Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[claninja]

That may appeal to a bias Preterist here, but not to the objective onlooker.

“Genetic or ‘biased’ fallacy”. You being somehow not biased is untenable. We are all biased. We are human.

 

[claninja]

Sure thing.
All late date testimony rests squarely on the shoulders of one solitary statement by Irenaeus, and it is disputed as to what it even says (was John seen? --or-- was the Revelation seen? -- NO ONE KNOWS exactly what Irenaeus said). Even Eusebius rejects Irenaeus testimony and prefers that a different John (John the Presbyter) wrote the book, not the apostle, as Irenaeus believes. This is important, and for certain, the late date folks that came after were merely basing their opinions on Irenaeus! Scholars agree that Irenaeus' statement is questionable at best, and it contradicts other things Irenaeus said about "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation (Eusebius: Ecc History: 5:8:5-6; see also Against Heresies 5:30:1,3). The notion of "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation cannot be reconciled with the proposition that Revelation was seen "almost in Irenaeus' generation" -- however it could be reconciled with the view that Irenaeus actually stated that JOHN was seen in Domitian's reign, not the vision. Then again, Irenaeus also claimed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old! "

...after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple...."(Against Heresies 2:22:5)

So, we must not uncritically swallow Irenaeus historic testimony. Scholars admit that Irenaeus' quote concerning Revelation is all the evidence there is for a late date, and that his quote is inconclusive as to even what it means:

Daniel Denham (1979)
"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation"; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg
"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

The quote from Irenaeus is considered to be weak and inconclusive, and it can even read that JOHN was seen in the reign of Domitian. (Robert Young even thinks NERO was intended, which would fully accord with Irenaeus statement about the "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation.)

The ONLY evidence for the +90AD Date is one single, solitary, ambiguous Statement by Irenaeus. All other Sources for the Late Date Rest Solely on his one statement.. Irenaeus also, don't forget, believed Jesus lived to Be 50 years old...

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) Stated the the Canon of scripture was complete before AD70:

Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. "

The Muratorian Canon is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. And, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68. Therefore, the book of Revelation with its letters to seven churches was known by Paul before Paul's death, according to the Muratorian Canon.

Robert Young (1885)
"[Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book...The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date."

(Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)

Like the vast majority of Biblical scholars, Robert Young believes Revelation was written during Nero's reign and he claims that the internal testimony of the book is wholly in favor of this early date. Here is a mere snippet of the overwhelming INTERNAL evidence:

* The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

* According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD

* The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening.

* There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.

* Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

* Nearly all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet show it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of the same events.

* The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero.Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while.. . Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

The internal evidence of the book of Revelation demands the Neronic date. Robert Young was right: "The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." As also do the majority of Published Scholars affirm.

what’s interesting is that while the Eusebius quote of irenaeus does seemingly confirm the “It being seen” refers to the vision, he still believed in the fulfillment of the olivet discourse per Samuel Lee’s dissertation , and the ushering in of the new heaves and new earth in 70ad.

EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea (c. 265 - 340) Extract from the 'Theophania'
"All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been done" "The End" should come : that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets" : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

 

[sovereigngrace]

“Genetic or ‘biased’ fallacy”. You being somehow not biased is untenable. We are all biased. We are human.

Sure thing.
All late date testimony rests squarely on the shoulders of one solitary statement by Irenaeus, and it is disputed as to what it even says (was John seen? --or-- was the Revelation seen? -- NO ONE KNOWS exactly what Irenaeus said). Even Eusebius rejects Irenaeus testimony and prefers that a different John (John the Presbyter) wrote the book, not the apostle, as Irenaeus believes. This is important, and for certain, the late date folks that came after were merely basing their opinions on Irenaeus! Scholars agree that Irenaeus' statement is questionable at best, and it contradicts other things Irenaeus said about "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation (Eusebius: Ecc History: 5:8:5-6; see also Against Heresies 5:30:1,3). The notion of "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation cannot be reconciled with the proposition that Revelation was seen "almost in Irenaeus' generation" -- however it could be reconciled with the view that Irenaeus actually stated that JOHN was seen in Domitian's reign, not the vision. Then again, Irenaeus also claimed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old! "

...after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple...."(Against Heresies 2:22:5)

So, we must not uncritically swallow Irenaeus historic testimony. Scholars admit that Irenaeus' quote concerning Revelation is all the evidence there is for a late date, and that his quote is inconclusive as to even what it means:

Daniel Denham (1979)
"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation"; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg
"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

The quote from Irenaeus is considered to be weak and inconclusive, and it can even read that JOHN was seen in the reign of Domitian. (Robert Young even thinks NERO was intended, which would fully accord with Irenaeus statement about the "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation.)

