Dating the NT Books

[Arthur81]

The men writing the NT books did not put dates on them. Some contain enough in the body of text that a date of writing can be confidently accepted. Others have quite large variance in scholar's ideas of the date of writing.

If the NT writers did not give a date, then there must be some key in the NT that alerts us to some idea of the dates. I think the question of where in the NT is it even hinted at that the Temple had been destroyed? I know of nowhere, and Paul and John write as if the Temple still exists as they write. It is not reasonable to think the NT is silent on the destruction of the Temple, which was so foundational to Israel, if it had already happened. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Temple of Jerusalem, either of two temples that were the centre of worship and national identity in ancient Israel." Temple of Jerusalem | Description, History, & Significance

In prophesying the destruction of the Temple in Matt 23, Mark 13 & Luke 21; Jesus said ALL the signs would take place within the time of that generation:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34 KJV)

Again, is there anywhere in the NT texts that indicate that the Temple had been destroyed at the time of their writing? I know of none!

In Daniel 9, the prophecy of 490 years certainly concludes before 70 AD, and to separate the 70th week from the 69th week and insert over 2500 years is pure nonsense. The "abomination of desolation" certainly was in reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. What about Paul's writing:

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2Thess 2:4 KJV)

Yes, Paul has referred elsewhere to the believers, the body of Christ as the "temple of God" in a figurative sense. But where would the man of sin "sit" in a real way in the body of Christ. Those of Paul's day of course would be thinking of the literal Temple in Jerusalem. So the Temple then existed.

Revelation refers to the Temple as existing in Rev. 11:1-2 and even the liberal annotated study Bibles admit that indicates the Temple existed when that was written. John records the timing of Revelation in Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10: "things which shortly must be done" and "the time is at hand".

The major part of Revelation in symbols predicts the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Jewish religion; then it likewise shows the gradual fall of the Roman Empire. These prophecies were written before 70 AD, so they were true Holy Spirit inspired prophecies. This refers to the destruction of the Temple and the Roman Empire alone.

BUT THE SECOND COMING, GENERAL RESURRECTION AND GENERAL JUDGMENT ARE STILL IN OUR FUTURE, AS PROPHESIED IN REVELATION 20.

Why do we accept man's reasoning on these timings when the Bible clearly gives it to us? Some 'scholars' date a few NT books as late as 180 AD.

 

[Marty fox]

The men writing the NT books did not put dates on them. Some contain enough in the body of text that a date of writing can be confidently accepted. Others have quite large variance in scholar's ideas of the date of writing.

If the NT writers did not give a date, then there must be some key in the NT that alerts us to some idea of the dates. I think the question of where in the NT is it even hinted at that the Temple had been destroyed? I know of nowhere, and Paul and John write as if the Temple still exists as they write. It is not reasonable to think the NT is silent on the destruction of the Temple, which was so foundational to Israel, if it had already happened. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Temple of Jerusalem, either of two temples that were the centre of worship and national identity in ancient Israel." Temple of Jerusalem | Description, History, & Significance

In prophesying the destruction of the Temple in Matt 23, Mark 13 & Luke 21; Jesus said ALL the signs would take place within the time of that generation:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34 KJV)

Again, is there anywhere in the NT texts that indicate that the Temple had been destroyed at the time of their writing? I know of none!

In Daniel 9, the prophecy of 490 years certainly concludes before 70 AD, and to separate the 70th week from the 69th week and insert over 2500 years is pure nonsense. The "abomination of desolation" certainly was in reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. What about Paul's writing:

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2Thess 2:4 KJV)

Yes, Paul has referred elsewhere to the believers, the body of Christ as the "temple of God" in a figurative sense. But where would the man of sin "sit" in a real way in the body of Christ. Those of Paul's day of course would be thinking of the literal Temple in Jerusalem. So the Temple then existed.

Revelation refers to the Temple as existing in Rev. 11:1-2 and even the liberal annotated study Bibles admit that indicates the Temple existed when that was written. John records the timing of Revelation in Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10: "things which shortly must be done" and "the time is at hand".

