If written in Domitian's reign, then Revelation offers nothing for the preterist at all.
External Testimony After due consideration of the leading work proposing a pre-70 date for Revelation (Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell, 45-107) I have been surprised to find so far that the external evidence points slightly to a pre-70 date; but there is nevertheless a great deal of conflicting evidence.
Date The interpretive turn of Revelation depends strongly upon its date, so much so that the date of the book has implications as serious within Christianity as the date of the Gospels has outside of Christianity.
Having looked closely at the dates of the Gospels we have already laid some groundwork in terms of what is to be considered.
As for being a tyrant, let Suetonius (The Twelve Caesars) tell the story.At the same time, if the works of Tacitus are found referred to in other documents, this may be taken as evidence for the date of Tacitus' works, in accordance with the dates of the works quoted.(Absence of such quotes would not necessarily prove a later date, but it would add suspicions if other reasons to be suspicious were present.) The latter factor, reference by other writers, is of no issue here, for all would agree that Revelation was written prior to the earliest patristic quotes of it. A range of suggestions have been made (even one as early as Claudius, 40 AD) but most favor one of two dates: In or near the reign of Nero (54-68) or that of Domitian (81-96).Let's have a look at the people who mention Revelation first and tell us more about when it was written. We encountered Irenaeus last in our consideration of the date and authorship of Luke.Irey also had something to say about Revelation, but it was not as clear as what he said about Luke: We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of the Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. Domitianists (as we will call late-daters) naturally say it was the vision, but Ireneaus presents some ambiguities.