THE EVANGELICAL CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSALIST
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Blog Español
  • Contact

The Objective Evidences for a Late Dating of John’s Revelation (1 of 2)

9/5/2021

13 Comments

 
Picture
by George Sidney Hurd
 
External evidence of the Late Date of Writing in AD 97.
 
Historically, until the 7th century, the Church uniformly believed that the book of Revelation was written after the end of Domitian’s reign between AD 95 and AD 96. For the Futurist, the date in which the book of Revelation was written is of little consequence, since the prophecies are understood to be as yet unfulfilled. However, for the Preterist it is absolutely essential to establish a pre-AD 66 date of writing, since they must argue that the prophecies described therein were, for the most part, fulfilled between AD 66 and AD 70.
 
Preterism stands or falls upon this early date for John’s revelation. Welton, while at the same time, strangely implying that the early dating of Revelation has been the historic position, concedes, saying: “If the book was written in AD 96, as many modern teachers claim, then my point of view cannot be valid.” [1]
 
However, there is no indication that the early Church questioned that the book of Revelation was written at the close of Domitian’s reign in AD 95 – AD 96. This in itself is perhaps one of the greatest arguments against the Preterist case for an early authorship of Revelation. Those closest in time to John and the writing of Revelation, uniformly understood that John wrote the book of Revelation while exiled on the island of Patmos during the time that Domitian was the Emperor of Rome. Below is a time chart demonstrating that the later date, at the close of Domitian’s reign, was universally accepted until well into the Dark Ages.

Picture
One of the first and most notable Early Church Fathers who mentions the timing of John’s Revelation is Irenaeus (AD 120 – AD 202), who lived in Smyrna, one of the seven churches specifically addressed in the book of Revelation. He was a disciple of Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna), who in turn, was a disciple of John. Irenaeus, in his fifth book “Against Heresies,” speaks against speculations concerning the name of the future Antichrist:
 
“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 apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” [1]
 
In this statement Irenaeus, speaking against premature speculations as to the identity of the Antichrist, appeals to the lack of any mention of the Antichrist’s name in the book of Revelation. In doing so, he mentions something that seems to have been common knowledge at the time. He said that John had received the apocalyptic vision recently:  more specifically, towards the end of Domitian’s reign (AD 81 – AD 96). [2]
 
Years later Eusebius, the Church historian, in AD 325, confirmed the credibility of Irenaeus’ testimony. Speaking of the persecution under Domitian, he quotes Irenaeus’ words to confirm the timing of John’s exile on Patmos:
 
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” [3]
 
Eusebius, as a historian, relied heavily upon the testimony of Irenaeus in establishing historical fact, quoting him very frequently. Eusebius is revered as a great Church historian, giving an accurate account of the first centuries of the Church. He faithfully presents the Early Church Fathers’ belief in a future fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies. Preterism was unknown at that time and therefore there was no need to establish an early date for Revelation, or to argue that Nero was the Beast, or deny that the Beast of Revelation is referring to the future Antichrist.
 
Not surprisingly, the first person on record to have called into question the reliability of Irenaeus’ testimony was Jakob Wettstein in 1752, who was himself a Preterist. [4]
 
There is another very early Church Father, Hegesippus (AD 110 - AD 190), whom Eusebius also quotes, confirming the AD 96 date for Revelation. Hegesippus even predates Irenaeus by some 30 years. Eusebius constantly made reference to the Memoirs of Hegesippus. At one point he says: “Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views.” [5] Although only a few fragments of his Memoirs remain to this day, Eusebius apparently draws from his Memoirs when he says:
 
“But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.” [6]
 
The immediate context of this statement indicates that Hegesippus was at least included in those whom Eusebius referred to when he says: “according to an ancient Christian tradition.” In the immediate context we can see that Eusebius apparently had before him the Memoirs of Hegesippus as he wrote concerning John’s release after Domitian’s reign. Just eight verses earlier, Eusebius indicates that he is drawing upon his Memoirs: “These things are related by Hegesippus.” [7] Then again just two verses before the above quote he says: “These things are related by Hegesippus.” [8] Therefore, it is more than likely that Eusebius was referring to the Memoirs of Hegesippus in the above quote. In any case, Eusebius makes it clear that in his day it was “ancient Christian tradition” that the time of John’s exile was during Domitian’s reign in the AD 90s. Nowhere in any early writings, that record the history of those days, is there any indication that John was exiled by Nero in the AD 60s.
 
