Before Jerusalem Fell

A Response to Howe and Ice 347
then you try to cast doubt upon the reliability of the source. “3 7
Not
only does this well characterize what House and Ice do to Chilton,
but again the reader is left with the false impression that Chilton is
the only person to have ever questioned the interpretation of Irenaeus.
I have shown that such is simply not the case. 38
The authors then attempt to support the reliability of Irenaeus
against Chilton. They note that Irenaeus was “one of the most
reliable of all the early church fathers.”3 9
Their proof of this assertion
(whether true or not) is almost incredible. They quote from poptheologian
Hal Lindsey, as if he were a noteworthy scholar of Church
history!
But what if their argumentative methodology were consistently
applied? Could their statement that Irenaeus is “one of the most
reliable” fathers be used to defend Irenaeus’s statement that Jesus
lived to be almost fifty years old@ After all, Hal Lindsey does say
that Irenaeus is “careful and accurate with facts”!
Don-titian’s Persecution
In contradiction to Chilton’s references to the Neronic Persecution
backdrop for Revelation, House and Ice suggest that “a stronger
case can be made for more severe persecution under Domitian than
Chilton admits” and “there is no hard evidence of persecution under
Nero in Asia during any part of his reign.”41
As I have already shown,42 there is widespread and vigorous
debate as to whether or not Domitian persecuted Christians at all!
And as far as “hard evidence” goes there is absolute~ no contemporary
or secular evidence for a Domitianic persecution, whereas Roman
historians Tacitus and Suetonius supply us with such for a Neronic
persecution.
External Evidence?
In a strange misnomer, House and Ice label the evidence drawn
37. House and Ice, Dominwn Ttuology, p. 252.
38. See above, pp. 47K
39. House and Ice, Dominion TlwologY, p. 253.
40. See above, pp. 63-64.
41. House and Ice, Dominion T/Molo~, p. 255.
42. See above, chapter 17.