The Dating of the Apocalypse of John

Early Date Advocates | Late Date Advocates

  • 12/14/12: Preterism Review – Did Fitzmeyer and Bruce endorse the early date for Revelation?

  • Nathaniel LardnerLardner on the Date of the Apocalypse (1788 PDF)

  • J.D. Michaelis – The Apocalypse (1801 English Edition PDF) “the Apocalypse contains prophecies with which the very persons  to whom it was sent were immediately concerned. But if none of these  prophecies were designed to be completed till long after their death, those  persons were not immediately concerned with them, and the author would surely  not have said that they were blessed in reading prophecies of which the time  was at hand, if those prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after the  lapse of many ages”

  • Bernard Henderson – The Life and Principate of Emperor Nero (1903 PDF) “The verses (of Revelation) 17. 10, can be differently explained. Almost certainly Caesar is not the first, but Augustus, so we have “five fallen,” “one is,” “one is not yet come and is to continue a short space,” and ” the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth and is of the seven ” (certainly = Nero, cf. 13. 3 ; 17. 8). The list then is, on the two rival theories, (a) Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero = the five. Galba = he who is; Galba’s successor (naturally unknown ex hyp.) = the one to come, but he can only last a short time because the end is fast approaching, and besides the pseudo-Nero is already active. Nero again = the eighth. (b) Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero = the five. Vespasian = he who is. His successor is undefined because ” the writer did not like to say the reigning Emperor would be overthrown.” Nero again = the eighth. For the Domitian theory I fail to see any possibility of a satisfactory list at all.”

About A.D. 95.
 51%   |  Before A.D.70 38%  |   Other 2%  |  Don’t Know 10%

“I realize the Covenant Theology Preterist group will select before A.D. 70, but the Book of Revelation was written by John on the isle of Patmos in A.D. 95. I have read the preterist view point and find the scholarship very lacking. The Dispensational, futurist view of Bible prophecy is correct. There is plenty of scholarship to prove it.” (Armageddonbooks Prophecy Poll)

Domitian Vilified to Support Late Date Theory?

Ever since the groundbreaking work of L. L. Thompson on theThe Book of Revelation (1990) no one can simply assert that Domitian instigated a widespread persecution against Christians. He offers one of the most profound new perspectives on Domitian from the primary sources (pp. 95-115). His work has received a vast amount of acceptance from subsequent Revelation scholars. However, Thompson may have exaggerated his positive portrayal of Domitian. The best refutation of the extremities of Thompson’s work, that I have come across, comes from G. K. Beale’s magisterial commentary on Revelation. Beale offers very solid and well documented examples demonstrating that the traditional view of Domitian as a tyrannical despot who increasingly desired divine recognition deserves merit evidenced in the writings of both detractors and supporters of Domitian (pp. 6-12).  Hopefully we may arrive at a more balanced and accurate conception of Domitian and his reign.  Posted by Alan S. Bandy

“The chief obstacle to the acceptance of the true date of the Apocalypse, arises from the authority of heaven.”
Frederic W. Farrar

The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign – Catholic Gonzalo Rojas Flores “According to ecclesiastical tradition, the Book of Revelation was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, about the year 95, during his exile in Patmos, shortly before writing the fourth gospel in Ephesus. Most scholars support this late dating (last days of Domitian’s reign), but the early dating (between the years 64 and 70) has the support of many important authors1. In this article I will try to demonstrate that (a) the external evidence is not conclusive in favor of a late dating, because there is an important patristic tradition in favor of Nero’s reign; and (b) the internal evidence provides important arguments affirming that the definitive version of Revelation was redacted after Nero’s ascension to power in the year 54 and before the earthquake of Laodicea in the year 60.”
Analysis of the Revelation “..through the prevalence of what may be called the “Nero-theory” of the book, the pendulum swung strongly in favor of its composition shortly after the death of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem (held to be shown to be still standing by Revelation 11), i.e. about 68-69 AD. This date was even held to be demonstrated beyond all question.
Dating the book of Revelation – “Arethas makes similar comments, and states concerning Rev. 7:4 “When the evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans.” 

