Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
4 IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS As we begin consideration of the external evidence, the obvious starting point is with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus is considered to be the most important witness and deserves initial consideration for several reasons. First, he speaks directly (it seems) to the issue at hand. Guthrie writes that Irenaeus “is quite specific that the Apocalypse ‘was seen no such long time ago, but alm~st in our own generation, at the end of the rei~ of Domitian.’”1 Second, he is an indisputably important church father whose very stature demands his hearing. Irenaeus’s dates are A.D. 130-202. Third, he wrote the very work in question around A.D. 180 to 190, 2 just a little over a century after the destruction of the Temple (the era significant to early date advocacy) and almost a century after Domitian’s reign (the era significant to late date advocacy). As Henderson observes, Irenaeus is “the earliest extant authority” designating a date for the writing of Revelation.3 Fourth, he claims to have known Polycarp,4 who in turn 1. Donald Guthne, New Testament hztrodwtim, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity Press, 1970), p. 956. 2. Late date advocate Arthur S. Peake writes: “Irenaeus wrote his great work about A.D. 180-190” (T/u Revelation of John [London: Joseph Johnson, 1919] p, 72 in). Most classical, historical, and New Testament scholars a~ee. See for example, Henderson, Nero, p. 442; Moses Stuart, Comnsntmy m tb Apoca~@e, 2 vols. (Andover: Allen, Merrill, and Wardwell, 1845) 1 :281; John A. T. Robinson, Redattng the New Testament (Philadelphia Westminster, 1976), p. 221; W. H. C. Frend, The Riw of Chri.rtiani~ (Philadelphia Fortress, 1984), p. 921. 3. B. W. Henderson, The L.zfe and Principati of the Em@or Nero (London: Methuen, 1903), p. 442, 4. See Againrt Heresies 3:3:4: “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyma whom I also saw in my earlY youth” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., T/u Ante=Nicsnz Fathzrs [ANF], 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (late 19th c.) 1975] 1:416). 45
46 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL may have known the Apostle John,5 the writer of Revelation. Thus, with regard to the external evidence, the tendency of late date advocates to rely heavily on Irenaeus is not unreasonable. Such a dependence is clearly indicated in Peake’s commentary: “In deference to our earliest evidence, the statement of Irenaeus, the Book was generally considered to belong to the close of Domitian’s reign.”6 Terry observes that “Ellicott, Hengstenberg, Lange, Alford, and Whedan contend strongly that the testimony of Irenaeus and the ancient tradition ought b control the question.” 7 Undoubtedly, Irenaeus’s observation is the strongest weapon in the late date arsenal. Certainly, “the chief obstacle to the acceptance of the true date of the Apocalypse, arises from the authority of Irenaeus.”8 Irenaeus is an “obstacle” who cannot be overlooked by the early date school. The evidence from Irenaeus that is deemed so compelling is found in Book 5 of his Against Heresies (at 5:30:3). Although originally composed in Greek, today this work exists in its entirety only in Latin translation. Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question is presemed for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical Hi.stoy at 3:18:3 (see also 5:8:6): This crucial statement occurs at the end of a section in which Irenaeus is dealing with the identification of “666” in Revelation 13. That statement, along with its larger context, is generally translated: We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been an- 5. See the almost universal testimony to the Johannine discipleship of Polycarp in Irenaeus, Against Heretis 2:3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical Histq 5:20; 3:36; Jerome, Chronklq Concwning Illush”ous Men 17; Suidas; and Tem.dlian, On th Exclwion of Heretics 32. 6. Peake, Reuelatian, p. 70. 7. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hetrrwrwu tics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. 1974), p. 241 n. Emphasis mine. 8. Frederick W. Farrar, T/u Ear~ Days of Chri.stiani~ (New York Cassell, 1884), p. 407.
- 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 58 and 59: 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE EXTERNAL EVID
- Page 60 and 61: Introduction to the External Eviden
- 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
- Page 108 and 109: Additional External Witnesses 91 mo
- Page 110 and 111: Additional External Witnesses 93 Wi
46 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
may have known the Apostle John,5 the writer of Revelation.<br />
Thus, with regard to the external evidence, the tendency of late<br />
date advocates to rely heavily on Irenaeus is not unreasonable. Such<br />
a dependence is clearly indicated in Peake’s commentary: “In deference<br />
to our earliest evidence, the statement of Irenaeus, the Book<br />
was generally considered to belong to the close of Domitian’s reign.”6<br />
Terry observes that “Ellicott, Hengstenberg, Lange, Alford, and<br />
Whedan contend strongly that the testimony of Irenaeus and the<br />
ancient tradition ought b control the question.” 7<br />
Undoubtedly, Irenaeus’s observation is the strongest weapon in<br />
the late date arsenal. Certainly, “the chief obstacle to the acceptance<br />
of the true date of the Apocalypse, arises from the authority of<br />
Irenaeus.”8 Irenaeus is an “obstacle” who cannot be overlooked by<br />
the early date school.<br />
The evidence from Irenaeus that is deemed so compelling is<br />
found in Book 5 of his Against Heresies (at 5:30:3). Although originally<br />
composed in Greek, today this work exists in its entirety only in Latin<br />
translation. Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question<br />
is presemed for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical<br />
Hi.stoy at 3:18:3 (see also 5:8:6):<br />
This crucial statement occurs at the end of a section in which<br />
Irenaeus is dealing with the identification of “666” in Revelation 13.<br />
That statement, along with its larger context, is generally translated:<br />
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to<br />
the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should<br />
be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been an-<br />
5. See the almost universal testimony to the Johannine discipleship of Polycarp in<br />
Irenaeus, Against Heretis 2:3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical Histq 5:20; 3:36; Jerome, Chronklq<br />
Concwning Illush”ous Men 17; Suidas; and Tem.dlian, On th Exclwion of Heretics 32.<br />
6. Peake, Reuelatian, p. 70.<br />
7. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hetrrwrwu tics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. 1974), p.<br />
241 n. Emphasis mine.<br />
8. Frederick W. Farrar, T/u Ear~ Days of Chri.stiani~ (New York Cassell, 1884), p.<br />
407.
Change language