Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
Irenaeu.s, Bishop ofLpns 55 accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.”w Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apoca~psin uiderat. Neqw enim ante multum tempoti vi-sum est. The Latin translator may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly understood. This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur. Indeed, renowned Church historian John Laurence von Mosheim — who composed his famous Church history in Latin – spoke quite despairingly of the Latin translation of Irenaeus. He laments that Irenaeus’s writings “have reached us merely through the medium of a wretchedly barbarous and obscure Latin translation.”4 ’ Schaff agrees that this translation employs “barbarous Latin. “4 2 Stuart calls it “a dead literality.”4 3 Having remarked on the obscurities of Irenaeus’s Greek (see quotation above), the translators of Irenaeus for the Ante-Nicesw Fathers add that “the Latin version adds to these difllculties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. . . . Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. “w Not only was the translator inadequate to the task, but he probably had no independent knowledge of the matter apart from what he had learned fi-om his own reading of Irenaeus. Hence, his mistake (if it be one) could be due to the very real ambiguities of the text that have led modern Greek scholars into debate over the translation. In addition, it may well be that the Latin text is corrupt. The science of textual criticism has an impressive capacity to work back to the original readings of corrupted texts through the application of sound philological and critical principles. Chase suggests that the problem may indeed be one of accidental textual corruption in light of the following intrinsic probabilities: “The translator, especially 40. See Farrar, Ear~ Days, p. 408. 41. John Laurence von Mosheim, Histoy of Chri.stimsi~ in the Farst Three Centutis (New York: Converse, 1854) 1:393. 42. Schaff, Histov 1 :752n. 43. Stuart, Apocajpse 2:119. 44. Roberts and Rambaut,inANFI:311 -312.
56 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL with ujv&oKdiqJw before him in the Greek text, could not have been ignorant that ‘ALIOKCilVplC is a feminine substantive. Especially when contractions were used, vim-s and uium would be easily confused. It appears to me probable that the somewhat strange vi.wm e.rt points back to an original ZJisus est. The latter words, if they seemed difficult, would easily be corrupted into vfium e$t.”45 The third problem with the re-interpretation of Irenaeus is explaining how Irenaeus could speak of those who saw John toward the latter end of Domitian’s reign in light of the fact that he also tells us John lived into Trajan’s reign. In Agaimt Heresies Irenaeus writes that John “continued with the Elders till the times of Trajan.”4G Surely Irenaeus would not contradict himself by suggesting in one place that John lived until the end of Domitian’s reign, while in another saying that he lived to Trajan’s reign. The problem, however, is not as diflicult to overcome as might initially appear. In the first place, Domitian died in A.D. 96 and Trajan became emperor in A.D. 98 (after a very brief reign by Nerva). Swete states of Irenaeus’s reference that it speaks of John’s “having lived to the time of Trajan, i.e. to the year 98 at least.”4 7 Orz@ two years separati th rei~. It is not unreasonable to suppose that almost a century later the two years’ difference separating the two emperors could have been blurred by Irenaeus. It must be remembered that dating then was very imprecise because chronicles were not kept by Christians. As Robinson notes regarding problems of chronology during that era: “The sources, Roman, Jewish, and Christian, are largely uncoordinated and share no common canon of chronology such as is supposed by any modern historian.”4 8 In the second place, Irenaeus does not say (upon the reconstruction of his argument as per Chase and others) that John died at the end of Domitian’s reign. He simply says he “was seen” (bpddq) at that time, perhaps by those who spoke to him face to face (to whom lrenaeus refers). Possibly there is a contrast of ideas between these two references, a contrast that involves John’s advanced age: “Obvi- ously the statement that the Apostle ‘was seen at the close of Domi- 45. Chase, “Date”, p. 435. 46. Against Heresies 2:22:5 and 3:3:4. Both of Irenaeus’s statements are quoted in the Greek in Eusebius, Eccle.siustical Hi.rtoty 3:23:3. 47. Swete, Revelation, p. clxxix. 48. Robinson, Redating, p. 32.
- 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 70 and 71: along the lines of Chase’s: Irena
- 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
- Page 120 and 121: Additional Ex.%mnal Witnesses 103 p
Irenaeu.s, Bishop ofLpns 55<br />
accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to<br />
set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and<br />
internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the<br />
latest, soon after the death of Nero.”w<br />
Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apoca~psin<br />
uiderat. Neqw enim ante multum tempoti vi-sum est. The Latin translator<br />
may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly understood.<br />
This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. But it<br />
should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s<br />
original and thus did not come with his imprimatur. Indeed, renowned<br />
Church historian John Laurence von Mosheim — who composed<br />
his famous Church history in Latin – spoke quite despairingly<br />
of the Latin translation of Irenaeus. He laments that Irenaeus’s<br />
writings “have reached us merely through the medium of a wretchedly<br />
barbarous and obscure Latin translation.”4 ’<br />
Schaff agrees that<br />
this translation employs “barbarous Latin. “4 2<br />
Stuart calls it “a dead<br />
literality.”4 3<br />
Having remarked on the obscurities of Irenaeus’s Greek<br />
(see quotation above), the translators of Irenaeus for the Ante-Nicesw<br />
Fathers add that “the Latin version adds to these difllculties of the<br />
original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. . . . Its<br />
author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. “w<br />
Not only was the translator inadequate to the task, but he<br />
probably had no independent knowledge of the matter apart from<br />
what he had learned fi-om his own reading of Irenaeus. Hence, his<br />
mistake (if it be one) could be due to the very real ambiguities of the<br />
text that have led modern Greek scholars into debate over the translation.<br />
In addition, it may well be that the Latin text is corrupt. The<br />
science of textual criticism has an impressive capacity to work back<br />
to the original readings of corrupted texts through the application of<br />
sound philological and critical principles. Chase suggests that the<br />
problem may indeed be one of accidental textual corruption in light<br />
of the following intrinsic probabilities: “The translator, especially<br />
40. See Farrar, Ear~ Days, p. 408.<br />
41. John Laurence von Mosheim, Histoy of Chri.stimsi~ in the Farst Three Centutis (New<br />
York: Converse, 1854) 1:393.<br />
42. Schaff, Histov 1 :752n.<br />
43. Stuart, Apocajpse 2:119.<br />
44. Roberts and Rambaut,inANFI:311 -312.
Change language