FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Book of Revelation, When was it Written???
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Catholic writers are debating the date St. John wrote the book of Revelations. The first date is during the destruction of the Temple and the later date places St John in Patmos. I was taught Patmos was were St. John wrote his book and actually visited the cave on the island of Patmos where St. John receive the revelations. What are the significant changes to traditional Catholic teaching when the date of the writings  are  moved to the destruction of the temple?
The book states: "I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus."

The Church Fathers are in near agreement that the book was written very late in the first century:

Quote:The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. "I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus" (1:9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus. Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God's word (Church History III.18). He obviously refers to the passage "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus" (1:9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, "in order to hear the word of God", etc., and not "banished because of the word of God", etc., (cf. 1:2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God's word. The tradition recorded by Eusebius finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as "a brother and partaker in tribulation" (1:9). Irenaeus places the Seer's exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian's reign. "Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii" (Against Heresies V.4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A.D. 81-96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer's exile the fourteenth of Domitian's reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. "Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim" (Ex libro de Script. Eccl). Against the united testimony of these three witnesses of tradition the statement of Epiphanius placing the Seer's banishment in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 41-54, appears exceedingly improbable (Haer., li, 12, 33).

-Catholic Encyclopedia
Thanks for the response. What changes in Catholic tradition when the date is moved to the destruction of the Temple instead of  Patmos?
(01-02-2013, 08:51 PM)jim111 Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the response. What changes in Catholic tradition when the date is moved to the destruction of the Temple instead of  Patmos?

It would indicate that Saint John was really bad at geography as he couldn't tell the difference between Jerusalem and a Greek island?
What I mean is why do the neocons want it to be in Jerusalem instead of Patmos? What is there agenda?
From the NAB:

"The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4-3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians."

I've never read the arguments for or against St. John's authorship, but just though I'd share it.


I had never heard this claim before, but after doing a quick Google search, I did find this article:

The website appears to be a little dodgy, but the article attempts to refute preterist readings of the Book of Revelation that hold that it was written before 70 AD and that it is primarily about the destruction of the Temple rather than the end of the world. Perhaps this is what you mean?

Some posters on FE also seem to hold this position:
From what I have read it appears the liberals want to change the meaning for the apocalypse to the destruction of the temple. I was was wondering if it was to push some modernist agenda. Like there will be no apocalypse because Jesus loves everyone.
(01-03-2013, 12:31 AM)jim111 Wrote: [ -> ]Like there will be no apocalypse because Jesus loves everyone.

Isn't the book about Nero's persecution of the Christians and the establishment of Christ's Church?
The Book of Revelation is a great argument against Sola Scriptura

Who can make head or tail of what that might mean without serious study and research.  You would always be relying on other people's research and interpretation
Pages: 1 2