Christ pointed in his eschatological discourses to the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding tribulation as the great crisis in the history of the theocracy and the type of the judgment of the world, and there never was a more alarming state of society. It was at this unique juncture in the history of mankind that St.
 One could easily get the impression from such categorical statements and indictments (as I did early as a student) that the late date for Revelation is virtually an points to a Domitian date for the book.
Indeed, attempting to sway their readers with an all too easy appeal to a (selective) "consensus" on the question, Summers says that "the Domitian period is the date most generally accepted by New Testament criticism for the writing of Revelation," and it is described as "the majority opinion" by Walvoord, while Mounce claims that it is "accepted by most writers" and Boer says it is "favoured by most students of the book." Such sweeping claims are initially implausible.
Claudius41-54 Nero54-68 Galba68-69 (7 months) Otho69 (3 months) Vitellius69 (8 months) Vespasian69-79 Titus79-81 Domitian81-96 Nerva96-98 Trajan98-117 51.12) - Edinburgh, 19872), which dated Revelation between 50 and 54 A. These two "advantages" work against each other, however, when we remember that one of those seven Asian churches (at Ephesus) was clearly founded by Paul!
Such a view might explain why Paul was forbidden to go into Asia (Acts 16:6) - since John was already laboring there - and why Revelation 1-3 mentions only seven churches in Asia (as yet).
His was truly a book of the times and for the times. D., placing John's writing at the end of Nero's rule or briefly following it - but at any rate prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple, even if Galba or Vespasian should be identified as the emperor under whom John suffered and wrote.
the earlier period before Jerusalem's fall (i.e., the reign of Nero or Shortly following).
This work was published 1898-1904, when the dominating opinion regarding the book of Revelation was indicated in these words: "the majority of modern critics are of the opinion that the book was written in the time of Nero." That Nero is denoted by the beast and its number is "the almost a fixed assumption of critics," "the ruling critical opinion," and "almost a fixed assumption of critics." Having endorsed the preterist approach to the book as most correct, an author says "In general these [preterist] writers date the book before 70"; indeed , as to the date for Revelation, the "ruling view of critics" has been 66-69 A. Torrey observes that, if there are few dissenting voices from the late date in our generation, It was not so in former years, Swete. Many of the foremost German scholars of the same period were in essential agreement with this dating, as is well known.
D. The conclusion maintained at the turn of this century regarding the date when Revelation was written was decidedly in favor of the early date. The evidence seemed to permit no other conclusion. If one is willing to do a little research, an amazing list of advocates for the early date of Revelation can be discovered.
There is no question but that some very respectable scholars have favored the Domitian date for the writing of Revelation, and that fact should motivate us to be thorough and cautious in our research and analysis.