When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Dorothy Mae]

The EXTENSIVE documentation I provided in this very thread PROVED that this is simply not correct. I demonstrated the proof that the various writers based their comments on at least four independent original sources of information.

OK, I found a bit and started to read. First statment, "

CHAP. II.--THE DATE of THE APOCALYPSE. This is my second preliminary point of inquiry, and one on which also the historical evidence will be found both direct and conclusive. For the testimony of Irenatus,was himself the disciple of the apostle John,-is as ex press to the point in question as it is unexceptionable."

Irenatus was born in 130 AD. He cannot have been a disciple of John who would have been over 100 years old when the man was a baby. So this is wrong.

Read further and Clement of Alexandria only ELUDES to the ascertion that John wrote Revelation at the late date. Only eludes to it. Is this what you call proof of various writers basing their comments on original sources? Someone who eludes to it? Someone who thinks Irenatus was a disciple of John?

This is, so far, in no way proof and no one seems to claim original sources, despite your claim that they do. That is it. What men reported who heard from others who heard from others who heard from others and even the simple stuff they got wrong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Regardless of that, no early writer contradicted him and they all agreed with the late date. The church would have known when John was exiled. They would not have had to rely on anyone else.

How do you know they did not contradict him? How many discussed it beyond quoting him being ignorant of the fall of Jerusalem and what happened? Iraeneus himself was off on details they would have all disagreed with, the age of Jesus at his death. Do we have any writings where they disagreed with that? If not, we cannot say that they agreed with him because he have no writings showing any discussion beyond quoting him verbatum.

 

[Biblewriter]

deleted by poster

 

[Biblewriter]

OK, I found a bit and started to read. First statment, "

CHAP. II.--THE DATE of THE APOCALYPSE. This is my second preliminary point of inquiry, and one on which also the historical evidence will be found both direct and conclusive. For the testimony of Irenatus,was himself the disciple of the apostle John,-is as ex press to the point in question as it is unexceptionable."

Irenatus was born in 130 AD. He cannot have been a disciple of John who would have been over 100 years old when the man was a baby. So this is wrong.

Read further and Clement of Alexandria only ELUDES to the ascertion that John wrote Revelation at the late date. Only eludes to it. Is this what you call proof of various writers basing their comments on original sources? Someone who eludes to it? Someone who thinks Irenatus was a disciple of John?

This is, so far, in no way proof and no one seems to claim original sources, despite your claim that they do. That is it. What men reported who heard from others who heard from others who heard from others and even the simple stuff they got wrong.

I did not read about what the early writers said. I read what they said. nor did I devote a few minutes to this research, but nearly ten years. So I did not report what someone else said about what ancient writers said. I reported about the actual words that used (of course, as translated into English.)

Clement of Alexandria was not even one of the sources I quoted. So it appears that you are only answering emotionally, without even having bothered to read the very extensive documentation I posted in this very thread.

What I reported, and I reported it because I had just posted proof of it, was that four different ante-Nicene Christian writers had reported that John was banished by Domatian. And each of these four gave details about that banishment that none of the others gave. This is proof, not indication but proof, that not even one of these four writers had based his account solely on what any of the others said.

What one or more of what one of the others said may have colored the opinion of any but the first one, which was Irenaeus. But as each of the other three gave details that Irenaeus did not give, they could not even possibly have simply been parroting what Irenaeus said. And this is again true of each of these others, in regard to all the rest of them.

None of these four writers gave even one detail which contradicted any of the others. But each of them included details that none of the other three said. This is hard proof that not even one of these four writers was basing his opinion solely on what any (or all) of the others has said. Each of them based his opinion on what some unknown and now lost original source had written. Who each one of them's original source was, and what he actually wrote, is lost to history. All we know is that each of these writers based his opinion on a source different from any (or all) of the others of these four ante-Nicene writers.

 

[claninja]

I did not read about what the early writers said. I read what they said. nor did I devote a few minutes to this research, but nearly ten years. So I did not report what someone else said about what ancient writers said. I reported about the actual words that used (of course, as translated into English.)

Clement of Alexandria was not even one of the sources I quoted. So it appears that you are only answering emotionally, without even having bothered to read the very extensive documentation I posted in this very thread.