The major part of Revelation in symbols predicts the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Jewish religion; then it likewise shows the gradual fall of the Roman Empire. These prophecies were written before 70 AD, so they were true Holy Spirit inspired prophecies. This refers to the destruction of the Temple and the Roman Empire alone.

BUT THE SECOND COMING, GENERAL RESURRECTION AND GENERAL JUDGMENT ARE STILL IN OUR FUTURE, AS PROPHESIED IN REVELATION 20.

Why do we accept man's reasoning on these timings when the Bible clearly gives it to us? Some 'scholars' date a few NT books as late as 180 AD.

Yes amen.

There are no dates in the New testament because it doesn’t matter what matters is that the events happened Like Jesus birth, death and resurrection.

But yes the bible gives us hints and to think that parts of the Bible were written after the temple was destroyed doesn’t make sense. Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed within that generation and if the New Testament and especially Revelation was written after 70AD wouldn’t they clarify that the temple was destroyed and when Jesus said that it would be destroyed to prove without a doubt that je is God?

 

[Timtofly]

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34 KJV)

Matthew does not include a temple destroyed, nor Jerusalem in chapter 24 in relation to what what said on the Mount of Olives. Not sure why you think Matthew was even addressing what happened in 70AD? Jesus did say that all the buildings would be torn down, but not when. Nor did He say how. Jesus like most posters here did not directly address their line of questioning. He literally changed the subject.

The Olivet Discourse was not a 20 minute sit down event. Jesus was teaching in the temple and on the mountain for a few days, Sunday, Monday, and possibly Tuesday. There does not have to be any overlap between the Gospels.

Luke 20:1

"And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple...."

Luke 21:37-38

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

Matthew 24:3

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying..."

Luke 21 indicates what Jesus said in that chapter was said at the temple. What Matthew 24 gives us, has Jesus privately on the Mount of Olives.

Luke only implied the destruction.

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

Desolation implies not liveable, but yet many will live during the time of the Desolation of Abomination.

"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

Just saying there will be days of vengeance, does not seem to imply the devastation that was experienced in 70AD. And 70AD was not as bad as the 2 WW's. And neither will compare to what will happen after the Second Coming. And was Jesus referring to the OT prophecies or still future NT books yet to be written?

The temple in Revelation will not be the one that existed in the first century. It does not matter if Revelation was written prior to or after 70AD. The Temple in Revelation will never be torn down by an invading army. The Temple in Revelation will be the seat of Satan's mystery Babylon. Satan never sat in the temple in the first century, nor was it documented that he did. He certainly never sat in a Temple after 70AD. The Temple in Revelation will stand throughout the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus as King on the earth. Isaiah 65:17-19

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

Zechariah 14:16-21

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness Unto The Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts."

There will be a new Temple in Jerusalem after the Second Coming, and it will not be built by man. It is the House of the Lord. Anything built by man will be destroyed at the Second Coming per Zechariah 14.

"And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.... And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one. All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited."

"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."

"the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

 

[Cassandra]

In Daniel 9, the prophecy of 490 years certainly concludes before 70 AD, and to separate the 70th week from the 69th week and insert over 2500 years is pure nonsense.

YES!

 

[Arthur81]

There are a couple of passages that add a timing to the Mount Olivet discourse as follow.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matt 24:14 KJV)
The apostle Paul tells us when this happened
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Rom 1:8 KJV)
and
"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (Col 1:23 KJV)

So twice we have Paul writing that this prophecy had been fulfilled before and 70 AD, and the destruction of the Temple was approaching.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel Jesus speaks of as recorded in all 3 synoptic gospels:

"But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:" (Mark 13:14 KJV)
the parallel passage in Luke's gospel
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (Luke 21:20 KJV)

Titus Vespasian came against Jerusalem about 70 AD. So again we have a timing. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the apostles, standing or sitting there with Jesus, in person... and we hear Jesus say:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34 KJV)

Who in their right mind would think, 'Oh, Jesus is speaking of some generation many generations in the future'? That is just not reasonable. If we can trust our translators, the NT uses "this" and "that" differently in such a situation. When the writer is referencing a generation far removed in time when he speaks or writes, he uses "that":

"Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways." (Heb 3:10 KJV)

Jesus gave the certainty of his prophesy about the coming destruction in these words:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt 24:35 KJV)

Jesus then switches gears to a different coming:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt 24:36 KJV)

There is the word "that" instead of "this", and we continue reading about the last day and Jesus second coming and there are NO signs given. It is like a thief in the night. It is amazing how so many can reject the clear word of God and hold to such fantastical schemes of eschatology, teaching that Matthew 24:1-35 is in our future!

