Well, I'm just trying to figure out when its convenient for you to take the ECF at face value and ignore their biases vs. a more critical eye. In this case it apparent that you have made up your mind and Irenaeus fits the bill.
BTW, while not infallible I don't consider the ECF to the the theological ogres you make them out to be.
Further, when you see a source admitting something that they would prefer not to--like the fact that Revelation wasn't written before 70 AD in the case of Eusebius, et al.--that's when you most pay attention to them.
The historical accuracy of Irenaeus and other has been questioned by many folks. In spite of being a student of Polycarp, Irenaeus though Jesus was 50 when He was crucified. BTW, Irenaues was a pupil of Polycarp at very early age. He did't write down his ideas until decades later. Time does have an effect on the memory.
“Second-century traditions about the apostles are demonstrably unreliable.” And although generally reliable, Irenaeus’s writings are not without imperfection in matters historical. Indeed, some very fine and reputable scholars of renown discount his testimony that is so relevant to our debate. Robinson notes that “despite this [the testimony of Irenaeus to a late date], Hort, together with Lightfoot and Westcott, none of whom can be accused of setting light to ancient tradition, still rejected a Domitianic date in favour of one between the death of Nero in 68 and the fall of Jerusalem in 70. It is indeed a little known fact that this was what. Hort calls ‘the general tendency of criticism for most of the nineteenth century,’ and Peake cites the remarkable consensus of ‘both advanced and conservative scholars’ who backed it." (Robinson)
"Experience shows that a story told second-hand, even by an honest narrator, may be so tinged in the narrator’s subjectivity y as to convey an impression positively false. We are thus obliged to discount the tales and remarks for which Irenaeus refers us to the authority of “the Elders,” by whom he seems chiefly to mean Papias and Polycarp. Now Eusebius does not hesitate to say that Papias was a source of error to Irenaeus and others who relied on his “antiquity.” When Irenaeus says that the “Pastor of Hermas” is canonical; that the head of the Nicolaitans was the Deacon Nicolas; and that the version of the LXX. was written by inspiration; – we know what estimate to put on his appeals to apostolic tradition." (Farrar)
Both from Gentry, "Before Jerusalem Fell".
"The Book of Revelation was possibly and perhaps even probably inscripturated about 65 and before 70 A.D. Rev. 1:4,9,11; 2:10; 3:10; 13:3f; 14:8,10f; 17:1,9-11,16-18; 18:2,8f; 20:4,9 & 21:10f. See too Rev. 1:9 etc. above, with Dan. 12:1 and Mt. 24:1-8,16,21,28 & Acts 18:2.It should be remembered that the early Church Historian Orosius records that Nero's A.D. 64f persecutions of Christians spread far beyond Rome. For other authorities in the Early Church even before Irenaeus (and most of the writers in the Early Church after him) assume an early (Neronic) date for the inscripturation of the Book of Revelation (cf. n. 4 below). A date of about 64-66 A.D. for the writing down of the Book of Revelation is suggested by various Introductions to Ancient Syrian translations, by Melito of Sardis (175 A.D.), by the Muratorian Canon (180), and by Tertullian (220).
In the Early Church, it was only Irenaeus who perhaps assumed a late date of 95 A.D. for the writing down of the Book of Revelation. He stated it had been written during Domitian's persecutions of Christians -- conceivably those during the nineties. Yet even Irenaeus -- as distinct from Eusebius's later (mis?)interpretation of Irenaeus -- may well have been referring to an earlier Domitianic persecution of Christians during the late sixties. See at our n. 4 below. Compare too F.N. Lee's manuscript Revelation & Jerusalem: Apocalypse Written Before 70 A.D. (Jesus Saves, Brisbane, Australia, unpub., 1983) -- as approvingly cited by K.L. Gentry Jr.'s doctoral dissertation Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, Tx., 1989, pp. 35 & 58f & 103n.).
Advocates of the Early-Church-in-general's earlier (Neronic) date for the Book of Revelation, include: Epiphanius, Andreas of Caesarea, Arethas of Caesarea, Theophylact, Annius, Caponsacchius, Hentenius, Salmeron, Alcazar, Grotius, Hammond, Wettstein, Harenberg, Herder, Hartwig, Guerike, Moses Stuart, Adam Clarke, Zuellig, Luecke, Bleek, Duesterdieck, Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Van Andel, A.S. Barnes, J.M. Ford, C. Vanderwaal, Leon Morris, J.A.T. Robinson, F.N. Lee, K.L. Gentry Jr., and D. Chilton. Significantly, the A.D. 400 Church Father Epiphanius gave a very early date to the Book of Revelation -- based on Mt. 24:7 & Acts 11:28 & 18:2 cf. Rev. 6:2-8."
...
Cf. perhaps Rev. 2:10,13 & 3:10. The Book of Revelation was probably inscripturated about 65, and very likely indeed before 70 A.D. In the absence of the no-longer-extant original fragments of Papias, the earliest real claim of a late date for the Book of Revelation was made by the not-always-careful Early Church Historian Eusebius (325 A.D.). In this regard, he uncritically represents a statement in Irenaeus and ignores the other sources mentioned in n. 2 above.
In an extant reference (Against Heresies V:30:3), the 185 A.D. Irenaeus expressed himself somewhat obscurely so as to have become the first extant Early Church Father now often alleged to have proposed a late date (of 95 A.D.) for the Book of Revelation. Yet Irenaeus does not mention any such date, but only claims that "the apocalyptic vision...was seen...toward the end of Domitian's reign" -- viz. "by him who beheld" it (namely John). Very significantly, Irenaeus does not claim he received this 'information' -- as he often says in respect of other matters -- from the 'ancients'!
