Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
along the lines of Chase’s: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lpns But surely this rendering [i.e., the common rendering of Irenaeus] is wrong. It should be “for he (St. John the writer) was seen . . . almost in our generation toward the end of the reign of Domitian.” It is of the Seer and his ability to declare the name of Antichrist that Irenaeus is speaking. The misunderstanding about the meaning of the passage is largely due to Eusebius, who after a reference to Domitian’s persecution proceeds “in this (persecution) report [he] tihns that the Apostle and Evangelist John, who was still living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos,” and then he quotes Irenaeus in support of his statement. 30 Edmundson feels that Eusebius imparted this wrong historical data as a result of reading too much into Origen’s comments on Matthew 20:22. That is, apparently Eusebius merely assumed that John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian, based on Origen’s obscure comment.3’ Edmundson thus surmised that this led Eusebius astray in his historical arrangement of the data at this point. A further reaso~ for Irenaeus’s emphasis is that “to say of one ‘he was seen,’ meaning thereby he was still alive at a certain time, might seem unusual, whether in Greek or English, as applied to an ordinary man. When we consider, however, how much would be thought of seeing this most aged apostle who had seen the Lord, there is nothing unnatural in the use of such an expression. In fact this verb is applied to him in precisely the same sense in the be~nning of the chapter.”32 The evidence rehearsed above has not convinced everyone. Even early date advocates such as Hort, Stuart, Guericke, and Robinson 33 fail to endorse such a re-interpretation of Irenaeus. Stuart dismisses 30. Edmundson, Church in Rorrw, pp. 164-165. His reference to Eusebius is to his Ecclm”astical Histoiy 3:23:1. 31. We will consider this statement from Ongen later in this part of our work. It should be noted here, however, that Origen does not mention the name “Domitian” in his statement. Simcox suggests that Irenaeus may have merely assumed Domitian used banishment more than Nero (William Henry Simcox, The Revelatwrs of St. Jo/m the Divmz. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges [Cambridge University Press, 1898], p. xl) . 32. Macdonald, L@ and ?+’ritirsg$, pp. 169-170. 33. On Hort’s position, see Swete, Raelatwn, p. cvi. Stuart, Apoca(@e 1:265, writes: “And although the /uorat/zz, in the passage of Irenaeus . has been differently interpreted by different critics (e. g. the ancient translator of Irenaeus renders it vi.rum ed, viz. the beas+ Wetstein applies the verb to John himselfj Storr, to the name of the beast), yet
54 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL the re-interpretation on the grounds that “the ancients clearly understood the matter” along the lines of the common interpretation. 34 Robinson points out two problems that appear to him to be fatal to the re-interpretation of Irenaeus. 35 The first is that the Latin translation of Irenaeus stands against it by its use of viswn (which better suggests a thing, such as a book), instead of visa (which is more suggestive of a person). This argument is closely related to Stuart’s. The second is that Irenaeus twice elsewhere says John lived to Trajan’s reign, not just to Domitian’s.36 If Irenaeus is to be reinterpreted here along the lines of Chase and others then there would seem to be some confusion in Irenaeus’s record. In response to these three objections, we offer the following explanations. First, regarding Stuart’s statement that the early fathers seemed to have understood him in terms of the common interpretation, it should be noted that although many ancient fathers employed Irenaeus with high regard, they do not seem to have regarded him as a final authority. For instance, contrary to Irenaeus, Tertullian placed John’s banishment after his being dipped in a cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Nero’s reign. 