I found something interesting today. This is a Seventh-Day Adventist definition of preterism:
“Preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy – Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614) – during the Counter-Reformation.
“The vast majority of modern commentators and critical scholars take the position that God does not interfere in human affairs. This preterist view states that the book of Daniel was written against the background of contemporary events in the second century B.C., during the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, by someone other than Daniel. They repudiate the miracle of prediction and prefer the “more reasonable” and “elegant” vaticinium ex eventu. The book of Daniel is thus a work of fiction written during the Maccabean period to encourage resistance against tyranny. The “fulfillment” of all of Daniel’s prophecies end during the second century B.C. They don’t expect the book of Daniel to be historically accurate or true to the sixth century B.C. setting it describes. The preterist methodology starts with chapter 11 and works backwards through the prophetic chapters. Chapter 11 thus becomes the yardstick by which to approach the other prophecies. They take the position that most of chapter 11 deals with Antiochus Epiphanes who ruled the Seleucid kingdom from Antioch to Syria from approximately 175 to 164 B.C.. They then read him back into the other prophecies of chapters 8, 7, and 2. Antiochus Epiphanes thus becomes the all-encompassing figure of Daniel’s prophecies.”
I knew preterism’s main tenet was that John had to have seen the vision before 70 AD, the destruction of the Temple. I did not realize that they also assigned a late date for Daniel. The reason this has to be so is that Daniel sets the precedent that Revelation follows. If Daniel lived during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, then his prophetic visions were of the HISTORY to take place in the world before the first advent of Messiah, all events that were still future to him. That the vision of Dan 11 clearly foretells Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees even the preterists do not dispute. Their explanation for the amazing detail and accuracy is that it was written after the events, in the 2nd century BC, by a pretender. They discount Daniel as a fiction. But if Daniel lived during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and what is written in the book of Daniel is not a fiction but the truth, then Daniel saw the HISTORY of the world until the first coming of Messiah, setting the precedent that John would follow, in seeing the HISTORY of the world until the second coming of Messiah. That Daniel is true MUST NECESSARILY predict a HISTORICAL interpretation for Revelation. Because of this they discount Daniel as a fable.
Here I just have to comment that although I found this article written by Adventists, and one (out of dozens and dozens) of the excellent references I used for Revelation Revealed was also by an Adventist, Adventists were and are not alone in holding to the historical interpretation of Revelation. It was the undisputed interpretation for hundreds of years in the church, across all Protestant denominations.
As for Revelation Revealed, what you will read in that book has similarities to Adventist historicism, but also departures, because Torah contains keys to unlock the vision. These keys have only been available very recently as God has been unveiling Torah for New Testament believers, and thus, coincidentally, also Revelation.
But how interesting that the Sabbath keepers were the ones throughout the twentieth century who clung to historicism when all of Protestantism left it and went after futurism?