Should we base a very important point upon such weak evidence?
It seems far more reasonable to conclude that Irenaeus was speaking about John, and not the revelation John saw, when he wrote that "it/he" was almost in Irenaeus generation.
We do admit that some third and fourth century writings stated John wrote Revelation in the time of Domitian, but some are admittedly unclear as to whether it was Nero's time or Domitian's time. Victorinus of Petavio died in AD303 and wrote a Latin commentary about Revelation saying, Paul wrote to were: Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossi and Thessalonica. Could this imply Paul wrote to seven churches AFTER John wrote to seven churches?
If Paul followed his predecessor, John, in this pattern of writing to 7 churches then John had to write to seven churches before Paul did! The Syriac translations are known as the "Peshito," "Curetonian," the "Philoexenian" and the "Harclean." They were allegedly translated in the first century or early in the second.
This man felt Jesus died at over fifty years of age instead of 33.
People claiming the name of the Antichrist are the subject.
He repeated this in "Against Heresies, :3" dated AD 175–180.
He claimed Polycarp, a student of John the revelator, related this to him in his youth.
For the ruin brought by the Romans had not yet fallen upon the Jews, when this Evangelist received these prophecies : and he did not receive them at Jerusalem, but in Ionia near Ephesus.
For after the suffering of the Lord he remained only fourteen years at Jerusalem, during which time the tabernacle of the mother of the Lord, which had conceived this Divine offspring, was preserved in this temporal life, after the suffering and resurrection of her incorruptible Son.