What I reported, and I reported it because I had just posted proof of it, was that four different ante-Nicene Christian writers had reported that John was banished by Domatian. And each of these four gave details about that banishment that none of the others gave. This is proof, not indication but proof, that not even one of these four writers had based his account solely on what any of the others said.

What one or more of what one of the others said may have colored the opinion of any but the first one, which was Irenaeus. But as each of the other three gave details that Irenaeus did not give, they could not even possibly have simply been parroting what Irenaeus said. And this is again true of each of these others, in regard to all the rest of them.

None of these four writers gave even one detail which contradicted any of the others. But each of them included details that none of the other three said. This is hard proof that not even one of these four writers was basing his opinion solely on what any (or all) of the others has said. Each of them based his opinion on what some unknown and now lost original source had written. Who each one of them's original source was, and what he actually wrote, is lost to history. All we know is that each of these writers based his opinion on a source different from any (or all) of the others of these four ante-Nicene writers.

You have not provided 'proof'. You have only provided possible evidence to support your position, but not 100% proof.

A small summary of issues with the ‘proof’ you provided:

1. Irenaeus
a.) the greek of Irenaeus' statement allows for alternate translation from the ‘vision was seen’ to ‘John was seen’. This is consistent with Irenaeus mentioning ancient copies of revelation.
b.) reliability of Irenaeus' memory is possibly an issue. He learned as a child and did not write anything down. This shows when he discussed the age at which Jesus lived too.
2. Victorinus
a.) Mentions 'mines of patmos'. It does not appear that there is any other secular historian, church historian, or archaeology that can confirm that patmos had mines for which criminals worked in, let alone John who would have been very old by that point. He does not mention his source.
b.) lived about almost 100 years after Irenaeus. Thus, he is not technically a source independent of Irenaeus.
3. Acts of John
a.) the story of John being exiled by Domitian, is found in the chapters 1-17 of the acts of John. This portion of the book is considered lost and was possibly not a part of the original book, but added later.
4. Jerome
a.) lived almost 200 years post Irenaeus. So it is difficult to to label him as independent of Irenaeus.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I did not read about what the early writers said. I read what they said. nor did I devote a few minutes to this research, but nearly ten years. So I did not report what someone else said about what ancient writers said. I reported about the actual words that used (of course, as translated into English.)

The thread is pretty long. Can you say which page this is one please?

Clement of Alexandria was not even one of the sources I quoted. So it appears that you are only answering emotionally, without even having bothered to read the very extensive documentation I posted in this very thread.

Correct. I read the wrong extensive post on the subject from someone else. Sorry.

What I reported, and I reported it because I had just posted proof of it, was that four different ante-Nicene Christian writers had reported that John was banished by Domatian. And each of these four gave details about that banishment that none of the others gave. This is proof, not indication but proof, that not even one of these four writers had based his account solely on what any of the others said.

No, it is not even evidence let alone proof. You only read what others said, ignorant or informed, right? What they said would not be admissable in a court of law as evidence, let alone proof. It is called "heresay" and is unreliable. They were not there. Josephus, who reported as an eye witness to the destruction of Jerusalem is reliable evidence and his description matches Revelation. That is the problem. The known facts of history reported by an eye witness demonstrate the opposite, not to mention the predictions of Matthew 24 coming true and all the Christians knew Jesus was talking about their day, not 2000+ years later. That is proof, not heresay.

What one or more of what one of the others said may have colored the opinion of any but the first one, which was Irenaeus. But as each of the other three gave details that Irenaeus did not give, they could not even possibly have simply been parroting what Irenaeus said. And this is again true of each of these others, in regard to all the rest of them.

They were obviously parrotting someone else or making it up. They seemed to have a fixation about old men. John had to be old. Jesus had to be old. I guess that they were old and did not think much of young men.

None of these four writers gave even one detail which contradicted any of the others.

Shows they read the same stuff.

But each of them included details that none of the other three said. This is hard proof that not even one of these four writers was basing his opinion solely on what any (or all) of the others has said. Each of them based his opinion on what some unknown and now lost original source had written. Who each one of them's original source was, and what he actually wrote, is lost to history. All we know is that each of these writers based his opinion on a source different from any (or all) of the others of these four ante-Nicene writers.