In addition to the testimony of Irenaeus and Hegesippus, which are also corroborated by Eusebius, there were other early writings confirming the AD 96 date, as can be seen on the chart above. One other source worthy of note is Victorinius, who wrote the oldest commentary on Revelation in existence, written in AD 258. Commenting on chapter 10 of Revelation, he says the following concerning John’s exile:

“He says, ‘It is necessary to preach again,’ that is, to prophesy, ‘among peoples, tongues, and nations:’ this is because, when John saw this, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to a mine by Caesar Domitian. Therefore, John is seen to have written the Apocalypse there. And when now old, he thought it possible to return after the suffering. Domitian having been killed, all his judgments were undone and John was released from the mine, and thus afterward he handed over this same Apocalypse which he received from the Lord. This is: ‘It is necessary to preach again’.” [9]

Jerome (AD 347 – AD 420) also, in two separate volumes, places the context of John’s visions as having been received during the time of Domitian’s rule:
 
“For 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.” [10]
 
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.” [11]
 
Another early Church historian, Sulpitius Severus, a contemporary of Jerome, (AD 360 – AD 420) also bears witness that, in their time, the Domitian date of the book of Revelation was still unquestioned:
 
“Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.” [12]
 
Welton sweeps aside all the testimonies presented above indicating the AD 96 date for the writing of the book of Revelation in favor of one solitary statement, written in the introductory page to the book of Revelation in the Syriac Peshitta Version of the Bible, which claims that Nero was the emperor that exiled John to Patmos. Based solely upon this single source as external evidence, he concludes the following:
 
“Nero Caesar ruled over the Roman Empire from AD 54 to AD 68. Therefore, John had to have been on the island of Patmos during this earlier period. One of the oldest versions of the Bible tells us when Revelation was written! That alone is a very compelling argument.” [13]
 
Welton gives greater weight to this introductory note in the Syriac version than to all of the early testimonies supporting a later AD 96 date, saying that the Peshitta dates back to the second century. What he fails to see, or chooses not to point out, is that the second century version excluded certain books of the New Testament, including the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation wasn’t included in the Peshitta Version until AD 616. [14] The earliest Aramaic manuscript in existence which contains the book of Revelation, is known as the Crawford Aramaic New Testament manuscript, dating back to the twelfth century. [15]  Today, we have no way of knowing when the introductory note was added to the Aramaic text of Revelation for the first time. The earliest would be in AD 616 and it could well have been added much later. This late addition to the Peshitta can hardly be said to be a very compelling argument for the early date of writing of the book of Revelation.
 
Although Welton says that there are other historical documents which tell us that John was exiled during Nero’s reign, he only cites this one solitary example. The fact is that there are no early documents supporting the early date for Revelation. All arguments drawn for support from other sources are dubious at best, and a mere grabbing for straws.
 
The only period in the history of the Church in which the early date became prominent was from 1850 to 1900. Preterists often cite preachers from that period in support of the Preterist interpretation. However most scholars at that time were not Preterists and dated the writing of Revelation after the death of Nero on June 9, AD 68, which would not fit the preterist model, since Nero, who committed suicide in AD 68, is understood by them to be the Beast described in Revelation and also it would put the writing of Revelation in the middle of their three and a half year period of Jerusalem’s destruction.
 
