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.