The ONLY evidence for the +90AD Date is one single, solitary, ambiguous Statement by Irenaeus. All other Sources for the Late Date Rest Solely on his one statement.. Irenaeus also, don't forget, believed Jesus lived to Be 50 years old...

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) Stated the the Canon of scripture was complete before AD70:

Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

Let us let the ECFs speak on their own behalf instead of you explaining away the clarity and uniformity of their message. It is notable because they come from different theological camps, different nations and different eras yet they are all singing from the same hymn-sheet. As for Preterists, they have nothing of any historic or evidential worth in response.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Gaul, now France, (AD 150)

Against Heresies Book V
Chapter XXX: 2.

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

Clement, Alexandria, Egypt, (c.150 - c. 215).

Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
XLII

And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.

Hippolytus, Rome, Italy, (AD 170 – 236)

On the Twelve Apostles

3. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.

Victorinus, Pettau, Upper Pannonia (modern Slovenia), (270AD)

Commentary on the Apocalypse
10th Chapter

...when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.

17th Chapter

9. The seven heads are the seven hills, on which the woman sits. That is, the city of Rome.
10. And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he has come, he will be for a short time. The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written — Domitian, to wit. The other has not yet come, speaks of Nerva; and when he has come, he will be for a short time, for he did not complete the period of two years.

18th Chapter

3. If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.

20th Chapter

10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.
11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.

Eusebius, Caesarea, Palestine, (263-339)

Church History (Book III)
Chapter XXIII.

Narrative Concerning John the Apostle. 1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.
2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.
4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words: But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.
5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and read the account which runs as follows:
6. Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.

Chapter XVIII – The Apostle John and the Apocalypse

1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
2. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:
3. If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.
4. To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.
5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

Chapter XX

10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. 11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.

Jerome, Rome, Italy (331-420 AD)

Against Jovinianus, (Book 1)
Chapter 26

John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.

On Illustrious Men
Chapter 9

In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

Sulpicius Severus, Gaul (now France), (AD 360-425)

Sacred History
Chapter 31

Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Sure thing.
All late date testimony rests squarely on the shoulders of one solitary statement by Irenaeus, and it is disputed as to what it even says (was John seen? --or-- was the Revelation seen? -- NO ONE KNOWS exactly what Irenaeus said). Even Eusebius rejects Irenaeus testimony and prefers that a different John (John the Presbyter) wrote the book, not the apostle, as Irenaeus believes. This is important, and for certain, the late date folks that came after were merely basing their opinions on Irenaeus! Scholars agree that Irenaeus' statement is questionable at best, and it contradicts other things Irenaeus said about "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation (Eusebius: Ecc History: 5:8:5-6; see also Against Heresies 5:30:1,3). The notion of "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation cannot be reconciled with the proposition that Revelation was seen "almost in Irenaeus' generation" -- however it could be reconciled with the view that Irenaeus actually stated that JOHN was seen in Domitian's reign, not the vision. Then again, Irenaeus also claimed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old! "

...after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple...."(Against Heresies 2:22:5)

So, we must not uncritically swallow Irenaeus historic testimony. Scholars admit that Irenaeus' quote concerning Revelation is all the evidence there is for a late date, and that his quote is inconclusive as to even what it means:

Daniel Denham (1979)
"The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation"; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

Steve Gregg
"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)

The quote from Irenaeus is considered to be weak and inconclusive, and it can even read that JOHN was seen in the reign of Domitian. (Robert Young even thinks NERO was intended, which would fully accord with Irenaeus statement about the "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation.)

The ONLY evidence for the +90AD Date is one single, solitary, ambiguous Statement by Irenaeus. All other Sources for the Late Date Rest Solely on his one statement.. Irenaeus also, don't forget, believed Jesus lived to Be 50 years old...

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) Stated the the Canon of scripture was complete before AD70:

Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. "

The Muratorian Canon is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. And, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68. Therefore, the book of Revelation with its letters to seven churches was known by Paul before Paul's death, according to the Muratorian Canon.

Robert Young (1885)
"[Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book...The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date."

(Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)

Like the vast majority of Biblical scholars, Robert Young believes Revelation was written during Nero's reign and he claims that the internal testimony of the book is wholly in favor of this early date. Here is a mere snippet of the overwhelming INTERNAL evidence:

* The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

* According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD

* The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening.

* There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.

* Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

* Nearly all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet show it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of the same events.

* The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero.Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while.. . Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

The internal evidence of the book of Revelation demands the Neronic date. Robert Young was right: "The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." As also do the majority of Published Scholars affirm.