Dating the book of Revelation – ‘Arethas,’ says Sir Isaac, ‘ in the beginning of his commentary quotes the opinion of Irenaeus from Eusebius, but does not follow it. For he afterwards affirms, that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that former commentators had expounded the sixth seal of that destruction.’
Learning Activity: Revelation Date
The Debate over the Book of Revelation “This view has precedent in the early church, but it did not become widespread until the nineteenth century. With the advent of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, it became the dominant interpretation among New Testament scholars, though it has been less popular among evangelical scholars.”

by Jim Seghers

The majority of modern scripture scholars attribute late dates to the composition of the New Testament books in the form that we now have them. This is particularly true of the four Gospels. It is usually claimed that Mark was the first gospel written around A.D. 70. Matthew’s composition is dated in the 80’s, followed by Luke in the late 80’s. The Gospel of John is given a composition date in the 90’s.

One may be inclined to think, “So what! After all, regardless of the dates attributed to their composition, each book remains the written word of God because the Holy Spirit is the principal author. What does it matter?” Actually, it matters a great deal.

One naturally assumes that the proponents of late composition dates, men with academic degrees, base their conclusions on sound scholarship that is rooted in recent discoveries in History, Archeology, Patristics, Papyrology and other related fields. This is especially true because these scholars pride themselves on their “scientific” approach to biblical interpretation. Certainly, it would seem that their arguments must be buttressed by the data coming from objective research. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those supporting late authorship base their statements solely on the wobbly foundation of their own fanciful imaginations. Why is this so?

Late authorship fits conveniently into their first principles, which rejects the possibility of any reality that is beyond the scope of their personal experience. They make the limits of their finite intellects and narrow experiences the measure of God’s activity in the world he created out of nothing. Thus accounts of miracles, the resurrection, claims that Jesus is God, the definition of his mission, the founding of the Church with its hierarchical authority, and statements attributed to Jesus cannot be part of what is the actual inspired word of God. Rather these “beliefs” are explained away as a late editing which merely reflects the tenets of Christians far removed from eyewitnesses and the actual words of Jesus. These claims, of course, have no documented foundation in any historical sense of the word. In order to support this evolutionary flight of fancy it is necessary to claim that the gospels had late compositions.

Starting from this faithless, secular viewpoint it is easy to understand why Mark was selected as the first gospel written and the source of Matthew and Luke. This is expedient because Mark lacks many of the “embellishments” found in Matthew and Luke, for example, the institution of the Church on Peter, and the miracles surrounding Jesus birth. Support is drawn from another fashionable invention the Q document, so called from the German word quelle, “source.” “Q” is a hypothetical source from which it is claimed the Synoptic Gospels drew common material. There is no historical evidence that Q ever existed except, of course, in the fertile imaginations of revisionist scholars. The result of this foolishness is a whole system of biblical interpretation based on the myths fabricated by their creators who, themselves, have become the embodiment of the fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In the fable of The Emperor’s New Clothes, it required the uninhibited innocence of a child to proclaim, “The king is Nude!”

The resulting interpretations of many modern biblical scholars are so methodologically flawed that they should be the subjects of derision not serious study. Unfortunately, just as in the fable there were many that gawkishly admired the Emperor’s invisible attire, so today there are many who fawn over these illusionary conclusions based on invisible data. At the college and university levels these speculations are taught with indiscriminate dogmatism. Woe to the inquiring student who dares to challenge these pronouncements! One is left to wonder if St. Paul foresaw these times when he prophesied: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:4). Fortunately, amid this academic madness there are voices that are erxposing the nudity of much in modern biblical studies.

As it relates to the dating of New Testament books, the pioneering labor of John A. T. Robinson in his scholarly work Redating the New Testament is of great importance. He argues persuasively that all the books of the New Testament were written before 70 A.D. Modernists have refused to seriously investigate his scholarship, choosing instead to ignore it. However, Robinson’s thesis provides a reasonable assumption of composition dates based on sound scholarship not ideological illusion.

Recently the scholarly work of the papyrologist, Carsten Peter Thiede, has received widespread notice. He persuasively argues that Matthew’s Gospel is the account of an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. His pathfinding book written with Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, published in 1996, argues that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel was written around A.D. 60.