 

[St. SteVen]

Some 'scholars' date a few NT books as late as 180 AD.

Yes, 180 AD seems very late.
I would say somewhere in the 10 to 40 year range.

But imagine nothing being written about the 9/11 events in NY until 30 years later.
We would still have another 7 years to hear anything.
What effect would that have?

/ cc: @Wick Stick

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes, 180 AD seems very late.
I would say somewhere in the 10 to 40 year range.

But imagine nothing being written about the 9/11 events in NY until 30 years later.
We would still have another 7 years to hear anything.
What effect would that have?

/ cc: @Wick Stick

Early Christian Writings contains a range of dates for... well, a lot more than just the New Testament... but these are probably the books you're interested in:

50-60AD 1Thessalonians, Phillippians, Galatians, 1&2Corinthians, Romans, Philemon
50-80AD Colossians
50-95AD Hebrews
65-80AD Mark
70-100AD James
80-100AD 2Thessalonians, Ephesians, Matthew
80-110AD 1Peter
80-130AD Luke, Acts
90-95AD Revelation
90-120AD John, Jude, 1,2,3John
100-150AD 1&2Timothy, Titus
100-160AD 2Peter

Some of these dates aren't well-agreed-on. The dating of Revelation is hotly contested. Several books are thought to have multiple authors, which confuses the issue of when they were written. If you follow the link above, click on the name of a book, and scroll down, there are a few paragraphs there dedicated to the dating/origins of each book.

As far as the "gap" goes between the life of Jesus and the writing of the gospels, it is generally accepted that the gospels are based on a couple works that were written down earlier - a passion narrative and an accumulation of Jesus' sayings ("Q").

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In Daniel 9, the prophecy of 490 years certainly concludes before 70 AD, and to separate the 70th week from the 69th week and insert over 2500 years is pure nonsense. The "abomination of desolation" certainly was in reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. What about Paul's writing:

YOu will find out hat their is a gap between the 69th and 70th week.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

50-60AD 1Thessalonians, Phillippians, Galatians, 1&2Corinthians, Romans, Philemon
50-80AD Colossians
50-95AD Hebrews
65-80AD Mark
70-100AD James
80-100AD 2Thessalonians, Ephesians, Matthew
80-110AD 1Peter
80-130AD Luke, Acts
90-95AD Revelation
90-120AD John, Jude, 1,2,3John
100-150AD 1&2Timothy, Titus
100-160AD 2Peter

As Peter and Paul died in the 60's AD these dates are all fraudulent based on a liberal mindset against SCripture.

 

[Wick Stick]

As Peter and Paul died in the 60's AD these dates are all fraudulent based on a liberal mindset against Scripture.

That site is actually pretty conservative for a scholarly source.

8 of Paul's books are listed in that date range. That's more than most scholars believe were actually written by Paul...

 

[Arthur81]

YOu will find out hat their is a gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Ronald, where in Daniel chapter 9 do you find any way to justify inserting the gap between the 69th and 70th week? I grew up on the Scofield, devoured the book, "Late Great Planet Earth" and even drove to see Jack Van Impe in person. I was really into it. I was never shown where there was a basis in Scripture to insert that 2500 year gap. All I ever received were arguments from flimsy exposition trying to prop up a man-made system of prophecy.

"Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3 ASV)

If that gap existed, in over 1800 years of church history it could be clearly shown among Bible scholars if it were true. I've never seen it taught until the latter 1800s. Maybe in recent years the Scripture basis for the gap has been found. I've only found it being forced into the text to make it fit a preconceived eschatology.

