Preterists & Dating (Revelation - not people!)

[Origen]

DeeDee & Her Merry Band of Preterist Pranksters:

How dependent is preterism on an early date of Revelation?

I've read some good arguments for an early date, but Craig Keener notes:

A date in Domitian's reign in the 90s of the first century, reported in early church tradition and still preferred by most scholars, is most likely.

If Revvy were to be dated to the 90s (where most of John's other works seem to be dated even in conservative circles), does preterism come crashing down?

Thanks,
Origen

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

DeeDee & Her Merry Band of Preterist Pranksters:

How dependent is preterism on an early date of Revelation?

I've read some good arguments for an early date, but Craig Keener notes:

A date in Domitian's reign in the 90s of the first century, reported in early church tradition and still preferred by most scholars, is most likely.

If Revvy were to be dated to the 90s (where most of John's other works seem to be dated even in conservative circles), does preterism come crashing down?

Thanks,
Origen

Well, it would certainly put a chink in a preterist interpretation of Revelation, but not necessarily to preterism as a whole.

However, I read somewhere (can't remember where right now), that the move in conservative scholarship is to place all NT writings (except Revelation ironically) before AD 70. Not sure how valid that is.

Especialy since it would make since (from a preterist perspective) of the absence of the Olivet Discourse in John's Gospel if he wrote it after AD 70.

Also, IIRC the "date of Domitian's reign" in early church tradition is based on one quote from Irenaeus (sp?) which can be (and IMHO should be) interpreted to mean that John lived up till Domitian's reign, not that he had his Revelation from God in that reign. There are other early rightings that say the same, but they are all based on this one quote from Ireneaus (I think it is Irenaeus anyway).

So even if Irenaeus meant, that Revelation was seen in AD 90's, that is one quote from an unispired fallible writer.

To me the internal evidence from the Book itself screams that it was written before AD 70 and in fact during the reign of Nero. Since I hold to infallibility (Chicago Statement), I would say that trumps even a clear quote from Irenaeus.

Just my :2cents:

[studyhound]

Well, it would certainly put a chink in a preterist interpretation of Revelation, but not necessarily to preterism as a whole.

However, I read somewhere (can't remember where right now), that the move in conservative scholarship is to place all NT writings (except Revelation ironically) before AD 70. Not sure how valid that is.

Especialy since it would make since (from a preterist perspective) of the absence of the Olivet Discourse in John's Gospel if he wrote it after AD 70.

John A. T. Robinson, in his book REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT
all of the books of the New Testament were written prior to
70 A.D.

he starts his book saying

"I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70."

Also, IIRC the "date of Domitian's reign" in early church tradition is based on one quote from Irenaeus (sp?) which can be (and IMHO should be) interpreted to mean that John lived up till Domitian's reign, not that he had his Revelation from God in that reign. There are other early rightings that say the same, but they are all based on this one quote from Ireneaus (I think it is Irenaeus anyway).

Also Ireneaus gives us clues that the Revelation was written far ealier than ad 90. Ireneaus calls the copies he had "ancient copies", while not difintively ad 70 it does tend to give the early date another leg and yank one away from the late daters.

:sh:

[Sheepdog]

DeeDee & Her Merry Band of Preterist Pranksters:

:hehe: Off topic, i just was wondering if there would be market for a dating service for preterists.

How dependent is preterism on an early date of Revelation?

what Far and SH have said so far has been cogent. i'd add that even with a late date the book itself calls for it's events to occur soon after it's authorship. so, even with a late date one could hold a preteristic interpretation, one would just be hard pressed to pigeonhole what ancient events are being foretold.

there are some preterists off the beaten path who see some of this stuff being fulfilled in the fall of the Roman Empire. i have not studied that view so i can't say if it is well supported or not.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:hehe: Off topic, i just was wondering if there would be market for a dating service for preterists.



what Far and SH have said so far has been cogent. i'd add that even with a late date the book itself calls for it's events to occur soon after it's authorship. so, even with a late date one could hold a preteristic interpretation, one would just be hard pressed to pigeonhole what ancient events are being foretold.

there are some preterists off the beaten path who see some of this stuff being fulfilled in the fall of the Roman Empire. i have not studied that view so i can't say if it is well supported or not.

I've also heard a few "off the beaten path" date Revelation late, but say it is an historical depiction of AD 70, written in apaclyptic style. However, IMHO that does great violence to the text, and purpose of prophetic/apocalyptic literary styles. (almost as much violence as df's :hehe:)

[Origen]

Interesting food for thought.

what Far and SH have said so far has been cogent. i'd add that even with a late date the book itself calls for it's events to occur soon after it's authorship. so, even with a late date one could hold a preteristic interpretation, one would just be hard pressed to pigeonhole what ancient events are being foretold.