Excellent, professional and Brotherly post so I thank you for the help! God bless for helping me learn more and I look forward to more posts of yours in the future as we progress in our study of Eschatology!

 

[parousia70]

There is nothing new here. From an evidential perspective quoting people who believe what you believe means nothing. Zero! Zilch! Nada!

Kinda like you quoting Irenaeus then? Or is it different when YOU do it?

You present the same old same old attempt to discredit the evidence of Irenaeus. This is weak and totally inadmissible. It is mere Preterist opinion.

Yet everything I said is irrefutable truth. Weird.

Irenaeus testimony is weak and beggardly all on its own. I'm sorry that my pointing out this fact, and pointing out scholars who also recognize this fact, has caused you such distress.

Perhaps if the late date proponents like yourself had any other independent sources for the late date theory besides Irenaeus, you wouldn't be so distressed when his view is rightfully scrutinized.

As for The Muratorian Canon. I do not have a clue what you are trying to say. There is nothing quoted of evidential worth that supports Preterism. I do not know what you are pushing at. Even claninja your Preterist buddy admitted: "The Muratorian Fragment implies only that Paul wrote his letters to churches after John. But this does not tell us which emperor John was banished under."

Again, There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.
It has to mean that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul died. It cannot mean anything else. There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.

After listing Paul's writings, the Canon says Paul was following John's rule in writing to only 7 churches. Thus, the Canon is placing John's apocalypse prior to Paul's death, making AD 95+ an Impossible Date.

Where did Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) state the the Canon of scripture was complete before AD70?

Perhaps you missed it.
Happy to repost for you:
Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

If you need me to break down How "the teaching of the Apostles ends with Nero" means the Canon was Complete before AD70, I'll be happy to do so, but I'm going to bet our readers find the math fairly simple.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Thanks to SovereignGrace for the excellent post 223 and to claninja for post 222. Now we are back on track and posting real evidence, that benefits us all, regardless of your eschatological position! Well done!

 

[parousia70]

When you do THIS:

Let us let the ECFs speak on their own behalf instead of you explaining away the clarity and uniformity of their message. It is notable because they come from different theological camps, different nations and different eras yet they are all singing from the same hymn-sheet. As for Preterists, they have nothing of any historic or evidential worth in response.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Gaul, now France, (AD 150)

Against Heresies Book V
Chapter XXX: 2.

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

Clement, Alexandria, Egypt, (c.150 - c. 215).

Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
XLII

And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.

Hippolytus, Rome, Italy, (AD 170 – 236)

On the Twelve Apostles

3. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.

Victorinus, Pettau, Upper Pannonia (modern Slovenia), (270AD)

Commentary on the Apocalypse
10th Chapter

...when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.

17th Chapter

9. The seven heads are the seven hills, on which the woman sits. That is, the city of Rome.
10. And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he has come, he will be for a short time. The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written — Domitian, to wit. The other has not yet come, speaks of Nerva; and when he has come, he will be for a short time, for he did not complete the period of two years.

18th Chapter

3. If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.

20th Chapter

10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.
11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.

Eusebius, Caesarea, Palestine, (263-339)

Church History (Book III)
Chapter XVIII – The Apostle John and the Apocalypse

1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
2. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:
3. If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.
4. To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.
5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

Chapter XX

10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. 11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.

Jerome, Rome, Italy (331-420 AD)

Against Jovinianus, (Book 1)
Chapter 26

John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.

On Illustrious Men
Chapter 9

In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

Sulpicius Severus, Gaul (now France), (AD 360-425)

Sacred History
Chapter 31

Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.

How does THIS not apply?:

From an evidential perspective quoting people who believe what you believe means nothing. Zero! Zilch! Nada!

Again, maybe when YOU do it, it's different somehow?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Kinda like you quoting Irenaeus then? Or is it different when YOU do it?

Yet everything I said is irrefutable truth. Weird.

Irenaeus testimony is weak and beggardly all on its own. I'm sorry that my pointing out this fact, and pointing out scholars who also recognize this fact, has caused you such distress.

Perhaps if the late date proponents like yourself had any other independent sources for the late date theory besides Irenaeus, you wouldn't be so distressed when his view is rightfully scrutinized.



Again, There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.
It has to mean that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul died. It cannot mean anything else. There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.

After listing Paul's writings, the Canon says Paul was following John's rule in writing to only 7 churches. Thus, the Canon is placing John's apocalypse prior to Paul's death, making AD 95+ an Impossible Date.