Another external indication that favors the later AD 96 date for the book of Revelation is that Domitian was known to exile Christians, as opposed to executing them, as was the case with Nero. Peter and Paul were executed by Nero, whereas Christians under the reign of Domitian were commonly exiled. Eusebius speaks of Domitian’s practice of banishing Christians:
 
“And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.” [16]
 
Domitian’s practice of banishment is also corroborated by a reliable secular historian, although John is not mentioned by name. Dio Cassius (AD 155 – AD 235), a Roman historian who was also admitted to the Roman senate in AD 180 and was placed over Pergamum and Smyrna, wrote an eighty volume Roman History. Three times in his work he makes reference to Domitian’s practice of exiling prisoners. He also mentions the release of exiles immediately after his death. [17]  So, even secular history of that day corroborates the early Church’s account, placing the time of John’s exile to the island of Patmos under Domitian’s rule.
 
Therefore, we can clearly see that all external evidence uniformly supports the later date of AD 96 for the writing of the book of Revelation. Indeed, there is nothing even worthy of consideration that can be presented in favor of an early, AD 66 date. An annotation in the introduction to a late Syrian translation of the book of Revelation, which is a twelfth century manuscript copy, can hardly be considered to be of any value for determining the date in which Revelation was written. Most scholars would agree that there is no evidence for the early date of writing even worthy of consideration in all of Church history. For brevity I will only cite B.W. Johnson’s conclusion: “It is thus seen that the array of testimony to the date of Domitian’s reign is so strong as to leave no doubt, except where persons are compelled by their theories of interpretation to assume that John wrote in the reign of Nero.” [18]
 
We can now turn our attention to the internal evidences within the contents of the book of Revelation itself which argue for a later date of writing.
 
Internal Evidence that Revelation was written in AD 96.
 
The internal interpretive evidence in support for the post-AD 70 futuristic fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation will be demonstrated in the next chapter. Here we will be considering the circumstantial evidence for the late AD 96 date of writing.
 
The church of Smyrna didn’t exist in AD 70.
 

One of the seven churches Jesus addressed in the first three chapters of Revelation was the church of Smyrna (Rev 2:8-11). Polycarp, writing to the Philippians in AD 110, states that those living in Smyrna during the ministry of Paul had not yet heard the gospel:
 
“For he (Paul) boasts of you (Philippians) in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we, of Smyrna, had not yet known Him.” [19]
 
This statement made by Polycarp in AD 110 is corroborated in the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul since Smyrna is mentioned neither in Acts nor in the epistles. After Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, he was released and continued his missionary journeys for a few months until the following year when Rome was burned in AD 64. During his time of freedom, he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus. He was imprisoned a second time in Rome and finally beheaded in AD 66. During his final imprisonment he wrote 2 Timothy. However, in none of his epistles does he make mention of Smyrna. The lack of any mention of Smyrna confirms what Polycarp said. Therefore, the church of Smyrna to whom Jesus spoke in Revelation didn’t even exist in AD 70, and therefore the book of Revelation is not applicable to the time between AD 66 and AD 70.
 
The Church of Laodicea was flourishing in the AD 60s, but Spiritually Impoverished in Revelation 3.
 

Paul mentions the church of Laodicea in the epistle of Colossians which was written around AD 62 (Col. 2:1-2; 4:13,16). At that time, it appears to have been a healthy, thriving church. However, when Jesus addresses the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:14-22, He rebukes them for their apathy. He gives them the most lengthy and severe rebuke of all the seven churches. Apart from reaffirming His love and faithfulness towards them, He doesn’t have anything positive to say to them. It is unlikely that the church in Laodicea would have undergone such a drastic spiritual decline in just a couple of years.
 
Also, Jesus speaks of them as being rich and prosperous and in need of nothing. Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake in AD 60, which left them impoverished and in ruins. [20] The devastation was so great that it took them 30 years to rebuild. [21] It is highly unlikely that the church in Laodicea was experiencing great wealth and prosperity in the AD 60s while their city was still in ruins.
 
