Earlier dating of Revelation

[dabber]

Hello Forum!

My first post here. Thanks Peter, for the excellent site. I'm an ex C mid 50s, in the UK.

Wondered your opinion of an earlier dating of Revelation, based on the 7 Kings 17:10-11 corresponding to roman emperors. That'd put it as written in 68/69 under Galba and Otho. As opposed to traditional dating 95 ce Domitian.

Do you think that's possible? The christology seems under developed to me which would support an early date. Saved by works, 7 spirits, born in heaven etc.

Cheers, dabber

[Peter Kirby]

Hello Forum!

My first post here. Thanks Peter, for the excellent site. I'm an ex C mid 50s, in the UK.

Wondered your opinion of an earlier dating of Revelation, based on the 7 Kings 17:10-11 corresponding to roman emperors. That'd put it as written in 68/69 under Galba and Otho. As opposed to traditional dating 95 ce Domitian.

Do you think that's possible? The christology seems under developed to me which would support an early date. Saved by works, 7 spirits, born in heaven etc.

Cheers, dabber

Welcome! It's a good question. That is the most commonly proposed alternative to the more typical date here.

[ebion]

Wondered your opinion of an earlier dating of Revelation, based on the 7 Kings 17:10-11 corresponding to roman emperors. That'd put it as written in 68/69 under Galba and Otho. As opposed to traditional dating 95 ce Domitian.

FWIW (it doesn't help answer your question) but if Revelation 2 is a polemic against Paul:

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (Revelation of John 2:2 [KJV])

is that against a Paul-in-Acts or against the teachings said to be by Paul in the Epistles (Faulines)?

If the former, then it could be written anytime after Acts was written, which I assume is early (pre-62 death of James).

If the latter then it would have to be after the Faulines were written, presumably after Marcion "found" them (138-144 AD).

In then end I concluded the former:

So the Ebionaens had lots to judge the Paul-in-Acts on long before the Faulines by MarcionOrLater appear

which doesn't help you much.

[Peter Kirby]

Revelation is not a genuine letter, but at the same time it takes the literary form of an epistle (easily overlooked since we don't usually call it the Letter of John of Patmos). It's written to seven different churches. Similarly, the Pauline canon (whether in 10 letter or 13 letter form) is addressed to seven different churches (with the 'surplus' three being Corinthians B, Thessalonians B, and the personal letter/letters).

While it is usually argued that a connection here would involve the priority of a Pauline collection, indeed one that began in the first century, it's always a possible to claim different dates and different dependencies to be consistent with other assumptions (for example, the not very credible claim that Marcionites produced the letters of Paul).

[ebion]

Revelation is not a genuine letter,

Is there any indication that the Revelation of John (excluded from some canon) is a composite work by more than one author?

[dabber]

@ebion, thanks for the reply. Interesting take on Rev. 2:2, "claim to be apostles but are not"

@Peter thanks also. As sure you know these 7 churches are all in West part of Asia Minor, modern day Turkey. Long way geographically from Judea.

[Charles Wilson]

One problem here is what might be termed "Compound Dating":

Revelation 8: 1 (RSV):

[1] When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Within the Story of Revelation this Fragment appears. Does it refer to something in "Our" Histories?
We may speculate and if nothing else aligns we are none the worse for wear.
I believe, however, it does refer to something in our Histories.

The half-hour-of-silence-in-Heaven refers, I believe, to Salome-not-Alaexandra, wife of Jannaeus and then Queen of Judea. Events align beautifully with this assertion and I invite to have a go at lining up the pieces.

This "Compound Dating" allows you to link the Jannaeus and Salome Factions (The Hasmoneans) against the Scribes, Pharisees and Herodians and then onto "Immer" (=> "Immar", the "lamb") and so on.

Revelation 5: 2 - 14 (RSV):

[2] and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?"
[3] And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it,
[4] and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to into into it.
[5] Then one of the elders said to me, "Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
[6]

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;

[7] and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne.
[8] And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
[9] and they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
[10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on earth."
[11] Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
[12] saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"
[13] And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, "To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!"
[14] And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Jannaeus. The Hamoneans. The Mishmarot Priesthood.

Dated. Transvalued and rewritten on your Time Frame.

CW

[Joseph D. L.]

I recommend checking out Xoroaster's old series on Revelation.

Xoroaster really is the one who woke me out of my dogmatic slumber. His methodology was just too creative and intuitive not to adopt for myself.

I will say I don't agree with everything he said, especially where Rev 11, 12, and 13 are involved, and his iconographical explanation for 616 was charmingly bad, but overall he makes a pretty rock solid case for an early dating (ca 59ad) and multiple authorship over many decades.

