This is not a very reliable quote. It seems to be an opinion based on sketchy evidence.
OK, that's your opinion. Actually the sketchy evidence is for the late date. In fact, when it's scrutinized, it's a house of cards.
He admits the evidence points the other way.
No, JFB commentary does not say that, it says “The best authorities among the Fathers” and then refers to IRENÆUS:
Jim Gunter concerning Irenaeus:
“Those who support the
“late” date of its writing (92-96 A.D.) seem to base their belief
on the grounds of a solitary quote of Irenaeus who lived from 125-202 A.D. The late Foy E. Wallace Jr. (who supported the “early” date of its writing), in his book titled, “The Book of Revelation,” quotes that statement by Irenaeus. It reads as follows:
“If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he-emphasis by FEW) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3, quoted in, The Book of Revelation, Foy E. Wallace Jr., p. 25).
As we can see here,
the key phrase in Irenaeus’ statement is, “that was seen!” The question then becomes: Was it 'he' (John?) or 'it' (Revelation?) that was seen? In the English,it could be either one!
Then there other scholars who comment on both Irenaeus and also his statement:
D. Ragan Ewing writes:
“The difficulty arises in Irenaeus’ statement, as translated, “… that was seen …” The Greek text simply reads eJwravqh. The subject of the statement is simply subsumed in the verb, and
there is therefore no grammatical indicator as to the referent; it could be the Apocalypse, or it could be John himself. In other words, the English could just as easily be, “… he was seen …”
Ewing further writes:
“Nevertheless, there remains
another problem with the Irenaean witness. To what extent are we to take as trustworthy Irenaeus’ historical claims… In one place
he portrays James the Apostle as the same person as the brother of the Lord, and in another,
he astonishingly informs us that Jesus lived to be between forty and fifty years old! Lapses like these have understandably led to assessments such as Guthrie’s caution that Irenaeus’ historical method is “uncritical,” as well as Moffatt’s comment, “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.” Such being the case, should we really place the great confidence in this testimony that many scholars have?”
Kenneth Gentry quoting Irenaeus:
Irenaeus said of the age of Jesus, “but the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness…” (Quoted in Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth L. Gentry, p. 63)
Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date!
Burton Coffman writes:
“His
(Eusebius’) quotation (of Irenaeus’ statement) does not even mention “the writing” of Revelation, but refers solely to the time when certain unnamed persons are alleged to have seen either the apostle or the prophecy, nobody knows which. This proves nothing. Besides that: If he meant the Apocalypse was seen, and if it had been originally composed in quotation, could have reference to the Greek translation, if indeed it referred to the Revelation at all.
There goes the whole case for the latter date,” (Commentary on Revelation, Burton Coffman, p 4).
William Bell writes:
“Concerning the above statement (Irenaeus’ statement), scholars have long recognized that it is not possible to determine whether Irenaeus meant to say John was seen by Irenaeus’ tutor, Polycarp, or that “the Apocalypse” was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign.
Such ambiguity destroys this argument as evidence. Even Eusebius, who recorded this statement, doubted that John, the apostle, even wrote the book of Revelation. The point here is this, if the statement was not strong enough to convince Eusebius that John even wrote Revelation, why do so many think today that it is strong enough to convince one that the apostle saw it (the Apocalypse) during Domitian’s reign (A.D. 95)? It is weak to say the least.”
Finally, is support of the “early” day of the Apocalypse, are the words of
Robert Young, author of “Young’s Analytical concordance of the New Testament,” and “Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.” In his remarks, you will see that he
contends that a mistake has been made on the part of other early writers who quote Irenaeus’ statement. As you will see, it is his belief that the other early writers actually (mis)quote Irenaeus as to the name of the Roman Emperor who was ruling at the time of his statement, and
succeeding writers simply followed their lead!“
JFB commentary then refers to [the extremely shaky evidence of (which actually is no evidence at all)]
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA who simply said:
“....the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.”
That's all he says. The question is
WHICH TYRANT is he referring to? Nero or Domitian?
JFB commentary then refers to EUSEBIUS as a 'best authority' and then admits in the same intro that
“Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero.” Again, no evidence at all. Also, the problem with this source is that his
'pro late date statement' quotes Irenaeus.
JFB commentary then refers to
VICTORINUS, who again relies on Irenaeus, which again is no evidence at all.