Between Robinson and Thiede other persuasive voices have also challenged the late dating nonsense. Gunther Zuntz, the internationally recognized authority on Hellenistic Greek, assigned the date 40 A.D. as the most likely date of Mark’s composition. Orchard and Riley in their book, The Order of the Synoptics, argue that Matthew was written in A.D. 43. Reicke’s “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, 1972, give the years 50-64 A.D. for the composition of Matthew. Eta Linnemann’s two works: Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? and Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels provide a piercing debunking of the myths of modern biblical scholarship. What makes her arguments so penetrating is the fact that she studied under Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. in his doctoral dissertation, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, argues persuasively that John wrote the Book of Revelation before 70 A.D. David Chilton in his excellent commentary on the Book of Revelation, The Days of Vengeance, comes to the same conclusion. Dating of the Book of Revelation is important since even most revisionist scholars affirm that it was the last New Testament book written.

The impressive work of Claude Tresmontant, a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, confirms Robinson’s thesis. He bases his arguments on language and archaeology. He points out, for example, that in John 5:2 that “there is [estin in Greek, not “was”] at Jerusalem, at the sheep gate, a pool named in Hebrew Bethzatha. It has five porticos.” This makes no sense if Jerusalem was reduced to a heap of stones 25 or 30 years earlier. (See: Claude Tresmontant, The Hebrew Christ and The Gospel of Matthew.) Father Jean Carmignac of Paris also assigns early composition to the four Gospels. Carmignac, a philologist with exceptional skills in biblical Hebrew, was a noted scholar of the Dead Sea scrolls and the world’s most renowned expert on the Our Father. His The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels is a lucid summary of his thesis.

As a result of the persuasive erudition of these and other scholars a shift is occurring away from the blind acceptance of late New Testament authorship. An example of this shift is reflected in Fr. George H. Duggan’s fine article in the May 1997 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review titled: “The Dates of the Gospels.” By the grace of God may this trend continue!

February 7, 1998

Dr. George W. Knight III
”What does it matter when the book of Revelation was written?  Much more than one might imagine!  In fact, this seemingly obscure historical detail has become the central focus on the debate over Bible prophecy.  The ramifications of the debate reach far beyond the theoretical.”

“When Revelation was revealed to John and written down for the Church to read and understand, it had an immediate impact.  Christians were about to witness one of the most devastating judgments in history- the destruction of Jerusalem.”

“It is, of course, possible that Irenaeus made a mistake.” (Cited in Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 957)


Greg Bahnsen (1984)
A partial list of scholars who have supported the early date for Revelation, gleaned unsystematically from my reading, would include the following 18th and 19th writers not already mentioned just above: John Lightfoot, Harenbert, Hartwig, Michaelis, Tholuck, Clarke, Bishop Newton, James MacDonald, Gieseler, Tilloch, Bause, Zullig, Swegler, De Wette, Lucke, Bohmer, Hilgenfeld, Mommsen, Ewald, Neander, Volkmar, Renan, Credner, Kernkel, B. Weiss, Reuss, Thiersch, Bunsen, Stier, Auberlen, Maurice, Niermeyer, Desprez, Aube, Keim, De Pressence, Cowles, Scholten, Beck, Dusterdiek, Simcox, S. Davidson, Beyschlag, Salmon, Hausrath. Continuing on into the 20th century we could list Plummer, Selwyn, J.V. Bartlet, C.A. Scott, Erbes, Edmundson, Henderson, and others. If one’s reading has been limited pretty much to the present and immediately preceding generations of writers on Revelation, then the foregoing names may be somewhat unfamiliar to him, but they were not unrecognized in previous eras. When we combine these names with the yet outstanding stature of Schaff, Terry, Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort, we can feel the severity of Beckwith’s understatement when in 1919 he described the Neronian dating for Revelation as “a view held by many down to recent times.” (Historical Setting for the Dating of Revelation)

