Before Jerusalem Fell

48 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
translational problem as “very dubious.” 12 Moffatt (a vigorous late
date advocate) discounts the supposed problem with just one sentence,
stating that the proposed revisions are “ingenious but quite
unconvincing. ” 13 According to Barnes, Chapman “is frankly contemptuous”
against the proposed reconstruction of Irenaeus.’4 There
are, however, a number of noted scholars who have disputed various
parts of the common translation. Among these are J. J. Wetstein,
M. J. Bovan, S. H. Chase, E. Bohmer, James M. Macdonald, Henry
Hammond, F. J. A. Hort, Edward C. Selwyn, George Edmundson,
Arthur S. Barnes, and J. J. Scott. 15
Three of the major problems with the generally accepted translation
will be dealt with below: (1) The referent of &opc@s (“was
seen”). (2) The significance of the time reference: OW yelp IZpO
noflofi ~c5vov &.)pcWq, &U& c@dv km’ zijg rjpsrkpa< y&v@
(“no long time ago was it seen, but almost in our own time”). (3)
The overall internal confusion in Irenaeus suggested by the incompatibility
of Irenaeus’s statements on Revelation. 16
Indisputably, the most serious potential objection to the common
translation has to do with the understanding of &upcMq, “was seen. ”
What is the subject of this verb? Is it “him who saw the Apocalypse”
12. Robinson, Redating, p. 221.
13. James Moffatt, The Revelatwn of St. John the Divine, in W. R. Nicoll, cd., Englishman’s
Greek Z2darnent, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1980), p. 319.
14. Arthur Stapylton Barnes, Christiani~ at Rome in & Apostolti Age (Westport, CT
Greenwood, [1938] 1971 ), p. 167n.
15. J. J. Wetstein, Nouurn Testarmmtum Graecum, vol. 2 ( 1751), p. 746. M. J. Bovan, Revue
de Thologie et de Phikmophti (Lausanne: 1887). S. H. Chase, “The Date of the Apocalypse
The Evidence of Irenaeus,” Journal of Thedogizal Studies 8 (1907): 431-434. Hort noted the
significance of this articlq see Henry Barclay Swete, hmnenta~ on Revelation (Grand
Rapids: Kregel, [1906] 1977), p. cvi. E. Bohmer, Uber Urfm$er und Abfasungszeit des
Apoka~pse, pp. 30tY; cited in Moffatt, Revelation, p. 505. James M. Macdonald, The Lzji
and Writings of St. John (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1877), pp. 169ff. Henry Hammond,
A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon thz New Totarnent, 4th ed. (London: 1653), p.
857; cited in Peake, Revelation, p. 74n. Edward C. Selwyn, 77u Christian ProphetJ ad the
Prophetic Apoca~pse (London: Macmillan, 1900). George Edmundson, The Church in Rome
sn the Fird Cm.tuU (London: Longmans, Green, 1913). Barnes, C/srsNianity at Rime, pp.
167ff. Barnes cites also Sanday, from his Preface to F. J. A. Hort, The Apoca~pse of St.
John: I-III, and Hilgenfeld as adherents to this view. J. J. Scott, The Apouz~pse, or Reoelution
of S. John the Diuine (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 154.
16. There is another area where some scholars have deemed there to be a problem
with the common interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement. Taking the lead of Guericke, a