Therefore, we have seen that the early date of writing of the book of Revelation not only lacks any significant external evidence, but also we can see from the internal circumstantial evidence that the Letters to the seven churches had to have been written later than the AD 60s, since the church of Smyrna didn’t yet exist and the church of Laodicea was still a spiritually thriving church in the AD 60s.
 
There is no concrete objective evidence whatsoever which the Preterists can reasonably present in support of the early date of writing - either internally or externally. For a more in-depth presentation of the arguments for a late AD 95 – AD 96 date for the writing of Revelation, I highly recommend Mark Hitchcock’s dissertation: “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation. [22]
 
In the following chapter we will consider what Preterists present as interpretive evidences within the book of Revelation itself. Obviously, interpretive evidence is by its very nature subjective and depends upon the perspective of the interpreter. From the very outset it should be kept in mind that their interpretations have no credence whatsoever, since their subjective interpretations fly in the face of all objective internal and external evidence indicating a late date of writing - twenty-five years after their AD 66 – AD 70 timeframe for the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation.
 

This blog is an excerpt from my book: “Last Days – Past or Present?”
 

[1] Welton, Jonathan (2013-11-01). Raptureless: An Optimistic Guide to the End of the World - Revised Edition Including The Art of Revelation (Kindle Location 4446). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.

[2] Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, section 3.
 

[3] Irenaeus not only pinpoints the timing of John’s visions on Patmos to AD 95 - 96. He also makes it clear that the Beast of Revelation was understood to be the Antichrist and that, he was yet to come and his identity was yet unknown to the Church in his time.
 

[4] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 1, section 5.
 

[5]  Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 28. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
 

[6] Eusebius, Book 4, Chapter 22, section 1.
 

[7] Eusebius, Book 3 Chapter 20. section 10.
 

[8] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 19.
 

[9] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 20, section 8.
 

[10] St. Victorinus, Commentary on Revelation, Chapter 10.
 

[11] Jerome, Against Jovinianus, book one, §26.
 

[12] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 9, section 6,7.
 

[13] Sulpitius Severus, The Sacred History, Book 2, Chapter 31.
 

[14] Welton, Jonathan (2013-11-01). Raptureless: An Optimistic Guide to the End of the World - Revised Edition Including The Art of Revelation (Kindle Locations 4458-4459). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.
 

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta.
 

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Aramaic_New_Testament_manuscript.
 

[17] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 18, section 5.
 

[18] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 54. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
 

[19] Johnson, B.W. A Vision of the Ages, p. 19.
 

[20] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 11.
 

[21] Tacitus Annals 14:27:1.
 

[22] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 187. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
 

[23] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
 
go to 2 of 2
Picture
13 Comments
Kuudered-Kun link
9/8/2021 06:04:05 am

I actually support an even later date for the Book's Authorship, feeling like it was most likely written during the Reign of Hadrian. I wrote about it on my Prophecy Blog last year.

Reply
James D
2/6/2022 06:40:29 am

Too many incorrect assertions in this post.

Reply
George Hurd link
2/6/2022 06:59:02 am

John D. Could you please show us some specifics?

Reply
James D
2/6/2022 08:26:18 am

Yes. It's simply not true that the late date was the only one known until the seventh century.

E.g., the Muratorian Canon (c. 200) presupposes that Revelation was written before Paul finished his writings.

Epiphanius placed it in the reign of Claudius, as did some Latin writers.

Tertullian says John was sent into exile after surviving being immersed in boiling oil. According to another quotation of Tertullian, he placed the boiling oil in Nero's reign.

Hippolytus doesn't date Revelation.

Hegesippus doesn't date Revelation. A few scholars have suggested that Eusebius was alluding to him, while other scholars believe he was alluding to Irenaeus and Clement, whom he goes on to quote.

It doesn't seem likely that Hegesippus could have dated John's exile to AD 95, since he placed Domitian's persecution early in his reign (he is told by the grandsons of Jude that he will reign for many years), not in the 90s. He doesn't mention John.

Polycarp didn't say that the Smyrna hadn't heard the gospel during Paul's ministry. It says that they hadn't heard the gospel at the time Paul write Philippians.