You show me in Scripture the gap and I'll believe it.

 

[David H.]

Again, is there anywhere in the NT texts that indicate that the Temple had been destroyed at the time of their writing? I know of none!

Common sense.... gives internal (Scriptural) evidence of the late date of Revelation.

(2) Internal Evidence​

Internal evidence comes from within the document itself. In addition to the external evidence from the church fathers, the book of Revelation has many internal indications that support the late date.[73]

ARGUMENT #1: The late date explains why John, Paul, and Timothy never mention one another together in Ephesus.​

If the early date is true, then John would have been leading in Ephesus at the same time as Paul and Timothy. Why would Paul leave Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church if the apostle John was there? Moreover, at the end of 2 Timothy, Paul mentions 17 coworkers by name, but he never mentions John. We are not merely making an argument from silence. This is a conspicuous silence. Why wouldn’t Paul mention such a spiritual titan like John? Likewise, why wouldn’t Jesus mention Paul or Timothy when writing to the church of Ephesus? (Rev. 2:1-7) Witherington writes, “The lack of apostolic presence and, by contrast, the presence of powerful prophets (both John and those he calls false prophets) seem to reflect a time after the apostles had died off late in the first century A.D. (cf. the Didache).”[74]

ARGUMENT #2: The late date explains why Paul and Jesus give conflicting reports about false teachers in Ephesus.​

Paul’s letters to Ephesus and Jesus’ letter to Ephesus give conflicting reports regarding false teachers. On the one hand, Paul writes about men who “teach strange doctrines” (1 Tim. 1:3) and the “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Paul even mentions several false teachers by name: Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17). Yet, Jesus’ letter to Ephesus tells a different story. Instead of being riddled with false teachers, Jesus says, “You cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false… You hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Rev. 2:2, 6). This is quite unlike the church of Pergamum who “have some who… hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15).

ARGUMENT #3: The late date explains how the church in Smyrna had time to grow before receiving a letter from Jesus.​

Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians in AD 110. In it, he states that the Smyrnaeans weren’t believers when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians in AD 60-61.

[You Philippians] are praised in the beginning of his Epistle. For concerning you he boasts in all the Churches who then alone had known the Lord, for we had not yet known him.[75]

Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. So, his use of the plural “we” refers to “the church at Smyrna,” which would “indicate that that church was not in existence at the time in question.”[76] Put simply, Polycarp is claiming that “when Paul wrote Philippians no Smyrneans had yet been evangelized.”[77]

Craig Blomberg[78] and Gordon Fee[79] date Philippians to AD 61. Therefore, Polycarp maintains that the church in Smyrna didn’t exist before this time. This, of course, carried difficulties for the early date advocate. It requires a church entering Smyrna and springing up all within a 4-5 year span. Acts 19:10 says that “All who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord,” but this is hyperbolic language. This doesn’t mean that a church specifically existed in the city of Smyrna. Moreover, Paul never mentions a church existing in Smyrna in any of his letters.

ARGUMENT #4: The late date explains how the church in Laodicea had time to plummet spiritually by AD 65.​

D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo,[80] and P.T. O’Brien[81] date Colossians to AD 60-61. Paul mentions a thriving church in Laodicea at this time (Col. 2:2; 4:13, 16). However, if Revelation was written in AD 65, then this church must have plummeted spiritually in just a few years. In fact, they had become so bad, that Christ threatened to vomit them out of his mouth! (Rev. 3:16) Of course, spiritual decline can occur quickly (Gal. 1:6), but which is more likely? A quick decline or a slower decline?