I suppose you're right - based on the fact that John would've had a present oriented mindset, there would still be little basis for the predictions in Revelation to be fulfilled in 20XX (or 1988...) other than for Christ's second coming (though I'm still trying to figure that out).

However, I read somewhere (can't remember where right now), that the move in conservative scholarship is to place all NT writings (except Revelation ironically) before AD 70. Not sure how valid that is.

John A. T. Robinson, in his book REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT
all of the books of the New Testament were written prior to
70 A.D.

I think Robinson's point is that there is no definitive evidence that says "Yes, XXXX MUST be dated after the destruction of the temple."

Most of the conservative scholars I've read seem to date everything in the NT except John's writings prior to AD 70. Some still date 2 Peter, Ephesians, and the Pastorals later, but I think eve the arguments for early dating of these letters seem solid.

Then of course there are those crazy liberals who even date Hebrews after AD 70, as if there would be some reason to compare Jesus' sacrifice to the obsolete sacrificial system of the temple!

I'll go have another look at the arguments for early dating of Revelation. What makes it tough is the compelling arguments for John's Gospel and letters being written in the 90s, although there is no reason he would have had to write everything at once.

Origen

[studyhound]

I think Robinson's point is that there is no definitive evidence that says "Yes, XXXX MUST be dated after the destruction of the temple."

The quote I gave is the hypothosis of his book and he goes and demenstrates it in the book.

Most of the conservative scholars I've read seem to date everything in the NT except John's writings prior to AD 70. Some still date 2 Peter, Ephesians, and the Pastorals later, but I think eve the arguments for early dating of these letters seem solid.

Conservative scholars date Paul and Peter after ad 70? Maybe liberal, cause it might be tough because Paul and Peter were killed in the reing of Nero and could not have written those. So unless they are saying someone else wrote those letters (not a very conserative stance) I would guess liberal.

I'll go have another look at the arguments for early dating of Revelation. What makes it tough is the compelling arguments for John's Gospel and letters being written in the 90s, although there is no reason he would have had to write everything at once.

Origen

Here is a great book for the Dating of Revelation - Before Jerusalem Fell (http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm)
By Kenneth L. Gentry

Unfortunately, most of the interest in Revelation is based on a radical misunderstanding of the very nature and purpose of the book. And much of this misapprehension is traceable to confusion regarding its original date of writing.
In this work - the full text of Gentry's doctoral dissertation from Whitefield Theological Seminary - the important question of Revelation's date of composition is engaged. Characteristic of the work is a careful exegesis of critical passages, a diligent survey of the scholarly literature on Revelation, and a meticulous search through the writing of early church fathers and Jewish and Roman historians.
The evidence may be garnered from Revelation's self-witness and from church tradition that John wrote Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in August, A.D. 70, rather than in A.D. 95-96, as many scholars believe. Gentry convincingly argues for a date around A.D. 65 or 66, after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution and before the death of Nero Caesar.
The demonstration of Revelation's date in this work sets before the reader, not only a resolution to this technical question, but also provides much exposition of Revelation's text itself. These provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the meaning of Revelation.

[Hitch]

The date of authorship does not effect the meaning of the first three verses.

[Origen]

The quote I gave is the hypothosis of his book and he goes and demenstrates it in the book.

I think we're on the same page.

Conservative scholars date Paul and Peter after ad 70? Maybe liberal, cause it might be tough because Paul and Peter were killed in the reing of Nero and could not have written those. So unless they are saying someone else wrote those letters (not a very conserative stance) I would guess liberal.

Clarification: Forget what I said about 2 Peter (you're right, that's a liberal view), but even some conservatives hold Ephesians, the Pastorals, and sometimes 2 Thess. as "doubtful" in terms authorship, and thus dating. I'd say they were a rare minority though. And, like I said, I don't find the arguments convincing (especially for the Pastorals and 2 Thess.).

Here is a great book for the Dating of Revelation - Before Jerusalem Fell
By Kenneth L. Gentry

I'll check it out sometime. I know Holding refers to that book in his article on the date and meaning of Revelation from a preterist interpretation.