Perhaps you missed it.
Happy to repost for you:
Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

If you need me to break down How "the teaching of the Apostles ends with Nero" means the Canon was Complete before AD70, I'll be happy to do so, but I'm going to bet our readers find the math fairly simple.

No. BIG difference. You are not presenting actual evidence to support your position. You are attempting to negate clear unambiguous historic evidence that forbids your position.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Might I suggest our approach, to recognize that a lot of very smart, very well educated, and deeply devoted to the truth of Scripture are represented by scholars in Preterism, Futurism, and Idealism, and Historicism, and to render great respect to people like Dr. Kenneth Gentry and RC Sproul as well as many others who take different sides, while ourselves studying Scripture and the evidence to discern using insight from the Holy Spirit what we find as truth regardless of what we were taught? My primary exposure to Eschatology before 2021 was Wayne Grudem's book Systematic Theology. Since then, I completed the books by 4 authors titled "4 Views of Revelation" and am through Revelation Chapter 5 in Steve Gregg's book of almost the same title that gives parallel commentary from the viewpoints of Historicism, Preterism, Futurism, and Idealism. Just for this thread, let's suspend our preconceived and often deeply ingrained beliefs in light of the profound and credible experts and just answer the fundamental question of the OP of when John was exiled to Patmos - during the reign of either Nero or later during the reign of Domitian? If we can answer this one question, a lot of insight will be gained as to the ultimate truth of the correct view of Eschatology. When I first encountered Preterism I too was a bit shell shocked and in denial for weeks but now see it as a possible correct view, and that while I still tend toward Futurism, I cannot deny there is solid evidence in favor of an earlier date. Idealism is nice because it escapes any hard dating, and Historicism seems to not be as tied to a specific date of Revelation either, so the fundamental question of AD 68-70 or AD 95 really defines the two schools of thought of Preterism which pivot on the earlier date and Futurism that can accept the earlier date but seems to favor the later time frame of AD 95.

Let's continue with the evidence and see where it leads us all!

 

[parousia70]

what’s interesting is that while the Eusebius quote of irenaeus does seemingly confirm the “It being seen” refers to the vision, he still believed in the fulfillment of the olivet discourse, and the ushering in of the new heaves and new earth following 70ad.

EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea (c. 265 - 340) Extract from the 'Theophania'
"All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been done" "The End" should come : that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets" : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

The ECF's had an inconsistent and ununified eschatology, that is for sure. They were too busy sorting out Christology, Soteriology, ect... they didn't find Eschatology to be as pressing as those other pursuits.
Perhaps they understood that understanding and Accepting the "Correct" eschatology has no bearing on Salvation.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Does anyone have this reference? I only found this via a Google search and I do not belong to the source's church!

The information about John’s exile to Patmos comes from Polycarp, an early second-century bishop who knew John personally. Polycarp was martyred about A.D. 155, after a lifetime of Christian service. Irenaeus, who had earlier heard Polycarp’s powerful testimony of John and his writings, preserved the story. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20.4–7.)

What do we know of the life of John the Apostle after the day of Pentecost?

 

[parousia70]

No. BIG difference. You are not presenting actual evidence to support your position. You are attempting to negate clear unambiguous historic evidence that forbids your position.

Right.
So it IS different when YOU do it.
Just as I suspected.

 

[parousia70]

Does anyone have this reference? I only found this via a Google search and I do not belong to the source's church!

The information about John’s exile to Patmos comes from Polycarp, an early second-century bishop who knew John personally. Polycarp was martyred about A.D. 155, after a lifetime of Christian service. Irenaeus, who had earlier heard Polycarp’s powerful testimony of John and his writings, preserved the story. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20.4–7.)

What do we know of the life of John the Apostle after the day of Pentecost?

Proximity to an apostle seems to be the bastion of "evidence" cited that certain ECF's doctrine "must be" correct, however, proximity to an apostle does not guarantee correctness of doctrine. We know this from the scriptural testimony of how many of the apostles' own flocks went into apostasy, which would be impossible if the claim that nearness of removal from apostolic teaching guarantees correctness were true.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Does anyone have this reference? I only found this via a Google search and I do not belong to the source's church!

The information about John’s exile to Patmos comes from Polycarp, an early second-century bishop who knew John personally. Polycarp was martyred about A.D. 155, after a lifetime of Christian service. Irenaeus, who had earlier heard Polycarp’s powerful testimony of John and his writings, preserved the story. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20.4–7.)

What do we know of the life of John the Apostle after the day of Pentecost?