ARGUMENT #5: The late date explains Jesus’ words to the church in Laodicea in light of the great earthquake of AD 60.​

The entire region around Laodicea suffered a massive earthquake in AD 60. In fact, the region suffered until at least AD 80,[82] and the “archaeological evidence at Laodicea points to a thirty-year rebuilding process.”[83]

And yet, Jesus told the Laodiceans that they are “wealthy” and “have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:16). If the early date is true, it would be quite cruel to tell a destroyed city that they are “wealthy” and “have need of nothing.” However, if the late date is true, this would make perfect sense. Tacitus mentions that the Laodiceans refused all aid from the Roman Empire after the earthquake.[84] They rebuilt their city all on their own, because they were “wealthy” and had “need of nothing.” Hemer writes, “There is good reason for seeing Rev. 3.17 against the background of the boasted afluence [sic] of Laodicea, notoriously exemplified in her refusal of Roman aid and her carrying through a great programme of reconstruction in a spirit of proud independence and ostentatious individual benefaction.”[85]

Conclusion​

Not all of these lines of evidence are equally cogent. In other words, some carry more explanatory power than others. But don’t miss the big picture: The late date has more explanatory power and explanatory scope than the early date. We could surely give a number of ad hoc explanations from an early date perspective, but eventually, the early date simply collapses under the weight of the evidence.

Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

 

[Reddsta]

May I insert a couple thoughts...?

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2Thess 2:4 KJV)

Yes, Paul has referred elsewhere to the believers, the body of Christ as the "temple of God" in a figurative sense.

It may be important to consider that the Body of Christ “is” the temple of God in a “spiritual” sense.

Indeed it is the “only” temple that God ever dwelt in. Whether the physical temple was standing or not…by the time Paul wrote 2nd Thessalonians the Lord Yahshua had been crucified, resurrected, ascended and had poured out the Holy Spirit upon humanity…thereby establishing the “spiritual” temple of God on the earth…Paul knew that.

This spiritual temple then…“is”…the dwelling place of God, the house of God, the temple of God. Making the physical temple that God never dwelt in…from this point on…meaningless to God in terms of His eternal abiding presence.

Redd

 

[Reddsta]

But where would the man of sin "sit" in a real way in the body of Christ. Those of Paul's day of course would be thinking of the literal Temple in Jerusalem. So the Temple then existed.

Perhaps another perspective is available…as a “spiritual” entity…the man of sin can “sit” in the Body of Christ as a “mindset” in humans. Think…“do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12:2 NASB

Where would the man of sin “sit”…in the mind and thoughts of man...as Paul is addressing here in Romans I would think?

It is likely that the temple in Jerusalem was standing…however as the Scriptures make abundantly clear…God never dwelt in a temple made with the hands of humanity. The temple of God on the earth at the time of Paul’s writing…the temple Paul is likely referring to…is the “spiritual temple” known as the body of Christ.

A new spiritual temple inhabited by a new creature…the son of God…the Body of Christ. The writer of Hebrews puts it this way Arthur81…”But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” Hebrews 12:22-24 NKJV

 

[Reddsta]

Revelation refers to the Temple as existing in Rev. 11:1-2 and even the liberal annotated study Bibles admit that indicates the Temple existed when that was written. John records the timing of Revelation in Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6, 10: "things which shortly must be done" and "the time is at hand".

Perhaps but not necessarily…a couple of things that we should note about John…Revelation 1:10 has Brother John on Patmos but “in the spirit”…meaning that his frame of reference is the “Spirit or mind of God” he is hearing a heavenly voice the one which is speaking is the Spirit. He gets the letters to the “churches.”

Then in Revelation 4:1-2 John is invited “into” heaven…he accepts the offer and is “immediately” before the throne of God in heaven. He is told…” Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”

Johns spirit and mind is engulfed in the heavenly reality that is spread out before him…they argue about where he is physically…earth or heaven…but it is really of no importance because everything about John at this time is in the Spirit and in the third heaven before the throne of God…as he states. Everything that brother John is “seeing” is the “heavenly reality”…of the "earthly temple"...he is "behind the veil" as Paul would say.

The temple John is asked to measure in Revelation 11 is the “spiritual temple of God” in heaven...where John is…made up of the “new spiritual creature” that dwells on the earth and in the heavens…the only thing "physical" about that temple is the flesh of its members as the Body of Christ yet on the earth.

 

[St. SteVen]

It may be important to consider that the Body of Christ “is” the temple of God in a “spiritual” sense.

That's a good insight, thanks.
And welcome to the forum.

For me, the presence of God in the church building (physical) has a direct correlation to the body of believers present.
We bring the presence of God with us to the physical building, or WHEREVER two or three are gathered in his name.
When we "go to church" we actually bring "the church" with us.

/

 

[RedFan]

It is not reasonable to think the NT is silent on the destruction of the Temple, which was so foundational to Israel, if it had already happened.

Inferences from silence -- "if such a notorious event had already happened, surely it would have been mentioned" -- have never sat well with me. Such inferences discount the possibility that the writers just had other agendas.

Example: If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, why don't the Synoptics mention it? This miracle was such a big deal that John 12:11 proclaims “it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.” Yet Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about it. I'm not prepared to infer from their silence that John made the miracle up!

 

[Arthur81]

Common sense.... gives internal (Scriptural) evidence of the late date of Revelation.

(2) Internal Evidence​

Internal evidence comes from within the document itself. In addition to the external evidence from the church fathers, the book of Revelation has many internal indications that support the late date.[73]

ARGUMENT #1: The late date explains why John, Paul, and Timothy never mention one another together in Ephesus.​

If the early date is true, then John would have been leading in Ephesus at the same time as Paul and Timothy. Why would Paul leave Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church if the apostle John was there? Moreover, at the end of 2 Timothy, Paul mentions 17 coworkers by name, but he never mentions John. We are not merely making an argument from silence. This is a conspicuous silence. Why wouldn’t Paul mention such a spiritual titan like John? Likewise, why wouldn’t Jesus mention Paul or Timothy when writing to the church of Ephesus? (Rev. 2:1-7) Witherington writes, “The lack of apostolic presence and, by contrast, the presence of powerful prophets (both John and those he calls false prophets) seem to reflect a time after the apostles had died off late in the first century A.D. (cf. the Didache).”[74]

ARGUMENT #2: The late date explains why Paul and Jesus give conflicting reports about false teachers in Ephesus.​

Paul’s letters to Ephesus and Jesus’ letter to Ephesus give conflicting reports regarding false teachers. On the one hand, Paul writes about men who “teach strange doctrines” (1 Tim. 1:3) and the “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Paul even mentions several false teachers by name: Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17). Yet, Jesus’ letter to Ephesus tells a different story. Instead of being riddled with false teachers, Jesus says, “You cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false… You hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Rev. 2:2, 6). This is quite unlike the church of Pergamum who “have some who… hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15).

ARGUMENT #3: The late date explains how the church in Smyrna had time to grow before receiving a letter from Jesus.​

Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians in AD 110. In it, he states that the Smyrnaeans weren’t believers when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians in AD 60-61.


Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. So, his use of the plural “we” refers to “the church at Smyrna,” which would “indicate that that church was not in existence at the time in question.”[76] Put simply, Polycarp is claiming that “when Paul wrote Philippians no Smyrneans had yet been evangelized.”[77]

Craig Blomberg[78] and Gordon Fee[79] date Philippians to AD 61. Therefore, Polycarp maintains that the church in Smyrna didn’t exist before this time. This, of course, carried difficulties for the early date advocate. It requires a church entering Smyrna and springing up all within a 4-5 year span. Acts 19:10 says that “All who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord,” but this is hyperbolic language. This doesn’t mean that a church specifically existed in the city of Smyrna. Moreover, Paul never mentions a church existing in Smyrna in any of his letters.

ARGUMENT #4: The late date explains how the church in Laodicea had time to plummet spiritually by AD 65.​

D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo,[80] and P.T. O’Brien[81] date Colossians to AD 60-61. Paul mentions a thriving church in Laodicea at this time (Col. 2:2; 4:13, 16). However, if Revelation was written in AD 65, then this church must have plummeted spiritually in just a few years. In fact, they had become so bad, that Christ threatened to vomit them out of his mouth! (Rev. 3:16) Of course, spiritual decline can occur quickly (Gal. 1:6), but which is more likely? A quick decline or a slower decline?

