when Revelation was written

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:39 pm

Hi Ken,
It's good to be sparring with you again! I have been traveling for nearly seven weeks and have had little time to post anything here. All of the points you raised are treated in the introduction of my book (pp.14-18) as well as in Gentry's book, but since many who read this forum may not have either book, I will summarize my response.

First, I stand by my last comment in my previous post: The evidence for the early date of writing is primarily biblical evidence, while the evidence for the later date is essentially extra-biblical in nature. While I do not expect this fact to convince you of anything, since you do not hold the same kind of convictions as I do about the authority of scripture vis a vis that of church tradition, it makes a great deal of difference to me.

I have not been able to document the degree of influence that John had directly on Papias or Polycarp, though I am aware that some of the fathers say that the latter "heard" John (how many times? On what topics?). I am also aware that Irenaeus had some contact with Polycarp, though I do not know how much contact he had, or what subjects they may have discussed. I know that all of these men were premillennialists. I doubt that this was John's position, since this would put him at variance with Jesus and the other leading apostolic teachers (e.g. Matthew 25:31ff/ Romans 8:19-23/ 2 Peter 3:10-13—if you don't see how these verses disprove premillennialism, get back to me on this point...perhaps under a separate thread). John himself quotes Jesus against the idea of a millennium that separates the resurrection of the just from that of the unjust (John 5:28-29/ 6:39-40, 44.54) and Paul clearly knew of no two resurrections, separated by a millennial kingdom (Acts 24:15). Thus, all of these men, who were reportedly experts on everything about John and his ministry did not seem to understand his millennial position. What else might they have been mistaken about? Irenaeus, you know, claimed that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old—a point in which no scholar known to me has ever put much confidence (Against Heresies 2:22:5).

Polycarp does not state that the church of Smyrna did not exist in the reign of Nero. His actual statement has to do with the time of Paul's writing of the canonical epistle to the Philippians. In writing later to the same church about Paul's having written to them previously, Polycarp says, "for we had not yet known [the Lord]." (Letter to the Philippians 11:3). Since Paul's letter to that church was written, probably, no later than 63 AD, Polycarp is only saying something that applies to that date. If "we had not yet known Him" means, "There was no church here in Smyrna at that time" (which is not the only conceivable meaning), then he is only saying that the church of Smyrna was established after the early sixties AD. He does not say that they did not exist prior to 70 AD.

As for Laodicea, although one might conclude from statements like those in Revelation 3:17 that the city was wealthy at the time of writing, this needn't be so. The pride of the Laodicean church may well been over their perception of being "spiritually" rich, as their blindness and nakedness (in the same verse) were certainly spiritual conditions. The fact that good biblical exegesis would suggest that Revelation is predicting the fall of Jerusalem would certainly be as strong an evidence of its early date opf writing as would its mention of Laodicea be of the later date.

The suggestion that the persecution under Nero did not reach Asia Minor is irrelevant to the question of date of writing of Revelation. The book of Revelation does not tell of any current Imperial persecution taking place at the time of writing. Some of the churches were experiencing local persecution, and others did not seem to be experiencing any significant persecution at all. Smyrna was told that persecution was coming soon. It is not necessary from internal evidence to postulate a persecution originating from Rome. Even if "the beast" is thought to be Rome (as Irenaeus believed), this does not tell us that the persecution from Rome was happening at the time of writing (Revelation is a prophecy, remember).

Your earlier claim that preteristic interpretations of Revelation originated with the Jesuit Luis de Alcazar in the time of the counter-reformation is simply not accurate. Though you and I have disagreed previously about the date of the commentary by Andreas of Cappadocia (my sources say sixth century; you think later), it cannot be denied that he represented the preterist view as existing in his own day in some commentaries known to him.

