Dating the Book of Revelation
By Mark Odell
The dating of the book of Revelation is important, for from it the interpretation options spring. As with much of what we see, the dating of the book is usually wrapped up in its hermeneutic perspective. It is not disputed that, regardless of the specific date, Revelation was written in the latter half of the 1st Century under conditions of growing persecution for the early Church. Persecution against the Church initially came from the Jews, and then from the Romans, and then both. The two main date ranges that have been identified are somewhere in the mid-60s AD and somewhere between 88 and 96 AD. In contemporary American Protestantism, including Evangelicalism, the latter date range has been the majority opinion, but this is less the case in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and even more so the further back in history one goes.
The main evidence for the late date comes from one primary source, Irenaeus, who in his c. 180 AD Against Heresies, makes an indirect statement that Revelation was written during the reign of Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD.) Irenaeus' dating is repeated by Eusebius (who actually writes apparently contradictory things about John, that he was exiled by Nero and by Domitian), and continued to be accepted by many other early Church fathers and historians, and from there, a consensus developed up through the present.There are, however, reasons to be cautious about Ireneus's accuracy on some things, among which are some otherhistorical assertions he makes that are erroneous: he states in another volume of Against Heresies that Jesus had an earthly ministry of 15 or more years and was crucified at an age upwards of 50 years old, and he conflated the founding of the church at Rome as being by both Peter and Paul.
Nonetheless, there are still many strong arguments that support the later date.The major evidence for an earlier date comes from comments made in the 2nd Century Syriac NT, and the Muratorian text (c. 170-180 AD), that John wrote Revelation after being exiled to Patmos under Nero, whose reign ended in 68 AD. This early date theory also has some support in other aspects, such as why the fall of Jerusalem is not mentioned in John's writing. If the cataclysmic upheaval of Judaism's core, the destruction of the temple, and with it the Mosaic sacrificial system, which was described prophetically by jesus in Matt. 24:2 and was the fulfillment of that very prophecy, had already occurred, it is perplexing as to why John does not mention it. It could be argued that for John's purposes, the destruction of the temple was known history and not relevant for what is to come, both in the near and far term. In any event, a strong case can be made for the early date, as well.