Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
26 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL The problem with such observations is that they have failed to recognize a critical distinction between preterists of radical, naturalistic liberalism (e.g., the Tubingen school) and those of evangelical, supernaturalistic orthodoxy (e.g., Moses Stuart, Milton Terry, and Philip Schafl). In point of fact, however, “there is a radical difference between those Preterists who acknowledge a real prophecy and permanent truth in the book, and the rationalistic Preterists who regard it as a dream of a visionary which was falsified by events.”2 5 Of course, not all late date proponents so readily write off early date advocacy. Signs are presently emerging that indicate that this tendency to discount early date arguments may be changing. Late date advocate Leon Morris recognizes the relative strength of the early date argument when he writes: “There appear to be two dates only for which any considerable arguments are available, in the time of the Emperor Domitian, or in or just after that of Nero. “26 And he is less than dogmatic in establishing his own position when he states that “while the evidence is far from being so conclusive that no other view is possible, on the whole it seems that a date in the time of Domitian, i.e., c. A.D. 90-95, best suits the facts.”2 7 Peake speaks similarly of the matter: “It may be granted that the case for a date in the rei~ of Domitian has been sometimes overstated. But this date is probab~ to be accepted.”2 8 J. P. M. Sweet agrees: “We have assumed so far that the book was written well after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but the evidence is far from conclusive. . . . To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus. “2 9 Gundry’s position indicates this awareness: “The traditional and probable date of Revelation is the reign of Domitian. “3° A telling admission, it seems, has been made by renowned commentator and late date advocate R. H. Charles: “It thus follows that the 25. Philip Schaff, Histoy of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1910] 1950) 1:837-838. 26. Morris, Revelatwn, p. 34. 27. Ibid., p. 40. 28. Arthur S. Peake, Ttw Revelation of John (London: Joseph Johnson, 1919), p. 96. Emphasis mine. 29. J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia Westminster, 1979), pp. 21, 27. 30. Gundry, Suing of the New Testarnd, p. 365, Emphasis mine.
The Approach to the Question of Dating 27 date of the Apocalypse, according to [the Preterist] school, was about 67-68 or thereabouts. And if the absolute unity of the Apocalypse be assumed, there is no possibility, I think, of evading this conclusion. “3 1 Nevertheless, the widespread assumption still remains that “all scholars know” that Revelation was written toward the end of the first century, in the rnid-A.D. 90s. The Ebb and Flow of $cholar~ Opinion In his Redating the New Testanwnt, Robinson provides a helpful survey of the historical ebb and flow of scholarly opinion on the matter of the chronology of all the New Testament books. This ebb and flow quite naturally had its effect on Revelation dating. His survey provides the following general analysis based on 50-year increments. 32 Around 1800 dates for the New Testament canon ranged very conservatively between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100. By 1850, due to the Tubingen school of thought and under the special influence of F. C. Baur, the range of dates had widened from A.D. 50+ to A.D. 160 +. Regarding Revelation’s date under the sway of Tubingen, “it was a striking paradox that the Tubingen School which left Paul with only four or, as put by Hilgenfeld in a more moderate form, with only seven authentic Epistles, and brought most of the New Testament documents down to a late date, should in the case of the Apocalypse have affirmed apostolic authorship and a date quarter of a century earlier than that assigned by tradition.”3 3 But by 1900 the prodigious labors of conservative scholars – particularly J. B. Lightfoot and Theodore Zahn – had caused a drastic modification. Conservatives were again able to argue confidently and compellingly for dates within the tolerable A.D. 50 to A.D. 100 range for the New Testament canon.34 The liberal school 31. R. H. Charles, Studie$ m the Apoca@se (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), p. 57. On pages 58fI, Charles sets out to demonstrate the book should not be considered a unity. Simcox comments in this regard: “Ten years ago when it was still generally assumed that all the visions arid signs were recorded by one writer at one time, most foreign critics were disposed to admit both St. John’s authorship and the early date.” See William Henry Simcox, T/u Revelation of .9. John Diuirw The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge 1898), p. xxxix. 32. Robinson, Redating, pp. 3fT. 33. Peake, Revelation, p. 77. 34. See for example, James Hastings, cd., Dictiotumy of tb Bible, 5 VOIS. (New York:
- Page 2 and 3: BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
- Page 4 and 5: BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Dating the Bo
- Page 6 and 7: Dedicated to Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wh
- Page 8 and 9: TABLE OF CONTENTS Publisher’s Pre
- Page 10 and 11: PUBLISHER’S PREFACE by Gary North
- Page 12 and 13: Publish/s Preface xi of Revelation.