I will not deny that my preterist interpretation of many of the visions in Revelation incline me to favor the early date, as much as (for example) Isaiah's prediction of the coming of Cyrus would suggest that Isaiah wrote prior to that event. In scripture, prophetic predictions are generally written before the events that they predict.
In Jesus,
Steve

_Anon
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: Oregon

dating of revelation and the olivet discourse

Post by _Anon » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:45 am

Is it not possible that the Olivet Discourse(s) in Matthew and Luke are an account of what was goign to happen to Jerusalem as a sign of Christ's Messiahship and that the book of Revelation as given to John could pertain to things after that event? Is it possible that there are two different events being spoken of by Jesus, one in the Discourse about the fate of Jerusalem and apparently the Jewish nation, and Revelation being spoken of about a church age or even specifc time period within the early church? If we have a pre-glorified Christ speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, couldn't a glorified CHrist be speaking beyond Jerusalem? I am aware that some of the early fathers, apologists, and patristics wrote about what they had heard, but to me it seems that they aren't writing firsthand. They heard from someone who heard from someone else who heard from the source. If Irenaus heard from Polycarp who had heard from John, well, we all know how if we sit in a circle and the first person starts the story and whispers it to the next, by the time it gets around, it isn't even close to the same story. You learn that in outdoor school. That is the thing that makes me feel as though while Tertullian, Iranaeus, Polycarp, Clement, etc all can be looked at as a source, they are not infallible and it doesn't disclude them from coloring their theology with there own opinion. Tertullian himself became a Montanist -- a group that he had fought against originally, but then joined, a group that was considered heretical. To say that because they were closer in time thus they must have the right understanind on eschatology, is giving the early fathers a little bit more praise then they perhaps deserve.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_shadowlander
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:44 pm
Location: North Carolina

when Revelation was written

Post by _shadowlander » Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:46 pm

I am new to this forum...and consider myself a novice at debate. I have had no formal education on the book of Revelation and actually avoided the book altogether until the Lord led me to study it quite exhaustively (using only scripture and Greek/Hebrew dictionaries as resources) a few years ago. I only have a couple of thoughts I'd like to add to the mix here, albeit they are admittedly simplistic in nature.

1) That the context of Revelation proves the preterist dating of pre-70 AD seems to only hold true if one takes a literal approach to interpreting the book. If, however, the book is metaphorical in nature, then that may not be the case. (And if metaphorical, it also challenges the futurist view.)

Obviously there are some parts of Revelation that have to be metaphor (beast, etc.). However, how do we know when the metaphor ends and the literal begins? In other words, in Rev. 11, how do we know that the temple that John was asked to measure was a literal temple? So far as I know in every other book of the NT (other than the gospels) the "temple" refers to me...the church. If this were the case, there's some great application here re: what he did measure and what he did not measure.

2) The book begins and ends with strong warnings to heed what is in the book...and since it (and I can only assume by the inspiration of God) made its way into the canon, I have to believe it is somehow meant for me to obey, not just the first century Christians.

I admit I am the naive one here...I only recently heard there were so many "views" of this book (historicist, futurist, preterist, etc.). Having looked at each I can't see that I fit into any of them. All I know is this. There is deep truth contained in this book with a strong warning for the church, the true bride of Jesus, to persevere and overcome and not to allow herself to BE overcome by kingdom of the enemy.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
...from Him
...through Him
...to Him

_Anon
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: Oregon

Anon

Post by _Anon » Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:47 pm

I think that when dealing with interpretation, it is a hermaneutical principle to let scripture interpret scripture, though I am not sure who made up these hermaneutical "laws", so they may be challengable. In regards to the temple and Revelation 11, I think that the other place in scripture that anyone is told to measure a temple is in Ezekiel and I think in Zacheriah, but I don't have a bible in front of me. I think that people tend to think that Ezekiel was measuring a real temple, so then John must also be measuring a real temple. I agree that the temple of God is now us, the body and not a building made with hands. I think that is why people insist that the preterist date must be before 70 C.E. because of the passage in Ezekiel is a real temple, though that could be up for debate also depending on interpretation. I am glad that our salvation doesn't depend on our correct interpretation of eschatology, TMI available. I suppose we just do the best we can and be persuaded in our own heart. We know that the Lord is coming; I suppose that is enough.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Priestly1
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

Post by _Priestly1 » Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:36 pm

:P The date for John's Ministry in Asia Minor (Ephesos), imperial exile to Patmos Isle and release back to Ephesos is clear from those whom he taught and raised to the office of Bishop in Smyrna (Bp. +Bucalos and his successor Bp. +Polycarp), Heiropolis (Bp. +Papius) and those in Ephesos.
All of the surviving records of these Church fathers and their successors present a united witness. John came to Asia Minor just before the Jewish Rebellion of 66 - 73 CE. He oversaw the Churches of Cilicia and Asia Minor after the departure and martyrdom of Saint Paul and Saint Peter in Rome during the last years of Nero's reign.
It was during the early days of Domitianus Caesar's reign that John was arrested in Ephesos and exiled to the mines of Patmos Isle, off the coast of Asia Minor. Bp. +Bucalos was Bishop of Smyrna during this era of Johnine exile. +Polycarp was a presbyter during this period also, he assisted Bp. +Bucalos. John received his visions of the Apocalypse of Messiah while in exile (86 - 96 CE), and was released under the general amnesty of Emperor Nerva in mid 96 CE...as were all Christian leaders in exile under the prior Imperial reign.
Bucalos died just after John's release and Polycarp was elevated to Smyrna's Episcopate in 97 CE by John's own hand. Both +Polycarp Bp. of Smyrna(69 - 156 CE) and +Papius Bp. of Heiropolis (60 - 140 CE) were disciples of John and the other Apostles, and both were taught by John and others.
Irenaeus Bp. of Lyons (120 - 203 CE) was raised in Smyrna and was taught by both +Polycarp and +Papius during his years of education in Asia Minor. All three of these men bear witness to the events which took place in their Asian Church, as well to the Teachings they received from John and others...which they preserved in their writings.
There is no other Asian evidence that supports a pre 70 CE ministry of John in Asia Minor, or of his exile in that era. If you read all the evidences from the eye witnesses, disciples and contemporary church witnesses from 96 CE - 203 CE as well as beyond, you will find no church witness that attests to a Pre 70 CE exile of John to Patmos Isle.

