Date

5-16-2024

Department

Rawlings School of Divinity

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Chair

David Pederson

Keywords

Neronic Date, Early Date, Internal Evidence, External Evidence, Patristic Testimony, Historical Context, Cultural and Political Climate, Persecution Under Nero, Defending Neronic Date, Scholarly Debates, Contrasting Domitianic Date, Hermeneutical Approach, Textual Criticism, Literary Analysis, Historical Criticism, Interdisciplinary Research, Defending Early Date, Revelation, Apocalypse, Book of Revelation, A. D. 70, Nero, Nero Caesar, 666, Number of the Beast, Kenneth Gentry, Mark Hitchcock

Disciplines

Religion | Rhetoric and Composition

Abstract

There are two primary dates for Revelation that are generally accepted: the early or Neronic date (A.D. 64-68) and the late or Domitianic date (A.D. 95-96). In this dissertation, the early date of the book of Revelation is defended against the commonly accepted late date. The study engages with two major texts: Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.’s Before Jerusalem Fell, supporting the Neronic date, and Mark L. Hitchcock’s dissertation “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” defending the Domitianic date. This present study discusses the central arguments of both Gentry and Hitchcock as it defends the Neronic date across five chapters. In each chapter, arguments are presented by advocates representing contrasting viewpoints, with particular emphasis being placed on the perspectives of Gentry and Hitchcock. The dissertation offers a rationale supporting the choice of the Neronic date while rebutting the claims put forth by advocates of the Domitianic date. The study concludes that the Domitianic theory relies on external evidence and such evidence is not definitive. Conversely, the internal evidence, when examined in conjunction with the earliest available external source materials, compellingly suggests a date preceding the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70.

Download

Share

COinS