Preterist dating the book of revelation
By the same token, the activities Clement ascribes to John -- running all over Asia, riding a horse chasing after an apostate church leader -- make more sense attributed to a man in his 50s or 60s than they do to a man in his 90s or 100s.Finally, elsewhere Clement states that the teaching of the Apostles was completed at the time of Nero.Late in his reign Domitian did a few irrational things of relevance -- executing a boy because he looked and performed like an actor Domitian disliked; had an author executed, and his secretarial slaves crucified, for putting some allusions into a literary work; put Senators to death for conspiracy; put another person to death for wanting to celebrate a previous Emperor's birthday. His various irrationalities made him hated and feared everywhere.But he never reached the level of cruelty and irrationality that Nero did.The argument here turns on what seems an ambiguous descriptor -- "the tyrant." One side says this is Nero; the other says it is Domitian. Without doubt, it is Nero -- in fact, we have clear evidence that he was called by this name: Nero fit the definition of "tyrannical" of a certainty: He "put to death so many innocent men" (Tacitus); "the destroyer of the human race", "the poison of the world" (Pliny the Elder); "cruel nature" (Tacitus); "cruelty of disposition" (Suetonius); "cruel and bloody tyranny" (Juvenal).He committed acts of perversion and atrocity so nasty that we won't be printing them here. " On the latter, it's not so clear that Domitian was out for Christians as he was out for anyone who bothered him, which sometimes happened to be Christians near him -- there is no evidence of a general persecution across the board.
At the very least Irenaeus's evidence is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
On the other hand, at Domitian's death, the general public "greeted the news..indifference...", though the military was upset, and the senators of Rome were delighted.
Obviously one could justifiably call either Nero or Domitian a tyrant.
For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.(Against Heresies :3) This quote, preserved for us by Eusebius, offers a puzzle: Who, or what, was "seen" almost in Irenaeus' day? Ireneaus likes to use the word "seen" with reference to persons, but not for things (like visions).
The use of "that (was seen)" rather than "he (was seen)" is countered by two points: a) the translation is in a very poor Latin; b) it is only a small textual corruption from one to the other (visus est versus visum est).