And what was their only source? Irenaeus, an early Christian whose book was written about a century after the fact: around 175 AD.
This debate has been rehashed over and over again; and the only honest conclusion is: there is not a shred of evidence that John was banished to Patmos during the days of Domitian.
If you want a good understanding of what really happened; read Dr. Ken Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell." It is available free online from several sources, from what I have been told.
Anyway, Cynical bear offered the following quote:
>>>Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3<<<
"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."
That is very interesting. But what was seen? That? What is that? Scholars have been wringing their hands over that statement for centuries. It was easy to accept in the early days, with one misinterpretation piled on top of another misinterpretation. But modern scholars (for the past 200 years or so) have almost discounted Irenaeus as a viable source.
For example, this is from the same book and chapter, but two paragraphs earlier:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 1]
Notice anything odd? A "vision" that Irenaeus "claimed" was "almost in our day" had not only been written in a book; but the copies had already become ancient. People don't talk or write with that kind of carelessness.
Conclusion: A reasonable interpretation would interpret the word "that" in paragraph 3 to be either "John" or the "book;" but never the vision. The only scholarly move would be to discount the traditional interpretation as false, and discard Irenaeus as a viable source of a late date for the Revelation.
Philip
Have you ever posted anything truthful?
.