Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lpn.s 59 rule.’ “5 5 Is it not remarkable that in the same breath Irenaeus can mention “those who have seen John face to face” and “all the good and ancient copies [of Revelation]”? It would seem that the “ancient” (cip~doz5) character of the “copies” (&my@~ozq) would suggest something more ancient than the “end of Domitian’s reign,” which Irenaeus speaks of as “almost in our own generation.” It is difficult to see why the A.D. 130ff Irenaeus would have referred (as he did) to “ancient copies” (rather than simply to “copies”) – tithe original autograph had itself been written on~ “towards the end of Domitian’s rule.” . . . For then, the first “ancient copies” would and could only have been made after A.D. 96 — whereas Irenaeus implies that those ancient copies were made before that date! Moreover, even if the copies comemed were made only after A.D. 96 – they could hardly have been called “ancient” by the time of Irenaeus (born 130 A.D.). Still less could such first copies then (at a date only after 96 A. D.) appropriately have been described by Irenaeus as “the most approved and ancient copies.” Surely the compilation of many copies would thereafter require even further time. And the further determination of such of those approved and ancient copies as Irenaeus refers to as the “most approved and ancient copies” of the original, would need a further long time to take place.56 If Revelation were written pre-A.D. 70, then its date would be about three decades older still. The Weight of Irenaeus’s Statement Few early church fathers stand above Irenaeus in importance as an early, reliable witness to ancient Church history. Williston Walker notes that he was “the earliest theological leader of distinction in the rising Catholic Church. “5 7 Schaff agrees with Walker’s assessment and speaks highly of Irenaeus: “Irenaeus is the leading representative of catholic Christianity in the last quarter of the second century, the champion of orthodoxy against Gnostic heresy, and the mediator between the Eastern and Western churches. He united a learned Greek education and philosophical penetration with practical wis- 55. Francis Nigel Lee, “Revelation and Jerusalem” (Brisbane, Australia by the author, 1985), $36. 56. Ibid., $37. 57. Williston Walker, A Histoty of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (New York: Scribners, 1970), p. 62.
60 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL dom and moderation. He is neither very original nor brilliant, but eminently sound and judicious. “5 8 He is an extremely helpful witness to many matters of historical significance for the understanding of early Church history. Unfortunately, however, “Second-century traditions about the apostles are demonstrably unreliable.”5 9 And although generally reliable, Irenaeus’s writings are not without imperfection in matters historical. Indeed, some very fine and reputable scholars of renown discount his testimony that is so relevant to our debate. Robinson notes that “despite this [the testimony of Irenaeus to a late date], Hort, together with Lightfbot and Westcott, none of whom can be accused of setting light to ancient tradition, still rejected a Domitianic date in favour of one between the death of Nero in 68 and the fall of Jerusalem in 70. It is indeed a little known fact that this was what. Hort calls ‘the general tendency of criticism for most of the nineteenth century,’ and Peake cites the remarkable consensus of ‘both advanced and conservative scholars’ who backed it .“6° The Oxford University classical historian B. W. Henderson agrees, and adds that Irenaeus, the earliest extant authority, dates the [Revelation] under Domitian. His date, however, is c. 180 A. D., and if the Apocalypse enjoyed strange vicissitudes of neglect and esteem immediately after Irenaeus, as with Caius, Hippolytus, and the author of the Muratorian fragment, it not improbably did before, especially when years passed. . . . Irenaeus’ testimony to its authorship is perhaps more valuable than to its date. He abandons the task of interpretation in despair and with it the internal evidence which here on the question of date is more valuable than one piece of external evidence, not ‘a generation’ only later but a century.Gl Farrar, speaking of Papias’s statement regarding the fertility of the vines in the millennium that is recorded by Irenaeus,b2 makes a relevant and noteworthy observation: Experience shows that a story told second-hand, even by an honest 58. Scha~ Histoy 2:750. 59. G. B. Caird, A Comrnmtq on h Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York Harper & ROW, 1966), p. 4. 60. Robinson, Redating, pp. 224-225. 61. Henderson, Nero, p. 442. 62. Irenaeus, Against Here& 5:33:3.
- 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 72 and 73: Irenaeu.s, Bishop ofLpns 55 accept
- Page 74 and 75: Irenaeu-s, Bishop of Lyons 57 tian
- 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
- Page 122 and 123: Additional External Witwsses 105 It
- Page 124 and 125: Additional External Witnesses 107 R
60 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
dom and moderation. He is neither very original nor brilliant, but<br />
eminently sound and judicious. “5 8<br />
He is an extremely helpful witness<br />
to many matters of historical significance for the understanding of<br />
early Church history.<br />
Unfortunately, however, “Second-century traditions about the<br />
apostles are demonstrably unreliable.”5 9<br />
And although generally reliable,<br />
Irenaeus’s writings are not without imperfection in matters<br />
historical. Indeed, some very fine and reputable scholars of renown<br />
discount his testimony that is so relevant to our debate. Robinson<br />
notes that “despite this [the testimony of Irenaeus to a late date],<br />
Hort, together with Lightfbot and Westcott, none of whom can be<br />
accused of setting light to ancient tradition, still rejected a Domitianic<br />
date in favour of one between the death of Nero in 68 and the fall of<br />
<strong>Jerusalem</strong> in 70. It is indeed a little known fact that this was what.<br />
Hort calls ‘the general tendency of criticism for most of the nineteenth<br />
century,’ and Peake cites the remarkable consensus of ‘both advanced<br />
and conservative scholars’ who backed it .“6° The Oxford University<br />
classical historian B. W. Henderson agrees, and adds that<br />
Irenaeus, the earliest extant authority, dates the [Revelation] under<br />
Domitian. His date, however, is c. 180 A. D., and if the Apocalypse<br />
enjoyed strange vicissitudes of neglect and esteem immediately after<br />
Irenaeus, as with Caius, Hippolytus, and the author of the Muratorian<br />
fragment, it not improbably did before, especially when years<br />
passed. . . . Irenaeus’ testimony to its authorship is perhaps more<br />
valuable than to its date. He abandons the task of interpretation in<br />
despair and with it the internal evidence which here on the question<br />
of date is more valuable than one piece of external evidence, not ‘a<br />
generation’ only later but a century.Gl<br />
Farrar, speaking of Papias’s statement regarding the fertility of<br />
the vines in the millennium that is recorded by Irenaeus,b2 makes a<br />
relevant and noteworthy observation:<br />
Experience shows that a story told second-hand, even by an honest<br />
58. Scha~ Histoy 2:750.<br />
59. G. B. Caird, A Comrnmtq on h Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York Harper<br />
& ROW, 1966), p. 4.<br />
60. Robinson, Redating, pp. 224-225.<br />
61. Henderson, Nero, p. 442.<br />
62. Irenaeus, Against Here& 5:33:3.
Change language