  • Firmin AbauzitEssai sur l’Apocalypse (Geneva: 1725) ; An Historical Discourse on the Apocalypse (1730)
  • Luis de AlcasarVestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (Antwerp: 1614).
  • Karl August AuberlenProphecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John in Their Mutual Relation (1856 PDF)  
  • B. Aubé
  • James Vernon Bartlet, The Apostolic Age: Its Life, Doctrine, Worship, and Polity (Edinburgh: 1899), pp. 388ff. (AD75)
  • Ferdinand Christian BaurChurch History of the First Three Centuries (Tubingen: 1863).
  • Leonhard Bertholdt, Htitorisch-kritische Einleitung in die sammtlichen kanonishen u. apocryphischen Schriften des A. und N. Testaments, vol. 4 (1812 -1819).
  • Willibald BeyschlagNew Testament Theology, trans. Neil Buchanan (Edinburgh: 1895).
  • Friedrich BleekVorlesungen und die Apocalypse (Berlin: 1859); and An Introduction to th New Testament, 2nd cd., trans. William Urwick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870); and Lectures on the Apocalypse, ed. Hossbach (1862).
  • Alexander Brown (1878)
  • Heinrich BohmerDie Offenbarung Johannis (Breslau: 1866).
  • Wilhelm BoussetRevelation of John (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1896).
  • BrownOrdo Saeclorum, p. 679. 50
  • Christian Karl Josias Bunsen.
  • Cambridge Concise Bible Dictionay, editor, The Holy Bible (Cambridge), p. 127.
  • Camp, Franklin.
  • Newcombe Cappe
  • W. Boyd CarpenterThe Revelation of St. John, in vol. 8 of Charles Ellicott, cd., Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. n.d.).
  • S. CheethamA History of the Christian Church (London: 1894) , pp. 24ff.
  • Adam ClarkeClarke’s Commentay on the Whole Bible.
  • Henry Cowles, The Revelation of St. John (New York: 1871).
  • Karl August CrednerEinleitung in da Neuen Testaments (1836).
  • Alpheus Crosby
  • R.W. Dale (1878)
  • Samuel DavidsonThe Doctrine af the Last Things (1882); “The Book of Revelation” in John Kitto, Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature (New York: 1855); An Introduction to th Study of the New Testament ( 1851 ); Sacred Hermeneutics (Edinburgh: 1843).
  • Gary DeMar, “Last Days Madness”
  • Edmund De Pressense, The Early Years of Christianity, trans. Annie Harwood (New York: 1879), p. 441.
  • P. S. Desprez, The Apocalypse Fulfilled, 2nd ed. (London: 1855).
  • W. M. L. De Wette
  • Johann Gottfried EichhornKure Erklamng hr Offmbarung (Leipzig: 1848).
  • Dollinger, Dr.
  • Friedrich DusterdieckCritical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John, 3rd ed., trans. Henry E. Jacobs (New York: 1886)
  • K. A. EckhardtDer Id da Johannes (Berlin: 1961 ).
  • Alfred EdersheimThe Temple: Its Ministry and Services, pp. 141ff.
  • Johann Gottfried EichhornCommentaries in Apocalypse (Gottingen: 1791).
  • Erbes, Die Oflenbawzg 0s Johannis (1891).
  • G. H. A. EwaldCommentaries in Apocalypse (Gottingen: 1828).
  • Frederic W. FarrarThe Early Days of Christianity (New York: 1884).
  • Grenville O. FieldOpened Seals – Open Gates (1895).
  • Hermann GebhardtThe Doctrine of the Apocalypse, trans. John Jefferson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878).
  • Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr.
  • J.C.L. Giesler (1820)
  • James GlasgowThe Apocalypse: Translated and Expounded (Edinburgh: 1872).
  • James Comper Gray, in Gray and Adams’ Bible Commentary, vol. V
  • Hugo GrotiusAnnotations in Apocalypse (Paris: 1644).
  • Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand GuenkeIntroduction to the New Testament (1843); and Manual of Church History, trans. W. G. T. Shedd (Boston: 1874), p. 68.
  • Henry Melville GwatkinEarly Church History to A.D. 313, vol. 1, p. 81.
  • Hamilton, James.
  • Henry Hammond, Paraphrase and Annotation upon the N. T (London: 1653).
  • Ernest Hampden Cook
  • Harbuig (1780).
  • Hardouin (1741)
  • Johann Christoph HarenbergErkiarung ( 1759).
  • Friedrich Gotthold HartwigApologie Der Apocalypse Wider Falschen Tadel Und Falscha (Frieberg: 1783).
  • Karl August von HaseA History of the Christian Church, 7th cd., trans. Charles E. Blumenthal and Conway P. Wing (New York: 1878), p. 33. 54
  • Adolph Hausrath.
  • Hawk, Ray.
  • B. W. Henderson, Life and Principate of Nero, 439 f.
  • Hentenius. [secondary source]
  • Johann Gottfrieded von HerderDas Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des Neuen Testaments Siegal (Rigs: 1779).
  • J. S. HerrenschneiderTentamen Apocalypseos illustrandae (Strassburg: 1786).
  • Adolphus HilgenfeldEinleitung in das Neun Testaments (1875).
  • Hitzig.
  • Heinrich Julius HoltzmannDie Offenbarrung des Johannis, in Bunsen’s Bibekoerk (Freiburg: 1891).
  • F. J. A. HortThe Apocalypse of St. John: 1-111, (London: Macmillan, 1908); and Judaistic Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1894).
  • John Leonhard Hug, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. David Fosdick, Jr. (Andover: Gould and Newman, 1836).

