Dating christ execution
Chilton holds that since Scripture teaches that all prophecy would be complete by the end of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. The angel Gabriel told Daniel that the “seventy weeks” were to end with the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan.
) and since the book of Revelation contains prophetic material, therefore the book must have been written prior to the end of Daniel’s 70th week: We have a priori teaching from Scripture itself that all special revelation ended by A. We concur with Chilton’s basic premise: prophecy and vision will be sealed up at the conclusion of the 70 weeks of Daniel. This is the interpretive equivalent of “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Here is revealed another Achilles heel of reliance upon internal evidence: it is too easily subject to cross-correlation which seems supportive, but is not necessarily related.
Hitchcock has noted the narrow date range which modern preterism depends upon for its interpretation of the book. 68), and the formal imperial engagement of the Jewish war (spring A. Leaving aside the interpretation of internal evidence which has its own problems, the determination of what constitutes internal evidence is highly problematic.
He also observes that many of those who support an early date do not necessarily support a date as early as is required by the modern preterists: While it is true that many scholars do hold to a pre-70 date for Revelation, it is critical to observe that the preterist position requires more than just a pre-70 date. Most often, the selection of internal evidence is driven by the a priori stance of the interpreter.
The former interpretation of the evidence is nearly always admissible, but the latter conclusion does not necessarily follow.
This leap from “would seem” to “must” is commonly found in arguments based on internal evidence.
The identity of the seven kings and seven heads of Revelation It is our position that internal evidence is highly overrated in the field of biblical studies as is evident from its fruitlessness.
The works cited here provide additional background for those who are interested in delving into this matter further. Other systems of interpretation are not so sensitive to the date of writing, since their interpretive frameworks do not connect the events of the book as directly to the events attending the fall of Jerusalem. As we saw when discussing the authorship of the book, there are two primary sources of evidence available when analyzing a biblical text: internal and external.
Our treatment of the date the book was written is intended mainly to acquaint the unfamiliar reader with the significance of the topic and the major arguments presented in support of the most popular dates. 70, then the entire basis of the preterist interpretation collapses. In other words, the early date is necessary for the preterist interpretation, but not sufficient to prove that the text applies strictly to the immediate readers of John’s day.
the problem Gentry faces is that almost all of the scholars he lists in support of his position do not actually support his position at all.
For example, Hemer understands Revelation Here lies the problem: who determines when a textual artifact is connected with a historical situation approximate to the time of writing?
This is plainly evident in the conclusions drawn from academic considerations of internal evidence drawn from the four gospels.