In "The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine" by +Eusebios Bp. of Caesaraea (260 - 340 CE), he places John's exile in the reign of Domitianus Caesar (Book III, Sections 13 - 20). He cites Irenaeus thusly, "Had there been any need for his (i.e. the AntiChrist) name to be openly announced in this present time, it would have been declared by the him who beheld the actual Apocalypse. Because it (i.e. the Apocalypse) was not witnessed a long time ago, but was seen almost in my own lifetime, AT THE END OF DOMITIAN'S REIGN." ("Heresies Answered", Book V; by Bp. +Irenaeus)
This citation is in the original Greek, yet Irenaues' Works are only left to us in the Latin translations...yet neither version is confusing. Eusebios read, wrote and spoke in Greek.....he and no others had any confusion as to Irenaeus' meaning and position as to John, the Apocalypse and Eschatology until praeterism arose in the post reformation Church of the West. Praeterists like to discount Irenaeus and his much cited works, and state that this citation is vague. I cite Steve Gregg's own book on the Apocalypse:
"The meaning of Irenaeus' statement has been debated. What was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign? Was it the vision which John "beheld"? or was it the apostle himself, who was "seen...face to face" by those who testify? The phrase "That was seen..." may be a corruption of an original that read, He was seen..." If this is true, then it only proves that John lived into the reign of Domitian, though he may have written the Apocalypse much ealier." (Revelation: Four Views, by Steve Gregg. Page 17, Paragraph 6)
Steve here uses the same argument put forth by Gentry, Chilton and his other Praeterist cohorts. Yet they do not cite the Latin or Greek texts for evidence of such corruption. They cite from an English Translation of the Latin Text of Irenaeus's work, without reference to the Greek "original" cited by Eusebios himself less than 120 years after Irenaeus' death! The Greek and Latin agree as to meaning and neither is corrupted. The Latin faithfully translates the final clause.
Here is the full text:
"Now because this is so, and since the number (i.e. 666) is found in all the good and ancient copies, and since those who have seen John face to face (i.e. +Bucalos, +Papius & +Polycarp) testify, and logic teaches us that the number of the name of the Beast appears according to the numeration of the Greeks by the letters in it....
We will not, however, incur the risk of declaring with certainty the name of the Antichrist. Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced in this present time, it would have been declared by him (i.e. John) who beheld the actual Apocalypse. Because it (i.e. the Vision) was not witnessed a long tome ago, but it was seen almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian's reign."
The only folks who debate the meaning of Irenaeus's clear statement are the same folks who debate the clear and universal testimony of the Ancient Church concerning John, his Asian Ministry and his exile during Domitian's reign. The must discount, discredit and distort the ancient witnesses because they do not afford them any place within Apostolic Christianity. If they are proven wrong about the date of the Apocalyptic visions and the era in which they were later transcribed...then their theories fall flat...I mean flat like Jericho walls.
Praeterists know the Apocalypse was written in futurist language of events present and yet to come....and if it was received after 70 CE, then their modern belief system is nonsense. If John saw this series of Visions at the end of Domitian's reign, then they deal with events beyond the life of John. This is futurist. They need a pre 70 CE date so that it can be futurist for John, but past tense for us i.e. Praeterist.
What necessitates Steve Gregg or any other Praeterist to call into question the Latin text of Irenaeus? All I have ever read is conjecture and hypothetical alternatives, but no data which necessitates such an alternative. Steve, like Gentry before him, cites 19th Century scholars Alexander Roberts & W. H. Rambaut (The Writings of Irenaeus, vol. I, 1880) to discount Irenaeus' works altogether. Why? Because the Latin & Greek texts can be uncertian in various places...as is the Bible text. I guess we should discount the Bible too? These two translaters of the works of Irenaeus do not say that the whole Latin text is uncertian, but various passages. This Passage in question is not one of these uncertian passages..which Latin/Greek Scholar can they cite for this? None..nada. They wish to paint a picture based on a general statement, which is true of the Old and New Testament texts! Not to mention all ancient manuscripts. Yes, there are passages of uncertian meaning...but these are clearly marked in the notations. Where is the cited notation from any of the English Translations of Irenaeus which states that there is an alternative rendering of Irenaeus' quote from "Heresies Answered, Book V"? Upon what authority do they call into question the passage cited? They don't. They cannot. They use a generalization for a specific, much like lawyers do to obscure the obvious. This is very much like how the Watchtower Society uses it's sources and cites them also. These two 19th Century Scholars do not call into question the passage in question, but comment on the state of the manuscripts available to them in the late 19th Century. They only state that the texts have various uncertian passages, and they mark them accordingly. Where is the annotation concerning this passage cited by Eusebios in his History and discounted by Gentry, Chilton, Gregg and other Praeterists?
This is a not so clever attempt to extinguish the light which Irenaeus sheds on the subject which is so dangerous to Praeterists. Who are the instigators of debate concerning this statement of +Irenaeus and it's citation by +Eusebios? Praeterists one and all. Amillenialists do need a pre 70 CE date of the Apocalypse, as Church testimony proves. Until Praeterism arose, most Western Christians (Protestant & Catholic) were Amillenialists...yet they all attested to the Ancient and undisputed date for John's Asian Ministry, Exile, Visions and Death.
Contrary to Steve's Book, +Eusebios does not say that another John wrote the Apocalypse. Nor does Polycarp, Papius or any other. Eusebios does presume that there were two Johns in Ephesos, and he bases this upon his understanding of Dionysus' record and Papius' statement: "And when anyone came who had been a follower of the Elders, I inquired into the discourses of these Elders, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Master, and what Ariston (i.e. First Bishop of Smyrna) and the Elder John, disciples of the Master, were still saying." Eusebios also states that if we cannot accept that Saint John Zebedee wrote the Apocalypse, then maybe this second John could have written it. Even so, there is no one else before or after in ancient Church history who understands +Dionysus & +Papius in this convoluted sense. This Eusebian notion was revived in the 19th Century among certain higher criticism scholars, to account for the linguistic and idiomatic differences between the Gospel of John, the Three Letters and the Apocalypse.
Here is a Note on this:
1. Eusebius's reasoning is unsatisfactory. The fact that the second John is called a presbyter does not distinguish him from the first John, who like Peter, Andrew and the rest is expressly referred to as a presbyter, nor does the precedence given to Ariston: Philip and Thomas are similarly put before the first John. Nor does the fact that he is mentioned twice: he is first included in the list of presbyters (which, as Eusebius saw, is here equivalent to apostles); then he is mentioned with Ariston, because these two long survived the others. Eusebius has failed to notice the change of tense from 'had said' to 'were saying'. His only authority for the belief that there were two tombs in Dionysus's cautious statement, written nearly two centuries after John's death: 'There are said to have been two tombs in Ephesus, each reputed to be John's.' Nor would two tombs prove that there were two Johns, any more than five cities each claiming to possess the head of John the Baptist prove that there were five Baptists. (Eusebius: The History of the Church, Dorset Press. 1965 pgs 150 - 151)
Does my disputation with +Eusebios' understanding of +Dionysus & +Papius infer that I discount his History? No. He is a great historian. He admits Papius' and Irenaeus' Premillenialism, but personally discounts it editorially, as he was himself a proto Amillenialist....so I see him as a good historian who at times clearly interjects his own editorial. But he knows well when John was exiled and wrote the Apocalypse...in the later days of Domitian's reign.
+Hippolytus of Ostia, +Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, +Victorinus of Pettaw, Jerome, Sculpicius Severus,
Arethas, Isadore of Seville, Athenasius, Agustine and many others all knew that John was arrested, tortured and exiled in Domitian's reign and wrote the Apocalypse towards the end of that exile, near the end of Domitian's fifteen year reign.

