Only from a lower paygrade as a summary overview. Off the top the apostle John lived and labored out of Ephesus since the days of the Jewish war in 70 A.D. which destroyed the Jewish nation. Domitian died September 18, 96 eyeballing one of my old notes. This date makes it necessary to place the visions in Revelation in the year 96 to me anyway.
John wasn't exiled by the emperor himself, correct? He was condemned to exile by the proconsul or similar authority...been awhile...remember this from the historian Zahn. There's nothing to prevent us from dating Revelation in the year 96, the actual year of Dominitians death, correct? Nerva ruled until 98, then followed Trajan. John was released after Domitian's death, and died during Trajan's death, correct?
Then we have Irenaeus from my old notes (Heresis III, 4, 4) who states that John lived until the time of Trajan (98-117). Eusebius (Church History 5, 8) quotes Irenaeus to the effect that Revelation was seen almost in the memory of men then living, namely "toward the end of the reign of Domintian" (died in 96). Old Amill. Jack's opinion
Old Jack, good to see you weigh-in on this one. I need a second opinion.
You, like most, are basing your understanding entirely on Irenaeus, since he is the only one who actually claimed it. All the others simply quoted Irenaeus (with the occasional embellishment).
But what did Irenaeus actually know? He was not born until approximately 120-140 AD, and admits he only knew Polycarp (d. 155) as a youth. But the most controversial of Irenaeus' statements is virtually ignored; and that is this one:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.30.1, p.558]
How could there be ancient copies of the Revelation, when according to (interpretations of) a statement two paragraphs after the one above, Irenaeus claimed John saw the vision "almost in our day":
"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." [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.30.3, pp.559-560]
How could a vision seen "almost in our day" already have
ancient copies transcribed from the original book written about that vision?
Something doesn't add up, Old Jack. Personally, I believe Irenaeus meant to say that either John or a copy of the book was seen almost in his day. Either way, Irenaeus is not a reliable source for the dating of the Revelation.
There are other early sources for dating the Revelation, most vehemently opposed by futurists. One would be this one by Caius, where he implies John wrote to the seven churches prior to Paul writing to his seven churches:
"
as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans." [Roberts & Donaldson, Caius, Canon Muratorianus, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 05: 3rd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1919, III.3, p.603]
And there is this by Clement of Alexandria, which on the surface doesn't appear that significant, until all factors are considered, in particular John's very old age. He would have been almost a centenarian:
"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." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved (Quis Salvus Dives)? "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Chap.XLII, p.603]
Notice first that Clement doesn't name the tyrant. Nero died in 68, Domitian in the mid to late 90's. Let us assume that John was released at nearly 100 years old, after Domitian died. Clement said that after his release, and during the aforementioned travels, John committed a youth to a one of the Bishops:
"Having come to one of the cities not far off (the name of which some give as [fn: Smyrna]), and having put the brethren to rest in other matters, at last, looking to the bishop appointed, and seeing a youth, powerful in body, comely in appearance, and ardent, said, "This (youth) I commit to you in all earnestness, in the presence of the Church, and with Christ as witness." And on his accepting and promising all, he gave the same injunction and testimony. And he [John] set out for Ephesus. And the presbyter [the Bishop] taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved (Quis Salvus Dives)? "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Chap.XLII, p.603]
Later, the youth became corrupted and joined a gang. Then this:
"Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, "Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness." The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said "I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother," the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, "He is dead." "How and what kind of death?" "He is dead," he said, "to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him." Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, "It was a fine guard of a brother's soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way." He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers' outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, "It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;" who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognised John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other [John] followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, "Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved (Quis Salvus Dives)?, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Chap.XLII, p.603]
Here is a virtual centenarian riding a horse, and also chasing a much younger man on foot. At my age (66) that would be no easy feat; but for a man approaching 100, it is incredulous.
But, however, if John was released after the death of Nero the tyrant in 68, he would have been still been in his 60's, and all of this would make much more sense.
.