Are these the same church fathers that replaced "authentic Christianity", aka Messianic Judaism, with the gentile church?
That tradition comes to us primarily from Irenaeus through Eusebius. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the testimony of Irenaeus still amount to a tradition and is open to interpretation. He was not a firsthand witness of these events. His accuracy and precision as to what he was describing is not universally accepted.
This is how Schraff records Irenaeus' words: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign."
The ambiguity exist in how to interpret the phrase "For that was seen", does "that" refer to John, his vision, or the account of his vision.
John could very well have been exiled under Domitian, yet had his revelation during an earlier exile under Nero. No one has claimed that he was only exiled once.
The same. I don't have to like every aspect of their theology or see them as perfect to respect their ability to record history reasonably accurately.
That cuts both ways, btw. You regard the ECF as all but divinely inspired in their rejection of the Nazarenes (even though complete rejection didn't happen until the fourth century, since Martyr regards them as brothers, errant though he believed they were on the point of following Torah), but when we have universal acceptance among them of a late date for the Revelation, well suddenly they're just not worth looking at, huh?
That tradition comes to us primarily from Irenaeus through Eusebius. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the testimony of Irenaeus still amount to a tradition and is open to interpretation.
True. However, given the distinct lack of competing traditions and the consensus of multiple sources, why in the world should we assume an earlier date?
He was not a firsthand witness of these events. His accuracy and precision as to what he was describing is not universally accepted.
Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn the disciple of Yochanan the Apostle himself. I'd say he was in a pretty good position to know when the Revelation was penned and under what circumstances, wouldn't you?
Furthermore, it's interesting that none of the ECF closest to the events of 70 AD saw a fulfillment of the Apocalypse in them--only centuries removed from the event do we see the preterist view taking shape. Also, it's interesting that everyone we have the writings of who was linked to Yochanan--Irenaeus, Hippolytus, even enemies like Cerinthius--held to a premillennial (chiliast) view, which points to the fact that this was in fact the view taught by the Apostle. Indeed, Irenaeus, just a generation removed, wrote extensively on the Revelation, and he is decidedly premill and futurist, as was his own disciple Hippolytus. You'd think that if Yochanan was a preterist, you'd see some of that in those ECF around him.
The ambiguity exist in how to interpret the phrase "For that was seen", does "that" refer to John, his vision, or the account of his vision.
You think that Irenaeus used a neuter pronoun to refer to the Apostle Yochanan?
For the other two, it doesn't matter, since the Revelation says of itself that it was penned on Patmos. Irenaeus was not the only one who put the exile in Domitian's reign. Eusebius quotes Irenaeus and goes on to cite others that were also exiled during Domitian’s reign in support of Irenaeus’ dating (Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 18 and Book V, chapter 7). Victorinus wrote that “when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian,” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, chapter 10.11) in agreement with Jerome (Illustrious Men, chapter 9) and Hippolytus (On the Twelve Apostles).
Another argument that Revelation was penned during Nero’s reign and refers to him comes from the Syriac version of the book, which is titled, “The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.” However, to cite the Syriac version, you have to ignore the fact that in the original Syriac translation that is dated from the second century, the books of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not included. The others had been put back in by the fifth or sixth century, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether Revelation was included even then. Indeed, one source states that Revelation “did not appear in the Syriac Testament as late as 1562” (Stanton, Elizabeth Cady and the Revising Committee, The Women’s Bible, “Revelation: Chapter I” (1898), p. 177, retrieved from The Internet Sacred Text Archive). Even if we argue that that date is too late, the fact is that the Syriac version of Revelation’s title was written, at a minimum, four centuries after Yochanan recorded it and is contrary to every other manuscript of the book and the witness of at least five early Church fathers. How exactly is this a point in preterism’s favor?
John could very well have been exiled under Domitian, yet had his revelation during an earlier exile under Nero. No one has claimed that he was only exiled once.
Nor is there any hint in history that he was banished twice to Patmos--Nero wasn't in the habit of banishing Apostles anyway; he preferred killing even those, like Paul, who held Roman citizenship.
It is telling that you would use such a weak argument from silence in order to defend your theological system. Futurists and historicists can appeal to the existing evidence. A preterist must appeal to unprovable "could've beens" in order to keep his theology from bursting into flames.
Your attempts to single out Irenaeus' statement for critique fail simply because there is wide and documented evidence that the late date was known and accepted throughout the Church, while there is exactly zero early documentary evidence for Yochanan being exiled to Patmos in Nero's reign. The only reason why anyone would even challenge the 90-96 AD date is a desire to prove preterism. In fact, a futurist, premillennial interpretation of Revelation does not depend upon the 90 A.D. dating of the book, and in fact will work perfectly well even given an earlier authorship, given that we can demonstrate that the events of 70 AD do not match the prophecies given in the book. That being the case, it should be up to those requiring the earlier date to prove their supposition with clear and decisive evidence.
Which you don't have and never will because the simple fact of the matter is that the Revelation was given no less than twenty years after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.