No, it is all heresay. That is all it is. It is not evidence and so far from proof as to be ludricous. MEn living hundreds of years later writing about it cannot even offer any evidence is all they got is words. And that is all they got, words.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You have not provided 'proof'. You have only provided possible evidence to support your position, but not 100% proof.

A small summary of issues with the ‘proof’ you provided:

1. Irenaeus
a.) the greek of Irenaeus' statement allows for alternate translation from the ‘vision was seen’ to ‘John was seen’. This is consistent with Irenaeus mentioning ancient copies of revelation.
b.) reliability of Irenaeus' memory is possibly an issue. He learned as a child and did not write anything down. This shows when he discussed the age at which Jesus lived too.
2. Victorinus
a.) Mentions 'mines of patmos'. It does not appear that there is any other secular historian, church historian, or archaeology that can confirm that patmos had mines for which criminals worked in, let alone John who would have been very old by that point. He does not mention his source.
b.) lived about almost 100 years after Irenaeus. Thus, he is not technically a source independent of Irenaeus.
3. Acts of John
a.) the story of John being exiled by Domitian, is found in the chapters 1-17 of the acts of John. This portion of the book is considered lost and was possibly not a part of the original book, but added later.
4. Jerome
a.) lived almost 200 years post Irenaeus. So it is difficult to to label him as independent of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus was born 130 AD. Was John even alive at the time he was born?

 

[claninja]

Irenaeus was born 130 AD. Was John even alive at the time he was born?

Nope, they were definitely not alive at the same time.

Irenaeus was only a boy when he learned from Polycarp. Polycarp was the disciple of John.
Unfortunately, Irenaeus never actually wrote down what he learned from Polycarp as a child. He waited 40-50 years to write it down.

 

[Biblewriter]

The thread is pretty long. Can you say which page this is one please?
Correct. I read the wrong extensive post on the subject from someone else. Sorry.
No, it is not even evidence let alone proof. You only read what others said, ignorant or informed, right? What they said would not be admissable in a court of law as evidence, let alone proof. It is called "heresay" and is unreliable. They were not there. Josephus, who reported as an eye witness to the destruction of Jerusalem is reliable evidence and his description matches Revelation. That is the problem. The known facts of history reported by an eye witness demonstrate the opposite, not to mention the predictions of Matthew 24 coming true and all the Christians knew Jesus was talking about their day, not 2000+ years later. That is proof, not heresay.
They were obviously parrotting someone else or making it up. They seemed to have a fixation about old men. John had to be old. Jesus had to be old. I guess that they were old and did not think much of young men.
Shows they read the same stuff.
No, it is all heresay. That is all it is. It is not evidence and so far from proof as to be ludricous. MEn living hundreds of years later writing about it cannot even offer any evidence is all they got is words. And that is all they got, words.

My extensive documentation was provided in posts #105 through #112 of this thread.

I did not even claim that what any of them said was proof. What I said, and insist upon, is the fact that each of them gave details that none of the others gave, is indeed PROOF that they were not simoly relying upon what others said.

You seem to be wholly unfamiliar with the problems and methods of historians. There are very few events of ancient history for which all the witnesses agree. So historians have to sift through the conflicting accounts, and construct a rational timeline from their united testimony. What the majority of the witnesses said is most often preferred, unless it is unreasonable.

As to Josephus. I have actually read what he wrote. and from your comments, I doubt that you have. For it is simply not true that the account of Josephus lines up exactly with the Revelation. The people who claim that come up with this false "alignment" by simply pretending that the details are not important. When these details are considered, it soon becomes evident that almost not a single account of Josephus lines up eve approximately with the Revelation.

Both Preterists and Historicists always pretend that the details are not important. For there are very few historical accounts that compare, detail for detail, with more than 20% of what was actually said in the prophecies claimed to have been fulfilled in these historical events.

 

[Biblewriter]

You have not provided 'proof'. You have only provided possible evidence to support your position, but not 100% proof.