I am convinced by the united and ancient testimonies of the Ancient Church, as well as by the Historical and Archeological evidences. All the Praeterists have is claims, assumptions and poor attempts at disqualifying the most ancient testimonies of the Asian Church fathers themselves. Until I can see evidence that Ireneaus' statements are declared uncertain by qualified Latin or Greek textual Scholars I will assume the English Versions are accurate. The Passage in question has no such notation by any scholar I can find. And Eusebios clearly cited the original Greek and it is clear and certain as to meaning and subject. Too bad Gentry and Chilton failed to cite Eusebios' Work concerning the events during Domitian's reign...but that would kill their theories. I must say that I see eisogetics in their works...not exegetics. Their eschatology is imposed upon Scripture and not taken from it. They remove the Text of Revelation from the historical context it was written in so that their modern notions might seem valid to modern minds. To bad their Praeterism has no Apostolic legs to stand on..even the Amillenialist Church fathers from the mid 4th Centuries on do not reflect their novel dating of the Apocalypse and modern Praeterist traditions.
Just because one can use the scriptures to teach what one will, does not make that teaching scriptural or apostolic christian faith.

In Messiah,
Ken
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Anon
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: Oregon

two different references

Post by _Anon » Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:37 am

I stated this earlier, but isn't it possible that the Olivet Discourse is refering to events that were associated with the rejection of the Jews and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and that Revelation is beyond that and referes to other events. SO essentially, I am asking if the Preterists coudln't be right about the Olivet discourse, and the Historists couldn't be right about Revelation, a perfect marriage of the two houses, so to speak.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:26 pm

There is nothing irrational or absurd in the suggestion.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_Priestly1
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

Post by _Priestly1 » Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:13 pm

I believe most ancient Christians as well as moderns understand the Prophetic words of Messiah to refer to the cataclysmic events of the First War between Israel and the Nations (66-73 CE), the Second War between Israel and the Nations (132 - 135 CE) and the final War between Israel and the Nations (i.e. the Great Tribulation).
The Judeo-Nazaraean Church of Jerusalem believed this and fled to Perea in 66 - 73 CE based upon the Olivet Discourse. Again in 132 CE this Church fled Jerusalem, but into Mesopotamia (i.e. into the Church of the East). She never returned, and the Church of Jerusalem was colonized by Greek Christians and for the first time a Greek Bishop was installed. This second century flight was based upon the Prophecy of Messiah in John's Gospel that another one would come to Israel in his own name and backward Israel would follow him...this was the false messiah Bar Kosiva (i.e. Bar Kokhva) in 132 CE.
Even so, the Second Century Church awaited the final fulfillment of John's Apocalypse which would involve the Whole known world, not just the People of Israel.
So you are right in one sense. There is a Jewish principle of Prophecy which views all prophecy as repeating until it is finally and ultimately fulfilled. Just as when Messiah said,"As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be before the coming of the Son of Man." Times will repeat and cataclysmic events will also...until mankind repents. If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. This principle of multiple fulfillment is assumed in Jewish and Judeo-Nazaraean (Christian) teachings.
So we understand the 1st desecration of Jerusalem by Nebochadnezzer, the 2nd desecration of Jerusalem by Antiochos Epiphanes, the 3rd desecration of Jerusalem by Pompey, the 4th desecration of Jerusalem by Titus and the 5th desecration of Jerusalem by Trajan as foreshadows of the 6th and final desecration of Jerusalem by the Sea Beast Leviathan (i.e. the AntiChrist).
So we do accept that some eschatological prophecies have been partially fulfilled in the past, so you could call me a partial praeterist in this loose sense. Yet the Olivet Discourse has yet to be fulfilled in it's final sense. Just as Messianic Prophecies in the Tanakh mix the first and second advents of Messiah into a single discourse, so too the Prophecies of Messiah combine the events of the future as one vision....like seeing a row of mountain peaks as if they are one giant summit, not revealing the distances between them. So too Prophecy is like this.

In Messiah,
+Ken
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:52 pm

I got this interesting email related to this topic:

---------------------------

Steve,

Here is some more info I wasn't sure if you were aware of concerning the early date theory of the writing of Revelation:

Robert Young, who authored "Young's Analytical Concordance, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation which was published about 1885. In that work, Young makes the following statement: It [the book of Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book [a 6th Century translation]; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosins, and most of the other commentators after Irenaeus mistakenly misquote Dimitianou (as stated by Irenaeus) for Domitianikos, and suppose that this name refers to Domitian, A.D. 95. Most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder without properly reading the name Irenaeus refers to and also explains why most commentaries apply Domitian as the emporor who exiled John to Patmos. The internal testi! mony is wholly in favor of the early date because the name Domitianou is refering to the name of "Domitius Claudius Ceasar (Nero)", not Domitian.

In other words, Irenaeus's use of the name "Domitianou" refers to Domitius Nero, not "Domitianikos" (the name of Domitian of A.D. 95). This is confirmed when anyone looks at the opening statement by the editor of Revelations in the Syriac text. The editor of John's work here clearly states in the heading of the Syriac version of Revelation that it was written during John's exile to the Isle of Patmos by Claudius Nero.

In addition to this I also noticed that you didn't mention the following external evidence in your book "Revelation: 4 views" for an early date:

Clement of Alexandria asserts that "all revelation ceased under Nero's reign." The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to the seven different churches (Paul died in A.D. 67 or 68). Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) places John's banishment in conjunction with Peter's and Paul's martyrdom (A.D. 67/68). Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) twice states that Revelation was written under 'Claudius [Nero] Caesar.' The Syriac version of Revelation (sixth century) has as a heading to Revelation: 'written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.'"

