Before Jerusalem Fell

26 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
The problem with such observations is that they have failed to
recognize a critical distinction between preterists of radical, naturalistic
liberalism (e.g., the Tubingen school) and those of evangelical,
supernaturalistic orthodoxy (e.g., Moses Stuart, Milton Terry, and
Philip Schafl). In point of fact, however, “there is a radical difference
between those Preterists who acknowledge a real prophecy and permanent
truth in the book, and the rationalistic Preterists who regard
it as a dream of a visionary which was falsified by events.”2 5
Of course, not all late date proponents so readily write off early
date advocacy. Signs are presently emerging that indicate that this
tendency to discount early date arguments may be changing. Late
date advocate Leon Morris recognizes the relative strength of the
early date argument when he writes: “There appear to be two dates
only for which any considerable arguments are available, in the time
of the Emperor Domitian, or in or just after that of Nero. “26 And he
is less than dogmatic in establishing his own position when he states
that “while the evidence is far from being so conclusive that no other
view is possible, on the whole it seems that a date in the time of
Domitian, i.e., c. A.D. 90-95, best suits the facts.”2 7
Peake speaks
similarly of the matter: “It may be granted that the case for a date
in the rei~ of Domitian has been sometimes overstated. But this
date is probab~ to be accepted.”2 8
J. P. M. Sweet agrees: “We have
assumed so far that the book was written well after the fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but the evidence is far from conclusive. . . .
To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is
not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus.
“2 9
Gundry’s position indicates this awareness: “The traditional
and probable date of Revelation is the reign of Domitian. “3° A
telling admission, it seems, has been made by renowned commentator
and late date advocate R. H. Charles: “It thus follows that the
25. Philip Schaff, Histoy of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
[1910] 1950) 1:837-838.
26. Morris, Revelatwn, p. 34.
27. Ibid., p. 40.
28. Arthur S. Peake, Ttw Revelation of John (London: Joseph Johnson, 1919), p. 96.
Emphasis mine.
29. J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia
Westminster, 1979), pp. 21, 27.
30. Gundry, Suing of the New Testarnd, p. 365, Emphasis mine.