  • William HurteA Catechetical Commentay on the New Testament (St. Louis: John Burns, 1889), pp. 502ff.55
  • A. ImmerHermeneutics of the New Testament, trans. A. H. Newman (Andover: Draper, 1890).
  • Theodor KeimRom und das Christenthum.
  • Theodor KoppeHistory of Jesus of Nazareth, 2nd cd., trans. Arthur Ransom (London: William and Norgate, 1883).
  • Max Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes (Leipzig: 1871).
  • Johann Heinrich KurtzChurch History, 9th cd., trans. John McPherson (3 vols. in 1) (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1888), pp. 41ff.
  • Victor LechlerThe Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times: Their Diversity and Union Life and Doctrine, 3rd cd., vol. 2, trans. A. J. K. Davidson, (Edinburgh: 1886), pp. 166ff.
  • John Lightfoot (1658)
  • Joseph B. LightfootBiblical Essays (London: 1893).
  • Gottfried Christian Friedrich Lücke, Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, (Bonn: 1852).
  • Christoph Ernst LuthardtDie Offenbarung Johannis (Leipzig: 1861).
  • James M. Macdonald, The Life and Writings of St. John (London: 1877).
  • Frederick Denisen Maurice, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 2nd ed. (London: 1885).
  • John David MichaelisIntroduction to the New Testament, vol. 4; and Sacred Books the New Testament.
  • Charles Pettit M’Ilvaine, The Evidences of Christianity (Philadelphia: 1861).
  • Theodor MommsenRoman History, vol. 5.
  • John Augustus Wilhelm NeanderThe History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, trans. J. E. Ryland (Philadelphia: James M. Campbell, 1844), pp. 223ff.
  • Sir Isaac NewtonObservation Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (London: 1732).
  • Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertation on the Prophecies (London: 1832).
  • A. NiermeyerOver de echteid der Johanneisch Schriften (Haag: 1852).
  • Professor Nehemiah A. Nisbett
  • Alfred Plummer (1891).
  • Dean Plumptere (1877)
  • Edward Hayes PlumtreeA Popular Exposition of the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1879).
  • Ernest Renan, L’Antechrist (Paris: 1871).
  • Eduard Wilhelm Eugen ReussHistory of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1884).
  • Jean Reville, Reu. d. d. Mondes (Oct., 1863 and Dec., 1873).
  • Edward RobinsonBibliotheca Sacra, vol. 3 (1843), pp. 532ff.
  • J. Stuart RussellThe Parousia (1878).
  • Salmon, G. Introduction to the New Testament.
  • Philip SchaffHistory of the Christian Church, 3rd cd., vol. 1: Apostolic Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1910] 1950), p. 834.
  • Johann Friedrich Schleusner.
  • J. H. Scholtende Apostel Johannis in Klein Azie (Leiden: 1871).
  • Albert SchweglerDa Nachapostol Zeitalter (1846).
  • Henry C. SheldonThe Early Church, vol. 1 of History of the Christian Church (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1894), pp. 112ff.
  • William Henry SimcoxThe Revelation of St. John Divine. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1893).
  • Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age (3rd ed: Oxford and London: 1874), pp. 234ff.
  • J.A. Stephenson (1838)
  • Rudolf Ewald Stier (1869).
  • Augustus H. StrongSystematic Theology (Old Tappan: 1907, p. 1010).
  • Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (Andover: 1845).
  • Swegler.
  • Milton S. TerryBiblical Hermeneutics, p. 467.
  • ThierschDie Kirche im apostolischm Zeitalter.
  • Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (1827).
  • TillichIntroduction to the New Testament.
  • Gustav VolkmarConmentur zur 0fienbarung (Zurich: 1862).
  • Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Book of Revelation (Nashville: by the author, 1966) .
  • Israel P Warren (1878)
  • Bernhard WeissDie Johannes-Apokalypse. Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung (Leipsig, 1891).
  • Brooke Foss WestcottThe Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: 1882).
  • J. J. Wetstein, New Testament Graecum, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: 1752).
  • Karl WieselerZur Auslegung und Kritik der Apok. Literatur (Gottingen: 1839).
  • Charles WordsworthThe New Testament, vol. 2 (London: 1864).
  • Robert YoungCommentary on the Book of Revelation (1885)
  • C. F. J. ZulligDie Ofienbamng Johannis erklarten (Stuttgart: 1852).