Since Nero died in A.D. 68, the writing of Revelation must have preceded that date, most likely having been written sometime between A.D. 64 and 67, along with all of the internal Biblical evidence and the evidence you have already provided in your book.

Let me know what you think.

Joseph V.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_Priestly1
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon USA

Domitianou verses Domitianikos

Post by _Priestly1 » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:45 pm

I am shocked by the confusion caused by the Greek cases used for the Latin Name Domitianus. Ou and ikos are suffixes which denote the name's Greek case usage in the sentance....not difference between Domitius and Domitianus...the two names are distinctly different. Irenaeus specifically uses Domitianus in the Greek form, not Domitiusou or Domitiuikos. This is not just a weak stretch, but does not comport with the well known Latin version of Irenaeus' work...which has Domitianus i.e. Emperor Domitian.
Even Eusebius knows this well as his citations of Irenaeus are used in his history of the Church during the reign of Emperor Domitian, son of Emperor Vespian and the brother of Emperor Titus. Read Book 3 ( Vespian to Trajan) of Eusebius's History of the Church and this proves it.
Mr. Young was an heterodox Arian (unorthodox christiology, denies the Divine Trinity and deity of Christ) as well as critical of much of Church's accepted history. His work and data is now well known to be not only out dated, but biased...that is why it is so cheap and easy to print (no copy right). Young's Greek education and scholarship is no where near the quality of his well known contemporaries...Griesbach eats him alive. Obviously he either has no clue as to the cases of Greek and their suffixes, or he is purposely misrepresenting the grammatical facts...Domitianikos and Domitianou both are Domitian...Good Grief! No wonder Young is hardly cited as a Greek Scholar by moderns, whether Historic Premillenialist, Classic Amillenialist or Praeterist. This argument fails the first year greek smell test. I realize Joseph V. knows little of Koine Greek, because if he did he would realize the error of Mr. Young's argument. He also cannot be too aquainted with the works of Irenaeus as well as the context of Irenaeus' statements. It is plain as day in Eusebius' usage of Irenaeus in his History of the Church from Vespian to Trajan (69 CE - 117 CE). I am not slapping Joe V around, just making an observation from the citation of Young and the use of his statements concerning Irenaius' Greek usage of Domitian. But Mr. Young was a heretic, and is not considered an honest Greek Scholar....no more than the Watchtower Translation is considered Hebrew/Greek experts and honest scholars. Mr. Strong, who was Mr. Young's contemporary and rival, is a much better authority and was orthodox. I would use Strong's Concordance if I could not afford a modern critical lexicon..even with it's errors and out dated scholarship.
Domitius Nero Caesar is not Domitianus aka Domitian(ou/ikos) Flavius...and Irenaeus, Eusebius, Sulpicius, Orosins were correct. There is no blunder, save the one in the mind of this commentator. Has he no education in Roman Latin and Greek inscriptions which prove him wrong? He impeaches those ancient scholars whose native languages were both Koine Greek and Latin.....while he has no data save his own words to back up this ignorant claims. This screams willful misrepresentation and blatant deception.
Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement of Alexandria:150 -240 CE), stated that John was very aged when he was released from the Patmos exile. He also stated that John's return took place after the death of the Tyrant, yet he did not say this Tyrant was named Nero! Eusebius himself expressly explains that Clement is referencing Domitian in his History of the Church, not Nero. Thus Clement is not attesting to Neronian date of John's banishment, for he was young in Nero's time. He is discussing the Tyrant Domitian, who banished John in his old age, and that John lived on till the time of the Emperor Trajan in Asia. Clement in now way states John was exiled by Nero, or that he received the Apocalypse during his era. This is a clear misrepresentation of Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus. Clement may have said that "all revelation ceased under Nero's reign", but this generalization of the prophetic gift does not imply that John's Vision was before Nero's reign. Notice he says that the prophetic gift ceased in the Church under the reign of Nero, not during or afterwards. But this refers to the general gift, not the ministry of the Apostles or their inspired visions. Even so, this statement is not concerned with the topic of John's banishment or visions.