A small summary of issues with the ‘proof’ you provided:

1. Irenaeus
a.) the greek of Irenaeus' statement allows for alternate translation from the ‘vision was seen’ to ‘John was seen’. This is consistent with Irenaeus mentioning ancient copies of revelation.
b.) reliability of Irenaeus' memory is possibly an issue. He learned as a child and did not write anything down. This shows when he discussed the age at which Jesus lived too.

The fact that the Greek words actually used by Irenaeus could be interpreted to have that meaning. But that is beside the point. For the logic Irenaeus was using would not even make sense if your interpretation were applied to his words.

Irenaeus was arguing that the reason we should not currently try to decipher the name of the beast was that the vision had been seen so recently that if an understanding of the name were currently needed, it would have been declared in the Revelation. "for that was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our day."

Changing the word to "he" destroys the logic of the sentences constructed by Irenaeus.

2. Victorinus

a.) Mentions 'mines of patmos'. It does not appear that there is any other secular historian, church historian, or archaeology that can confirm that patmos had mines for which criminals worked in, let alone John who would have been very old by that point. He does not mention his source.
b.) lived about almost 100 years after Irenaeus. Thus, he is not technically a source independent of Irenaeus.

Whether or not there were actually mines on Patmos is inconsequential. My point was that the fact that Victorinus mentioned them is hard proof that he was not simply depending on what Irenaeus said. And the fact that he lived almost a hndred years later has zero bearing on this logic. the poit was, and remains, that he was using a source other than Irenaeus.

3. Acts of John

a.) the story of John being exiled by Domitian, is found in the chapters 1-17 of the acts of John. This portion of the book is considered lost and was possibly not a part of the original book, but added later.

When it was written is also immaterial to the fact that it was not based entirely on what Irenaeus said, because it included details which Irenaeus omitted.

4. Jerome

a.) lived almost 200 years post Irenaeus. So it is difficult to to label him as independent of Irenaeus.

Again, the fact that he incuded details that Irenaeus omitted, proves that he was not relying solely on what Irenaeus said.

What I said, and what I proved, is whatever the original source was from which each of these writers got their information, it was not any of the other of these writers.

Thus, I have completely disproved that claim that all the rest of these ancient witnesses was only quoting Irenaeus.

 

[David Kent]

Irenaeus was born 130 AD. Was John even alive at the time he was born?

There are some that believe that John is alive today. Unable to credit, but they believe that, If they find him, we could ask him.

But the knowledge of the time would common in the early church, and it is only preterists that need to push an early date for Revelation. Remember that modern preterism is an invention of the Jesuits. Why did the Jesuits do that? The same reason they invented futurism, to counter the true teaching that the pope is antichrist and the RCC is the Babylonian harlot.

An interesting part of a book by hyper dispensationalist Clarence Larking in his book Dispensational Truth, reads:

The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A.D.1614. It limits the scope of the apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the “Antichrist.” The purpose of the scheme was transparent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the “Harlot Church” and the Pope from being called the Antichrist…”

The “Historical School”. . . interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of the School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person,” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the “Time Element” in the Book on the “Year Day Scale.” This school has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century, and was systematized in the beginning of the Third Century by the Abbot Joachim. Subsequently it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Elliott’s “Horae Apocalypticae.” It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to “love not their lives unto the death.” It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.

The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such and hold that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” . . . In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and among Protestants. . . ., The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

Clarence Larkin

Well, there you have it. Larkin is ecstatic because the rejected prophetic counter-scheme manipulations of the Jesuit Ribera have been “wonderfully revived.”
By Robert Caringola

Where Larkin was in error is that the early church all taught an orderly historic teaching future and nothing like futurism, was future to them but history to us.

 

[David Kent]

Irenatus was born

in 130 AD. He cannot have been a disciple of John who would have been over 100 years old when the man was a baby. So this is wrong.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple oh John.

How do you know they did not contradict him? How many discussed it beyond quoting him being ignorant of the fall of Jerusalem and what happened? Iraeneus himself was off on details they would have all disagreed with, the age of Jesus at his death. Do we have any writings where they disagreed with that? If not, we cannot say that they agreed with him because he have no writings showing any discussion beyond quoting him verbatum.