ARGUMENT #5: The late date explains Jesus’ words to the church in Laodicea in light of the great earthquake of AD 60.​

The entire region around Laodicea suffered a massive earthquake in AD 60. In fact, the region suffered until at least AD 80,[82] and the “archaeological evidence at Laodicea points to a thirty-year rebuilding process.”[83]

And yet, Jesus told the Laodiceans that they are “wealthy” and “have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:16). If the early date is true, it would be quite cruel to tell a destroyed city that they are “wealthy” and “have need of nothing.” However, if the late date is true, this would make perfect sense. Tacitus mentions that the Laodiceans refused all aid from the Roman Empire after the earthquake.[84] They rebuilt their city all on their own, because they were “wealthy” and had “need of nothing.” Hemer writes, “There is good reason for seeing Rev. 3.17 against the background of the boasted afluence [sic] of Laodicea, notoriously exemplified in her refusal of Roman aid and her carrying through a great programme of reconstruction in a spirit of proud independence and ostentatious individual benefaction.”[85]

Conclusion​

Not all of these lines of evidence are equally cogent. In other words, some carry more explanatory power than others. But don’t miss the big picture: The late date has more explanatory power and explanatory scope than the early date. We could surely give a number of ad hoc explanations from an early date perspective, but eventually, the early date simply collapses under the weight of the evidence.

Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

David, you start off mentioning "Common sense", but we should keep in mind the famous quote by Voltaire, "Common Sense is not so common". You have given complicated, detailed arguments presented in an article online. It would take a long time to address those issues, even if I were qualified for such, and then it would be inadequate in a forum such as this. Scholars study years on this question of dating Revelation. I find the question of the temple never being even hinted at as being destroyed anywhere in the NT, too clear to ignore. For those wishing to read such a detailed and complicated discussion supporting the early date for Revelation, such a book is online:

Redating the New Testment by A. T. Robinson, written 1976

https://richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf

Use the page numbers shown in the pdf app... the book itself has no page numbers.

Revelation: p197 - p228

After the external evidence, the internal evidence for early dating begins... p202

A couple of the objections addressed as examples:

"While on the subject of the letters to the churches, it will be appropriate to
consider the objection often raised that they presuppose a state of affairs so
far beyond that of Paul's time as to point to a later generation" p205

"A similar objection has sometimes been brought [E.g. again by Kummel,
INT, 469.] against a date in the 60s from the fact that Laodicea, almost
totally destroyed in the earthquake of 60-1, is addressed as an affluent
church. B" p206

I readily confess I've never spent the time necessary to delve deeply into the intricate and complicated arguments made on both sides of this issue as are discussed in these books. For me, the question of the destruction of the temple never being alluded to as already happening, never being mentioned anywhere in the NT, that is strong enough an argument for me.

 

[Arthur81]

Perhaps but not necessarily…a couple of things that we should note about John…Revelation 1:10 has Brother John on Patmos but “in the spirit”…meaning that his frame of reference is the “Spirit or mind of God” he is hearing a heavenly voice the one which is speaking is the Spirit. He gets the letters to the “churches.”

Then in Revelation 4:1-2 John is invited “into” heaven…he accepts the offer and is “immediately” before the throne of God in heaven. He is told…” Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”

Johns spirit and mind is engulfed in the heavenly reality that is spread out before him…they argue about where he is physically…earth or heaven…but it is really of no importance because everything about John at this time is in the Spirit and in the third heaven before the throne of God…as he states. Everything that brother John is “seeing” is the “heavenly reality”…of the "earthly temple"...he is "behind the veil" as Paul would say.

The temple John is asked to measure in Revelation 11 is the “spiritual temple of God” in heaven...where John is…made up of the “new spiritual creature” that dwells on the earth and in the heavens…the only thing "physical" about that temple is the flesh of its members as the Body of Christ yet on the earth.

The literal temple in Jerusalem:

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." (Rev 11:1-2 KJV)

Then the temple in heaven comes later in the chapter:

"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail." (Rev 11:19 NRSV)

 

[Rockerduck]

The Gospel of John was written after 70 ad., because John's gospel is written by Roman time and date, not Jewish time and calendar, because Jerusalem was gone. John also refers to the sea of Tiberius, instead of Galilee, because the sea was renamed just prior to 70ad.