There is nothing more conjecturing and disdaining of the historical records than this ridiculous preterist fantasy.
I'm only trying to understand the proper dating of Revelation. I'm not interested in the preterist "fantasy". Dr. E article intrigued me because it was the first time I've seen references to early writings on the dating of Revelation being before 70AD. Here is more.
Dating the Book of Revelation
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.
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.
No one I know of dismisses the writings of the early church. We will say they are prone to errors-wouldn't you agree? This all started with a posting of numerous references by church fathers pointing to ONE comment by Iraeneus. Could it be, just posibly, that Iraeneus was incorrect or that he used the wrong name? He was, after all very old at the time of this writing and he was writing about events that happened much earlier. 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.
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
So? Couldn't he goofed? His text doesn't square with the Syrian text of the Bible. Now which one would you be willing to say is in error? Which has the error in it?
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
Why would Christ prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem and then the disciples set up HQ in the downtown district? I don't know. But Paul's message to the Ephesians
"Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,"
is not out of line with Revelation
Rev 2:3-4 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
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.
His text doesn't square with the Syrian text of the Bible. Now which one would you be willing to say is in error? Which has the error in it? Um....
The Syriac reference to Nero is not in the text. It is in the margin notes, and nobody knows when those margin notes were added. Suffice it to say that there is more evidence that Irenaeus' reference to Domitian is more reliable than an anonymous reference found in the margins of a text for which there are no extant copies before the 6th Century AD.
So who do we believe, Irenaeus or some anonymous 6th Century Syrian scribe?