[P-Marlowe]

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?

[HarleyD]

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.

True enough but they certainly didn't pop up.

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.

This would be a true statement if the Sryian manuscript was the ONLY reference. Iraeneus wrote his piece in Heresy around 174AD. Yet Clements wrote around the exact same time:
(On the Timing of John's Banishment) "And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)- 150-215AD

The Muratorian Canon of 170AD states:
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

This agrees with what Clements writes around the same time frame. Now it would seem to me that if you have the Canon of a church stating that John preceed Paul in his writings, and Clements writing the same that, that would be far more conclusive than one person (Iraeneus) writings of the same period.

Doesn't the bible state that you need two witnesses? ;O)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Syriac reference to Nero is not in the text. It is in the margin notes.

Where do you get " margin notes." It's on the title page.

From Harley's excellent link...

DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION

...we find that the opening title page for the Book of Revelation of the Syriac Vulgate Bible says, "The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."

You would think someone would have corrected that error fast, if it was an error.

History is such a fascinating study because it's never static. "Facts" change with political and social pressures. Up until the mid-19th century, the early dating for Revelation was widely accepted as fact (no doubt in great part because it lined up with the New Testament so easily; Scripture made sense Biblically as well as temporally.)

What happened in the mid-19th century to change the situation? The Industrial Revolution was poised to alter entire continents and the world economy was set to be calibrated on oil. Hence, a "rethinking" of history and Biblical facts was "helpful" to the geopolitical reality.

Finally, who likewise benefits by letting Rome off the hook for being the Beast of Revelation, whether it's the Roman city, the Roman government or the Roman emperor?

Recall how "sad and regretful" most of those "empathetic" Roman soldiers looked as Christ walked to Calvary in "The Passion" and how blood-thirsty and wild-eyed all those pesky Jews were portrayed.

History is still being rewritten. We just think we're too sophisticated now to fall for it.