gregor

Mack (if memory serves), argues for Domitian - circa 90 CE - from a historical basis, not a numerological one.

DCHindley

I personally like scholarship a decade or so to either side of the start of the 20th century. Try:

Charles, R. H. (Robert Henry), 1855-1931 _A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St. John, with introduction, notes, and indices, also the Greek text and English translation _, New York, Scribner, 1920, 2 volumes. It may also be in catalogues under _The International critical commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments #44_

I cannot locate my notes, but Charles went to great lengths to identify several sources that he felt were contained in it, suggested dates of composition and original languages for them, and took a stab at understanding its composition history.

If I remember correctly, the letters to the seven Churches is either a separate composition or an addition to a series of smaller apocalypses composed from around the times of Caligula and/or Nero and combined in the late 1st century.

FWIW, Charles was the scholar who correctly analyzed the sources that were used to compile Ethiopic Enoch, even down to the language, etc. Most of his proposals were later confirmed with the discovery of the various Aramaic books of Enoch found among the DSS.

This kind of analysis, unfortunately, has fallen out of style in favor of unified theories of composition.

What is usually treated a the last word on the subject is the work of Aune, David E.:

_Revelation 1-5_, World Biblical Commentary 52A. Waco, TX: Word, 1997.
_Revelation 6-16_, WBC 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.
_Revelation 17-22_, WBC 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

"Vol. 1 of this commentary features a more than 200 pages introduction covering everything from textual criticism to the language of Revelation in more detail than any other newer commentary to Revelation and more than 350 pages of commentary covering Rev 1-5.

Vol 2. is of approximately the same size. A number of excursuses deals with major subjects e.g. the Nicolaitans. The wealth of material, bibliographies, research summaries, as well as Aune’s deep knowledge of ancient literature makes this commentary a must for all serious Revelation students and researchers while it is, in my opinion, of more limited value for homiletic and biblical-theological purposes. It is probably one of the most important commentaries since the commentaries by Bousset, Swete, Beckwith, and Charles, rivalled perhaps only by the commentary by Gregory Beale.

For all its worth, however, some deficiencies may be noticed as well. First and foremost, too often the commentary lacks comments on the text itself and its meaning within Revelation, i.e. the synchronic dimension. The diachronic problems play an immense role, and Professor Aune argues a two-stage composition of Revelation. On a greater diachronic scale, John’s use of the Old Testament is poorly treated in spite of the extensive research..."

http://www.revelation-resources.com/...ion-3-volumes/

Per a review available at the RBL site, Aune proposes "the first edition of the book was "compiled" about 70 CE (p. cxxiii) while "the second edition" of the book was "completed" in the last decade of the first century."

Per the reviewer, "The first edition [of the Apocalypse] made up a visionary apocalypse emerging directly from a Palestinian Jewish setting, albeit written by a Christian Jew conforming to the evolving canons of Jewish apocalyptic literature in the mid first century. It contained both original and traditional "self-contained units" brought together by a single author in uniquely creative act. A second edition [of the Apocalypse] completed at the end of the first century added the epistolatory framework and reflects maturing Christology of the various Christian communities associated with the Apocalypse."

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/2315_1492.pdf

DCH

makerowner

I read somewhere (can't remember where) a case for connecting the beast-with-a-head-wound to the Nero redivivus legends as well. But IIRC those legends circulated long after his death, so that doesn't really pin down the dates very much.
I've also read a quite convincing list of correspondences between Rev. and the gospel apocalypses. I'll see if I can find the reference.
There is a lot of speculation about interpolations to Revelation, but I don't find most of it convincing. They do have the advantage of explaining some of the confusion about who's speaking in some parts (an angel, Jesus?). I think that Rev. was written to include some earlier documents: the sealing of 144 000, the measuring of the temple, the war between Michael and the dragon, and perhaps the letters to the churches. That's just based on my feeling that the first three are more Jewish than the rest of the book, and that the last would have circulated independently very nicely.

jules?

It is quite easy to strip out the 5 or 6 original tales that have been amalgamated into the gore-fest we love so much. Then there is the 7 churches preamble which all suggests that the sources are older than the final document and part of a vibrant Jewish tradition that pre-date the accepted establishment of christianity. seeing that Jesus' message was the impending End-time and that the message was popular in the 1st century BCE there is little to presume it should be dated late [any more than early]. It is curious that fundies should focus so much on this document especially if it were the work that launched Jewish apocalyptism into the greco-roman world.

S.C.Carlson

Arguments for a Domitianic date usually note that the Nero numerology in Revelation fits, because of the concern that Domitian was a revived Nero (Nero redivivus).

Stephen

the_cave

IMO none of the numerology/symbology works out during the reign of anyone besides Domitian. This would reinforce my sense that the author (of either the original or the revision) was impressed by the eruption of Vesuvius. So even if there was an original version, there must at least have been a revision after 81CE, but prior to 96CE.

Ben C Smith

How so? The number of the beast is easy to interpret as Nero, and Nero can also easily be seen as the sixth king (the one who is, present tense) of Revelation 17.10, since Nero was the sixth of the Caesars (called kings in sources such as 4 Ezra, parts of the NT, et alia).

Ben.

the_cave

Unless you believe Revelation was truly prophetic, I think it must post-date the fall of Jerusalem. Hence the one who "is", cannot be Nero. If it can't be Nero, then the first king must be Augustus, not Julius. (For this same reason, it seems to be that Galba, Otho, and Vitellius must be left out of the count.)

So, the sixth king is Vespasian. Except--how did the author know that Titus would rule so briefly in 17:10? (For "a little while", WEB). IMO this means that this section was not written during the reign of Vespasian at all--the author just wanted everyone to think so. The author is living after the brief reign of Titus--maybe just after, and is anticipating not a long reign of Domitian, but rather the return of Nero. In fact apparently Terentius Maximus, one of the Neronean pretenders, did arise during the reign of Titus.

It's not airtight, but that's how I see it.

neilgodfrey

FWIW, Bruce Malina has written a case that Revelation is more about the fall of Jerusalem and ancient astrological beliefs than a threat against Rome and emperors. The 666 relates to mystical views of triangles representing pagan deities (too complex to explain simply here without diagrams), the 7 kings represent the 7 planets, with the rule of Venus (spiritual Babylon) dominating at the time of the book's composition, and the ten kings relate to the Ten Watchers of 1 Enoch 6:5-8.

His book is On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys. {Amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk)}

angelo

Most scholars attribute the writings of Paul as the first christian writings.
Also the Q document may have preceded them all.
The consensus seems to be that Revelation was written around 90-100 ce.