The Acts of John is second century and is not supportive of a late date. Since it's beginning is missing, if it mentioned the exile at all, it would have placed it early.



Some scholars don't even concede Irenaeus and say that he is ambiguous. The idea that he referred to Revelation as being seen in Domitian's reign is, for example, categorically rejected by John Behr in his recent book. He points out that the ancient Latin translation didn't understand Revelation as that which was seen at the end of Domitian's reign.

Clement of Alexandria doesn't date John's exile and doesn't mention the name of Domitian.

Dio Cassius doesn't once say that Domitian exiled to Patmos or the islands of the Aegean. We know that Nero exiled people to that region, however.

Victorinus did not date John's exile to 95/96. He dated it to Domitian's reign, not to the end of Domitian's reign. In fact, he also says that John grew old during his time on Patmos after seeing the vision of Revelation. Therefore he was there a long time before he was released with Domitian's death in 96.

Reply
James D
2/6/2022 08:34:20 am

The Syriac History of John (written sometime between the 4th and 6th century) places John's exile in Nero's reign also.

Reply
George Hurd link
2/6/2022 04:14:30 pm

If you could give me some specific quotes from those sources, I would appreciate it. Before writing my book on the subject I tried to confirm the other purported sources for an early date of Revelation, but didn’t find anything concrete or substantial.

Clearly, the preponderance of evidence for the later date of writing, and the lack of any real substantial, reliable testimonies to the contrary, would support the later date as historically held.

In what sense did the Muratorian Canon presuppose that Revelation was written before Paul finished his epistles? Can you show me a source for that?

I would also like to see specifically where Epiphanius, or any other early Father, for that matter, placed the date of writing during the reign of Claudius.

There is evidence that Domitian exiled prisoners which I cite in my blog. But where is there evidence that Nero exiled prisoners?

What scholars, apart from Preterists, question the reliability of Irenaeus?

As I cite in the blog, Victorinus says that John was released from Patmos after Domitian’s death. Even if he were to have said it was early in his reign, it would make the date of writing to late for Preterists since he didn’t begin to reign until 81AD.

Reply
James D
2/6/2022 06:50:38 pm

A few other comments:

1. I don't see the preponderance of evidence. The first writer to clearly assert the late Domitianic dating is Eusebius. This is much later than the Muratorian Canon and Tertullian and not much earlier than the Syriac Acts of John and Epiphanius.

2. Domitian exiled people to the islands off the west coast of Italy. Historians disagree as to whether Christians were included among them, though Eusebius believed there were.

Nero is not on record as banishing any Christians, but he did banish, and unlike Domitian, we know he exiled to the islands near Patmos. E.g. he banished at least 13 prominent Romans to the islands of the Aegean (Annals 15:71). More examples can be found in chapters 14 and 16 of the same work. He exiled a philosopher, Musonius, to an island near Patmos (Life of Apollonius 7.16). He also exiled the philosopher Demetrius (Life of Apollonius 4.42). Dio Cassius mentions the exile of another philosopher by Nero (Roman History 62). Tacitus mentions his banishment of acts (Lives 12).

3. Scholars.

No one is saying that Irenaeus
isn't reliable. It's about the interpretation, not reliability. Two separate things.
Scholars who question the interpretation include John Behr , Ian Boxall, and Dean Furlong. None of them are preterists.


4. But you gave Victorinus as evidence for the late date. I never claimed him for the early date. He placed it early in Domitian's reign, in the 80s, but you asserted that he placed it in 95/96, which is not the case.

Reply
James D
2/6/2022 06:55:05 pm

That should read "his banishment of actors" not "of acts."

James D
2/6/2022 06:23:16 pm

I can give you some resources that contain all that information, if that helps.

You interact with Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell in part 2 of this blog, but this has a lot of the information you're asking about. It has the quotes from the Muratorian Canon and Epiphanius.

