That may be true but there is no written historical records abscribing such a thing; it's pure conjecture. I would argue that it would be just the opposite. Saying Domitain was referred to as Nero would be similar to an argument 2000 years from now of saying Stalin was really Lenin or Hitler was Musolini. Historians, especially in the very ancient days, would not have called different people by the same names. It would be too confusing.
This is rather significant in my mind because there is far more evidences of Revelation being written prior to 70AD than in the 90s. The 70s group is pointing to the Syrian text (states John was sent to Patmos by Nero), Jerome's writings (states that Nero tried to kill John at the same time of Peter and Paul) and the Muratorian Canon (which states Paul's writings were based upon John's writings).
The 90s group is pointing to one statement made by Iraeneus a hundred years after the fact and quotes from other fathers pointing to what Iraeneus stated. They refute part of the Syrian writings by saying that Nero isn't really Nero at all but Domitian, although they offer not historical proof for this claim.
Now, honestly and objectively, what do you think sounds more credible?
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.