But regarding the 'preterist' view, the 70 AD jewish war is a key. The form of amillennialism that I am familiar with stands firmly upon preterism (mostly partial, but some full, or consistent preterists). I am curious about other forms of the amil position, particularly those which do not rely upon preterism at all for support.I think it could, remember that the interpretation of Rev 20 is the focus of the amill/premill debate
If preterism depends upon the 70 AD Jewish war, then it is also true that our knowledge of the 70 AD war depends upon the writings of one Flavius Josephus.
Daniel Whitby is an example of the "stock" placed upon the writings of Jospehus by those who view A.D.70 as of prophetic significance. A "footnote" in Whiston's translation of Josephus, states: "Dr. Whitby well observes, no small part of the evidence for the truth of the Christian religion does depend upon the 'completions' of the prophecies, and it is believed 'Josephus' history' furnishes a record of 'their exact completions' " (pg. 589)
In the "Introduction" to Josephus, the writer says, "But for the variations in Josephus, he might imperceptibly have been set up as equal to writers chosen by God to describe his ways and doings.
Wikipedia says "Partial Preterism relies heavily on the account of Flavius Josephus in describing the destruction of Jerusalem as a first hand account of the recorded fulfillment of the Book of Revelation."
I belive that it is very likely that Josepus was commissioned by the Romans to create an editoral in which Rome fulfills prophecies in the book of Daniel. Josephus was a pharisee, a priest, and his writings are not inspired.