Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
Additional External Witnesses 97 victims were guilty and deserved the most exemplary punishment, a sense of pity was aroused by the feeling that they were sacrificed not on the altar of public interest, but to satisfj the cruelty of one man.”51 Such a spectacle surely would have involved the dipping of the victims in oil to provide a lasting illumination of fire. Thus, “if there is some foundation for the early tradition of the oil-martyrdom of John at Rome, or at Ephesus, it would naturally point to the Neronian persecution, in which Christians were covered with inflammable material and burned as torches.”5 2 Schaff notes that “Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom ofJohn seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) .“5 3 Elsewhere Tertullian mentions the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul at Rome, and states: “At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith.”5 4 Weiss is convinced that “Tertullian too, according to Scorp., 15, certainly refers the “relegatio in insulam,” of which he speaks in Be Praac. Haer., 36, to the time of Nero, and was already understood in this sense by Hieron., adv. Jovin, 1, 26.”5 5 Thus, again, we have quite suggestive evidence – evidence at least partially overlapping Irenaeus’s era – that John suffered under Nero. The external evidence is shifting its weight to an early date the more carefully we scrutinize the material. Origen Ongenes Adamantius of Alexandria (c. A.D. 185-254) is one of the indefatigable giants of early Church history. He was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. As noted earlier, Origen is usually cited as among the leading external witnesses to a late date for Revelation. But the evidence drawn from his writings is very similar in nature to that of Clement of Alexandria’s: at best, it is ambiguous; and it is quite capable of being interpreted in a way favorable to the early date position. Origen’s debated statement is: “The King of the Remans, as 51. Antis 15:44. 52. Schaff, Hi.rtoy 1:428. 53. Ibid., 1:428-429 n. 3. 54. Tertullian, S’co@iace 15. 55. Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction tQ the New Testament, trans. A. J. K. Davidson, vol. 2 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1889) p. 51.
98 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore testimony, on account of the word of truth, to the isle of Patmos. John, moreover, teaches us things respecting his testimony [i.e., martyrdom], without say’ing who condemned him when he utters these things in the Apocalypse. He seems also to have seen the Apocalypse . . . in the island.”56 Needless to say, early date advocates find the use of Ongen questionable, in that it is not at all clear that he had in mind Domitian as “the King of the Remans.” Indeed, late date advocates are sometimes less than convincing themselves. Swete observes of the witness provided by Origen and Clement of Alexandria: “It will be seen that the Alexandria testimony is not explicit; the Emperor who banished John is not named either by Clement or Origen. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary they may be presumed to have followed in this respect the tradition of South Gaul and Asia Minor.”5 7 Charles argues similarly: “Neither in Clement nor Origen is Domitian’s name given, but it may be presumed that it was in the mind of these writers.”5 8 Early date proponent Hort states of this situation: “The absence of a name in both Clement and Origen certainly does not prove that no name was known to them. But the coincidence is curious.”59 Stuart sees the absence as more than “curious” and more than merely lacking the character of proof for late date advocacy: This remarkable passage deserves speciaJ notice. We cannot suppose Origen to have been ignorant of what Irenaeus said in V. 30. . . . Yet Origen does not at all refer to Irenaeus, as exhibiting anything decisive with regard to which Roman emperor it was who banished John. He does not even appeal to tradition, as according with the report of Irenaeus. Moreover he notes expressly, that John has not himself decided this matter in the Apocalypse. . . . If now he regarded the opinion of Irenaeus as decisive in relation to this subject, how could he have fiiiled, on such an occasion, of appealing to it? . . . We cannot well come to any conclusion here, than that Ongen knew of no way in which this matter could be determined.m 56. Ongen, Matthew 16:6. Citation can be found in Charles, Revelation 1 :xeiii; Swete, Raelation, p. xcix; Stuart, Apoca~pse 1:271. 57. Swete, Revelation, p. xcix n. 2. 58. Charles, Revelatwn 1 :xciii. 59. Hort, Apoca@pse, p. xv. 60. Stuart, Apoca~pse 1:271,272.
- Page 64 and 65: Irenaas, Btihop of Lyons 47 nounced
- Page 66 and 67: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyn.s 49 (i.e.,
- Page 68 and 69: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 51 have b
- Page 70 and 71: along the lines of Chase’s: Irena
- Page 72 and 73: Irenaeu.s, Bishop ofLpns 55 accept
- Page 74 and 75: Irenaeu-s, Bishop of Lyons 57 tian
- Page 76 and 77: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lpn.s 59 rule.