Greg Bahnsen (1984)
“When we combine the names (of the pre-20th century advocates of the early dating of the Apocalypse of John) with the yet outstanding stature of Schaff, Terry, Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort, we can feel the severity of Beckwith’s understatement when in 1919 he described the Neronian dating for Revelation as “a view held by many down to recent times.” By many indeed! It has been described, as we saw above, as “the ruling view” of critics,” by “the majority of modern critics,” by “most modern scholars,” and by “the whole force of modern criticism.” The weight of scholarship placed behind the Neronian option for the dating of Revelation has been staggering. In our won day it has gained the support of such worthies as C.C. Torrey, J.A.T. Robinson, and F.F. Bruce and has been popularized by Jay Adams. In 1956 Torrey could write about the number 666, “It is now the accepted conclusion that the beast is the emperor Nero.” (Historical Setting for the Dating of Revelation)

  • Jay E. AdamsThe Time Is at Hand (Philipsburg: 1966).
  • D.E. Aune, Revelation 1—5 (WBC, 52A; Nashville: 1997) ; Revelation 6—16 (WBC, 52B; Nashville: 1998a) ; Revelation 17—22 (WBC, 52C; Nashville: 1998b).
  • Greg L. BahnsenVictory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (1999).
  • Joseph R. BalyeatBabylon – The Great City of Revelation (1991).
  • Arthur Stapylton BarnesChristianity at Rome in the Apostolic Age (Westport: 1938), pp. 159ff.
  • R. BauckhamThe Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: 1993).
  • W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek—English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (1979).
  • Ulrich R. BeesonThe Revelation (1956 PDF).
  • Albert A. Bell, Jr.“The Date of John’s Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered,” New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 93-102
  • Charles BiggThe Origins of Christianity, ed. by T. B. Strong (Oxford: 1909), pp. 30,48.
  • F.F. BruceNew Testament History (Garden City: 1969), p.411.
  • Rudolf Bultmann (1976).
  • R. Carré,  `Othon et Vitellius, deux nouveaux Néron?’, in J.-M. Croisille, R. Martin and Y. Perrin (eds.), Neronia V. Néron: histoire et légende (Collection Latomus, 247; Brussels: 1999): 152-81.
  • David ChiltonParadise Restored (Tyler, TX: 1985); and The Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth, TX: 1987).
  • William Newton ClarkeAn Outline of Christian Theology (New York: 1903).
  • Adela Yarbro Collins,  The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Harvard Theological Review; Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 9; (Missoula: 1976) ; Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: 1984).
  • W. Gary CramptonBiblical Hermeneutics (1986), p. 42.
  • Berry Stewart CrebsThe Seventh Angel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938).
  • Gary DeMarEnd Times Fiction Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
  • George EdmundsonThe Church in Rome in the First Century (London: 1913 PDF).
  • George P. Fisher, The Beginnings of Christianity, with a View to the State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ (New York: 1916), pp. 534ff.
  • J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation. Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: 1975).
  • S.J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 116; Leiden: 1993) ; Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (New York: 2001) ; `Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation’, JSNT 27 (2005): 351-73.
  • A.J.P. Garrow, Revelation (New Testament Readings; London: 1997).
  • Kenneth L. GentryBefore Jerusalem Fell, An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition, (1989)
  • Robert McQueen GrantA Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 237.
  • Samuel G. GreenA Handbook of Church History from the Apostolic Era to the Dawn of the Reformation (London: 1904), p. 64.
  • I. Head,  `Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel’s Thesis’, JRH 28 (2004): 240-59.
