dissertation that was later published in book form as . Robinson, no conservative himself, comes to some startling conclusions in his groundbreaking book As Gentry and others have pointed out and Ice fails to acknowledge, the pre-A. 70 date of composition for Revelation has a long and distinguished history. As Wilson notes, “Throughout the nineteenth century the majority of New Testament scholars favored a pre-70 dating of the Book of Revelation.” Tommy offers no contrary scholarship to the pre-A. 70 date except to say that most scholars agree with him. In reality, these writers are merely returning to what was once the foregone conclusion of nearly the entire New Testament studies world.Gentry argues that Nero Caesar is the "sixth king" presently ruling (Rev. The book is controversial in that it goes against majority evangelical and Dispensational opinion that Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian in AD 95, though the pre-AD 70 date for Revelation was the dominant view of scholars in the 19th century and first two decades of the 20th century.This is the fifth installment of my response to Tommy Ice’s article “Answers and Clarifications for Gary De Mar.” You can reference the other four posts here, here, here, and here. 95, the question for De Mar is “What does the hour of testing refer to? There are many scholars who believe that Revelation was written before A. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong. A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E.Chilton holds that since Scripture teaches that all prophecy would be complete by the end of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. -27) and since the book of Revelation contains prophetic material, therefore the book must have been written prior to the end of Daniels 70th week: We have a priori teaching from Scripture itself that all special revelation ended by A. But Chilton assumes the 70th week is completed with the destruction of Jerusalem in A. Chilton misinterprets the meaning of a passage in Daniel to prove his interpretation of Johns passage, but both interpretations are in error. it seems highly improbable that a book so full of liturgical allusions as the book of Revelationand these, many of them, not too great or important points, but to minutiacould have been written by any other than a priest, and one who had at one time been in actual service in the Temple itself, and thus become so intimately conversant with its details, that they came to him naturally, as part of the imagery he employed. 48:1, Ezekiel, like John, receives a vision of a Temple that, if taken literally, has never existed up to this day.
Mc Clintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064).The key question concerning the book of Revelation is "when was the book written?" If Ken Gentry is correct and the date is prior to 70AD then virtually all other prophecy pundits are wrong.This book was not at all what I expected, yet much better than I expected.Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A. In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (.23).