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 visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole(32)—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.