First, let me say this: it's instructive to note that the late dating for Revelation is largely dependant on a single
...
Finally, those who hold that the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 face an even more formidable obstacle! ...
Uhh ... I said the Gospels, the 'Gospel according to John', -- Not the 'The Apocalypse of John' (Revelation).
But since you mentioned it, from Revelations:
' 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. '
- and -
17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
The 'seven mountains' are clearly a reference to to Rome. The 'seven kings' are the Roman emperors. Nero Claudius Drusus or Nero was the fifth emperor; and according to text, he has already fallen.
In 69CE the Roman empire was in a state of civil war (the 'Year of Four Emperors') concerning the Julius-Claudian secession. Eventually, Caesar Vespasianus Augustus (Vespasian) was recalled from Judea where he commanded the Roman forces suppressing the Jewish revolt of 66. His son Titus continued the campaign in Judea. So Vespasian was the 6th emperor since Julius Ceasar.
He was succeeded by his eldest son Titus (of sack of Jerusalem fame) in 79. Titus the seventh emperor.
When Titus died (probably by poison), he was succeeded by his younger brother, Titus Flavius Domitianus (or Domitian) in 81CE -- making Domitian the tyrannical eighth emperor.
Vespasian is generally seen as a reformer, removing corrupt officials and promoting the able functionaries -- and notably for repealing Nero's laws concerning treason. It was those laws that affected nascent Christians the most by requiring a sacrifice offering the Emperor-God as a test of loyalty. Disloyalty in Roman times was a very bad thing.
So whether you accept that 'John of Patmos' was the same individual as Apostle John or not. The Book of Revelations is clearly after Nero (the fallen fifth king), after Vespasian (a good guy for repealing the sacrifice laws). And Titus, his son is unremarkable, besides he reigned for less than two years (the seventh king of the short space). So we're at Domitian at 81CE as the terminus a quo. Significatly, Domitian revived the treason laws to use against perceived enemies. And that included 'disloyal' Christians.
St. Jerome and Eusebius put the exile of John during the reign of Domitian.
Polycarp -- bishop of Smyrna, (one of the churches addressed in Revelations), specifically places the exile of 'John of Patmos' in the 14th year of Domitian's reign (as retold by Irenaeus). Clement of Alexandria reports John returned from exile to Ephesus after the death of Domitian.
So the the text itself says it was Domitian (the eighth emperor); the church fathers says it was Domitian.
What's to argue? It was during the reign of Domitian 81-95CE.
And if you take the text seriously, 'was in the isle that is called Patmos', it was after Domitian was assassinated in 96CE.
Okay back on topic: 'Gospel of John'
Consider one of the most amazing prophecies in all of Scripture. Jesus was leaving the Temple one day when his disciples called his attention to its buildings. As they gazed upon its massive stones and magnificent structures, Jesus uttered the unthinkable: "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down....
Except it wasn't prophecy. The 'Christ as the symbolic Temple' theme (and the interpolation in the 'Parable of the Wedding Feast') was developed after the sack of Jerusalem.
'John' in the 'Gospel of John' seems unaware of the existence of the Sadducees. He seems to think the Pharisees are the priestly authority in the (7:45-53; 9:13-38). Which was true after the destruction of the temple, but certainly not in the time of Jesus.
'John' is under the impression that Jesus and his followers we're not permitted in the synagogues (Jn 9:22, 12:42, 16:2), but the expulsions of Christians didn't occur until the Council of Jamnia in 90CE.
John mentions the 'Kingdom of God' just twice. Certainly an odd thing for a Jewish fisherman from Galilean Jew. While not conclusive, it indicates that the fervor of the parousia was waning as the apostles die or killed.
The Gospel was late in coming to be widely known because it originated in the Gnostic community. Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus (Refutation ~120-140), and Valentinian texts comment on it (Clement of Alexandria's c. 140-160). The oldest known fragment of the New Testament, (the John Rylands fragment c. 120-130) was the Gospel of John from Gnostic sources.
I'm not trying to "attack you" in this post but just want to defend my Christian faith as I feel it has been misrepresented by someone who doesn't even espouse the faith any longer!
Not to worry. I don't sense that you're attacking at all.
I just share what I've learned.
I don't intend any attack on Christians or Christianity. I hope you don't feel you need to defend yourself.