Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30 The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31 This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of [pg 031] visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.

The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33 (c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.

For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the [pg 032] Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34 while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35 (d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36 which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.