By Dr. Michael S. Heiser
This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.
Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 14
Focus: Was the book of Revelation written before or after 70 A.D.? Any view of a rapture depends on a date after 70; any non-rapture view must assume a pre-70 date. How can we know which is right? Good question.
Nearing the end of this (have to check my list).
It’s time for “when was the book of Revelation written?” The two candidates are, of course, before or after 70 AD (the latter in the 90s). I think the most thorough recent discussion on this is by Greg Beale in his massive commentary on Revelation in the New International Greek Text Commentary. I have attached his discussion here (19 pages). I’ve highlighted a few items under each side that I think are the most important arguments.
I think you’ll see that the question is a toss-up. Like everything else, each side needs to make a couple of assumptions along the way. I’m sure many of you heard in Sunday School (if anyone still does things like book studies in Sunday School) that the book was written in the 90s. Could be. But there’s a lot they don’t tell you in Sunday School.
My opinion is that the evidence for a late date (90s) seems to outweigh the pre-70 AD date. Beale thinks so as well. Note that he’s an “idealist amillennialist,” so don’t conclude that a 90 AD date adds up to a pre-mill argument (something else they may have told you in Sunday School).
Enjoy!
I am quoting the sentences that Michael Heiser marked in the article:
Introduction
There are no single arguments that point clearly to the early or the late date. The early date could be right, but the cumulative weight of evidence points to the late date.
Arguments for a Late Date
“Babylon”
Those preferring a pre–70 A.D. date for Revelation regard “Babylon” as a symbolic name for apostate Jerusalem, but John’s use of the name may be the strongest internal evidence for a post-70 date. “Babylon” refers to Rome in Jewish literature after 70 A.D. and roughly contemporary with the Apocalypse. Jewish commentators called Rome “Babylon” because the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 A.D., just as Babylon had done in the sixth century B.C. This use of the name probably influenced John, as did other Jewish traditions.
But Jews do not appear to have labeled Rome “Babylon” until after 70 A.D. In fact, the only early metaphorical uses of “Babylon” occur, besides in Revelation, in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Sibylline Oracles, which are clearly post-70.
The Earliest Traditions
The testimony of the earliest patristic authors supports a date during the time of Domitian. The most important of these witnesses are Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau, Eusebius, and possibly Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
Arguments for an Early Date
The Temple and Jerusalem
That the temple in Jerusalem is spoken of in Rev. 11:1–2 as still standing is sometimes taken as evidence of a pre-70 A.D. date, since it is unlikely that a Christian or Jewish author could mention such a thing after the destruction of the temple in that year.
But this assumes a literal reading of 11:1–2 — and that it refers to the first-century Herodian temple. The literal reading should be questioned in the light of the symbolism throughout the book and in ch. 11 in particular (e.g., vv 3–7).
The Seven Kings (Rev 17)
There are questions facing any historical identification …
“666”
Some contend that the numerical value of the name Nero(n) Caesar was intended to be calculated according to Hebrew transcription, since it adds up to 666, the number of the beast’s name in 13:18. This would suggest that the book was written before 70 A.D., since the beast of Revelation appears to be active at the time of writing (though some view ch. 13 as purely prophetic).
“Babylon”
“Babylon” is thought to represent Jerusalem in Revelation for at least two reasons. First, 11:8 refers to the place “where their Lord was crucified” as “the great city,” and in the following chapters “the great city” is also called “Babylon” (18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21; cf. 14:8; 17:5). However, this is a correct identification only if the crucial reference to Jerusalem in 11:8 is to be understood literally. This is unlikely, since “where also their Lord was crucified” is introduced by “which spiritually is called.”
Kommentar verfassen