[DCHindley]

Hello Forum!
...
Wondered your opinion of an earlier dating of Revelation, based on the 7 Kings 17:10-11 corresponding to roman emperors. That'd put it as written in 68/69 under Galba and Otho. As opposed to traditional dating 95 ce Domitian.

Do you think that's possible? The christology seems under developed to me which would support an early date. Saved by works, 7 spirits, born in heaven etc.

The book's full name is "Revelation of Jesus Christ to his slave John" and it is a pseudo letter in the first 4 chapters, but once you get by that fiction, it is a combination of earlier shorter apocalypses that have been sliced, diced, and sewn together to get what we now see.

Have you read any modern critics on the Revelation? I think most recently David Aune had offered his take on this book, but I have found use from older critics like R H Charles (he published his criticism as a commissioned 2 volume International Critical Commentary set, published somewhere around turn of 20th century, so it is available for free download, very detailed), discussing all the issues you are interested in, so see if anything there might be of interest.

My hunch is that you have already been down that path, but sometimes the book has been introduced into battle by participants in the debate between Protestants & Roman Catholics, so it has colored interpretations of both western history and more modern "end times prophecy" interpretations, if that was how you were exposed to it.

I have experienced it both sides now. Back in College I attended a Liberal Arts college run by the United Brethren church, for a year anyhow, and I took a class on revelation as an elective. It went on and on about how Revelation *should* be viewed, offering simplistic explanations for images of Tiamat (the dragon) and such, which I found not very helpful before discovering Charles' ICC volumes.

If you've ever seen Charles expose the innards of many intertestamental apocalypses (1 & 2 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, Daniel, etc.) he does much the same on Revelation, although you can tell he kind of handled it with kid gloves, being sacred scripture and all. Charles would be a "Liberal" today, which wasn't always a bad word among those who believed that the social message of Christianity was more important than the individual details about their founder and earliest writers.

Volume 1: Analysis of things like date, authorship, structure, likely sources, etc.
Example:
IX. Date of J^ap,
§ 1 External evidence. The Trajanic, Claudian, and Neronic dates. The Domitianic date, pp. xci~xciii.
§ 2. Internal evidence.
(1) Such evidence exists alike for the Neronic, Vespasianic, and Domitianic dates.
(2) Evidence for the Domitianic which explains all the rest.
(a) Use of earlier N.T. books.
(b) The present form of the Seven Epistles points to a Domitianic date, though originally written under Vespasian, p. xciii sq.
(c) The imperial cult (though presupposed throughout J^ap) not enforced till the reign of Domitian, p. xciv sq.
(d) The Nero-redivivus myth exhibits phases belonging to the reigns of Titus (?), Vespasian, and Domitian. Domitian not to be identified with the Antichrist, pp. xcv—xcvii.
https://archive.org/details/criticalexe ... 7/mode/2up

Volume 2: Greek text with fresh English translation
https://archive.org/details/criticalexe ... 5/mode/2up

DCH

[DCHindley]

I was sure I had summarized the sources of Revelation, per R H Charles, in a post on FRDB, that was not coming up.

Finally located a summary on Reddit: (from a 2012 post to Free Ratio Discussion Board that did not come up when I queried Kirby's search engine):

Per Robert Henry Charles, (ICC Commentary on Revelation, 1920) the sources the author of Revelation may have used are:

a) Either a Hebrew or Greek source

7:1-8 (before 70 AD) actually 2 sources:
A 7:1-3; and
B 7:4-8.

b) Greek sources

11:1-13 (before 70 AD, likely Neronian in date)

12 (before 70 AD) Christianized Jewish source (possibly Neronian in date) [this one he retracted in the errata]

17-18 (71-79 AD) Greek translation of 2 Hebrew sources:
A) 17:1c-2, 3b-6, 7, 18, 8-10 (greater part), 18:2-23. (18:4 postulates a Vespasianic date); and
B) 17:11 (greater part), 12-13, 17, 16. (elements of 17:10-11 suggests both a Vespasianic and Domitianic date, depending on how interpreted)

c) Hebrew sources

13:1a,b,d, 2, 4-7a, 10 (before 70 AD, likely Neronian in date),

13:3c, 8, an independent Greek translation of that which is reflected in 17:8

13:11, 12ab, 13-14ab,16ad-17a (before 70 AD)

15:5-8 (possible source)

The rest of Revelation is pretty much the creation of the author, and editorial interpolations in his sources, probably under Vespasian (example are chapters 1-4) or Domitian (final, including redaction of earlier sources).

DCH