Interestingly enough, some guy on the Amazon site posted a review of that book with the following misconception about preterism:

If there is a flaw in this book, and in preterism, it is the "Replacement Theology" and borderline (if not outright) Anti-Semitic overtures promoted by the preterist interpretation. Preterists tend to assume that Preterism and Replacement Theology are mutually inclusive. Revelation is not about the end of THE age but the end of AN age, the Age of Judaism. This is a half truth, and, following the advice of Paul, discernment is required. It is the end of the TEMPLE Age, the end of the Sadduccees and the Herodians and the other Judeans (the Greek word for Jew is Youdaos, and it also means Judean...the Judeans were not symbolic of the whole race). *If* Revelation was about God's revenge against those who crucified Jesus, and all the Jews are implicated in this blood libel, then God failed, because Judaism prospered relative to the number of its adherents(in spite of persecution) for 2000 years after these events. God either failed, or God's wrath was directed at a specific group of Jews, the corrupt priestly class of the Sadduccees, the "Judeans".

Preterism seems to be surrounded by more misconceptions and assumptions than vegetarianism!

The date of authorship does not effect the meaning of the first three verses.

Hm...I don't know...

...blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

What time? The time of the destruction of the temple, or the time of...?
:poke:

Origen

[studyhound]

I think we're on the same page.

:thumb:

Clarification: Forget what I said about 2 Peter (you're right, that's a liberal view), but even some conservatives hold Ephesians, the Pastorals, and sometimes 2 Thess. as "doubtful" in terms authorship, and thus dating. I'd say they were a rare minority though. And, like I said, I don't find the arguments convincing (especially for the Pastorals and 2 Thess.).


OK :smile:


I'll check it out sometime. I know Holding refers to that book in his article on the date and meaning of Revelation from a preterist interpretation.

***Pssst its free :teeth:

Interestingly enough, some guy on the Amazon site posted a review of that book with the following misconception about preterism:

If there is a flaw in this book, and in preterism, it is the "Replacement Theology" and borderline (if not outright) Anti-Semitic overtures promoted by the preterist interpretation. Preterists tend to assume that Preterism and Replacement Theology are mutually inclusive. Revelation is not about the end of THE age but the end of AN age, the Age of Judaism. This is a half truth, and, following the advice of Paul, discernment is required. It is the end of the TEMPLE Age, the end of the Sadduccees and the Herodians and the other Judeans (the Greek word for Jew is Youdaos, and it also means Judean...the Judeans were not symbolic of the whole race). *If* Revelation was about God's revenge against those who crucified Jesus, and all the Jews are implicated in this blood libel, then God failed, because Judaism prospered relative to the number of its adherents(in spite of persecution) for 2000 years after these events. God either failed, or God's wrath was directed at a specific group of Jews, the corrupt priestly class of the Sadduccees, the "Judeans".

YA also we get that but about the replacement theology charge I think most of the preterist here would fall into the Commonwealth Theology (http://www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm) camp.

Preterism seems to be surrounded by more misconceptions and assumptions than vegetarianism!


:lol:


:sh:

[Hitch]

What time? The time of the destruction of the temple, or the time of...?Relating to the opening question, the WHAT does not matter. The first three verses speak of something in the near future to the origianal audience and this is be true regardless of the date of authorship.


The WHAT being a seperate question. And of course a confirmed late date would require a solution other than the Destruction while still requiring something of near term future for the original audience. This presents quite a problem to the futurist, Im sure by now you are familar with the gymnastics needed to fit multiplied millennia into R1:1.

[Sheepdog]

What time? The time of the destruction of the temple, or the time of...?Relating to the opening question, the WHAT does not matter. The first three verses speak of something in the near future to the origianal audience and this is be true regardless of the date of authorship.

don't forget Rev. 4:1! :yes:

[Ted]

As one who has studied Revelation at length, the date of the book has been of interest. I have vacillated from late to early to late date. The more I study on that issue, the less sure I am. And the more I study, the less important it is! The message is unaffected by the date, although if it were possible to definitively date it late, it would have a serious impact on Preterism.

That said, a curious thought crossed my mind. In Rev 11, the Temple gets measured. Prets commonly adduce this imagery as requiring an early date when the Temple was still standing. But suppose for the sake of argument that the late date is correct. The Temple is gone. What effect would that have on the interpretation?

It would seem that it would force the understanding toward a symbolic interpretation of the Temple, etc. If that is true, then how is Rev 11 probative for the date?

Just musing...

Ted

[Sheepdog]

hmm interesting insight.

the only temple left after the Temple was done away with would be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, or in other words us! otherwise i haven't a clue what it may signify.

btw, i could have sworn one of the OT prophets was called to measure the Temple in a vision or something. do you remember that, and if so, do you remember what significance it had in context (if any was revealed)?

[studyhound]

hmm interesting insight.

the only temple left after the Temple was done away with would be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, or in other words us! otherwise i haven't a clue what it may signify.

btw, i could have sworn one of the OT prophets was called to measure the Temple in a vision or something. do you remember that, and if so, do you remember what significance it had in context (if any was revealed)?

Eze 40 - 42

:sh: