Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[Jeffwhosoever]

Realized eschatology is not limited to Preterists. Idealists and Historicists also hold to the same. That does not prove a date prior to AD70.

Agreed! Merely citing external sources

What is realized eschatology though?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Kinda like you quoting Irenaeus then? Or is it different when YOU do it?

Yet everything I said is irrefutable truth. Weird.

Irenaeus testimony is weak and beggardly all on its own. I'm sorry that my pointing out this fact, and pointing out scholars who also recognize this fact, has caused you such distress.

Perhaps if the late date proponents like yourself had any other independent sources for the late date theory besides Irenaeus, you wouldn't be so distressed when his view is rightfully scrutinized.



Again, There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.
It has to mean that John wrote the Apocalypse before Paul died. It cannot mean anything else. There is no way Paul could follow John's rule if John's rule wasn't known until AD 96.

After listing Paul's writings, the Canon says Paul was following John's rule in writing to only 7 churches. Thus, the Canon is placing John's apocalypse prior to Paul's death, making AD 95+ an Impossible Date.



Perhaps you missed it.
Happy to repost for you:
Miscellanies 7:17
"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."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero, otherwise Clement would not have made the statement in 7:17, had Revelation been written a quarter-century after Nero died.

If you need me to break down How "the teaching of the Apostles ends with Nero" means the Canon was Complete before AD70, I'll be happy to do so, but I'm going to bet our readers find the math fairly simple.

What is the issue here? John was ministering long before Paul. Most of us would believe that John wrote earlier books before Revelation, likely well before AD70. This reality pushes the pendulum in neither direction in regard to the dating of Revelation.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Agreed! Merely citing external sources

What is realized eschatology though?

That we are in the last days/kingdom age or (in the case of Preterism) that the last days are past tense.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

That we are in the last days/kingdom age or (in the case of Preterism) that the last days are past tense.

10-4. Thank you for that clarification.

 

[sovereigngrace]

10-4. Thank you for that clarification.

Your welcome! It is a broad Amil term.

I prefer "ongoing eschatology" or "inaugurated eschatology."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If the book of Revelation was mostly centered around what happened in Jerusalem around 70 AD and was written before 70 AD then why would the book be addressed to the seven churches of the ancient province of Asia instead of being addressed to the church in Jerusalem? Do any of our resident partial preterist posters have an answer for that?

 

[Christian Gedge]

Eusebius, Caesarea, Palestine, (263-339)

Church History (Book III)
Chapter XXIII.

Narrative Concerning John the Apostle. 1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.
2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.
4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words: But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.
5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? indicates the time, and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and read the account which runs as follows:
6. Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.

Just repeating. I suppose we might argue about Irenaeus, but Clement and Eusebius are rock solid. Yep, John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. Done and dusted.

 

[parousia70]

Clement of Alexandria did not state "the the Canon of scripture was complete before AD70" as you allege. That is your slant. Their active ministry may have come to an end through old age or death, but God later visited John in old age on Patmos at the time of Domitian. I see no conflict there.

So you are arguing that Clement did not believe the Revelation to be included among the teaching of the Apostles?

 

[parousia70]

If the book of Revelation was mostly centered around what happened in Jerusalem around 70 AD and was written before 70 AD then why would the book be addressed to the seven churches of the ancient province of Asia instead of being addressed to the church in Jerusalem? Do any of our resident partial preterist posters have an answer for that?

To answer your question, the judgment associated with Christ's Parousia was not merely restricted to the land of Israel or Jerusalem (although that was the center). Disasters were going on all over the empire as God's wrath was being poured out. While preterists often turn to a slew of historical resources to show the famines, city-sized destructions from earthquakes, and empire-wide wars that were breaking out by God's design, we need only to look in our bibles to see how the churches around the empire were being affected at that time:


--THE END-OF-THE-AGE TRIBULATION--

* world-wide famine (Acts 11:27-29)

* plagues (1 Cor 11:29-31)

* world-wide suffering of the church (1 Pet 4:7,12-13; 5:9; 2 Thess 1:4-6)

* judgment upon the empire's kings/rulers (Acts 12:1-4/19-24; 23:1-3; 24:24-25)

* the apostasy (book of Jude; 2 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 4:16)



--THE RELIEF PROVIDED BY CHRIST'S PAROUSIA--

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Thessalonica
promise: 2 Thess 1:6-7
result: their persecutors would be cut off, ending their persecution

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Thyatira
promise: Rev 2:18-25
result: their false prophetess and all her followers would be killed off by
Christ's coming. The Church was granted Christ's authority.

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Pergamum
promise: Rev 2:12-16
result: the heretical Nicolaitans were to put down by Christ's coming to
Pergamum. The Nicolaitans that were causing them to break the decree of the Council of Jerusalem were killed (Rev 2:14; cf. Acts 15:28-29).

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Sardis
promise: Rev 3:1-5
result: Christ promises them that his "thief-in-the-night" coming will come
upon them. They had not been faithfully expecting "the thief" as explained to them in Matt 24:43/1 Thess5:2-5. However, a few in Sardis were found worthy and had not soiled their garments. At Christ's coming to them "they walked in white, for they were worthy" (Rev 3:4-5).

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Philadelphia
promise: Rev 3:7-13
result: Christ puts down the then-contemporary Jewish persecution (3:9).
He preserves the Church at Philadelphia through the testing which was then about to come upon the whole empire (3:10). God makes his faithful ones "pillars" in the Temple of God.

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Laodicea
promise: Rev 3:14-21
result: Christ is shown to be knocking at their door as first promised in Matt 24:33 (cf. also James 5:9). If they didn't repent it appears they were annihilated. Repentant and obedient followers said to become partakers of Christ's heavenly authority.

Did the things promised to the seven churches of Asia Minor fail to materialize for them as they were promised?

If one were to say that the promises made to the seven churches of Asia Minor failed to materialize for them, then that would indict the NT apostles (especially St. John) as false prophets. If one says that the promises made to the seven churches did materialize, then Christ came, and the apostles are vindicated as true prophets. This is serious stuff; if the promised relief of Rev 2-3 failed to arrive via Christ's coming, then Christianity has failed prophets at its very root.

Thankfully, It is clear that the scriptures contain the historic record of the tribulation period, and they explain the relief that Christ's Parousia brought to the churches around the empire, precisely as they were promised. Christ did not fail them.

 

[parousia70]

Just repeating. I suppose we might argue about Irenaeus, but Clement and Eusebius are rock solid. Yep, John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. Done and dusted.

Rock Solid?

Clement, as noted, stated the timeline of apostolic teaching ended with Nero.
Are you arguing the Revelation is NOT to be included among apostolic teaching?
Are you arguing Clement did not believe the Revelation ought be cited as Apostolic teaching?

And Eusebius' testimony relies wholly upon Irenaeus', which you agree is arguable, so scratch that....

Your rock solid sounds more like quick sand.

 

[Christian Gedge]

And Eusebius' testimony relies wholly upon Irenaeus', which you agree is arguable, so scratch that....

… or Eusebius’ testimony adds credibility, so Irenaeus is OK after all. I think we can all agree that Eusebius was one of the finest historians in the Church. Here we are in the 21st century trying to figure out dates. I’ll happily go with Eusebius!

 

[parousia70]

This Accurately Sums up my belief about Irenaeus' statement and why I hold it.

I am in full agreement with this author's take:
The Ironclad Network: Irenaeus and the Date of Revelation

What Irenaeus Actually Said

Here is the oft-referenced quote from Irenaeus, the context of which is a discussion about the number and name of the Antichrist:

“Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation. For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Against Heresies, 5.30.3)

The phrase “it was seen” is translating a single Greek word: ἑωράθη. And this word is commonly taken to refer back to “the actual revelation” which had just been mentioned. Thus, Irenaeus would be stating that John saw his apocalyptic vision at the end of Domitian’s reign, and this would support the later date for Revelation (late-90s).

But what needs to be noted here is that ἑωράθη is a third-person singular verb, which means the subject can be either he, she, or it. So this particular verb in this particular form can just as easily be translated “he was seen.” And plenty of examples can be produced from Greek literature where the word ἑωράθη refers to a person who was seen rather than a thing or object. And just to belabor this point beyond what is necessary, here are a few of those examples:

“And he was seen (ἑωράθη) by practically all mankind. For there was no city of repute, and no nation, which he did not visit; and among all alike the same opinion of him prevailed — that they had seen no one more beautiful.” (Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 29, section 6)

“In the capture of the city, no Theban was seen (ἑωράθη) begging the Macedonians to spare his life, nor did they in ignoble fashion fall and cling to the knees of their conquerors.” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 17.13.2)

“And when he came to the last hall, then he mounted a chariot, but sometimes he mounted a horse; but on foot he was never seen (οὐδέποτε ἑωράθη) outside of his palace.” (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, 12.8)

The point to draw from this is that only the context can determine whether ἑωράθη is best translated as “it was seen” or “he was seen.” And that’s what needs to be kept in mind when we’re interpreting Irenaeus’s use of the word.

Personally, I think Irenaeus’s point makes better sense if ἑωράθη is translated “he was seen.” In that case, Irenaeus would be referring back to John himself and not to the revelation that John saw. A paraphrase might look like this: “If Christians had needed to know the precise name of the Antichrist, John could have easily made it clear, seeing as how he was seen (i.e. he was alive) until very recently, almost in our own day.”

And if ἑωράθη is actually referring back to John himself, rather than John’s apocalyptic vision, then this oft-referenced statement from Irenaeus does not support the later date of Revelation.

To frame the issue a different way, we’re basically choosing which of the following statements makes better sense:
a. John could have revealed the name of the Antichrist, because John was seen alive until very recently.
b. John could have revealed the name of the Antichrist, because John saw the apocalyptic vision very recently.You could argue that both statements are sensible enough, but I think the first one makes better sense. The logic seems more natural to me.

In making this decision, we also need to consider other things Irenaeus says about the book of Revelation. In fact, very shortly before the oft-referenced quote above, Irenaeus states that the number 666 is “found in all the most approved and ancient copies” of Revelation (Against Heresies, 5.30.1).

Think about that. Irenaeus makes reference to “ancient copies” of the book of Revelation. So not only were these copies ancient (i.e. they had been around a very long time), but they were also in fact copies (i.e. non-original versions). So when Irenaeus, just a couple paragraphs later, speaks of something that “was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime,” how could that be a reference to the vision of Revelation? What kind of sense would it make for Irenaeus to refer to copies of the apocalyptic vision as “ancient,” but also maintain that the vision itself occurred almost in his own lifetime?

This problem is alleviated if we understand ἑωράθη as a reference to John himself (“he was seen”), rather than the apocalyptic vision (“it was seen”).

 

[parousia70]

… or Eusebius’ testimony adds credibility, so Irenaeus is OK after all. I think we can all agree that Eusebius was one of the finest historians in the Church. Here we are in the 21st century trying to figure out dates. I’ll happily go with Eusebius!

From the Above Link as well:

"remember that Eusebius himself was very unsure about the authenticity and authority of Revelation. In setting up this quote from Irenaeus, he refers to the book as “what is called the Revelation of John,” indicating a degree of doubt as to whether John actually wrote it. More significantly, Eusebius elsewhere places Revelation in the category of “spurious books” (3.25)."

Being that we're in the 21st century, would you likewise "happily go with Eusebius" regarding the doubtful and spurious nature of the Book of Revelation itself?

 

[sovereigngrace]

… or Eusebius’ testimony adds credibility, so Irenaeus is OK after all. I think we can all agree that Eusebius was one of the finest historians in the Church. Here we are in the 21st century trying to figure out dates. I’ll happily go with Eusebius!

Absolutely.

 

[Freedm]

what’s interesting is that while the Eusebius quote of irenaeus does seemingly confirm the “It being seen” refers to the vision, he still believed in the fulfillment of the olivet discourse, and the ushering in of the new heaves and new earth following 70ad.

EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea (c. 265 - 340) Extract from the 'Theophania'
"All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been done" "The End" should come : that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets" : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I'm not sure how this quote shows that Eusebius believed the new heaven and new earth would be ushered in after 70AD. I only see that it shows he believed it had already happened at the time of writing.

 

[claninja]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I'm not sure how this quote shows that Eusebius believed the new heaven and new earth would be ushered in after 70AD. I only see that it shows he believed it had already happened at the time of writing.

Sorry, I meant in 70, not following as in +2,000 some years later. Hope that clarifies that.

 

[claninja]

… or Eusebius’ testimony adds credibility, so Irenaeus is OK after all. I think we can all agree that Eusebius was one of the finest historians in the Church. Here we are in the 21st century trying to figure out dates. I’ll happily go with Eusebius!

I agree Eusebius was an fine historian.

while his quote of irenaeus seemingly confirms the antecedent of “it” as the vision and not necessarily John, that doesn’t change his partial preterist position on eschatology, as such I doubt this un-provable debate will change the minds of those who already settled on their eschatology.

do you agree with Samuel Lee’s dissertation Eusebius below starting with “all authorities concur”?

EUSEBIUS Bishop of Caesarea (c. 265 - 340) Extract from the 'Theophania'
"All authorities concur in the declaration that "when all these things should have been done" "The End" should come : that "the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets" : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world.His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days--in obedience, faith and hope.'

 

[Freedm]

This article concludes:
"In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it."
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

I would be very interested to know what "scores of other scriptural difficulties" he believes make an earlier writing improbable.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Proximity to an apostle seems to be the bastion of "evidence" cited that certain ECF's doctrine "must be" correct, however, proximity to an apostle does not guarantee correctness of doctrine. We know this from the scriptural testimony of how many of the apostles' own flocks went into apostasy, which would be impossible if the claim that nearness of removal from apostolic teaching guarantees correctness were true.

As I noted, I am looking for historical evidence of Polycarp's insight, not an interpretation of what constitutes correct doctrine or conjecture. Let the data lead our question, not our personal current views of eschatology which could all be wrong.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Just repeating. I suppose we might argue about Irenaeus, but Clement and Eusebius are rock solid. Yep, John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. Done and dusted.

If so, and I'm not there yet, that means Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem so John was writing about a coming tribulation and not that event in AD 70, right?