(the Muratorian Canon says that Paul was following the example of his predecessor John in writing to seven churches; that means John wrote to seven churches, i.e. in Revelation, first.)

Another resource is a recent dissertation that has some chapters on the dating of Revelation. It can be read for free here: https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/john-the-evangelist-revision-and-reinterpretation-in-early-christ-2

It discusses the dating of Revelation in Claudius' reign not only in Epiphanius but also in some Latin commentaries.

Reply
George Hurd link
2/7/2022 02:15:27 am

When the Muratorian fragment says that “Paul, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh,” it should not be mistaken as saying that John’s letters to the seven churches preceded in time the epistles of Paul, but simply that Paul, the last to be called as an Apostle, wrote to seven churches, just like his predecessor John did. This is an example of what I mean in my blog when I say that every attempt of Preterists to demonstrate an early date for Revelation is a grabbing for straws at best, while at the same seeking to discredit the weight of evidence against them.

Here I requote Victorinus from above blog where he clearly places the end of John’s exile after Domitian’s death:
“when John saw this, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to a mine by Caesar Domitian. Therefore, John is seen to have written the Apocalypse there. And when now old, he thought it possible to return after the suffering. Domitian having been killed, all his judgments were undone and John was released from the mine, and thus afterward he handed over this same Apocalypse which he received from the Lord.”

Reply
James D
2/7/2022 04:25:27 am

You can't be following the example of someone else unless they have already done it first. Paul was following John's example when he wrote to seven churches.
Again, Victorinus has John grow old on Patmos after he saw Revelation, so it was quite some time (according to Victorinus) between when he saw it and when he was released, following Domitian's death. Therefore he supports a date early in Domitian's reign for Revelation, not late.

Reply
George Hurd link
2/7/2022 05:14:14 am

To me, a small delapitated fragment that textual scholars said they couldn't descipher with certainty, isn't sufficient to justify rejecting the multiple early sources confirming the late date. To say, "following the example of" most probably refers to a simple comparison of the similarities between the two rather than literally meaning that that Paul subsequently imitated John's style.

The point I was trying to make by citing Victorinus is that he said that John was exiled by Domician and released after Domitian's death. He only reigned for 15 years, between 81 and 96AD. That is well after the pre 66 date Preterists need.

Reply
James D
2/7/2022 07:30:59 am

That particular sentence is preserved in other related texts that don't have the poor quality of Latin like that in the Muratorian Canon. A similar statement is also in a Coptic text. You can find all thisl in the dissertation I linked to, if you're interested.

You're just clutching at straws when you say it's just making a comparison. If it had wanted to say that Paul wrote in a similar way, it could have done that without claiming that Paul followed John's example.

Victorinus doesn't support the early date. My point is that it is incorrect to claim him for a 95/96 date. I never said he supports the early date or preterism.

I don't see these multiple early sources. Irenaeus is ambiguous and the earliest translation doesn't support your reading. The earliest clear evidence is Eusebius, long after the Muratorian Canon, and then Jerome, who simply copied him.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All

