Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
28 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL was in turmoil; for example, Harnack offered the widest range of dates – between A.D. 48 and A.D. 175. The radical critics were “oscillating wildly” at the turn of the century .35 Regarding Revelation studies in this era between 1850 and 1900, Schaff admits to having held to a late date originally, only eventually to accept an early date upon further research.3G Schaff could even write: “The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars.”3 7 Even late date advocate William Milligan admits: “Recent scholarship has, with little exception, decided in favour of the earlier and not the later date.”3 8 Hort comments that in his day “the general tendency of criticism has been towards the view that the circumstances and events present to the writer’s eye are not those of Domitian’s time, and are those of the time between Nero’s persecution (about 64) and the fall of Jerusalem (70), i.e. at least 25 years earlier than on the common view.”3 9 Another late date advocate, Peake, writes: “In deference to our earliest evidence, the statement of Irenaeus, the Book was generally considered to belong to the close of Domitian’s reign; but during the greater part of the nineteenth century there was a strong majority of ccitics in favour of a date some quarter of a century earlier. This view was entertained by both advanced and conservative scholars. But some time before the close of the last century opinion began to move back to the traditional date, and for several years it has secured the adhesion of the great majority of scholars.”m Early date advocates were as confident then as late date advocates have been later in the present century. Farrar asserts that “there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the date of the Apocalypse.”41 He speaks of it as a “certain Scribners, 1898-1904); B. W. Bacon, Introduction to thz New Evtament (New York: Macmillan, 1900); and Theodore Zahn, Zntrodudion to New lktament, 4 vols. (Leipzig 1897-1899). 35. Robinson, Redating, p. 6. 36. Philip Schaff, Hi.n!ay @ the Chtitian Church, 3rd cd., 7 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1910] 1950) 1:834. See his Hi.rtoU # the Christian Church (1st cd., 1853), pp. 418ff., for his earlier position. 37. Schaffs editorial note to Wartleld’s “Revelation” article in Schaff, Emyclu@dia 3:2036. 38. Milligan, Apoca~pse, p. 75. 39. F. J. A. Hort, The Apoca@e of St, John: Z-III (London: Macmillan, 1908), p. x. 40. Peake, Revelation, p. 70. 41. Frederic W. Farrar, The Ear~ Days of Chri.rtian@ (New York: Cassell, 1884), p. 387.
Th Approach to the Question of Dating 29 conclusion”42 and notes that “the whole weight of evidence now tends to prove” it. 43 Terry follows suit when he observes that “the trend of modem criticism is unmistakably toward the adoption of the early date of the Apocalypse.”w Robinson goes on to note in regard to the general dating trends relative to the whole .New Testament that by 1950 there was witnessed a narrowing of the gap between liberal and orthodox scholars, approaching even some degree of consensus .45 In order to dispel the common, but erroneous, notion of the fixity and unanimity of scholarly opinion in regard to the date of Revelation – a notion that is particularly frustrating to debate – we shall provide a catena of scholars of both the past and present who affh-m an early date for Revelation. As this is done it must be kept in mind that the scholars cited are of the genefal camp of those who posit an early date for Revelation. The list should not be taken as one that indicates a thorough-going and harmonious agreement as to the exact date and circumstances of the writing. Nor, unfortunately, is there even agreement among these scholars as to the inspiration of Revelation. Some, indeed, are of the various liberal schools of biblical interpretation. % Unlike the situation in Old Testament studies, the conservative and liberal camps are not divided over the issue of dating, with the liberals opting for a late date. It should further be borne in mind that truth is not founded either upon majority rule or upon the eminence of a scholar’s reputation. The following listing of pre-A.D. 70 scholars is not given with a view to establishing the early date argument. It is simply proffered to ward off naive and misconceived initial objections to considering the argument — objections of the order: “but New Testament scholars are agreed. . . .” 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid., pp. 4Q4-405. 44. Terry, Hermzrwu tus, p. 241n. 45, Robinson, Redating, p. 6. 46. Rather than diminishing their usefulness in this survey, this enhances it, for two reasons: ( 1 ) The presence of those of liberal persuasion demonstrates that the position is not held simply as a matter of doctrinal bia> and (2) the liberal biblical scholar is keenly interested in historical matters (such as the question of the date of Revelation) and frequently provides important insights into such historical questions.
- 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 44 and 45: 26 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL The proble
- 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
- Page 94 and 95: Clcm.ent of Alexandria 77 Book 8 of
Th Approach to the Question of Dating 29<br />
conclusion”42 and notes that “the whole weight of evidence now tends<br />
to prove” it. 43<br />
Terry follows suit when he observes that “the trend of<br />
modem criticism is unmistakably toward the adoption of the early<br />
date of the Apocalypse.”w<br />
Robinson goes on to note in regard to the general dating trends<br />
relative to the whole .New Testament that by 1950 there was witnessed<br />
a narrowing of the gap between liberal and orthodox scholars,<br />
approaching even some degree of consensus .45<br />
In order to dispel the common, but erroneous, notion of the fixity<br />
and unanimity of scholarly opinion in regard to the date of Revelation<br />
– a notion that is particularly frustrating to debate – we shall<br />
provide a catena of scholars of both the past and present who affh-m<br />
an early date for Revelation. As this is done it must be kept in mind<br />
that the scholars cited are of the genefal camp of those who posit an<br />
early date for Revelation. The list should not be taken as one that<br />
indicates a thorough-going and harmonious agreement as to the exact<br />
date and circumstances of the writing. Nor, unfortunately, is there<br />
even agreement among these scholars as to the inspiration of Revelation.<br />
Some, indeed, are of the various liberal schools of biblical<br />
interpretation. % Unlike the situation in Old Testament studies, the<br />
conservative and liberal camps are not divided over the issue of<br />
dating, with the liberals opting for a late date.<br />
It should further be borne in mind that truth is not founded either<br />
upon majority rule or upon the eminence of a scholar’s reputation.<br />
The following listing of pre-A.D. 70 scholars is not given with a view<br />
to establishing the early date argument. It is simply proffered to ward<br />
off naive and misconceived initial objections to considering the argument<br />
— objections of the order: “but New Testament scholars are<br />
agreed. . . .”<br />
42. Ibid.<br />
43. Ibid., pp. 4Q4-405.<br />
44. Terry, Hermzrwu tus, p. 241n.<br />
45, Robinson, Redating, p. 6.<br />
46. Rather than diminishing their usefulness in this survey, this enhances it, for two<br />
reasons: ( 1 ) The presence of those of liberal persuasion demonstrates that the position<br />
is not held simply as a matter of doctrinal bia> and (2) the liberal biblical scholar is<br />
keenly interested in historical matters (such as the question of the date of Revelation)<br />
and frequently provides important insights into such historical questions.
Change language