here I come…” would be an appropriate contemporary example of what Revelation is saying. If Revelation was addressing a distant future event like Daniel it only makes sense it would also use the same time language as that of Daniel i.e. seal up the words until the end...
Both commands come at the end of each book but unlike Daniel which was dealing with the distant future, The Revelation was addressing that which would happen soon, i.e. the time was near. If Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, that would likely put it being written somewhere between 65-68 AD.
John also stresses the benefits of reading the book now when he said in Rev 1:3 “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.” Why are they blessed? The verse clearly states the time for the events covered was near. Therefore heeding what was written would give them advanced warning and therefore the opportunity to prepare and not be caught off guard at what was coming, and to act accordingly before these events happen. To be forewarned of coming destruction would indeed be a blessing. This fits with the warnings and promises Christ also gave in Mat 24:4, 6, and 13,16,25,44.
So do these “soon” and “near” references prove an early date. They don’t directly but if the coming event referred to in the book is the wrapping up of the Old Covenant via the coming judgment of the unfaithful bride/harlot i.e. Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant and marriage to the new faithful bride, the church, the best historical event around John’s life that fits is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
10. In Rev 11:1 the temple is mentioned, however, it was destroyed in 70AD and no longer around in the ’90s. If the book was written after the temple was destroyed why this reference to it as if it still stood. I realize some say this is referring to a future temple that will someday be rebuilt but in light of everything else, it simply doesn’t need to be in the future. It is also worth pointing out Christ made the need for the OT sacrificial system null and void. The tearing of the curtain at Christ's death, between the holy of holies and the rest of the temple, was the symbolic gesture of this. The book of Hebrews bears out that the OT system was no longer needed because Christ fulfilled what that system was pointing to i.e. the coming of the perfect Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.
11. Reference to the birth of Christ in Rev 12 and all events in that chapter occurred around or near that time of birth and not in the far-off future.
12. Every reference to “earth” is the word “gē” and every reference to “world” is oikoumenē throughout Revelation giving strong indication the events throughout the book are local or regional not global.
Earth - γῆ, gē, ghay
Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.
World - οἰκουμÎνη, oikoumenÄ“, oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire : - earth, world.
Even though use of the word gē, ghay would allow for a possible worldwide event, it certainly does not require this interpretation. Coupling its use alongside the word oikoumene minimizes the likelihood of such an interpretation. It is far more likely referring to a local event. Reference to those in Judea fleeing on the Sabbath in Matthew 24 would also support the idea of a local, Jewish event and not a worldwide event.
13. Many within the Nation of Israel that were alive during the crucifixion would no doubt still be around in 70AD.
Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes (phulÄ“ - that is, race or clan) of the earth “gē” will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
This is a case where literally some of those who actually pierced Christ would still be alive in A.D. 70. Yet in this case Dispensationalist’s abandon their “literal” hermeneutic.
14. Tribes appear to be a reference to Israel Rev 21:12 “It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes (phulÄ“ - that is, race or clan) of the sons of Israel
15. The letter is clearly addressing 7 contemporary churches at the time of the book’s writing which is an indication that the rest of the book was also dealing with contemporary events and not events in the distant future.
This list of internal evidence gives strong indication and support to an early date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
*If you wish, you can read the chapter in its entirety at "Against Heresies." The infamous quote is at the end of paragraph 4.
I have thought an earlier date for some time now. My thoughts were further strengthened by a book by John A.T. Robinson: 'Redating The New Testament'. He was a liberal scholar who set out to disprove conservative early dates for the books of the New Testament, but became convinced otherwise and published his findings in his book. I recommend it if you can find a copy around.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have concluded ALL the NT was completed before 70AD.
DeleteThanks Thomas. I have heard of Robinson's book. Will try to check it out. I felt something briefer than a complete book would be helpful as well for those who are not as inclined to dig in more. Personally I like to dig. ;o)
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I've read late-daters using Irenaeus's statement to "prove" their position, but never took the time to research what Irenaeus actually said. The internal evidence was good enough for me, but this article is very helpful. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteGlad you found it helpful Stuart. When I taught through Dan and Rev over 10 years ago, the date question came up, so I decided to do a deep dive and this paper was the result. I was surprised as much as you were to find out the history and context of that quote. So I figured others might be as well and therefore posted it.
DeleteI've wondered if it is possible that John received this Revelation before he wrote his Gospel. Any possibility of this??
ReplyDeleteThough we have no way of knowing for sure, I doubt he wrote it as he received it, so I guess he wrote it afterward. The question is how soon after he received it did he write it? I suspect he didn't wait long but wrote it while it was fresh on his mind.
Delete