Good quote arguing for an early date for Revelation

[asterisktom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIB9-mbntww&feature=related


found this....

I was sorry that I couldn't hear this. My speakers are getting worse and worse, so speaking videos are hard to hear clearly. But I do appreciate Gentry's good research, having read a number of articles of his on the pre AD 70 of Revelation.

When you look at the facts of the case, and when one is willing to shed their tradition, the evidence points much more to an earlier than to a later date for Revelation.

This conclusion is not a doctrine of desperation, as some have styled it, for full Preterists. There have been a number of Christians who have mored to this position who are not Full Preterist: Gentry and Phillip Schaff being conspicuous examples.

But it saddens me that this topic cannot be discussed without feathers being ruffled. Its a shame. God knows that I am not perfect. I have done my share of damage for the cause of Christ over the years with an odious and cantankerous attitude at times. But I am going to discussing these topics, hopefully with grace and discretion. The very fact that it riles some will not dissuade me. The greater the flak, well, the closer I seem to be to the target.

 

[DHK]

Of course not. But God gives us a brain, and He enables us to use it in discussing His Word.

You know, the more I read this the more I feel, well, sorry for you. I will pray for you.

One thing is sure. There is no room for discussion here, not with you and your attitude.

I only assumed, Tom, that you would give the Holy Spirit more credit than his due. After all He inspired John to write the book, and the ultimate decision as what the book contains and does not contain is up to him, is it not?

 

[asterisktom]

I only assumed, Tom, that you would give the Holy Spirit more credit than his due. After all He inspired John to write the book, and the ultimate decision as what the book contains and does not contain is up to him, is it not?

You make these remarkable accusations and insinuations of me in your previous post and now you backtrack here. I want to take you seriously, DHK, and also to discuss this important topic in a mature, mutually-respectful manner, but you make this into an argument.

 

[DHK]

1. History
From the time of Christ to the time of the fourth century (Constantine) there had been an intense persecution of Christians, both by the Jews and by the Romans. In the time of Peter it was by Nero. It the time it was by Domitian. After Domitian the persecution was carried on by other cruel dictators until Christianity became legalized by Constantine who used it for his own political gain.
Thus whether John was looking backward or forward there would have been persecution, no matter what the date you assign it. Read Peter, written previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. The persecution was very intense. And then Domitian. He was no less cruel.

2. Purpose of John.
The purpose was two-fold. The book was apocalyptic designed to tell of events to come. The key verse is given in vs. 19

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Revelation 1:19)
--The book is divided into three parts: the past, present, and future.
The present were the churches. The future started in chapter six.

Now, why those churches. I believe that the Holy Spirit chose those particular churches because of their particular problems. The Bible is a timeless book. It is applicable to every age. Jesus chose those churches with a wide range of problems that we, in every age, would be able to relate to, and would teach us. It is not an accident that those particular churches were chosen above others. It was the Holy Spirit's choosing.

3. John's age.
John was the youngest of all the apostles and outlived them all. His death may have been in the beginning of the second century. It makes sense that his books would have been written in the 90's. One of John's purposes in writing is to write supplemental information to that which was already written in the "synoptic gospels" (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which had already been written well aforetime. The gospel of John stands out alone as uniquely different in this way, giving much different information than the other gospels and a different perspective as well. This is another argument for the Book of Revelation's late date.

John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. It was there that he wrote Revelation, as the first chapter indicates. History tells us that it was under the rule of Domitian that he was exiled there. That should be fairly conclusive proof that this book has a late date:

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)

 

[Logos1]

Thanks for the link Tom

I have to be brief tonight.

When Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple without a stone left standing Matt 24: 1 – 2. This was an incredible prediction.

Yet there is no mention of it being fulfilled in later books.

It is unthinkable that later writers wouldn’t have pointed out the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction if it had happened by the time they were writing.

The writer of St. John for example tells us he is writing to testify that Jesus was the Messiah—no one can seriously think he would have left out the fulfillment of this prophecy to testify to Jesus being the Messiah if that event had already taken place.

