12.07.2013 Views

Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry

by Kenneth L. Gentry

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

344 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />

“Early Christian tradition is almost unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse<br />

to the last years of Domitian.”) Certainly, there are other early<br />

writers whose statements indicate that St. John wrote the Revelation<br />

much earlier, under Nero’s persecution. 16<br />

Chilton was careful to note that not all ancient sources supported a<br />

late date for Revelation. 17 Thus, he is not set against “t/u voice of<br />

church tradition. ” In fact, he specifically mentions “there are other<br />

early writers whose statements indicate” that Revelation was written<br />

under Nero.<br />

I have noted in great detail in the text of this book that there are<br />

a number of significant early date voices that may be heard from the<br />

stream of ancient tradition. Among them I could list Clement of<br />

Alexandria (despite House and Icels – and others), the Muratorian<br />

Canon, Tertullian, Epiphanies, the Syriac versions of Revelation,<br />

and Arethas, and probably Papias and The Shepherd of Herrnas. 19<br />

There simply is no “voice [singular] of church tradition concerning<br />

the date of Revelation. ” It is time for late date advocates to admit<br />

this. Neither is there an “overwhelming voice of the early church” in<br />

this regard. 20<br />

Nor may it be stated that Clement of Alexandria,<br />

Ongen, Victorious, and Eusebius “had no witnesses to the contrary.”21<br />

Nor should it be said that “if there were some validity to the<br />

early date, some trace of this competing tradition should have surfaced.<br />

However, it has not!”2 2<br />

Nor may we believe that there is “clear<br />

and historically accepted witness of the early church to a Domitian<br />

date.”2 3<br />

To quote House and Ice against themselves: their critique<br />

of the early Church tradition seems to be “speculative”2 4<br />

and a<br />

“debater’s technique.”2 5<br />

After carefully reading House and Ice, I seriously suspect that<br />

neither of them has read the original references in context in Clement<br />

16. Chilton, Days of V2ngeame, pp. 3-4.<br />

17. And his f~tnote pointed the interested reader to exhaustive research in works<br />

by Moses Stuart and James M. Macdonald.<br />

18. House and Ice, Dominion Theolo~, p. 253.<br />

19. See chapter 6 above.<br />

20. House and Ice, Dominion T/zolo.., p. 253.<br />

21. Ibid.<br />

22. Ibrd., p. 254.<br />

23. Ibid, p. 258.<br />

24. Ibid., p. 253.<br />

25. Ibid., p. 252.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!