Actually I don't see that historicism and futurism would suffer if the date was early, and that isnot the point,
I agree
which is that all but one or two writers say that it was late. One of those early ones said it was during the reign of Claudius.
More than 1 or 2. Although while this is not conclusive proof, neither can the post 70ad position provide conclusive proof.
1.) Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD)
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,
end with Nero
2.) Muratorian Fragment (170AD)
"since the blessed apostle Paul himself—following the pattern (ordo)
of his predecessor John—writes, giving their names, to not more than seven churches, in this order: To the Corinthians a first; to the Ephesians a second; to the Philippians a third; to the Colossians a fourth; to the Galatians a fifth; to the Thessalonians a sixth; to the Romans a seventh. But although there is one more each to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, for the sake of reproof, nevertheless it is obvious that one church is dispersed over the whole globe of the earth. For also John, in his Apocalypse, while writing to seven churches, yet speaks to all"
3.) Epipphanius (370AD)
“prophesied in the time of Claudius…the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed.”
4.) Peshitta version of Revelation's preface (508AD)
“The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the Island of Patmos,
To which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.”
5.) History of John (4th-6th century)
"After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles,
Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he send [and] took all that the procurator had, and imprisoned him; and laid hold of S. John and drove him into exile; and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste."
The early church writers were:
- Premillenialis
- Historicist. That is they taught an orderly transition of events to come.
- None of them were preterist, or none that I have seen.
They taught that
- The temple in the book of Revelation was the Church
- The Jews were Christians. Tertullian, for instance said that the 144.000, virgins were Christian virgins,
- The Let and Hindrance in 2 Thessalonians:2 was the Emperor and the Empire.
- The Roman Empire would split between ten kingdoms.
- The removal of the emperor would allow attichrist to arise. All that happened.
I'm pretty sure "early historicism" wouldn't be that much different than "early preterism"
Both would view the historical event of 66-70ad as at least the partial fulfillment of the olivet discourse.
Clement of Alexandria.
"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: "See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . ." And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken. (
Clementine Homilia, 3:15. See Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:241.)