I find these internal proofs of when the bible was written much more convincing than trying to sort out what early believers thought when anyone writing outside the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was prone to error, advancing their view point, and at times didn’t posses complete information on the subject they were writing about.

P.S. Tom thanks for the link on the dating of Revelation—it is very solid work for anyone with an open mind. Closed minds can stand in broad daylight and justify why it is dark outside at the present time.

 

[JesusFan]

Of course not. But God gives us a brain, and He enables us to use it in discussing His Word.

You know, the more I read this the more I feel, well, sorry for you. I will pray for you.

One thing is sure. There is no room for discussion here, not with you and your attitude.

Basic problem is that he is reasoning from Scriptures, giving evidences what your views on this topic are not supported by bible nor History, yet you continue, with Logos1, to give slim evidence from historical figures, even slimmer biblical evidences...

 

[InTheLight]

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

This points to a pre AD 70 date, not only for Revelation, but for all the other books of the New Testament.

Just as it It would have been criminal to pretend the WW2 Holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime) so this 1st-century omission would likewise have been very unusual. For inspired writers (supposedly writing after the event) to neglect even the mention of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

This is a fairly compelling argument. If Revelation was written before 70 AD why isn't the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned in it? Possibilities...

1. John didn't know about the destruction of Jerusalem. Why not? Maybe John wrote Revelation while on Patmos in AD 69 and had not heard about Jerusalem until afterwards. Patmos is a fair distance from Jerusalem and news traveled slowly back then.

2. John didn't include the destruction of Jerusalem in Revelation because he wasn't inspired to do so.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

I guess a good question for preterists would be this:

If John wrote Revelation before 70 AD, and all prophecy was fulfilled, why wouldn't he subsequently write another book proclaiming that prophecy had in fact been fulfilled and that Jesus had returned? Surely this is more "unthinkable" than not reporting that Jerusalem had been sacked?

 

[asterisktom]

This is a fairly compelling argument. If Revelation was written before 70 AD why isn't the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned in it? Possibilities...

1. John didn't know about the destruction of Jerusalem. Why not? Maybe John wrote Revelation while on Patmos in AD 69 and had not heard about Jerusalem until afterwards. Patmos is a fair distance from Jerusalem and news traveled slowly back then.

2. John didn't include the destruction of Jerusalem in Revelation because he wasn't inspired to do so.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

I guess a good question for preterists would be this:

If John wrote Revelation before 70 AD, and all prophecy was fulfilled, why wouldn't he subsequently write another book proclaiming that prophecy had in fact been fulfilled and that Jesus had returned? Surely this is more "unthinkable" than not reporting that Jerusalem had been sacked?

A good response. Thanks.

I believe your possibility #1 is the right one, though the date may be earlier.

As far as your question for Preterist is concerned I have two comments:
1. If I were to ask that of DHK I would be given a lecture about me trying to be God, telling Him what should and shouldn't be in Scripture. (He won't lecture you though, since you are not a Preterist).

2. More importantly, why would God need to verify what He had already said earlier? To those who believe His Word no verification is needed. To those who don't believe His Word no further after-the-fact proof is sufficient.

I need to emphasize that what is even more telling than the lack of mention of the destruction of Jerusalem is the existence of those two verses in Revelation, the ones that describe Judaizers having the power to afflict Christians.

This would be a most serious anachronism were Revelation written years after these Judaizers existed. Yes, there were Jews, of course, but not Judaizers. And not with such empowerment as they clearly had in Revelation 1 and 2, such that Jesus had to give encouragement assurance of protection to the afflicted victims. To me, more than any other indication, this shows the times described are the 60s, not the 90s.

 

[asterisktom]

1. History
From the time of Christ to the time of the fourth century (Constantine) there had been an intense persecution of Christians, both by the Jews and by the Romans. In the time of Peter it was by Nero. It the time it was by Domitian. After Domitian the persecution was carried on by other cruel dictators until Christianity became legalized by Constantine who used it for his own political gain.
Thus whether John was looking backward or forward there would have been persecution, no matter what the date you assign it. Read Peter, written previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. The persecution was very intense. And then Domitian. He was no less cruel.

