Date The interpretive turn of Revelation depends strongly upon its date, so much so that the date of the book has implications as serious within Christianity as the date of the Gospels has outside of Christianity.
Having looked closely at the dates of the Gospels we have already laid some groundwork in terms of what is to be considered.
If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. The correct date for the writing of Revelation lies somewhere between the extremes of Claudius and Trajan.
If, however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions. An interpreter who is committed to the unerring authority of God's word and to the reality of predictive prophecy must ask whether John was speaking in Revelation of the ancient city of Jerusalem, the Herodian temple, and the Roman Empire of the Caesars, 70 A. Throughout the history of the church only two general views regarding the date of Revelation have been credible and consistently forwarded.
Research into the historical context of the book of Revelation is necessary in order to understand the message of this book properly. the Romans leveled Jerusalem and the temple, as we know from history. D., on the assumption that John's exile to Patmos was occasioned by the banishment of Jews from Rome by Claudius in 51  A. Moreover, Epiphanius seems to have spoken carelessly, many scholars believe; he probably was referring to Nero (whose full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus) as "Claudius." At the other extreme for dating Revelation, Trajan's reign was advanced by the 6th century ascetic, Dorotheus (), and in the commentary at Matthew by Theophylact, an 11th century exegete.
The reader ought to appreciate the concrete setting of the book and the historical perspective which its author would have had. We can see this if we but consider the reference in Revelation to the city of Jerusalem, its temple, and the Roman Empire - all of which, in their own order, are prophesied to be destroyed. What one thinks of the prophecies in Revelation will naturally be affected, then, by the choice of a date for the writing of the book either prior to, or subsequent to, this event in 70 A. Milton Terry observed: The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. Such opinions are far too late and unargued to warrant serious attention.
Or, more directly, imagine writing a thesis on the future of terrorism in America and failing to mention the Manhattan Massacre. Imagine that you are reading a history concerning Jewish struggles in Nazi Germany and find no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust.
Josh Mc Dowell takes a similar approach to dating the New Testament books: Most liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. Ragan Ewing in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Theology degree at Dallas Theological Seminary, a bastion of dispensational thinking. This is the fifth installment of my response to Tommy Ice’s article “Answers and Clarifications for Gary De Mar.” You can reference the other four posts here, here, here, and here. 95, the question for De Mar is “What does the hour of testing refer to? There are many scholars who believe that Revelation was written before A. Tommy brings up the dating issue of when Revelation was written. Here’s how Tommy presents the issue: De Mar believes this time-period refers to “the conflagration leading up to the destruction of A. 70, the tribulation period.” However, his view presupposes that Revelation was written around A. 65, which Mark Hitchcock and most scholars throughout church history have demonstrated is impossible. If written in Domitian's reign, then Revelation offers nothing for the preterist at all.External Testimony After due consideration of the leading work proposing a pre-70 date for Revelation (Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell, 45-107) I have been surprised to find so far that the external evidence points slightly to a pre-70 date; but there is nevertheless a great deal of conflicting evidence.The answer to this question makes or breaks an interpretation of Revelation for preterist purposes.