[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)

[P-Marlowe]

When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero]

The stuff between the brackets is editorial comment, is it not?

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

My eschatology (such as it is) is not contingent upon a late date for Revelation. The preterist position is completely destroyed if Revelation was penned after 70AD. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was penned much later than 70AD and as late as 96AD. It is the preterist who must grasp at straws. It is the preterist who has the burden of proof and it is the preterist who must produce at least two witnesses.

The Tyrant Previously Identified as Nero. LOL!

[Uncle Chip]

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

That's funny because E B Elliot cites the very same Clement and this same story, as well as Eusebius's comments on it, as evidence of the late date of Revelation:

"Clement's support to a later date is found in story involving St. John after he returned from Patmos. The point being made that John was quite an old man when it occurred.

"Next Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as acted out by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, 'after the death of the tyrant;' and represents him as at that time an infirm old man. Now 'the tyrant,' whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be: since, at the time of Nero's persecution, St. John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.

Thus it must rather have been the tyrant Domitian. So, in fact, Eusebius expressly explains Clement to mean. " (vol. I, p. 33-34)[Historicist.com]