The encyclopedia says about the dating of Revelations, and actually predates all NT books... When christianity claims that the NT was released in the 4th century, we find that the books are actually used before the 4th century C.E.
"Church Fathers weighed in on the authorship of Revelation. Justin Martyr avows his belief in its apostolic origin. Irenaeus (178) assumes it as a conceded point. At the end of the 2nd century, we find it accepted at Antioch, by Theophilus, and in Africa by Tertullian. At the beginning of the 3rd century, it is adopted by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, later by Methodius, Cyprian, and Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria (247) rejected it, upon doctrinal rather than critical grounds. Eusebius (315) suspended his judgment, hesitating between the external and internal evidence. Some canons, especially in the Eastern Church, rejected the book, while most others included it."
"The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community."
So, where can we turn to find evidence for the dating of Revelation? Within the book itself! It will be shown, from internal evidence, that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Now if you believe that the Hebrew Israelites were the true authors of Revelations, it would have to be written way before then, but it's given a late date even for an old testament book...
"During the last century, the critics of Germany have assailed the Apocalypse, denying, in the most positive terms, that it can have been written by the apostle John. Thus De Wette says: ‘Nothing stands so firm as that the apostle John—if he be the writer of the Gospel, and the first Epistle—did not write the Apocalypse;’ and Ewald says: ‘That the Apocalypse was not written by the same hand which wrote the Gospel and the Epistle, is clear as the light of the sun.’ The principal objection to the Johannean origin of the Apocalypse grows out of its style—its peculiar words and phrases; an argument by which this class of critics have shown themselves able to prove or disprove almost anything; by which they have proved that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor Daniel his prophecies, nor the Evangelists the Gospels which bear their names; by which they have proved that Homer did not write his poems, nor Plato his dialogues, nor Cicero but a part of his orations.
The style of the Apocalypse is not more different from that of the other writings of John, than is the subject, the method, the object of the composition. How is it possible, in writing such a book as that before us,—made up, in great part, of visions, types, and symbolic representations,—that the style should not differ from that of a plain historic narrative, or a familiar loving epistle? Any competent critic would decide before hand that there must be peculiar expressions, and wide diversity of style. " Enoch Pond - Theology
Yeah it's pretty clear as day not only are we talking about a separate john, not john the baptist, it wasn't written by this man... He may have modified it, but it's been played with to a certain extent... Now just take a look at the dates of the Dead Sea scrolls compared to Revelations, and you will see that they relate closer than the later 4th Century C.E. gospels... Just looking at dating alone...
