The first part of this statement is pure interpretation, and the last part is a flat out lie.
Quite the accusations!... let's see if there is any evidence to support them, (since you haven't provided any) ...
The actual truth is that every Christian document about this from the second through the fifth century which contained an unequivocal statement and which could even rationally be considered a good source of information, placed it during the reign of Domatian, which would place it in the 90s.
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? -- who knows 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.)
There are also Arethas, the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, & the Syriac Vulgate -- all these statements require an early date.
The Muratorian Canon of AD 170, for example, says that Paul, in writing to only seven churches, was following a rule set by John. For Paul to be following a rule set by John about writing to only seven churches, Paul had to know that John wrote to seven churches -- and this requires that Paul knew about
Revelation 2-3 before his martyrdom.
And I haven't even touched the internal evidence of the book, which entirely demands that the vision speaks of a soon catastrophe of grave Jewish importance, which historically cannot fit any time but 66-70 AD. The book of Revelation is the prophecy of the catastrophy of the downfall of Israel and the avenging of the blood of the apostles and prophets.
And almost every modern scholar who is not a Preterist agrees with this dating for the Revelation.
Ughhh...
Who's Lying now?
MOST Scholars favor the Early (Pre 70AD) Date.
We've been through this before but it's been a while, and I'm sure our readers would find a revisit edifying.
In
THIS THREAD I listed about 150 published scholars (
most of them futurists) who hold to the Early date of Revelation.
I have requested, multiple times, a similar list from anyone claiming "most scholars" prefer the late (90'sAD) date.
No one has taken me up on it for years now... not even you BW.
You may not like the list I provided, but at least I have a list.
Where's yours?
You can either come up with a similar, cross check-able, comprehensive list of several hundred or thousand published Scholars who are Late Date advocates that clearly presents a vast majority or "almost every" modern scholar as you claimed, or I will accept your apology for calling me a liar when you must admit that the evidence I have to support my claim far outweighs the glaring lack of evidence you have to support yours.