Can you quote any early writer who contradicted him?

 

[AFrazier]

There are some that believe that John is alive today. Unable to credit, but they believe that, If they find him, we could ask him.

But the knowledge of the time would common in the early church, and it is only preterists that need to push an early date for Revelation. Remember that modern preterism is an invention of the Jesuits. Why did the Jesuits do that? The same reason they invented futurism, to counter the true teaching that the pope is antichrist and the RCC is the Babylonian harlot.

An interesting part of a book by hyper dispensationalist Clarence Larking in his book Dispensational Truth, reads:

The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A.D.1614. It limits the scope of the apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the “Antichrist.” The purpose of the scheme was transparent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the “Harlot Church” and the Pope from being called the Antichrist…”

The “Historical School”. . . interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of the School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person,” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the “Time Element” in the Book on the “Year Day Scale.” This school has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century, and was systematized in the beginning of the Third Century by the Abbot Joachim. Subsequently it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Elliott’s “Horae Apocalypticae.” It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to “love not their lives unto the death.” It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.

The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such and hold that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” . . . In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and among Protestants. . . ., The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

Clarence Larkin

Well, there you have it. Larkin is ecstatic because the rejected prophetic counter-scheme manipulations of the Jesuit Ribera have been “wonderfully revived.”
By Robert Caringola

Where Larkin was in error is that the early church all taught an orderly historic teaching future and nothing like futurism, was future to them but history to us.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. "Preterism" isn't an invention of anyone. I personally came to that point of view independent of any and all secondary source literature. I studied the Bible. I studied history. I studied culture. And I used my own common sense and logic. One day, I concluded, on my own, that the facts, scripture, and history were undeniable. The Revelation was clearly a past event. Only then, a few years later, did I discover that there was a viable school of thought supporting what I had come to recognize as true.

So I think it's unfair to say that preterism is some sort of deliberate invention of Jesuit church politics to distract from some nefarious truth about the Roman Catholic Church. Preterism is just an eschatological point of view that views some or all scripture of prophecy as fulfilled events rather than pending ones, and as in the case of myself, many come to this point of view very naturally, as the Jesuit Alcazar clearly did as well.

In fact, I think I'll hunt down his work, now that you've brought it to my attention.

Edit:

I did want to clarify that I am not disputing the initial instance of Preterism, or the conflicts going on at the time in terms of the struggle with the Catholic Church during the Reformation. What I am disputing is the notion that Preterism was invented as a church politic, as opposed to it being the actual point of view of that particular Jesuit, who produced the work at that time because it was appropriate to do so, though his research would obviously have predated the publication.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Nope, they were definitely not alive at the same time.

Irenaeus was only a boy when he learned from Polycarp. Polycarp was the disciple of John.
Unfortunately, Irenaeus never actually wrote down what he learned from Polycarp as a child. He waited 40-50 years to write it down.

And no one who read what Ireneas wrote thought it inspired. No one. And some of the details that are known, are outright wrong and by a long shot.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple oh John.

Apparently he was a child at the time and only wrote down what he heard decades later.
Unreliable.

Can you quote any early writer who contradicted him?

The gospels. Jesus was around 33 when he died. Good enough?

Otherwise, lack of contradiction is not evidence of support when it comes to ancient texts.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Nope, they were definitely not alive at the same time.

Irenaeus was only a boy when he learned from Polycarp. Polycarp was the disciple of John.
Unfortunately, Irenaeus never actually wrote down what he learned from Polycarp as a child. He waited 40-50 years to write it down.

Explains why Irenaeus got the details wrong and thought the gospels backed him up. Obviously didn’t have the Gospels at hand and worked from heresay and childhood memories.

 

[Meowzltov]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

I believe that it was written before 70 AD, simply because it prophecies the Jewish Roman war and the destruction of the Temple. (I am a Partial Preterist.)

 

[Biblewriter]

Where Larkin was in error is that the early church all taught an orderly historic teaching future and nothing like futurism, was future to them but history to us.