4. In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, Irenæus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying: These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to you.
5. For when I was a boy, I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation.
6. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life,' 1 John 1:1 Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.
7. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God's grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times have you spared me that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words.
8. And this can be shown plainly from the letters which he sent, either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them. Thus far Irenæus.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Related to my post 231, I found this:
Iraneaus is the main spokesmen to this date. He lived in the second century A.D., a principal "Early Church Father" who made a statement in 185 A.D. that the apostle John "saw the revelation...at the close of Domitian's reign (A.D. 81-96). (Ref: Contra Haereses 5.30.3; ANF, 1:559-60 also called in the fifth book of his work "Against Heresies".) The argument against this is that in context, his statement is not clear, rather ambiguous, but can be implicit in various ways.

Here it is: We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

There are at least four main problems with this statement. 1. It is actually a "second hand" account, which he quotes from Polycarp. Thus, it is not a direct quote from Irenaeus. 2. In context, this quote referred to Polycarp's remembrance (also referred to by Eusebius) "that" sometime toward the end of Domitian's reign there will be an antichrist (which simply means anyone who opposes Christ; here in a grand scale). 3. It is not clear from this statement to what Polycarp was referring or what he meant by "that was seen." It could have been referring to Revelation or to a coming antichrist that was also implied by John. 4. Irenaeus suffers from credibility issues and/or textual and scribal errors. He also wrote when he was very old and/or made major mistakes. For example, in the same work as the aforementioned quote, he states that Jesus was crucified when he was fifty years old. Thus, the principle source for the late dating of the Book of Revelation has some significant holes.

Research insights into the Date of Revelation

This same paper goes onto state:
The other main theory for a late date is when the events recorded in the book of Revelation take place in Domitian's reign (81- 96 AD), the contention is that it is in the future after the date of around 82 to 96 A.D. This is backed up by the early church historian, Eusebius (A.D. 300-340), who actually did not state the date but just gave a general connection between John and Domitian, which could just mean John was still alive in Domitian's reign.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

This article concludes:
"In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it."
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Kinda like you quoting Irenaeus then? Or is it different when YOU do it?

Yet everything I said is irrefutable truth. Weird.

Irenaeus testimony is weak and beggardly all on its own. I'm sorry that my pointing out this fact, and pointing out scholars who also recognize this fact, has caused you such distress.

Perhaps if the late date proponents like yourself had any other independent sources for the late date theory besides Irenaeus, you wouldn't be so distressed when his view is rightfully scrutinized.



Again, There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.
It has to mean that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul died. It cannot mean anything else. There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.

After listing Paul's writings, the Canon says Paul was following John's rule in writing to only 7 churches. Thus, the Canon is placing John's apocalypse prior to Paul's death, making AD 95+ an Impossible Date.



Perhaps you missed it.
Happy to repost for you:
Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

If you need me to break down How "the teaching of the Apostles ends with Nero" means the Canon was Complete before AD70, I'll be happy to do so, but I'm going to bet our readers find the math fairly simple.

Clement of Alexandria did not state "the the Canon of scripture was complete before AD70" as you allege. That is your slant. Their active ministry may have come to an end through old age or death, but God later visited John in old age on Patmos at the time of Domitian. I see no conflict there.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Some good points made in this paper by Liberty University:
One of the key internal evidences, which does not require positing a particular interpretative approach, is the condition of the seven church in Revelation 2 and 3. Do these churches look more like first-generation churches, which would appear to support an early date, or do they favor a second-generation church, which would support the late date? There are some key evidences that strongly favor a second-generation depiction of the churches.5 If John wrote early (A.D. 64–66) then it is likely that Paul’s two letters to Timothy, who was in Ephesus at the time, would overlap with John’s writing of Revelation and his letter to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also mean that, “Paul likely wrote 2 Timothy after John wrote to the church.”6 The problem is that the error that Christ points out to the Ephesians in Revelation should have surfaced in Paul’s epistles if they were written around the same time. However, these problems are not evident in Paul’s writings. Further, it is unlikely that John had moved to Ephesus until after Peter and Paul had passed from the scene. Philip Schaff tells us: “It was probably the martyrdom of Peter and Paul that induced John to take charge of the orphan churches, exposed to serious danger and trials.”7 Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around A.D. 66–67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence at Smyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this strongly favors the late date. The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would - 4 - have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding. John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian’s favorite way to persecute Christians. “Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero’s use of banishment for Christians.”8

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=pretrib_arch

 

[sovereigngrace]

This article concludes:
"In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it."
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

Realized eschatology is not limited to Preterists. Idealists and Historicists also hold to the same. That does not prove a date prior to AD70.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Right.
So it IS different when YOU do it.
Just as I suspected.

I have already presented water-tight evidence re Clement above.