Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 65 upon the single testimony of Irenaeus, who wrote according to the best authorities, about 100 years after the death of John. . . . . . . one clear and explicit testimony, when not opposed by other evidence, would be allowed by all fair critics to control the argument; but not so when many other considerations tend to weaken it.75 It is widely – even if not universally – recognized that Irenaeus’s stature in early Church history caused many later Church fathers to depend – sometimes too uncritically – upo”n his witness alone to conclude many matters. For instance, Guthrie (a late date advocate regarding Revelation) agrees with Streeter’s assertion that all Church fathers after Irenaeus simply repeated his view regarding the origin of the Gospel of Matthew.’G This problem undoubtedly is true in many other connections as well, and is illustrative of our concern. Regarding Irenaeus’s opinion on the banishment of John, the fact of the matter is that he is “the ultimate source in every case” of the early fathers.77 Other scholars of note express a hesitancy on similar grounds to succumb to the drift of external evidence in this regard. T. Randell notes that “the clear and positive external testimony against it is not strong, being reducible (as it seems to us) to the solitary statement of Irenaeus, near the end of the second centu~, that the Apocalypse was seen towards the close of Domitian’s reign. . . . Irenaeus, writing a century after the fact, may easily have made the mistake of putting the name of one famous persecuting emperor instead of the other, and it is remarkable that his statement is supported by no other writer earlier than Victorious of Pettan, after a second interval of a century. Eusebius and Jerome, in the fourth century, do not strengthen what they merely repeat .“7 8 Milton Terry agrees: “When we scrutinize the character and extent of this evidence, it seems equally clear that no very great stress can safely be laid upon it. For it all turns upon the single testimony of Irenaeus. “7 9 Moses Stuart expresses the same sentiment when he perceptively argues that 75. Terry, Herrrwwu tics, pp. 237, 239. 76. Guthrie, Introduction, p. 29 n.4. 77. C. C. Torrey, Z7u Apocalypse ofJohn (New Haven: Yale, 1958), p. 78. 78. T. Randell, “Revelation,” in vol. 22 of T/u Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1950), p. iv. 79. Terry, Hemwmdscs, p. 237.
66 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL The testimony in respect to the matter before us is evidently swxessive and dependent, not coeaneous and independent. . . .W . . . . If now the number of the witnesses were the only thing which should control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must, so far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix upon the time of Domitian. But a careful examination of this matter shows, that the whole concatenation of witnesses in favour of this position hangs upon the testimony of Irenaeus, and their evidence is little more than a mere repetition of what he has said. Eusebius and Jerome most plainly depend on him; and others seem to have had in view his authority, or else that of Eusebius.81 Barclay Newman writes that the fact that later witnesses almost certainly derive from him makes him “of minimal and negative value for determining the original context of the Apocalypse.”B2 This problem is especially disturbing when it is allowed to overshadow a book’s own self-witness to its date for “the internal witness of any writing which is not suppositions, must always outweigh testimony of such a nature, provided such evidence is sufficiently plain and ample. . . . What book in the New Testament has as many diagnostic passages in respect to time as this [i.e. Revelation] ?“83 Conclusion In closing it should be noted that there are several other possible reasons for Irenaeus’s error, if it be such. (1) Irenaeus could have had information that related to Domitian’s brief rei~ for Vespasian in A.D. 70 when he had “full consular authority — impeno consulari. “ 84 Tacitus states in his Histories that before Vespasian came to Rome to assume power “Caesar Domitian received the praetorship. His name was prefixed to epistles and edicts.”8 5 Irenaeus could have confounded this evidence with Domitian’s later reign as emperor. (2) 80. Stuart, Apocalypse 1:282. 81. Ibid. 2:269. 82. B. Newman, “The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis,” New Testament Studies 10 (1962-63):138. 83. Stuart, Apoca@e 1:281. 84. Edmundson, Church in Rome, p. 170. See also Simcox, Revelation, p. xl. 85. TacitUs, Htitoria 4:39.
- 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 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 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
- Page 126 and 127: Additional External Witnesses 109 a
- Page 128 and 129: 7 THE ROLE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE We
- Page 130 and 131: The Role of Intemtal Euiderwe 115 l
66 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
The testimony in respect to the matter before us is evidently swxessive<br />
and dependent, not coeaneous and independent. . . .W<br />
. . . .<br />
If now the number of the witnesses were the only thing which should<br />
control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must,<br />
so far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix<br />
upon the time of Domitian. But a careful examination of this matter<br />
shows, that the whole concatenation of witnesses in favour of this<br />
position hangs upon the testimony of Irenaeus, and their evidence is<br />
little more than a mere repetition of what he has said. Eusebius and<br />
Jerome most plainly depend on him; and others seem to have had in<br />
view his authority, or else that of Eusebius.81<br />
Barclay Newman writes that the fact that later witnesses almost<br />
certainly derive from him makes him “of minimal and negative value<br />
for determining the original context of the Apocalypse.”B2<br />
This problem is especially disturbing when it is allowed to overshadow<br />
a book’s own self-witness to its date for “the internal witness<br />
of any writing which is not suppositions, must always outweigh<br />
testimony of such a nature, provided such evidence is sufficiently<br />
plain and ample. . . . What book in the New Testament has as<br />
many diagnostic passages in respect to time as this [i.e. Revelation]<br />
?“83<br />
Conclusion<br />
In closing it should be noted that there are several other possible<br />
reasons for Irenaeus’s error, if it be such. (1) Irenaeus could have<br />
had information that related to Domitian’s brief rei~ for Vespasian<br />
in A.D. 70 when he had “full consular authority — impeno consulari. “ 84<br />
Tacitus states in his Histories that before Vespasian came to Rome to<br />
assume power “Caesar Domitian received the praetorship. His name<br />
was prefixed to epistles and edicts.”8 5<br />
Irenaeus could have confounded<br />
this evidence with Domitian’s later reign as emperor. (2)<br />
80. Stuart, Apocalypse 1:282.<br />
81. Ibid. 2:269.<br />
82. B. Newman, “The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis,” New Testament Studies 10<br />
(1962-63):138.<br />
83. Stuart, Apoca@e 1:281.<br />
84. Edmundson, Church in Rome, p. 170. See also Simcox, Revelation, p. xl.<br />
85. TacitUs, Htitoria 4:39.