2. Purpose of John.
The purpose was two-fold. The book was apocalyptic designed to tell of events to come. The key verse is given in vs. 19

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Revelation 1:19)
--The book is divided into three parts: the past, present, and future.
The present were the churches. The future started in chapter six.

Now, why those churches. I believe that the Holy Spirit chose those particular churches because of their particular problems. The Bible is a timeless book. It is applicable to every age. Jesus chose those churches with a wide range of problems that we, in every age, would be able to relate to, and would teach us. It is not an accident that those particular churches were chosen above others. It was the Holy Spirit's choosing.

3. John's age.
John was the youngest of all the apostles and outlived them all. His death may have been in the beginning of the second century. It makes sense that his books would have been written in the 90's. One of John's purposes in writing is to write supplemental information to that which was already written in the "synoptic gospels" (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which had already been written well aforetime. The gospel of John stands out alone as uniquely different in this way, giving much different information than the other gospels and a different perspective as well. This is another argument for the Book of Revelation's late date.

John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. It was there that he wrote Revelation, as the first chapter indicates. History tells us that it was under the rule of Domitian that he was exiled there. That should be fairly conclusive proof that this book has a late date:

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)

You haven't really answered my comments about the existence of persecuting Judaizers in (supposedly) the 90s in Revelation, so I don't feel the need to respond to anything here. According to your own division above (which I don't agree with BTW) you admit that those church chapters describe their present time. What, in that case, were those Judaizers doing there - then? Time machine?

 

[DHK]

You haven't really answered my comments about the existence of persecuting Judaizers in (supposedly) the 90s in Revelation, so I don't feel the need to respond to anything here. According to your own division above (which I don't agree with BTW) you admit that those church chapters describe their present time. What, in that case, were those Judaizers doing there - then? Time machine?

As it is an insult for a Muslim to convert to Christianity today (their family will try to hunt them down and kill them), so it was in the first and second centuries. Remember the zeal of Saul. Once a Jew became Christian it was almost like a death sentence. There was a great persecution upon them from their family. This never stopped after 70 A.D. Among the most conservative of the Jews it still hasn't stopped to this day.

This has some bearing on the Judaizers who never really changed their ways. We see it in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. They were the legalists trying to impose the Levitical Law and Circumcision on the believers, making it a requirement of salvation. What changed? Nothing?
We find these people before and after 70 A.D.

The date given for the writing of the Book of Jude is 70 A.D. Look at the description Jude gives for these false prophets.

Remind me of your exact question and I will try to answer it more completely if I haven't already.

 

[asterisktom]

As it is an insult for a Muslim to convert to Christianity today (their family will try to hunt them down and kill them), so it was in the first and second centuries. Remember the zeal of Saul. Once a Jew became Christian it was almost like a death sentence. There was a great persecution upon them from their family. This never stopped after 70 A.D. Among the most conservative of the Jews it still hasn't stopped to this day.

This has some bearing on the Judaizers who never really changed their ways. We see it in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. They were the legalists trying to impose the Levitical Law and Circumcision on the believers, making it a requirement of salvation. What changed? Nothing?
We find these people before and after 70 A.D.

The date given for the writing of the Book of Jude is 70 A.D. Look at the description Jude gives for these false prophets.

Remind me of your exact question and I will try to answer it more completely if I haven't already.

This is a copy-and-paste of the last two paragraphs to InTheLight, which is the gist of my question:

I need to emphasize that what is even more telling than the lack of mention of the destruction of Jerusalem is the existence of those two verses in Revelation, the ones that describe Judaizers having the power to afflict Christians.

