The 96 A.D. date was handed down by tradition and based solely on a single obscure statement quoted by Eusebius.

The statement was by the Bishop of Lyons, named Irenaeus, who lived from A.D. 130 to A.D. 202. We only have Latin translations of his entire work containing the statement, but the passage in question is preserved in its original Greek in a quotation of it by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, written about A.D. 325. Here is the statement from Irenaeus, as quoted by Eusebius:

"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti-Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)

This statement is not an eyewitness testimony from Irenaeus, but his recollection of what was said by an even earlier man, Polycarp, who is suposed to have known John personally.

Two things: First, the key statement that "it is not long since it was seen" is ambiguous in the original Greek text. The word "it" can refer either to the visions John saw, the book he produced, or to John himself. The writer could have intended to say, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." But no matter which way you want to see it, the statement is still ambiguous. If it means that the book of Revelation was itself seen at that time, it does not necessarily place the date of authorship then. If it refers to John, we know that he did live to the time of Domitian, although he was by then an aged and frail man.

This particular line of support for the late date is very precarious and suspect: Eusebius quotes Irenaeus. Irenaeus refers to Polycarp, who is said to have seen either John or the Apocalypse sometime in the last part of Domitian's reign in about A.D. 96. We do not know if he meant that he saw the book or the man and we do not know if he meant to imply that the book was written then or not. Morever, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. This is simply HEARSAY evidence, and it is not much evidence at that! Hearsay evidence that has been "handed down by TRADITION".

Tradition is not a sufficient basis for scriptural interpretation when our understanding of the basic nature of the church and our relationship to God is at stake!

Where, then, can we turn to find reliable and authoritative evidence for the date of this important book? Within the book itself! This internal evidence, especially in view of the lack of any reliable external evidence for the late date, is the most authoritative and conclusive information we ahve that tells us about the date of authorship (and thus sheds light on the proper interpretation of the book).

"It is obvious that if the book itself throws any distinct light on this subject, this internal evidence, especially in the absence of reliable historical testimony, ought to be decisive. Instead of appealing to tradition or to some doubtful passage in an ancient father, we interrogate the book itself.... It will be found that no book of the New Testament more abounds in passages which clearly have respect to the time when it was written." (James M. MacDonald, "The Life and Writings of John", p. 151-152)

For further study on the internal evidence for the 70 A.D. date read Dr. Kenneth Gentry's books -"The Beast of Revelation - 666" and "Before Jerusalem Fell". Complete copies of these books can be downloadedfree at: http://entrewave.com/freebooks/sidefrm4.htm