The dating of revelation updating listbox using a thread in
John could have revealed the name of the Antichrist, because John was seen alive until very recently.b.
John could have revealed the name of the Antichrist, because John saw the apocalyptic vision very recently.
Specifically he’s asserting that John was alive during (and affected by) the reign of Domitian.
That said, Eusebius does claim that John’s confinement on Patmos occurred during the reign of Domitian.
What kind of sense would it make for Irenaeus to refer to copies of the apocalyptic vision as “ancient,” but also maintain that the vision itself occurred almost in his own lifetime?
This problem is alleviated if we understand ἑωράθη as a reference to John himself (“he was seen”), rather than the apocalyptic vision (“it was seen”).
What Eusebius Thought Irenaeus Said Here’s how Eusebius utilized Irenaeus’s statements: “There is ample evidence that at that time the apostle and evangelist John was still alive, and because of his testimony to the word of God was sentenced to confinement on the island of Patmos.
Writing about the number of the name given to antichrist in what is called the Revelation of John, Irenaeus has this to say about John in Book V of his Heresies Answered: ‘Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation.
In fact, very shortly before the oft-referenced quote above, Irenaeus states that the number 666 is “found in all the most approved and ancient copies” of Revelation (Against Heresies, 5.30.1). Irenaeus makes reference to “ancient copies” of the book of Revelation. they had been around a very long time), but they were also in fact copies (i.e. So when Irenaeus, just a couple paragraphs later, speaks of something that “was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime,” how could that be a reference to the vision of Revelation?
For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign’” (The History of the Church, 3.18).
We need to remember that Eusebius himself was very unsure about the authenticity and authority of Revelation.
And this word is commonly taken to refer back to “the actual revelation” which had just been mentioned.
Thus, Irenaeus would be stating that John saw his apocalyptic vision at the end of Domitian’s reign, and this would support the later date for Revelation (late-90s).