This would be a most serious anachronism were Revelation written years after these Judaizers existed. Yes, there were Jews, of course, but not Judaizers. And not with such empowerment as they clearly had in Revelation 1 and 2, such that Jesus had to give encouragement assurance of protection to the afflicted victims. To me, more than any other indication, this shows the times described are the 60s, not the 90s.

DHK, you need to show me the basis that we "find these people before and after 70 A.D." I Have read extensively the works of the period and covering the period: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, the ECF, latecomers Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome, and the real latecomers like Gibbons, etc. The consensus is that Domitian was nothing like Nero in persecuting Christians.

 

[asterisktom]

No great persecuton of Christians under Domitian as described in Rev.

The persecution was very intense. And then Domitian. He was no less cruel.

This is one of those dubious "facts" that have been fostered on us by Eusebius. Wiki has this:

"4th century writings by Eusebius of Caesarea maintains that Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian's reign. The Book of Revelation is thought to have been written during this period. However no non-partisan, secular convincing evidence exists of any widespread religious oppression under Domitian. Although Jews were heavily taxed, no contemporary authors mention trials or executions based on religious offenses other than those within the Roman religion."

 

[percho]

chapter 1 introduction
the things that thou hast seen
the things that are
the things that are about to come after these things;

The things that are about to come after these things chapters 20 through 22
The things that are chapters 7 through 19
The things that thou hast seen chapters 2 through 6

Then the spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing, Blessed the glory of the LORD from his place.
So the spirit lifted me up, and took me away,
Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.


I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, `I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;

 

[DHK]

This is a copy-and-paste of the last two paragraphs to InTheLight, whiuch is the gist of my question:

I need to emphasize that what is even more telling than the lack of mention of the destruction of Jerusalem is the existence of those two verses in Revelation, the ones that describe Judaizers having the power to afflict Christians.

This would be a most serious anachronism were Revelation written years after these Judaizers existed. Yes, there were Jews, of course, but not Judaizers. And not with such empowerment as they clearly had in Revelation 1 and 2, such that Jesus had to give encouragement assurance of protection to the afflicted victims. To me, more than any other indication, this shows the times described are the 60s, not the 90s.

DHK, you need to show me the basis that we "find these people before and after 70 A.D." I Have read extensively the works of the period and covering the period: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, the ECF, latecomers Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome, and the real latecomers like Gibbons, etc. The consensus is that Domitian was nothing like Nero in persecuting Christians.

It is commonly supposed that John was banished to this island by Domitian, about A.D. 94. No place could have been selected for banishment which would accord better with such a design than this. Lonely, desolate, barren, uninhabited, seldom visited, it had all the requisites which could be desired for a place of punishment, and banishment to that place would accomplish all that a persecutor could wish in silencing an apostle, without putting him to death. It was no uncommon thing in ancient times to banish men from their country; either sending them forth at large, or specifying some particular place to which they were to go. The whole narrative leads us to suppose that this place was designated as that to which John was to be sent. Banishment to an island was a common mode of punishment; and there was a distinction made by this act in favour of those who were thus banished. The more base, low, and vile of criminals were commonly condemned to work in the mines; the more decent and respectable were banished to some lonely island.—Albert Barnes

in . . . Patmos--now Patmo or Palmosa. See Introduction on this island, and John's exile to it under Domitian, from which he was released under Nerva. Restricted to a small spot on earth, he is permitted to penetrate the wide realms of heaven and its secrets. Thus John drank of Christ's cup, and was baptized with His baptism (Mt 20:22). –Jamieson, Faucett and Brown

In Roman times Patmos was one of the many places to which Rome banished her exiles. In 95 AD, according to a tradition preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, John was exiled here--in the 14th year of the reign of Domitian--whence he returned to Ephesus under Nerva (96 AD). The cave in which he is said to have seen his visions is still pointed out to the traveler. ISBE

These are some of the most standard authorities that scholars refer today, especially the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. I still haven't come across any encyclopedia, commentary, or reference material that supports your early date theory as being viable.

As pointed out, there were Judaizers after 70 A.D.