A fortiori, especially in the light of Irenaeus's known errors in several other areas -- such as his statements that the pillar of salt which had been Lot's wife, (still) menstruates; that Adam was a child at the time of his creation; and that Jesus appeared to be more than fifty years of age (ib. III:22:4 & IV:31:3 & IV:33:9 & IV:38:3 & IV:38:8) -- his possibly attributing a late date to the Book of Revelation (in the teeth of clearly-earlier dates given by other Early Church Fathers as described in n. 2) -- needs to be evaluated very critically.
The widely-held but poorly-grounded view that Irenaeus gave specifically a late date (only in the mid-nineties) for the inscripturation of the Book of Revelation, needs to be re-examined. Indeed, precisely the A.D. 325 Eusebius (Church History III:17-20) -- himself noted to be an uncritical collator rather than a careful researcher -- is really the one who assumed that Irenaeus 'must' have been attributing a late date to the inscripturation of the Book of Revelation.
A similar late date for the inscripturation of the Book of Revelation was attributed by later scholars who uncritically followed Eusebius's (mis)reading of Irenaeus. Such later scholars include: A Lapide, Vitringa, Hengstenberg, Swete, Zahn, Feine-Behm, and R.H. Charles, etc. Interestingly, these later scholars all acknowledge their dependence exclusively on Eusebius's (mis)representation of the above passage in Irenaeus and/or on similar post-Eusebian representations traceable back to Eusebius's own (mis)representation of Irenaeus.
Hengstenberg, however, does at least concede the possibility of an early date in his book The Revelation (Mack, Cherry Hill N.J., 1972 rep., I, p. 416 & n.). For to John in Rev. 11:13, "the temple at Jerusalem can be nothing else than a den of robbers.... At what period did the temple more deserve this name than shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, to which the composition of the Apocalypse is transferred by those who understand by the temple in chapter eleven the temple at Jerusalem?" Hengstenberg then observes further: "The crisis [of Calvary] by that time [just before 70 A.D.] was quite past. The nobler elements had long ago been absorbed by the Christian Church. The Synagogue of Satan retained only the scum."
John's Revelation Unveiled by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
That's why you don't understand the historian's craft. I'm not ignoring their biases at all--indeed, I've pointed out several times that Eusebius' anti-premill stance makes him a useful "hostile" witness. Likewise, when on the other thread I quoted from early Church fathers condemning the Nazarines, I did not claim they were lying; just the contrary, I showed that their opposition proved that there were in fact a significant number (though certainly nowhere near a majority) of Christians who were observing certain Jewish customs enshrined in the Torah! (After all, one doesn't usually waste time opposing something that doesn't exist.)
Where I disagree with the fathers is not on the basis of their history, but on the basis of their theology--and when Justin Martyr calls the Sabbath an imposition put on the Jews because of their hard hearts where Yeshua said that it had been made for Man (i.e., as a blessing), I'm right to do so. To call what God gave for our good evil is dangerously close to what the Pharisees were doing when Yeshua warned against blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
So no, there's no inconsistancy here. It's just the historian's craft--separating verifiable fact from rumor and opinion. And given the multitude of sources dating the Patmos exile to Domitian's reign and the fact that exile (rather than execution) was characteristic of that period, the 90s AD dating of the Revelation is a verifiable fact.
BTW, while not infallible I don't consider the ECF to the the theological ogres you make them out to be.
I've never made them all out to be theological ogres. I've presented the facts of the difficult times they lived in and given a reasonably sympathetic explanation for why they started drifting apart from the Jewishness of their faith. Trust me, if I were inclined to make them out to be ogres, I have the ammo to do it. I prefer to think of them as simply flawed in certain respects that were reflective of the times they lived in, however.
I do have a handful that I just don't like--like Augustine, Jerome, etc.--but I don't like them mainly because of the unChristian hubris which justified persecuting those they disagreed with and using political influence to do so. On the other hand, I generally like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus (which is not to say that I always agree with them by any stretch--I just like them), and Justin Martyr, while a product of his times and dead wrong on certain issues, wasn't that bad a guy.
Perhaps if you didn't make theological ogres out of those you disagree with (like me), you wouldn't think to accuse me of doing the same. Plank, mote.
The historical accuracy of Irenaeus and other has been questioned by many folks. In spite of being a student of Polycarp, Irenaeus though Jesus was 50 when He was crucified.
Yep, and he happened to be wrong on that issue. However, if you actually read his thoughts on that particular subject, you can see that he actually had Biblical support (though he misunderstood the passage he cited due to not understanding the culture as well as he might) and see that he was trying to sink a Gnostic idea.
Preterists love to pick on that one, relatively small point, but they don't apply the same criterion to those whom they do wish to believe--like, say, John Calvin.
Hort, together with Lightfoot and Westcott . . .
You're actually going to quote from a source that relies on Westcott and Hort? Further, you're actually going to cite three relatively modern preterists as rejecting a late date for Revelation, as if this would be a shock?
Now Eusebius does not hesitate to say that Papias was a source of error to Irenaeus and others who relied on his “antiquity.”
And yet, recognizing that Irenaeus was "tainted" by Papias, still accepted Irenaeus' late date for the Patmos exile, even backing it up with supplimentary evidence.
Still waiting for you to present some early sources, topcat. Modern scholars with a theological ax to grind who cannot cite any primary or secondary evidence in their favor other than to disparage a single source (when in fact, there are at least five sources for Revelation's late date) just don't impress me all that much.