- Page 78 and 79: Irenaew, Bishop of Lyon.s 61 narrat
- Page 80 and 81: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lpns 63 accept
- Page 82 and 83: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 65 upon t
- Page 84 and 85: Ireruzeus, Bishop of Lpns 67 John c
- Page 86 and 87: Clement of Alexandria 69 ~17E161j y
- Page 88 and 89: Clement of Alexandria 71 In the Syr
- Page 90 and 91: Clement of Alexandria 73 which lay
- Page 92 and 93: Clement of Alexandria 75 Another pa
- Page 94 and 95: Clcm.ent of Alexandria 77 Book 8 of
- Page 96 and 97: Clement of Alexandria 79 that he wa
- Page 98 and 99: Clement of Alexandria 81 now as the
- Page 100 and 101: Clement of Alexandria 83 of Christ,
- Page 102 and 103: Clemwn.t of Alexandria 85 here at M
- Page 104 and 105: Additional Extend Witnases 87 he ac
- Page 106 and 107: Additional External Witnases 89 Wit
- Page 108 and 109: Additional External Witnesses 91 mo
- Page 110 and 111: Additional External Witnesses 93 Wi
- Page 112 and 113: Additional Ext+mal Witnesses 95 als
- Page 116 and 117: Additional External Witnesses 99 St
- Page 118 and 119: Additional External Witnesses 101 I
- Page 120 and 121: Additional Ex.%mnal Witnesses 103 p
- Page 122 and 123: Additional External Witwsses 105 It
- Page 124 and 125: Additional External Witnesses 107 R
- Page 126 and 127: Additional External Witnesses 109 a
- Page 128 and 129: 7 THE ROLE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE We
- Page 130 and 131: The Role of Intemtal Euiderwe 115 l
- Page 132 and 133: Tb Role of Internal Euidence 117 an
- Page 134 and 135: The Role of Internal Evio%nce 119 t
- Page 136 and 137: 8 THE THEME OF REVELATION Although
- Page 138 and 139: Tb Theme of Revelation 123 import i
- Page 140 and 141: The Theme ofl?evelation 125 you als
- Page 142 and 143: Tb Th of Revelation 127 Clearly, th
- Page 144 and 145: Tb Thm of Rmelatwn 129 And in this
- Page 146 and 147: The Thaw of Revelation 131 substanc
- Page 148 and 149: 9 THE TEMPORAL EXPECTATION OF THE A
- Page 150 and 151: Inadequate Views Tb Tmporal Expecta
- Page 152 and 153: The Tm.oral Expectation of the Auth
- Page 154 and 155: The Temporal Expectation of the Aut
- Page 156 and 157: Tb Temporal Expectation of the Auth
- Page 158 and 159: Th Tmporal Expectation of tlu Autho
- Page 160 and 161: Th Tmporal Expectation of the Autho
- Page 162 and 163: Th ldenti~ of th Sixth King 147 in
Additional External Witnesses 97<br />
victims were guilty and deserved the most exemplary punishment, a<br />
sense of pity was aroused by the feeling that they were sacrificed not<br />
on the altar of public interest, but to satisfj the cruelty of one man.”51<br />
Such a spectacle surely would have involved the dipping of the<br />
victims in oil to provide a lasting illumination of fire. Thus, “if there<br />
is some foundation for the early tradition of the oil-martyrdom of<br />
John at Rome, or at Ephesus, it would naturally point to the Neronian<br />
persecution, in which Christians were covered with inflammable<br />
material and burned as torches.”5 2<br />
Schaff notes that “Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom<br />
ofJohn seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor,<br />
and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) .“5 3<br />
Elsewhere<br />
Tertullian mentions the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul<br />
at Rome, and states: “At Rome Nero was the first who stained with<br />
blood the rising faith.”5 4<br />
Weiss is convinced that “Tertullian too,<br />
according to Scorp., 15, certainly refers the “relegatio in insulam,” of<br />
which he speaks in Be Praac. Haer., 36, to the time of Nero, and was<br />
already understood in this sense by Hieron., adv. Jovin, 1, 26.”5 5<br />
Thus, again, we have quite suggestive evidence – evidence at<br />
least partially overlapping Irenaeus’s era – that John suffered under<br />
Nero. The external evidence is shifting its weight to an early date the<br />
more carefully we scrutinize the material.<br />
Origen<br />
Ongenes Adamantius of Alexandria (c. A.D. 185-254) is one of<br />
the indefatigable giants of early Church history. He was a disciple of<br />
Clement of Alexandria. As noted earlier, Origen is usually cited as<br />
among the leading external witnesses to a late date for Revelation.<br />
But the evidence drawn from his writings is very similar in nature to<br />
that of Clement of Alexandria’s: at best, it is ambiguous; and it is<br />
quite capable of being interpreted in a way favorable to the early<br />
date position.<br />
Origen’s debated statement is: “The King of the Remans, as<br />
51. Antis 15:44.<br />
52. Schaff, Hi.rtoy 1:428.<br />
53. Ibid., 1:428-429 n. 3.<br />
54. Tertullian, S’co@iace 15.<br />
55. Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction tQ the New Testament, trans. A. J. K.<br />
Davidson, vol. 2 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1889) p. 51.