Here is what I gather about Domitian:

11) Domitian (81 - 96)
The second son of Vespasian. He was full of suspicion and fear, and terrorised Rome with tyrannical rule for fifteen years, executing opponents. He claimed to be a god, calling himself "dominus et deus noster”, meaning “our lord and god". Domitian has the reputation of being a persecutor of the church, but it appears that persecution was more localised in the Province of Asia. He was finally killed by one of the members of his household.
http://julianspriggs.com/emperors.aspx

Although Domitian did not go as far as Nero did; he did not burn the city of Rome down and blame it on the Christians; he did not use the Christians as human torches in his garden; he did not feed them to the lions in the Coliseum, etc., he did persecute them, and quite intensely, just not as intensely as Nero did. After all he did banish John to Patmos was severe enough in and of itself.

Is it not enough that ISBE quotes the ECF as well as MacArthur?

 

[revmwc]

From a previous thread for asterisktom and any other preterist.

If as you said Christ returned in 70 A.D. scripture says that would mark him setting up the kingdom, which in another post I believe you said He was reigning in Heaven right now. Correct or not?

Also if I have understood you properly all prophecy has been accomplished since 70 A.D. that includes revelation 19 and 20. Correct or not?

Which all prophecy would include 1 Thessalonians the dead rise first then we who are alive and remain meet them in the air. Correct or not it is fulfilled?

All prophecy would include 1 Corinthians when the last trump sounds we will be changed. This is the church being taken out by Christ at his return 70 A.D. would mean fulfilled correct or not?

What is left we will all face the Great white throne revelation 21 and following. Correct or not?

Is that not what you and every preterist have been saying, no more prophecy to fulfill. Correct or not?
Since the Kingdom has come and Christ second coming was in 70 A.D.
Then according to scripture every prophecy ends at the second coming with the kingdom set up. correct or not?

The final prophecy the unbelievers face the great white throne judgement and the earth renovated by fire 1000 years after the kingdom is set up. Correct or not?

Since you say Christ is already reigning and has been in his kingdom since 70 A.D. the 1000 years has come and gone, so WHY are we still here?

One to ad if as many believe the book of Jude was written by Jude the half brother of Jesus betwwen 70 to 80 A.D. why did he not know of his brothers return?

Some date Jude a little earlier but most agree it could have been as late as 70 to 90 A.D.

John in Revelation 22:
17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Is the book of revelation the last one written with the Holy Spirit saying add nothing to this book. The Greek word bibliou is used for book and we get Bible from that term, but is that what it means, or just the book of Revelation. If you place Jude after this and Revelation was to be the final book given then Jude and 2 Peter would both pre-date revelation. So where would that put Revelation being written as opposed to Jude 70 to 80 A.D.?

 

[JesusFan]

From a previous thread for asterisktom and any other preterist.

If as you said Christ returned in 70 A.D. scripture says that would mark him setting up the kingdom, which in another post I believe you said He was reigning in Heaven right now. Correct or not?

Also if I have understood you properly all prophecy has been accomplished since 70 A.D. that includes revelation 19 and 20. Correct or not?

Which all prophecy would include 1 Thessalonians the dead rise first then we who are alive and remain meet them in the air. Correct or not it is fulfilled?

All prophecy would include 1 Corinthians when the last trump sounds we will be changed. This is the church being taken out by Christ at his return 70 A.D. would mean fulfilled correct or not?

What is left we will all face the Great white throne revelation 21 and following. Correct or not?

Is that not what you and every preterist have been saying, no more prophecy to fulfill. Correct or not?
Since the Kingdom has come and Christ second coming was in 70 A.D.
Then according to scripture every prophecy ends at the second coming with the kingdom set up. correct or not?

The final prophecy the unbelievers face the great white throne judgement and the earth renovated by fire 1000 years after the kingdom is set up. Correct or not?

Since you say Christ is already reigning and has been in his kingdom since 70 A.D. the 1000 years has come and gone, so WHY are we still here?