    ______________
    Index of Articles and Titles related to Universal Restoration
    Does “All” simply mean “Jew and Gentile alike”?
    Distinguishing Biblical Universalism
    Spiritual Deconstruction
    Has Everyone already been Forgiven?
    Are the Gates of Hell Locked from Within?
    Is Sheol the Grave?
    Is One’s Destruction the End of all Existence?
    Shall not Perish
    What must I do to be Saved?
    Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner's Fire
    Shedding Light Upon the Roman Catholic Dogma of Purgatory
    Understanding the Wrath of God
    Who are the Elect of God?
    ​Does the Restoration of All include the Animal Kingdom?
    True Repentance
    Did Christ’s sacrifice on the cross change God’s attitude towards us?
    The Early Fathers and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
    Is Salvation Transactional?
    The Justice of God
    The Future Judgments of God
    Who Destroyed Sodom and Why?
    Rewards for Good Works
    Is Satan Real?
    Has Our New Testament Changed over the Years?
    What meaneth the phrase, “let the unjust be unjust still?”
    The Theosis or the Divinization of man
    The “Unpardonable” Sin
    Better for Judas Not to have been born
    The Faith of Jesus
    Seeing the Father through Jesus
    The Straight and Narrow Grace-Walk
    Is Universalism a Deterrent to Evangelism?
    The Blurring of Biblical Distinctions
    What does the word "Word" mean to Jesus?
    Upon Which Foundation?
    Are All Sins Equal?
    Not Forsaking the Assembling of Ourselves Together
    What should a New Testament Church look like?
    How Literal is the Concordant Literal Version?
    The Inerrency of Scripture
    Biblical Inerrancy throughout Church History (1 of 4)
    Why should we contend for the Inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures? (2 of 4)
    Understanding Biblical Inerrancy (3 of 4)
    ​How was our Bible formed? (4 of 4)
    The Love of God
    Is God’s Love Unconditional? (1 of 3)
    What is Conditional about God’s Unconditional Love? (2 of 3)
    The Love and Hatred of God? (3 of 3)
    The Fear of the Lord
    Understanding the Fear of the Lord (1 of 2)
    Fear Him who can Destroy both Body and Soul (2 of 2)
    The Question of Evil
    The What of Evil (1 of 3)
    The Where of Evil (2 of 3)
    The Why of Evil (3 of 3)
    Homosexuality and the Bible
    Does the Bible affirm the Homosexual Lifestyle? (1 of 2)
    The Six So-called Gay Clobber Texts (2 of 2)
    Reincarnationism
    Resurrection or Reincarnation? 1 of 2
    Resurrection or Reincarnation 2 of 2
    Open Theism
    Open Theism - Does God know My Tomorrow? 1 of 2
    Open Theism - Does God know my Tomorrow 2 of 2

    Answers to Objections:

    1) The Restoration of All
    2) The Reconciliation of All
    3) The Universal Reversal
    4) The Salvation of All
    5) The Duration of Punishment
    6) Hope for the Dead
    7) The Testimony of the Fathers
    8) The Logic of Universal Reconciliation
    Has God Rejected Israel:
    1) ¿Has God rejected His People Israel?
    2) Has the Church Replaced Israel?
    3) God’s Irrevocable Promises to Israel
    4) Should we bless National Israel Today?
    God's Glorious Plan for the Ages
    God's Glorious Plan 1 of 2
    God's Glorious Plan 2 of 2
    The Manifest Sons of God
    The Man-Child Company (1 of 3)
    The Manifest Sons of God (2 of 3)
    The Identity of the 144,000 (3 of 3)
    The Trinity and the Deity of Christ
    ​The Importance of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ (1 of 5)
    Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament (2 of 5)
    The Christophanies of the Old Testament (3 of 5
    Jesus Christ - the Eternal I AM (4 of 5)
    The Triunity of God (5 of 5)
    The Trinity and the Ante Nicene Fathers
    Eternal Preexistence of Christ
    The Eternal Preexistence of the Son of God (1 of 3)
    The Eternal Preexistence of the Son of God (2 of 3)
    The Eternal Preexistence of the Son of God (3 of 3)
    Preterism vs. Futurism
    Where is the promise of His coming? (1 of 2)
    Last Days – Past or Present? (2 of 2)
    Premillennial Futurism – The Belief of the Early Church
    The Objectiv​e Evidences for a Late Dating of John's Revelation (1 of 2)
    Examining the Interpretive Arguments for an Early Dating of John’s Revelation (2 of 2)
    The Two-Gospel Doctrine Examined
    Are there Two Different Gospels in the New Testament? (1 of 4)
    Are there Two Groups of Believers, or are We One Body?  (2 of4)
    Are there Two Separate Scriptures for Two Groups of Believers?  (3 of 4)
    Are Paul’s Epistles Incompatible with the rest of the New Testament?  (4 of 4)

    Archives

    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    May 2019
    February 2018
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015

Proudly powered by Weebly