Tertullianus of Carthage (160 - 240 CE), stated that Peter and Paul both perished as martyrs by Nero's command, but makes no mention of John or his banishment to Patmos at this time. It is when Tertullain mentions the second Imperial persecution of Domitian, that John is mentioned. This was the first Imperial use of banishment of Christian leaders. Eusebius cited Tertullian again in his history of the Church to place the Domitian date for John's exile to Patmos and reception of the Apocalypse. It is clear that Tertullian is no source for a Neronian date of John's banishment or vision.
Thus the two usages of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullianus Carthago as authorities for the preaterist dating of John's banishment and vision is incorrect and without merit, as Eusebius himself clearly shows.
Bishop Victorinus of Pettaw (near modern Vienna), who died in 303 CE clearly wrote in his commentaries that John was banished and saw his revelations during Domitian's reign. Bishop Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea ( 260 -340 CE) clearly wrote in his History of the Church that John was banished and saw his visions during his exile on Patmos during Emperor Domitian's reign. Saint Jerome (340 - 420 CE), Saint Orosius of Carthage and Saint Sulpitius Severus of Aquitania (363 - 420 CE) all agree that these facts are true. The scholar Primasius of the 6th Century stated that John was banished and saw the revelation during Domitian's reign.
It was not until Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus in Salamis (368 CE), that we have the novel claim that John was banished by Emperor Claudius and then saw his visions in that era. His chief work on the heresies was decried as 'full of blemishes and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author' because of such unsupported and mistaken claims.
The Muratorian List does not state that John was exiled and wrote his Apocalypse during Nero's reign. It states,"We receive only the Apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of are not willing that the latter (i.e. The Apocalypse of Peter) should be read in the Church." Now how one makes a Neronian dating of the Apocalypse of John from this short statement is beyond, me.
As for the preface of the 6th Century monophysite syriac text of the Apocalypse, it is without any other support. If it stated that this book was written by Frank Capra during his time in Sicily it still would have no weight...as the preface is not inspired nor a basis for dating the original vision. It only shows how late a date this aramaic text is derived, and that the preface is outside the mainstream historic view of the Church at that time.
Not until the advent of praeterism in the Western Church has anyone been confused by the Greek or Latin assertions of Irenaeus concerning the Domitianic date of the Johanine exile and reception of the Apocalypse. Only in modern times has the witness of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons and the whole of Occidental and Oriental Church testimony concerning the 96 CE date of the Apocalypse been challenged and a concerted effort to impeach it been attempted for this modern theological deviation. Paeterism has no ancient or medieval heritage, but is of a post reformation origin. Praeterists must impeach the ancient and united testimonies of the most ancient Historic Premillennial Fathers as well as the later Classic Amillennial Fathers of the Ancient Apostolic Church.

If you wish to base your Praeterism on one Cyprian Bishop in the late 4th Century and one late 6th century monophysite Syriac preface on a manuscript of the Apocalypse.....be my guest. These two sources are anomalies in an otherwise united Church testimony to the contrary. The former was dismissed by his own contemporaries as an unlearned and unreliable churchmen when it came to such matters. The latter is dated around the same time as the Cyprian bishop....could there be a link? Cyprus was just off shore of Syria, and syriac as well as greek was used on Cyprus....hmmmm.
I know my opinion conflicts with Mr. Young's and Praeterism's as a whole...but at least I have not misrepresented Irenaeus, his greek, nor sought to impeach the united testimonies of the cited Fathers.

In Messiah,
Ken Huffman
P.S.
Again, I do not want Joe V to think I am attacking him....I am just posting a refutation to what he has read and reported on.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Revelation”