When Was Revelation Written?

The dating of Revelation is important because it plays a huge role on your interpretation of the book.  If it was written before AD 70, then it is probable that most of Revelation is about the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.  This is a preterist (past) interpretation of Revelation.  However, if it was written after AD 70, then it is possible that Revelation is about the end times.  This is a futurist interpretation.  I believe that Revelation was written before AD 70, and I'll explain why.  

There are two main views as to the dating of Revelation.  Most modern scholars hold to a late date view, around AD 95 or 96, during the reign of the emperor Domitian.  One hundred years ago the majority of scholars held to the early date view, around AD 65-66.  Today this is the minority view, although it is growing.

There is both internal and external evidence for an early dating of Revelation.  Let's begin with the internal evidence.  Revelation 11:1-2 describes a temple standing in the holy city, still awaiting its destruction.  It is more likely that John was referring to Herod's temple that would be destroyed in AD 70 than another temple that would be rebuilt and destroyed thousands of years later.  Remember that no verse in the NT predicts a rebuilt temple. 

Second, John writes about seven kings in Revelation 17:9-11.  There is good evidence that John was writing before the death of Nero in AD 68.  The text says that five of the kings have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come, and when he does he will remain for only a little while.  This fits nicely with the political situation in Rome before the death of Nero.  The first five Roman emperors had died -- Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caius (Caligula), and Claudius.  Nero was the sixth emperor, and was still alive.  He would commit suicide on June 9, AD 68.  The seventh emperor was Galba, who only reigned for seven months, the shortest reigning emperor up to that time.  If John wrote before the death of Nero, this points to an early date for Revelation.

As for the external evidence, there are several ancient writings that point to an early date for Revelation.  The Shepherd of Hermas uses Revelation as the source of its imagery, and it was written in the AD 80s.  That would put the date of Revelation before then.  

Papias was a disciple of the apostle John, and he wrote that James and John were martyred together at the hands of the Jews.  We know that James died before the destruction of the temple, which means John died before AD 70.  That would make a late date impossible.

The Muratorian Canon is the earliest surviving list of canonical books (AD 170).  It says that Paul, just like his predecessor John, wrote to seven churches.  This means Revelation was written before Paul finished his letters, which were finished before Paul's death in AD 67-68.  

So, why do so many scholars hold to a late-date view of Revelation?  Irenaeus (AD 130-202), in his book Against Heresies, was writing about the number 666 in the book of Revelation, which he says is the Antichrist.  Irenaeus wrote the following:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.  For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

At first glance, it appears that Irenaeus says John's vision (Revelation) was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign.  Domitian was the Roman emperor until AD 96.  Thus many scholars believe in a late date for Revelation.  But this interpretation of Irenaeus is far from conclusive.  Let me explain.  

The statement "that was seen" can legitimately be translated "it was seen" or "he was seen."  It can refer to two things.  It may refer to either John's vision, or to the one who saw the vision -- John.  Some scholars argue that it is more logical that Irenaeus was referring to the one who saw the vision, and that he was commenting on how long John had lived, not when he wrote Revelation.  Irenaeus seems to be saying that if it were necessary to know the identity of the Antichrist, John would have told us personally, for he hasn't been dead that long.

Also, earlier in the same chapter of Irenaeus' work, he refers to "ancient copies" of Revelation.  Does it make sense for Irenaeus to say that the book of Revelation is ancient, and then a few paragraphs later say that it was written near his own lifetime?

Finally, Irenaeus is not completely reliable in his use of eyewitnesses.  In the paragraph at hand he relies upon eyewitnesses to prove that John was alive until the end of Domitian's reign, but elsewhere he uses eyewitnesses to prove that Jesus lived to be almost fifty years old.  So, the major evidence for a late-date view -- a statement by Irenaeus -- is not conclusive.

In his book Navigating the Book of Revelation, Kenneth Gentry concludes, "When we consider all the evidence pro and con regarding Revelation's compositional date we discover that we may make a compelling case for a pre-70 date. In that Revelation is something of an “occasional epistle” ministering to people under dire circumstances (e.g., Rev 1:9; 6:9–10), we would expect that the internal indicators would betray his date. And as we see, they do. John almost certainly writes Revelation around A.D. 65–66."

For Further Study:

1. Video:  Ken Gentry makes the case for the early date of Revelation.
2. Video:  R.C. Sproul makes the case for the early date of Revelation.

Sources:

1. Gentry Jr, Kenneth L. Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues.
2. Terry, Milton S, The Apocalypse of John: A Preterist Commentary on the Book of Revelation.
3.