One to ad if as many believe the book of Jude was written by Jude the half brother of Jesus betwwen 70 to 80 A.D. why did he not know of his brothers return?

Some date Jude a little earlier but most agree it could have been as late as 70 to 90 A.D.

John in Revelation 22:
17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Is the book of revelation the last one written with the Holy Spirit saying add nothing to this book. The Greek word bibliou is used for book and we get Bible from that term, but is that what it means, or just the book of Revelation. If you place Jude after this and Revelation was to be the final book given then Jude and 2 Peter would both pre-date revelation. So where would that put Revelation being written as opposed to Jude 70 to 80 A.D.?

Since the Hyper pretierists feel that ALL prophency has indeed been fulfilled in the AD 70 event...

This Is NOW the new Heavens and earth, into "new Age"

When will the Great White Throne occur?
When when Christ give up the Kingdom back to His Father, at THAT time God will be in all, and will be new heavens and new earth?

 

[asterisktom]

As pointed out, there were Judaizers after 70 A.D.

Pointing out is not proving. Shall I go through a long list of quotes showing how the Jews permanently had their power structure destroyed? I direct your attention to Ussher, whose Annals is a compendium of several ancient sources. After the period of 70 - 73 the Jews no longer had wind in their sails. They were in no position to Judaize.

Here is what I gather about Domitian:
Although Domitian did not go as far as Nero did; he did not burn the city of Rome down and blame it on the Christians; he did not use the Christians as human torches in his garden; he did not feed them to the lions in the Coliseum, etc., he did persecute them, and quite intensely, just not as intensely as Nero did. After all he did banish John to Patmos was severe enough in and of itself.

Is it not enough that ISBE quotes the ECF as well as MacArthur?

No, your saying John was banished then is an assumption, not a proof, on your part. Like I said, the facts fit much better with an earlier move to Patmos. It is not even certain that he was banished. But I am not going to go into that now.

The more important thing is that Domitian did not "intensely persecute" the CHristians. There just is no evidence form anyone anywhere near that time.

 

[DHK]

No, your saying John was banished then is an assumption, not a proof, on your part. Like I said, the facts fit much better with an earlier move to Patmos. It is not even certain that he was banished. But I am not going to go into that now.

The more important thing is that Domitian did not "intensely persecute" the CHristians. There just is no evidence form anyone anywhere near that time.

First, we have internal proof--from the Scripture itself.
I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)
--He was in the isle of Patmos, according to the inspired text.
To be exiled there is punishment in and of itself. He was there alone, left to fend for himself.
Remember that Britain used to send prisoners to Australia for punishment.
France used to exile some of their prisoners to Devil's Island.
The U.S. sent prisoners to the infamous Alcatraz.
Banishment to an island or exile is a common form of punishment. It always has been. As has been shown by many authorities this was done by Domitian.

Why would John move to a place inhabitable. Read what Patmos was like.

 

[DHK]

Another source for you:

Domitian, Titus Flavius (AD 51-96), Roman Emperor from 81. The son of Vespasian, he succeeded his brother Titus. He was assassinated in 96. Roman historians ranked him as a tyrant; Christian tradition (Eusebius, HE 3.13ff.) held him to have been a persecutor, a view probably confirmed by 1 Clement 7. Under his successor, Trajan, being a Christian was already a capital offence, but this may have been the case continuously since Nero. According to a very widespread tradition, it was during Domitian’s reign that the Apostle John, in exile at Patmos, received the revelations recorded in the Apocalypse. (Dictionary of the Christian Church, Editors: F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)

 

[asterisktom]

Another source for you:

Yes, Eusebius. I already took him off the table several posts ago. He is the main reason for the disinformation we have today on this subject. He was too far from the subject to speak authoritatively on it. He contradicts earlier sources (which I did give).

Once again, this is an illustration of what I said a few days ago. A lot of times there seems to be a variety of proof for a position, but when it is examined it is sen that the many proofs, hydralike, come from a single source. In this case, that would be Eusebius.