This could hardly be more in error. Historicism was mot invented until much later. Almost all of the early church writers were decided and outspoken futurists. And even as late as the fifth century, Jerome said "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that" and then went on to describe a futurist interpretation. (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

 

[claninja]

For the logic Irenaeus was using would not even make sense if your interpretation were applied to his words.

Irenaeus was arguing that the reason we should not currently try to decipher the name of the beast was that the vision had been seen so recently that if an understanding of the name were currently needed, it would have been declared in the Revelation. "for that was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our day."

Changing the word to "he" destroys the logic of the sentences constructed by Irenaeus.

No one is 'changing' the word to 'he'. the verb, in greek, does not specify 'it', 'he', or 'she'. The problem with the traditional interpretation is the greek word 'for'. This allows the 'was seen' to refer not to the preceding noun of 'revelation' but to 'John’.

This not only works, it helps clarify the greater context. In the beginning of this book, Irenaeus mentions ancient copies of revelation. If the 'that was seen not long ago' was referring to the vision itself, that doesn't make sense with the term 'ancient' copies. However, if the 'that was seen not long ago' refers to John, then the 'ancient copies' makes more sense, as the original revelation would have preceded 'john being seen not long ago' by about 20-30 years.

"For if it was necessary for John to reveal the name of the beast in the present time, he would have done so, for he was seen not long ago."

Whether or not there were actually mines on Patmos is inconsequential. My point was that the fact that Victorinus mentioned them is hard proof that he was not simply depending on what Irenaeus said. And the fact that he lived almost a hndred years later has zero bearing on this logic. the poit was, and remains, that he was using a source other than Irenaeus.

It’s not hard proof, it’s an assumption. For it to be hard proof, there would have to be some other source, whether secular historian, church historian, or archeology that showed there were mines on Patmos.

When it was written is also immaterial to the fact that it was not based entirely on what Irenaeus said, because it included details which Irenaeus omitted.

The dating of books is actually very important. Establishing that it is possibly not a part of the original acts of John decreases its reliability as a factual source and shows it is not hard proof.

The Syriac history of John the son of Zebedee, dating as early as 4th century ad, was not based off Irenaeus. It states John was banished by Nero. Can we take this as hard proof?

Again, the fact that he incuded details that Irenaeus omitted, proves that he was not relying solely on what Irenaeus said.

What I said, and what I proved, is whatever the original source was from which each of these writers got their information, it was not any of the other of these writers.

Thus, I have completely disproved that claim that all the rest of these ancient witnesses was only quoting Irenaeus.

You keep saying ‘proved’. You have not proved anything. You’ve only built a case on assumptions with evidence to support your view. It’s a decent case, but not without flaws. It does not 100% prove your view.

 

[AFrazier]

No one is 'changing' the word to 'he'. the verb, in greek, does not specify 'it', 'he', or 'she'. The problem with the traditional interpretation is the greek word 'for'. This allows the 'was seen' to refer not to the preceding noun of 'revelation' but to 'John’.

This not only works, it helps clarify the greater context. In the beginning of this book, Irenaeus mentions ancient copies of revelation. If the 'that was seen not long ago' was referring to the vision itself, that doesn't make sense with the term 'ancient' copies. However, if the 'that was seen not long ago' refers to John, then the 'ancient copies' makes more sense, as the original revelation would have preceded 'john being seen not long ago' by about 20-30 years.

"For if it was necessary for John to reveal the name of the beast in the present time, he would have done so, for he was seen not long ago."



It’s not hard proof, it’s an assumption. For it to be hard proof, there would have to be some other source, whether secular historian, church historian, or archeology that showed there were mines on Patmos.



The dating of books is actually very important. Establishing that it is possibly not a part of the original acts of John decreases its reliability as a factual source and shows it is not hard proof.

The Syriac history of John the son of Zebedee, dating as early as 4th century ad, was not based off Irenaeus. It states John was banished by Nero. Can we take this as hard proof?



You keep saying ‘proved’. You have not proved anything. You’ve only built a case on assumptions with evidence to support your view. It’s a decent case, but not without flaws. It does not 100% prove your view.

he/it is the noun that was seen, as indicated by the preposition, and it is he/it that causes this to be debatable. Was it seen in the reign of Domitian, or was he seen in the reign of Domitian?