As Sanday saw, "It is a Choice of evils, and a choice also of attractions."[12] There will be no benefits and drawbacks to each proposal (otherwise the voice of the church would be basically unified on this point by now), and the student will need to weigh the relative merits of each option with clarity and cogency of relative merits of each option with clarity and cogency of thought before settling responsibility on one position or the other.It cannot be stressed enough today that responsible scholarship must undergird one's choice concerning the time when Revelation was written.

100 forget me not datings 4 real-41100 forget me not datings 4 real-4

Research into the historical context of the book of Revelation is necessary in order to understand the message of this book properly. the Romans leveled Jerusalem and the temple, as we know from history. D., on the assumption that John's exile to Patmos was occasioned by the banishment of Jews from Rome by Claudius in 51 [49] A. Moreover, Epiphanius seems to have spoken carelessly, many scholars believe; he probably was referring to Nero (whose full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus) as "Claudius."[3] At the other extreme for dating Revelation, Trajan's reign was advanced by the 6th century ascetic, Dorotheus (), and in the commentary at Matthew by Theophylact, an 11th century exegete.

The reader ought to appreciate the concrete setting of the book and the historical perspective which its author would have had. We can see this if we but consider the reference in Revelation to the city of Jerusalem, its temple, and the Roman Empire - all of which, in their own order, are prophesied to be destroyed. What one thinks of the prophecies in Revelation will naturally be affected, then, by the choice of a date for the writing of the book either prior to, or subsequent to, this event in 70 A. Milton Terry observed: The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. Such opinions are far too late and unargued to warrant serious attention.

Are we to believe that Boer knows or has interviewed "Most students" of the book? If New Testament criticism has "most generally accepted" the late date for Revelation, how do we account for the fact that debate over the date for Revelation, given so much attention and analysis in reputable works on Revelation?

Besides, are we to think that questions of truth can be decided by a census of personal opinions rather than an analysis of the evidence pro and con?

Christ pointed in his eschatological discourses to the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding tribulation as the great crisis in the history of the theocracy and the type of the judgment of the world, and there never was a more alarming state of society. It was at this unique juncture in the history of mankind that St.

John, with the consuming fire in Rome and the infernal spectacle of the Neronian persecution behind him, the terrors of the Jewish war and the Roman interregnum around him, and the catastrophe of Jerusalem and the Jewish theocracy before him, received those wonderful visions of the impending conflicts and final triumphs of the Christian church. .[10] The "early" date for Revelation (often considered the "Neronian date")[11] would roughly span the years 64-70 A.

If responsible scholarship should support a date for Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. In order to understand the various proposals, the reader would do well to remember the history of the Roman/rulers, as here listed for the relevant periods: First Triumvirate60-46 B. The essence of the "early date" for the writing of Revelation is the belief that John composed the book sometime to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. Philip Schaff, once an advocate of the later (post-70 A. The tribulation of the six years preceding the destruction of Jerusalem extended over the whole Roman empire and embraced wars and rebellions, frequent and unusual conflagrations, earthquakes and famines and plagues, and all sorts of public calamities and mysteries untold.

D., there would be no need to imply the rebuilding of the city and temple so that they could be destroyed again - an implication taken by some to manifest exegetical "double vision." To postulate a "revived" Roman empire and a "restored" Jewish temple and community, when the contemporary facts fit every requirement perfectly, seems to be a work of supererogation. D., Domitian) dating of Revelation who subsequently publicized how strong internal evidence from Revelation had persuaded him to amend his outlook and advocate the early date,[9] summarized the view in this way: The early date is best suited for the nature and object of the Apocalypse, and facilitates its historical understanding. It seemed, indeed, that the world, shaken to its very centre, was coming to a close, and every Christian must have felt that the prophecies of Christ were being fulfilled before his eyes.

At the turn of the century not only were the three most renowned Biblical scholars of the day - Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort - agreed as to the Neronian date for Revelation, the same conclusion was reached by the superb church historian, Philip Schaff, and by the acclaimed expert in hermeneutics, Milton Terry.[33] An all-star cast of Christian scholars defended the early date for Revelation!

Terry asserted in 1898: "The preponderance of the best modern criticism is in favour of this view."[34] The early date has always enjoyed important scholarly support.

So then, if one reads "the holy city shall they tread under foot" (Rev. One is the reign of Domitian, preferable the latter part, around the year 96. ) who brought recovery to the empire from the threat of civil war ("the death-stroke" of the beast "was healed," Rev. But this hardly differentiates the sixth and seventh kings in terms of the shortness of the latter's reign (Rev.