  • Bernard W. HendersonThe Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (London: Methuen, 1903).
  • M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark ( Philadelphia: 1985).
  • David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), pp. 218-219.
  • B. Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der O fenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge, 52; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004).
  • P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (transl. and ed. M. Steinhauser and M.D. Johnson; London: 2003).
  • Francis Nigel LeeRevelation and Jerusalem (Brisbane: 1985)
  • Peter J. LeithartThe Promise of His Appearing (2004 PDF)
  • J.W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 10; Waterloo, Ont.: 2001) ; `Who’s on the Throne? Revelation in the Long Year’, in R.S. Boustan and A.Y. Reed (eds.), Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions (Cambridge: 2004): 123-41.
  • A. D. MomiglianoCambridge Ancient History (1934).
  • Charles Herbert Morgan, et. al., Studies in the Apostolic Church (New York: 1902), pp. 210ff.
  • C. F. D. MouleThe Birth of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: 1982), p. 174.56
  • Robert L. PierceThe Rapture Cult (Signal Mtn., TN: 1986)
  • T. Randell, “Revelation” in H. D. M. Spence &Joseph S. Exell, eds., The Pulpit Cornmentary, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: 1950).
  • James J. L. RattonThe Apocalypse of St. John (London: 1912).
  • J. W. RobertsThe Revelation to John (Austin, TX: Sweet, 1974).
  • John A. T. RobinsonRedating the New Testament (Philadelphia: 1976).
  • G. Rojas-Flores, `The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign ‘, Bib 85 (2004): 375-92.
  • C. RowlandThe Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: 1982).
  • W. Sanday (1908). Introduction to the New Testament.
  • J. J. ScottThe Apocalypse, or Revelation of S. John the Divine (London: 1909).
  • Edward Gordon Selwyn, The Christian Prophets and the Apocalypse (Cambridge: 1900); and The Authorship of the Apocalypse (1900).
  • T.B. Slater, `Dating the Apocalypse to John’, Bib 84 (2003): 252-58.
  • D. Moody Smith“A Review of John A. T. Robinson’s Redating the New Testament,” Duke Diviniep School Review 42 (1977): 193-205.
  • A.G. Soeting,  Auditieve aspecten van het boek Openbaring van Johannes (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam; 2001).
  • Charles Cutler TorreyDocuments of the Primitive Church, (ch. 5); and The Apocalypse of John (New Haven: Yale, 1958).
  • Cornelis VanderwaalHal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (Ontario: 1978); and Search the Scriptures, vol. 10 (1979).
  • J.W. Van Henten, `Nero Redivivus Demolished: The Coherence of the Nero Traditions in the Sibylline Oracles’, JSP 21 (2000): 3-17.
  • G.H. Van Kooten,  ‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John‘ (PDF): The `pro-Neronian’ Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome’ (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 30, No. 2, 205-248 (2007) ; 2005 `”Wrath Will Drip in the Plains of Macedonia”: Expectations of Nero’s Return in the Egyptian Sibylline Oracles (Book 5), 2 Thessalonians, and Ancient Historical Writings’, in A. Hilhorst and G.H. van Kooten (eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 59; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 177-215.
  • Arthur WeigallNero: Emperor of Rome (London: Thornton Butter-worth, 1930).
  • Bernhard WeissA Commentary on the New Testament, trans. G. H. Schodde (NY: 1906), vol. 4.
  • A.N. WilsonPaul: The Mind of the Apostle (1977), p. 11
  • J. Christian Wilson,  `The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation ‘, NTS 39 (1993): 587-605.
  • M. Wilson, `The Early Christians in Ephesus and the Date of Revelation, Again’, Neot 39 ( 2005): 163-93.
  • Herbert B. WorkmanPersecution in the Early Church (London: 1906).


What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *