We do not have to depend on people who wrote a hundred years or more after the fact to get the accurate story. Gentry's work on the external evidence is particularly valuable." "Though Gentry and I may be poles apart theologically . He has given late-date advocates a challenge for further study." "Here is a book some of us have been awaiting for years! The book makes one aware of the evidence from within the book, from early church sources, and surveys the arguments of New Testament scholars of this century and previous centuries concerning the question.No stone is left unturned to resolve the question." "Gentry's arguments, modern sentiments notwithstanding, present a formidable case for the early dating of the Apocalypse.On the other hand, we need not necessarily prove a pre-70 date, per se, in order to take seriously the Jerusalem view either.
These positions could be held simultaneously if one considered the imagery of the harlot to merely be reminiscent of A. However, the first option may not fit well with the form of the book, which seems to clearly represent itself as predictive prophecy (cf.
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.
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.
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.
In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. Prior to Domitian, the state religion did not direct itself against the Christians.
Nero's mad acts in Rome against the Christians had nothing to do with the imperial cult.
Secret Info or use this handy sign-up form: Just email me at [email protected] you have any difficulty.
The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian.
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.