There is nothing more conjecturing and disdaining of the historical records than this ridiculous preterist fantasy. Name for us all the writers of the early church who agree with this fantasy --- there are none. For 400 years Irenaeus' statement was never challenged until the historical/theological revisionists of Rome came to the fore.
I just love the way preterist reformists dismiss the obscure writings of the early church as extra-biblical when arguing with Catholics, but then find a new found love for these obscure writings when they are needed to dredge up arguments for their preterist dreams.
Furthermore Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna, one of those seven churches of Asia that received John's letter. Who would have been in a better position to know firsthand just when that letter was delivered to Smyrna. As a matter of fact, Polycarp may have still had the original letter from John to which his disciple Irenaeus probably had access. Of all the early church fathers, Irenaeus is the most credible and theologically orthodox.
But here is a good question for you:
Why would God ask one apostle [John] to step all over the work of another apostle [Paul]? Why would he instruct John circa 64 AD to send letters to the very churches that the apostle Paul had established [Ephesus] and was in continual contact with through his most recent letters [Ephesians, Colossians/Laodiceans] circa 60 AD?.
You guys are trying to assert that in a mere 4 to 8 years those churches decayed from what Paul wrote of in his letters [60 AD] to the sad situation in those churches that John describes. This is an assertion that defies all credibility.
“Furthermore Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna, one of those seven churches of Asia that received John’s letter.”
Are you familliar with the writings of Papias, “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times”.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
He certainly believed in a future-tense, literal, earthly Kingdom.
I think your questions re: the timing and influence of Irenaeus are good ones. They do militate, in my opinion, against this view of an "early date" for Revelation. I have always understood a better dating of about 90-95 AD.
It is a logical problem why God would appoint one apostle to "watch over" another one, as you rightly point out.
As to whether the churches could sink so low in such a short period of time, it is interesting to note that Paul references at the very least an apostasy that is almost complete in Asia (Asia Minor, home of most of the Revelation churches) in II Timothy 1:15. When one reads church history it is AMAZING how quickly the churches become moribund, powerless, dead and lifeless when God withdraws His Spirit, and conversely, when revival comes, one wonders at the amazing power of God to completely turn a church (and consequently a culture) on its head.
Irenaeus, as we have seen before, is clearly chiliast. It is important, however, to note two things as well:
1) Irenaeus himself acknowledges that the NON CHILIAST VIEW WAS PROMINENT AS WELL AS CHILIAST. I don't know whether it was to you or to someone else, but I have already mentioned how Irenaeus "argued" his chiliast position with other church members, indicating that the "a mil" view was definitely up and going strong, and that there was a split in the church view even at that early age.
2)Arguing a "historic pre mil" position is a radically different thing than arguing a dispensational pre mil position. Historical pre-mils are essentially covenant theologians who argue for a 1000 year reign of Christ, without all the gobbledegook of a secret rapture of the primarily "gentile" church, and setting up a revived Jewish theonomic state (i.e. "Israel"). You will find very little (actually none) support for the dispensationalist schema in Irenaeus, or Papias (no original writings exist). Irenaeus clearly teaches the church will go through persecution (the tribulation!) under the antichrist.
I might add that I have, in the past, investigated the claims that the early church fathers placed the date in the late 90s. The conclusion I came to simply looking at the text, was that these writers were simply parroting what Iraeneus stated. What Iraeneus stated which may not have been correct. If you will note in the above reference, this was the same conclusion others have come to.
There are far more earlier works dating Revelation before 70AD than 90AD. Yet you are willing to say the Syrian text and other manuscriptures are in error.
That, besides Philadelphia=Phillipians, is the only church I can match up. Neither book is inconsistent with each other.
Now if the preterist are arguing that all seven churches in Revelation are somehow directly related to one of the churches Paul wrote to (e.g. Sryna=Colosians), I'm not sure about that.