Another of Hitchcock’s “numerous other strong witnesses from church history for the Domitianic date of Revelation” (p. 38) is Clement of Alexandria. Does this writer support a late date … or an early date?
James Rochford (MTS Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) of Xenos Christian Fellowship will be defending the view that Revelation was written late in Domitian’s reign (c. 95). He has written a popular web article defending this view.
I, Dean Furlong (PhD VU Amsterdam, MTS Notre Dame), will be arguing that the early Christians placed Revelation/John’s exile in Nero’s reign.
Was this debate a definitive defeat for the early date? Some thoughts.
I recently had cause to listen once again–the first time in years–to the debate between Hanegraaff and Hitchcock on the dating of Revelation. First off, it is clear that Hanegraaff was out of his depth. Hitchcock produced a doctoral degree in the subject area, whereas Hanegraaff has no formal academic training. It is unfortunate that Hitchcock didn’t debate Kenneth Gentry instead, who could have presented a strong case for both the external and internal evidence for the early date (though I don’t accept his preterist interpretations).
Examining the claim that “Domitian’s reign” in Irenaeus referred to Nero (Domitius), not Domitian
The most cited passage employed as evidence that the early Christians placed John’s exile and apocalyptic vision (of Revelation) late in the first century, late in Domitian’s reign, is found in Irenaeus:
John’s ministry in Asia Minor and the Dating of John’s Gospel and Revelation
According to a number of ancient writers, John founded the bishoprics in the churches of the province of Asia.
What was the historical situation of these ordinations, according to early Christian tradition, and what can it tell us about when early sources placed the writing of the Gospel and Revelation of John?