37 Photus preserved extracts of “Life of Timotheus” in which he states that John’s banishment was under Nero. Others who record a pre- Domitianic date for John’s banishment include: Epiphanies (Hewsie$ 51:12, 33), Arethas (Revelatwn 7:1-8), the Syriac versions of Revelation, Hi.rto~ ofJohn, th Son of Zebedee, and Theophylact (John). Though Eusebius quotes Irenaeus as proof of the date to which John lived (i.e., into the reign of Trajan),38 he disagrees with Irenaeus as to the Johannine authorship of Revelation.39 In light of all this “We cannot I cannot think that any other Nominative than ‘Anomi@s[~ can be fairly supplied here.” See Macdonald’s statement as to Guericke’s initial acceptance of the argument followed by his later retraction of his endorsement, Lt~e and Writings, p. 169. Robinson, Redating, pp. 221 ff. 34. Stuart, Apoca~pse 1:265. 35. Robinson, Redating, pp. 221 -222n. 36. Again.d Heresies 2:22:5; 3:3:4. 37. See Tertullian, On th Exclmion of Heretia 36; cp. Jerome, Agairut Jotinicmum 1:26. 38. Ecclesia.stizal Hi.sto~ 3:23:3, citing Against Heresies 2:22:5. 39. In his Ecclesiastical Ht.story (7:25: 16) Eusebius denies what Irenaeus clearly ailirms, that the Apostle .John wrote Revelation: “But I think that he was some other one of those in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name ofJohn. ”
- 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 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 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
- Page 112 and 113: Additional Ext+mal Witnesses 95 als
- Page 114 and 115: Additional External Witnesses 97 vi
- Page 116 and 117: Additional External Witnesses 99 St
- Page 118 and 119: Additional External Witnesses 101 I
54 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
the re-interpretation on the grounds that “the ancients clearly understood<br />
the matter” along the lines of the common interpretation. 34<br />
Robinson points out two problems that appear to him to be fatal to<br />
the re-interpretation of Irenaeus. 35 The first is that the Latin translation<br />
of Irenaeus stands against it by its use of viswn (which better<br />
suggests a thing, such as a book), instead of visa (which is more<br />
suggestive of a person). This argument is closely related to Stuart’s.<br />
The second is that Irenaeus twice elsewhere says John lived to<br />
Trajan’s reign, not just to Domitian’s.36 If Irenaeus is to be reinterpreted<br />
here along the lines of Chase and others then there would<br />
seem to be some confusion in Irenaeus’s record.<br />
In response to these three objections, we offer the following<br />
explanations. First, regarding Stuart’s statement that the early fathers<br />
seemed to have understood him in terms of the common interpretation,<br />
it should be noted that although many ancient fathers<br />
employed Irenaeus with high regard, they do not seem to have<br />
regarded him as a final authority. For instance, contrary to Irenaeus,<br />
Tertullian placed John’s banishment after his being dipped in a<br />
cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Nero’s reign. 37<br />
Photus preserved extracts of “Life of Timotheus” in which he states<br />
that John’s banishment was under Nero. Others who record a pre-<br />
Domitianic date for John’s banishment include: Epiphanies (Hewsie$<br />
51:12, 33), Arethas (Revelatwn 7:1-8), the Syriac versions of Revelation,<br />
Hi.rto~ ofJohn, th Son of Zebedee, and Theophylact (John). Though<br />
Eusebius quotes Irenaeus as proof of the date to which John lived<br />
(i.e., into the reign of Trajan),38 he disagrees with Irenaeus as to the<br />
Johannine authorship of Revelation.39 In light of all this “We cannot<br />
I cannot think that any other Nominative than ‘Anomi@s[~ can be fairly supplied<br />
here.” See Macdonald’s statement as to Guericke’s initial acceptance of the argument<br />
followed by his later retraction of his endorsement, Lt~e and Writings, p. 169. Robinson,<br />
Redating, pp. 221 ff.<br />
34. Stuart, Apoca~pse 1:265.<br />
35. Robinson, Redating, pp. 221 -222n.<br />
36. Again.d Heresies 2:22:5; 3:3:4.<br />
37. See Tertullian, On th Exclmion of Heretia 36; cp. Jerome, Agairut Jotinicmum 1:26.<br />
38. Ecclesia.stizal Hi.sto~ 3:23:3, citing Against Heresies 2:22:5.<br />
39. In his Ecclesiastical Ht.story (7:25: 16) Eusebius denies what Irenaeus clearly ailirms,<br />
that the Apostle .John wrote Revelation: “But I think that he was some other one of those<br />
in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name<br />
ofJohn. ”
Change language