2. Other books of the N.T. were written between 54 and 68 A.D. If
Revelation was written at about 95 A.D., this creates an unusually large
gap of more than 25 years between it and the other books. It seems only
reasonable that all 27 books of the New Testament were known and used
long before 95 A.D.
3. The duration phrases "shortly take place" (1:1; 22:6) and "the time
is at hand" (1:3; 22:10) discredit the later date (95 A.D.), for there
are no events following shortly after 95 A.D. that satisfy this description. On the other hand, the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. does.
4. That John was to measure the temple (figuratively) is an indication that it was still standing (11:1 ff). However, if Revelation was written in 95 A.D.,
any mention of the temple would have had no relevance, since it had
been destroyed 25 years earlier.
Also, references to the Jewish temple
(tabernacle) and things related to it suggest that it still existed and
that people were conscious of it: "temple...tabernacle" (13:6; 15:5); "incense...censer" (8:3-5); "golden vials (bowls)" (5:8); "four horns of the
golden altar which is before God" (9:13).
Notice: Nowhere in Revelation
is the suggestion of Jerusalem or the temple no longer existing.
5. Strong Jewish influence still existed and was creating problems for
the church (Smyrna, 2:9; Philadelphia, 3:9), but by 95 A.D., 25 years
after the fall of Judaism, such an influence would have no longer
6. When Revelation was penned there were those who falsely claimed to be
apostles (2:2) which indicates that some apostles were still alive. The
best traditions, however, tell us that all the apostles, with the possible exception of John,
died long before 95 A.D. Hence, by 95 A.D. the churches would have been
well aware of this, meaning that any claims to apostleship would have
7. There are clear parallels between statements found in Revelation and
Jesus' prophecies of Jerusalem's fall in Matthew 24.
8. The kings mentioned in Revelation 17:10 help in determining the time
of the writing of this book. Here, seven kings are mentioned. John
wrote: "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the
other is not yet come." Most agree this verse refers to the first seven
emperors of the Roman Empire, beginning with Augustus. These emperors
are, in order:
- Matt. 24:34 "this
generation shall not pass" - - compare with - - Rev. 1:1; 22:6 "shortly take place"
- Matt. 24:21 "great tribulation" - - compare with - - Rev. 1:9; 3:10; 7:14 "tribulation"
- Matt. 24:2 Jerusalem "thrown down" - - compare with - - Rev. 18:21 "with
violence shall the great city be thrown down"
- Matt. 24:15-21 "let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains" - - compare with - - Rev.12:6 "And the woman fled into the wilderness"
Notice that John writes that "five have fallen," that is, they have
died. These five would be Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and
Nero. He then writes the key words, "one is." Accordingly, the sixth
king, Vespasian, was on the throne when John was writing Revelation.
(Another view says that the first emperor was Julius Caesar. If this
view is accurate, it would make Nero the sixth king.) At any rate, an
earlier date near 70 AD seems to best suit the internal evidence of the
- Augustus (30 BC - 14 AD)
- Tiberius (14 - 37 AD)
- Caligula (37 - 41 AD)
- Claudius (41 - 54 AD)
- Nero (54 - 68 AD)
- Vespasian (69 - 79 AD)
- Titus (79 - 81 AD)
9. There were early church fathers who favored the early dating of
10. The testimony of early canons and versions. The Muratorian Canon
says Revelation was written before the death of Paul. The Syriac version
has a heading at Revelation that reads: "The Revelation which was made
by God to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which he was
thrown by Nero Caesar."
- Clement of Alexandria said that all Revelation ceased under
the reign of Nero.
- Tertullian placed John's banishment under Nero's
- Epiphanius twice states Revelation was written under the reign of Claudius [Nero] Caesar.
11. Some of the well-known scholars who favored the early dating of
Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church)
James A. McDonald (The Life and Writings of John)
Milton S. Terry, Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance)
Conybeare & Howson
G. William Miller
B. F. Westcott
B. B. Wardield (Chronology section, 1901 ASV Bible Dictionary)
J. B. Lightfoot
F. F. Bruce
A. T. Robinson
A Look At The Late Date
The most relied on arguments offered for the late date are only external -- that is, they do not come from the book of Revelation itself.
For example, it is claimed that a statement by Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) shows that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian. The statement reads: "If, however, it were necessary to proclaim the name of the antichrist...it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not so long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign."
However, this argument involves several problems.
- Irenaeus said this is what he heard from Polycarp (69?-155? A.D.) who
it is believed knew the apostle John. So, this was secondhand
testimony and only the recollection of Irenaeus.
Another external argument used to put the writing of Revelation at the late date is to show that the horrible persecution of Christians addressed in Revelation took place during the time of Domitian's reign (81 - 95 A.D.).
- That Irenaeus was referring to the book of Revelation is an
assumption. In the phrase, "it was seen," the Greek term translated "it" can just as easily be translated "he." (It is the third person singular
verb and without a separate noun or pronoun is ambiguous, meaning it
could be either "it" or "he.") So Irenaeus could have merely been
referring to John himself, not Revelation.
- Even if Irenaeus was referring to the book of Revelation, he merely
stated that "since it was seen." He did not say, "since it was written." To claim that Revelation was written during that time is, at best, only
However, the fact is, there is no historical documentation of such a Domitian persecution. Commentators who follow the early date, in describing the horrors of Domitian's persecution of Christians, give no documentation to confirm this; they cite only what other commentators have said. Sadly, this is a common practice.
Well-known historians such as Edward Gibbons, A. T. Robinson and James Moffatt, testify to the lack of documentation of such a widespread persecution by Domitian. Gibbons stated, "But this persecution (if it deserves that epithet) was of no long duration" (The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, p. 278).