(continued from post #55)
Preterists claim that the writings of Clement of Alexandria prove that the Revelation was written in the time of Nero, not Domitian. But what did Clement actually say?
“For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.
“And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.” (“The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” by Clement of Alexandria, book 7, chapter 17, paragraph 4, from “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 2.) This is the only apparently reliable and provably early quotation advanced by Preterists that seems to be a denial of what the others said, but that is not necessarily the case. For Clement only explicitly said the epistles of Paul ended with Nero. And he could have been considering the Revelation to be a subsequent teaching directly from the Lord himself, (Revelation 1:1, 22:16) and that John was simply acting as a secretary who recorded what the Lord had said. (Revelation 1:11,19).
In addition to this statement by Clement, Preterist build great arguments based on another of his statements. For he also said, "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." (“Salvation of the Rich Man,” by Clement of Alexandria, chapter 42, tran. by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 2.)
Preterists claim that Clement’s words “the tyrant” in this statement have to mean Nero, claiming that it was primarily Nero who was called “the tyrant.” In defense of this claim they sometimes quote Tertullian as having said, “For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation. Domitian, too, a man of Nero’s type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.” (“The Apology,” of Tertullian,tran. by the Rev. S. Thelwall, chapter 5. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 3.) Preterists like to stress the words, “he had something of the human in him,” and the words “he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished.” But among the ancient Christian writers, Tertullian stands alone in using such soft words concerning Domitian. And even in this same account, Tertullian said Domitian was “a man of Nero’s type in cruelty.” But let us examine what others said of Domitian.
Remember that Eusebius said, “Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God.” (“Church History,” by Eusebius, cited above.)
“The Marterdom of Ignatius” said, “When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care, having with difficulty escaped the former storms of the many persecutions under Domitian, inasmuch as, like a good pilot, by the helm of prayer and fasting, by the earnestness of his teaching, and by his [constant ] spiritual labour, he resisted the flood that rolled against him, fearing [only] lest he should lose any of those who were deficient in courage, or apt to suffer from their simplicity.”(“The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” author unknown, chapter 1. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 1.) Although the author is indeed unknown, the last chapter of this work said, “Having ourselves been eye-witnesses of these things...” (chapter 7 of the work cited above.) Again, in the portion of the account that describes their voyage to Rome, the pronoun “he” was twice changed to “we.” (Toward the end of chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6.) So the author of this account plainly represented himself to have been a compaion of Ignatius and an eyewitness of his martyrdom, and thus someone who actually experienced “the many persecutions under Domitian.”
Again, Lactantius said, “After an interval of some years from the death of Nero, there arose another tyrant no less wicked (Domitian), who, although his government was exceedingly odious, for a very long time oppressed his subjects, and reigned in security, until at length he stretched forth his impious hands against the Lord. Having been instigated by evil demons to persecute the righteous people, he was then delivered into the power of his enemies, and suffered due punishment. To be murdered in his own palace was not vengeance ample enough: the very memory of his name was erased. For although he had erected many admirable edifices, and rebuilt the Capitol, and left other distinguished marks of his magnificence, yet the senate did so persecute his name, as to leave no remains of his statues, or traces of the inscriptions put up in honour of him; and by most solemn and severe decrees it branded him, even after death, with perpetual infamy. Thus, the commands of the tyrant having been rescinded, the Church was not only restored to her former state, but she shone forth with additional splendour, and became more and more flourishing.” (“Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died,” by Lactantius, chapter 3, tran. by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. by Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. by Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 7.)
Augustin called him “the cruel Domitian,” saying, “He who gave power to Marius gave it also to Caius Cæsar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors, the Vespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruel Domitian; and, finally, to avoid the necessity of going over them all, He who gave it to the Christian Constantine gave it also to the apostate Julian, whose gifted mind was deceived by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity, stimulated by the love of power.” (“The City of God,” by Augustin, tran. By Marcus Dodss, D.D., book 5, chapter 21. From “Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers,” First series, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., vol.2.)
Melito the Philosopher said, “Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines.” (“Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” by Melito, the Philosopher, part II. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 8.)
And the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John” says, “And when Vespasian was dead, his son Domitian, having got possession of the kingdom, along with his other wrongful acts, set himself also to make a persecution against the righteous men. For, having learned that the city was filled with Jews, remembering the orders given by his father about them, he purposed casting them all out of the city of the Romans. And some of the Jews took courage, and gave Domitian a book, in which was written as follows...
“At all this the king, being affected with rage, ordered the senate to publish a decree that they should put to death all who confessed themselves to be Christians. Those, then, who were found in the time of his rage, and who reaped the fruit of patience, and were crowned in the triumphant contest against the works of the devil, received the repose of incorruption.” (“Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John,” author unknown, translated by Alexander Walker, Esq. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, , in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol. 8.)
So there can be zero question that the early Christians often called Domitian a tyrant.
Preterists also argue that a statement by Tertullian ties John into the persecutions under Nero, rather than Domitian. For they claim Tertullian has John persecuted at the same time as John. But that is not what Tertullian said. His words were,“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa.” (The Prescription Against Heretics,” by Tertullian, tran. by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., chapter 36. From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, vol 3.) Saying that Paul suffered the same persecution as John does not even so much as imply that these persecutions took place at the same time. This can be seen in the last sentence before the one about Paul and John. For it says that “Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s.” This author obviously knew that Peter was not persecuted at the same time as his Lord. So the claim that Tertullian tied John into the persecutions of Nero is like a drowning man grasping at straws.
Finally, Preterists argue that in the two oldest Syriac versions of the New Testament, the title of the Revelation says, “written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.” This sounds significant, until we realize that the oldest of these two versions is the Philoxenian Version, which is thought to have been made by Polycarpus of Mabug in about 508 A.D., and the other one is the Harclean version, thought to have been made by Thomas of Harkel in about 616 A.D. That is, they date from around four and five centuries after the Revelation was written! None of the older Syriac versions even contained the Revelation at all.
(continued)