- Page 14 and 15: Publisher’s Preface . . . X111 Po
- Page 16 and 17: Publisher’s Preface xv Th Beret o
- Page 18 and 19: . . . Xvlll BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL I
- Page 20 and 21: PART 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
- Page 22 and 23: 4 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Thus, both
- Page 24 and 25: 6 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Regarding t
- Page 26 and 27: 8 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL noted a qua
- Page 28 and 29: 10 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL in 1910 th
- Page 30 and 31: 12 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL all, as Re
- Page 32 and 33: 14 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Milo Conni
- Page 34 and 35: I 16 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL In the s
- Page 36 and 37: 18 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL the two ge
- Page 38 and 39: 20 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Regarding
- Page 40 and 41: 22 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL conviction
- Page 42 and 43: 24 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL to exclude
- Page 46 and 47: 28 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL was in tur
- Page 48 and 49: 30 Source Documentation We will cit
- Page 50 and 51: 32 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Heinrich B
- Page 52 and 53: 34 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Hermann Ge
- Page 54 and 55: 36 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL James M. M
- Page 56 and 57: 38 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Moses Stua
- Page 58 and 59: 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE EXTERNAL EVID
- Page 60 and 61: Introduction to the External Eviden
- Page 62 and 63: 4 IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS As we b
- 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
The Approach to the Question of Dating 27<br />
date of the Apocalypse, according to [the Preterist] school, was about<br />
67-68 or thereabouts. And if the absolute unity of the Apocalypse be<br />
assumed, there is no possibility, I think, of evading this conclusion. “3 1<br />
Nevertheless, the widespread assumption still remains that “all scholars<br />
know” that Revelation was written toward the end of the first<br />
century, in the rnid-A.D. 90s.<br />
The Ebb and Flow of $cholar~ Opinion<br />
In his Redating the New Testanwnt, Robinson provides a helpful<br />
survey of the historical ebb and flow of scholarly opinion on the<br />
matter of the chronology of all the New Testament books. This ebb<br />
and flow quite naturally had its effect on Revelation dating. His<br />
survey provides the following general analysis based on 50-year<br />
increments. 32<br />
Around 1800 dates for the New Testament canon ranged very<br />
conservatively between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100. By 1850, due to the<br />
Tubingen school of thought and under the special influence of F. C.<br />
Baur, the range of dates had widened from A.D. 50+ to A.D. 160 +.<br />
Regarding Revelation’s date under the sway of Tubingen, “it was a<br />
striking paradox that the Tubingen School which left Paul with only<br />
four or, as put by Hilgenfeld in a more moderate form, with only<br />
seven authentic Epistles, and brought most of the New Testament<br />
documents down to a late date, should in the case of the Apocalypse<br />
have affirmed apostolic authorship and a date quarter of a century<br />
earlier than that assigned by tradition.”3 3<br />
But by 1900 the prodigious labors of conservative scholars<br />
– particularly J. B. Lightfoot and Theodore Zahn – had caused<br />
a drastic modification. Conservatives were again able to argue confidently<br />
and compellingly for dates within the tolerable A.D. 50 to<br />
A.D. 100 range for the New Testament canon.34 The liberal school<br />
31. R. H. Charles, Studie$ m the Apoca@se (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), p. 57.<br />
On pages 58fI, Charles sets out to demonstrate the book should not be considered a<br />
unity. Simcox comments in this regard: “Ten years ago when it was still generally<br />
assumed that all the visions arid signs were recorded by one writer at one time, most<br />
foreign critics were disposed to admit both St. John’s authorship and the early date.”<br />
See William Henry Simcox, T/u Revelation of .9. John Diuirw The Cambridge Bible for<br />
Schools and Colleges (Cambridge 1898), p. xxxix.<br />
32. Robinson, Redating, pp. 3fT.<br />
33. Peake, Revelation, p. 77.<br />
34. See for example, James Hastings, cd., Dictiotumy of tb Bible, 5 VOIS. (New York: