Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
3 INTRODUCTION TO THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE The actual defense of the early date of Revelation will be begun by initially considering the external evidence. This species of evidence is greatly stressed by late date advocates and is generally conceded on all sides to be their strongest argument. Indeed, F. J. A. Hort even states in regard to the evidence for a late date: “This is virtually external only. ” 1 Though this undoubtedly is an overstatement, 2 the fact remains that late date advocates do make much of the external evidence. For instance, J. P. M. Sweet’s comment is illustrative in this regard: “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufilcient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus.”3 Similarly, Feuillet writes: “The traditional setting of the Apocalypse in the reign of Domitian is too solidly established to be brought into question.”4 John’s Banishment The evidence from tradition regarding the date of Revelation is almost invariably considered in conjunction with the question of the 1. F. J. A. Hort, % Apocalypse of St. John: 1-111 (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. xiv. 2. This may have been closer to an accurate assessment in Hort’s era, but today it seems much too bold a statement. Indeed, Leon Morris in his (admittedly non-technical, though excellent) commentary on Revelation allows only a passing reference to Irenaeus (and the entire external evidence!) in one ftmtnote, when discussing the date (The Revelatwn of St. John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], p. 34, n. 5). This is, however, most unusual for modem treatments. 3, J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), p. 27. 4. Andre Feuillet, The Apoca~pse (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), p. 92. See also Peake: “In deference to our earliest evidence, the statement of Irenaeus, the Book was generally considered to belong to the close of Domitian’s reign .“ (Arthur S. Peake, The Revelation ofJohn [London: Joseph Johnson, 1919], p. 70). 41
42 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL date of John’s banishment to the island of Patmos. Interestingly, there have been several able scholars who have denied that John was banishai to Patmos. For instance, Terry holds that John was simply retreating to Patmos to preach the gospel. He suggests three evidences for this interpretation: 5 (1) The Greek preposition 616 could mean “for the sake ofl” i.e. John had gone to Patmos “for the sake of receiving the Word of God. ” (2) The references to “tribulation” and “patience,” he argues, do not necessarily relate to the reason for his being at Patmos. (3) The preposition 616 is used in this sense in several places in Revelation (cf 2:3; 4:11; 12:11; 13:14; 18:10, 15; 20:4). Peake noted that this was the view of Friednch Bleek, Eduard W. E. Reuss, Adolf Harnack, and Wilhelm Bousset.6 Reuss even goes so far as to say: “The exile of the Apostle John to Patmos . . . is itself only a fable derived from a false interpretation of 1:9 (in which very passage pczpvpiov is not martyrdom but preaching).”7 More recently, Newman suggests the possibility that John’s sojourn there “was likely nothing more than ‘protective custody,’ if indeed that much.”8 Despite such vigorous protestations against the notion of a banishment, the fact of John’s banishment seems indisputably clear to the candid mind. In Revelation 1:9 John speaks of his being in “the tribulation” (Gk: /v q~ f32i@s~) with the saints; and the traumatic content of much of his book would support this conclusion. In addition, it is difficult to conceive of the 6z6 being applied to a future purpose, i.e. that John went there with the view to preaching the Gospel. Then, too, we must ask why he chose the barren, virtually deserted island of Patmos to do so? Furthermore, despite disagreements as to the tine of John’s banishment, there is virtual harmony in antiquity as to the fact of his banishment.g 5. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Herrnmtics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. 1974), p. 239. 6. Peake, Revelation, p. 2 15n. 7. Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss, Htitory of the Sawed Scriptures of the New Testarmmt (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1884), p. 161. 8. Barclay Newman, “The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis. Critique of the Irenaeus Source as a Witness for the Contemprary-Historical Approach to the Interpretation of the Apoedypse,” New Testament Studtis 10 (1962-63):138. 9. See Frederick W. Farrar, The Ear~ Days of ChrihzniU (New York Cassell, 1884), pp. 386-387. Cf. Epiphanies, Hernia 51:33; Irenaeus, Agaimt Hersrra 5:30:3; Tertullian, On the Excluion of Heretti 36; Eusebius, Ecclesikdical Hi.rtory 3:18; 20:23; Clement of
- 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 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 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
- 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
3<br />
INTRODUCTION TO THE<br />
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE<br />
The actual defense of the early date of Revelation will be begun<br />
by initially considering the external evidence. This species of evidence<br />
is greatly stressed by late date advocates and is generally conceded<br />
on all sides to be their strongest argument. Indeed, F. J. A. Hort even<br />
states in regard to the evidence for a late date: “This is virtually<br />
external only. ” 1 Though this undoubtedly is an overstatement, 2<br />
the<br />
fact remains that late date advocates do make much of the external<br />
evidence. For instance, J. P. M. Sweet’s comment is illustrative in<br />
this regard: “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal<br />
evidence is not sufilcient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming<br />
from Irenaeus.”3 Similarly, Feuillet writes: “The traditional setting of<br />
the Apocalypse in the reign of Domitian is too solidly established to<br />
be brought into question.”4<br />
John’s Banishment<br />
The evidence from tradition regarding the date of Revelation is<br />
almost invariably considered in conjunction with the question of the<br />
1. F. J. A. Hort, % Apocalypse of St. John: 1-111 (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. xiv.<br />
2. This may have been closer to an accurate assessment in Hort’s era, but today it<br />
seems much too bold a statement. Indeed, Leon Morris in his (admittedly non-technical,<br />
though excellent) commentary on Revelation allows only a passing reference to Irenaeus<br />
(and the entire external evidence!) in one ftmtnote, when discussing the date (The<br />
Revelatwn of St. John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], p. 34, n. 5). This is, however,<br />
most unusual for modem treatments.<br />
3, J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation. Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia:<br />
Westminster, 1979), p. 27.<br />
4. Andre Feuillet, The Apoca~pse (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), p. 92. See also<br />
Peake: “In deference to our earliest evidence, the statement of Irenaeus, the Book was<br />
generally considered to belong to the close of Domitian’s reign .“ (Arthur S. Peake,<br />
The Revelation ofJohn [London: Joseph Johnson, 1919], p. 70).<br />
41
Change language