Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
Additional Ex.%mnal Witnesses 103 presbyter. This confirms the truth of the story of those who have said that there were two of the same name in Asia, and that there are two tombs at Ephesus both still called John’s. This calls for attention: jr it k fwobable that the second (unless anyone prefer the former) saw the revelation which passes under th nnme ofJohn. 72 To the unprejudiced mind it must be somewhat disconcerting to discover that the evidence from Eusebius is internally self-contradictory. For Eusebius twice establishes the Apostle’s longevity based on Irenaeus’s confident statement that he talked with an eyewitness of the Apostle (i.e., Polycarp) who says John wrote Revelation while exiled by Domitian. 73 But in another place he discounts Irenaeus’s teachings that Papias heard John and that John wrote Revelation. If Eusebius believed the one report, why not the other? The two issues — (1) that the Apostle John wrote Revelation (2) during Domitian’s reign — are bound up together in Irenaeus. To doubt one necessarily would seem to entail the doubting of the other. In the second place, Eusebius differs with Jerome in his references to the nature of John’s nonagenarian activity in Ephesus after his returning from exile. Eusebius wholeheartedly endorses Clement of Alexandria’s (incredible) account that John not only travelled about the region of Ephesus appointing bishops and reconciling whole churches, but also that while on horseback John chased with all of his might a young man. 74 Jerome (c. A.D. 340-420) alters Eusebius’s and Clement’s accounts by adding that John was too weak and had to be carried from church to church. 75 Jerome, it seems, is a little more careful in judging the plausibility of evidence. Finally, Eusebius contradicts himself in his writings on the banishment of John. It is clear in his Ecclesiastical History that he believes John was banished under Dornitian. But in Evangelical Demonstrations, he speaks of the execution of Peter and Paul in the same sentence with the banishment ofJohn.76 This is clearly suggestive of a contem- 72. Ibid. 3:38:5; 3:291, 2, 5, 6. Emphasis mine. 73. Ibid. 3:181-3; 5:%5. 74. Ibid. 3:23:5K. 75. Epistle to the Galatiam 46. 76. Three scholars who have deemed this as contradictory are: F. N. Lee, “Revelation and Jerusalem” (Brisbane, Australia by the author, 1985) sect. 22; A. R. Fausset, in Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Commt.mkny 2:5@, and P. S. Desprez, ?7u Apoca~pse Fs@/2d, 2d ed. (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, 1855), p. 5.
104 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL poraneousness of events. Consequently, it indicates that when he wrote Evangelical Demonstrations, he was convinced of a Neronic banishment of John. Thus, again we discover that one of the leading witnesses from tradition for the late date of Revelation is not all that solid a piece of evidence. Epiphanies of Salamis Epiphanies (c. A.D. 315-403) was elected the bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, in about A.D. 367, and was an intimate friend of Jerome. He lacks the learned reputation of some of the noted fathers of the first centuries, but he apparently was widely read. Epiphanies is noted for his unique witness to the banishment of John: he states twice that it was during the emperorship of Claudius.77 He says that John wrote his Gospel “pEd njv adrofi hnd q< flcfrpov ~navo60v, Z@ hi ~aw%ov yEvop@v Izabapoc.” Even more to our point, he wrote of the Revelation: “flpopqz&60avro< & @vol< KAav6[ov . . . 6ElKVVpiVOV rofi Kara njv ‘AnoKcih~v f16yov npopqnKoiY’ (i.e., “who prophesied in the time of Claudius . . . the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed”). A number of commentators and classicists see Epiphanies’s statement not so much as a palpably absurd tradition, as a careless designation. Some scholars have suggested that Epiphanies may have used another of Nero’s names, rather than his more common one. Hort suggests that Epiphanies may have been basing his information on Hippolytus (c. A.D. 170-236), and that he may have meant the notorious Nero: “But as one of his names [i.e., one of Claudius’s names] was Nero, so also our Nero was likewise a Claudius, and is often called on inscriptions Nero Claudius or Nero Claudius Caesar. It seems probable therefore that, whatever Epiphanies may have meant, his authority meant and perhaps said Nero.”7 8 Other scholars who agree with an assessment such as Hort’s include Moffat, Guthrie, Robinson, and Mounce,79 to name but a few. 77. Hem.sizs 51:12, 33. 78. Hort, Apoca@pse, p. xviii. 79. James Moffatt, The Revelation of St. John ttu Divine, in W. R. Nicoll, cd., Englishman’s Greek 72&znwnt, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1980), p. 505; Guthrie, Zntrodudkm, p. 957; Robinson, Redzting, p. 22* and Mounce, Revelation, p. 31.
- 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 114 and 115: Additional External Witnesses 97 vi
- Page 116 and 117: Additional External Witnesses 99 St
- Page 118 and 119: Additional External Witnesses 101 I
- 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
- Page 164 and 165: Th Identi~ of th Sixth King 149 req
- Page 166 and 167: Th Identi@ of th Sixth King 151 he
- Page 168 and 169: The Identip of th Sixth King 153 Ga
104 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
poraneousness of events. Consequently, it indicates that when he<br />
wrote Evangelical Demonstrations, he was convinced of a Neronic banishment<br />
of John.<br />
Thus, again we discover that one of the leading witnesses from<br />
tradition for the late date of Revelation is not all that solid a piece of<br />
evidence.<br />
Epiphanies of Salamis<br />
Epiphanies (c. A.D. 315-403) was elected the bishop of Salamis,<br />
Cyprus, in about A.D. 367, and was an intimate friend of Jerome.<br />
He lacks the learned reputation of some of the noted fathers of the<br />
first centuries, but he apparently was widely read.<br />
Epiphanies is noted for his unique witness to the banishment of<br />
John: he states twice that it was during the emperorship of Claudius.77<br />
He says that John wrote his Gospel “pEd njv adrofi hnd q<<br />
flcfrpov ~navo60v, Z@ hi ~aw%ov yEvop@v Izabapoc.” Even<br />
more to our point, he wrote of the Revelation: “flpopqz&60avro< &<br />
@vol< KAav6[ov . . . 6ElKVVpiVOV rofi Kara njv ‘AnoKcih~v<br />
f16yov npopqnKoiY’ (i.e., “who prophesied in the time of Claudius<br />
. . . the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed”).<br />
A number of commentators and classicists see Epiphanies’s statement<br />
not so much as a palpably absurd tradition, as a careless<br />
designation. Some scholars have suggested that Epiphanies may<br />
have used another of Nero’s names, rather than his more common<br />
one. Hort suggests that Epiphanies may have been basing his information<br />
on Hippolytus (c. A.D. 170-236), and that he may have<br />
meant the notorious Nero: “But as one of his names [i.e., one of<br />
Claudius’s names] was Nero, so also our Nero was likewise a Claudius,<br />
and is often called on inscriptions Nero Claudius or Nero Claudius<br />
Caesar. It seems probable therefore that, whatever Epiphanies may<br />
have meant, his authority meant and perhaps said Nero.”7 8<br />
Other<br />
scholars who agree with an assessment such as Hort’s include Moffat,<br />
Guthrie, Robinson, and Mounce,79 to name but a few.<br />
77. Hem.sizs 51:12, 33.<br />
78. Hort, Apoca@pse, p. xviii.<br />
79. James Moffatt, The Revelation of St. John ttu Divine, in W. R. Nicoll, cd., Englishman’s<br />
Greek 72&znwnt, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1980), p. 505; Guthrie, Zntrodudkm,<br />
p. 957; Robinson, Redzting, p. 22* and Mounce, Revelation, p. 31.
Change language