As Collins notes, “[U]sually the entire work is clearly set in an earlier time and the seer is a venerable figure of the distant past.Revelation does not have these characteristics.” Thus, the late date is not a deathblow, but it must certainly be admitted that it significantly lessens the likelihood of our interpretation.One of the biggest difficulties for our interpretation of the material in Revelation 17–18 has always been the date of the writing of the book. This objection, therefore, must be overcome at the outset if any serious consideration to preteristic interpretation is to be given.While other aspects of the Jerusalem view will be considered below, a more thorough investigation must be made regarding the date issue before any defense of this interpretation is set forth, primarily because many of the scholars who reject preteristic interpretation of the book do so quite often a priori on the basis of the currently dominant view that the Apocalypse was written in the 90s, which of course quickly rules out the stance that much of the book is a prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction in A. Just how pivotal is an earlier date to the Jerusalem = Babylon argument? Writers such as Provan and Corsini believe that Jerusalem is in view despite their insistence on a late date. These scenarios allow some leeway for the Jerusalem view even in the case of a late date, and it may therefore be said that a decision on the time of writing need not necessarily end the discussion.For centuries scholars have argued over when the book of Revelation was written a few years before or a quarter century after the destruction of Jerusalem in A. A more compelling date for the writing is during the reign of Nero Caesar, just a few years before Jerusalem's destruction at the hands of the Roman commander Titus. I have been very grateful for his work." "Presents a strong case for dating the Book of Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. The most accepted but not the most compelling date is around the time of Domitian (A. 95-96), at the end of the first century when John would have been nearly 100 years old.I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
1:1, 1:3, , 4:1, et al.), and the second is short on evidence when we consider the parallels in other Jewish apocalypses that employ the ex eventu technique.
It is commonly read at the end of the liturgical year, for it bespeaks the end of, and passing qualities of all things of this world.
It is also a book of glory, depicting the ultimate victory of our Lord Jesus Christ, after a great period of conflict between the doomed kingdom of this world, and the victorious Kingdom of Christ.
Moreover, it is my personal estimation that the internal evidence (especially the issues raised in this thesis) may actually help us to evaluate the date itself, rather than vice versa, as has been the common order of method. Some difficulty arises in this question from the fact that the Book of Revelation differs so greatly in style from the Gospel of John.
It seems unlikely that if the two were both written by John the Apostle they could have been written in the same decade.