Before Jerusalem Fell

Additional External Witnesses 101
It would seem that this statement implies the publication of Revelation
(what other Johannine work could be interpreted to indicate the
overthrow of Rome?) prior to his banishment by Domitian. Why not
in Nero’s reign, as indicated in other traditions?
Eusebius Pamphili
Eusebius (c. A.D. 260-A.D. 340), Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine,
is known as “the Father of Church History” due to his important
and well-presemed work entitled Ecclesiastical Histo~. Because of the
clarity of his position on the matter (it is well-preserved in its original
language and unambiguous), the stature of his person (he was a court
adviser to Emperor Constantine, a prolific writer, and the author of
a rather thorough Church history), and the nature of his work (he
researched his history in writings no longer extant), he is universally
acclaimed by late date advocates as a Domitianic witness.
In his Ecclesiastical Htitoy, at the very section which is cited as
late date evidence by Swete and Charles, to name but two leading
late date advocates,66 we read:
When Domitian had given many proofs of his great cruelty and had
put to death without any reasonable trial no small number of men
distinguished at Rome by family and career, and had punished without
a cause myriads of other notable men by banishment and confiscation
of their property, he finally showed himself the successor of
Nero’s campaign of hostility to God. He was the second to promote
persecution against us, though his father, Vespasian, had planned no
evil against us.
At this time, the story goes, the Apostle and Evangelist John was still
alive, and was condemned to live in the island of Patmos for his
witness to the divine word. At any rate Irenaeus, writing about the
number of the name ascribed to the anti-Christ in the so-called
Apocalypse of John, states this about John in so many words in the
fifth book against Heresies.67
As we analyze the weight of this evidence, we must bear in mind
two problems: (1) Traditions had already been well established by
Eusebius’s time. And (2) unfortunately, Eusebius is “by no means
very critical and discerning, and [is] far inferior in literary talent and
66. Swete, Revelation, p. xcix; Charles, Revelation 1 :xciii.
67. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:17-18.