Approaches to Eschatology

[timtams]

I must apologize for saying that there were four ante-Nicene writers who said this. Actually only three of the four were ante-Nicene.

The first was Irenaeus. The second was Victorinus, and the third was the unknown writer of the “Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John and the fourth truly ancient source was Jerome.

As I pointed out to you before, the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" is from the sixth century. You have confused it with the far earlier Acts of John. This work is not Ante Nicene. You can read about its date in Keith Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament, p. 347.

Whether Irenaeus spoke of Revelation as being seen in Domitian's reign is ambiguous. He is not clear evidence for your view.

Jerome was summarizing Eusebius and is post Nicene.

That leaves one writer, Victorinus, who placed John's exile early in Domitian's reign, not late, as Eusebius did.

 

[timtams]

The Muratorian Fragment is clear evidence that Revelation was dated early. Westcott doesn't discuss the quality of the source, only the poor quality of the state of its transmission.

"On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken."

That is, it contains spelling mistakes while still preserving the meaning of its source.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Muratorian Fragment is clear evidence that Revelation was dated early. Westcott doesn't discuss the quality of the source, only the poor quality of the state of its transmission.

"On the other hand the text itself as it stands is substantially a good one. The errors by which it is deformed are due to carelessness and ignorance and not to the badness of the source from which it was taken."

That is, it contains spelling mistakes while still preserving the meaning of its source.

This conclusion is irrational, considering all the other evidence HE gave for the source of the document.

 

[timtams]

This conclusion is irrational, considering all the other evidence HE gave for the source of the document.

He is discussing spelling mistakes, which can be rectified. The restored text of the MC is accepted by scholars as representing the original. It is therefore evidence for the ante-Nicene early dating of Revelation, whether you accept it or not.

The TEXT is good. It is "deformed" by spelling mistakes. I could write a post and it be full of spelling mistakes but I would still be communicating meaning.

 

[Biblewriter]

As I pointed out to you before, the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" is from the sixth century. You have confused it with the far earlier Acts of John. This work is not Ante Nicene. You can read about its date in Keith Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament, p. 347.

Whether Irenaeus spoke of Revelation as being seen in Domitian's reign is ambiguous. He is not clear evidence for your view.

Jerome was summarizing Eusebius and is post Nicene.

That leaves one writer, Victorinus, who placed John's exile early in Domitian's reign, not late, as Eusebius did.

Actually the words used by Irenaeus would not even make sense if he were not speaking of the time when "the Apocalyptic vision" was seen.

Irenaeus told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in “the apocalyptic vision.” Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, “for he was seen no very long time since...” He said “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day.” Using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.
Some of the more radical Preterists, determined to reject this testimony of Irenaeus, claim that his words "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day..." cannot refer to "the apocalyptic vision," because they claim that Irenaeus usually used the word "seen" with reference to persons, but not for things (like visions.) But this is clearly incorrect. For in this same "Against Heresies," Irenaeus repeatedly used the word "seen" with reference both to visions and to things seen in visions. He used it in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 10, saying, "This, too, was made still clearer by Ezekiel, that the prophets saw the dispensations of God in part, but not actually God Himself. For when this man had seen the vision of God, and the cherubim, and their wheels..." He used it again in book 4, chapter 20, paragraph 12, saying, "However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might prefigure and show forth future events beforehand." He used it again in book 5, chapter 26, paragraph 1, saying, "He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: ‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast.'" He used it again in the same paragraph, saying, "Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar..." He used it again in book 5, chapter 28, paragraph 2 of this work, saying, "John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' "(All of these comments can be found in the same volume 1 of "Ante-Nicene Fathers" So, contrary to the claim made by these Preterists, Irenaeus often used the word "seen" in regard to things (like visions.)

But after claiming that Irenaeus did not say that the Revelation was seen “towards the end of Domatian’s reign,” Preterists then claim that all other ancient writers that say the Revelation was given in the reign of Domitian were simply relying on the word of Irenaeus. They do not even seem to notice the logical contradiction of claiming that this is not what Irenaeus said, and also claiming that everyone else who said the same thing was simply relying on his word.

 

[timtams]

But what "other authorities" do we have for comparison? The only known other copies of any portion of this Canon are twenty-four of its eighty-five lines included in a Prologue to the Epistles of Paul. This Prologue is contained in three eleventh century and one twelfth century manuscript of the Corpus Paulinum at the Benedictine monastery on Monte Cassino, and was first published in Miscellanea Cassinese, ii (1897).

This makes everything else you wrote mute. The key lines which ascribe an early dating to Revelation are found, in an un-corrupted text (i.e. it doesn't have the spelling mistakes).

Before you say "it's late," most works are only preserved in late manuscripts. Irenaeus is only preserved in manuscripts from the tenth century onward, for the most part.

Scholars accept what the MC says. If you don't, it's because it disagrees with you.

 

[timtams]

Using the word “that,” rather than “he,” clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that John’s vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrist’s name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.

You are not linguistically equipped to discuss Irenaeus. It's clear from what you have written that you don't know the first thing about Greek or Latin.

 

[Biblewriter]

This makes everything else you wrote mute. The key lines which ascribe an early dating to Revelation are found, in an un-corrupted text (i.e. it doesn't have the spelling mistakes).

Before you say "it's late," most works are only preserved in late manuscripts. Irenaeus is only preserved in manuscripts from the tenth century onward, for the most part.

Scholars accept what the MC says. If you don't, it's because it disagrees with you.

Preterists accept it. But it disagrees with essentially all the other very old evidence.

 

[timtams]

Preterists accept it. But it disagrees with essentially all the other very old evidence.

You haven't presented any other old evidence for anyone before Eusebius that clearly claimed that John was sent into exile late in Domitian's reign.

Scholars, believing and unbelieving, preterist and non preterist, accept the MC. A couple tried dating it later and their arguments were rejected, by Christian and non Christian.

 

[timtams]

You can't dismiss everything on the basis that preterists say it. They are biased, but that doesn't make them wrong. You are obviously biased against the early date. The evidence is the opposite of what you say: non biased scholars accept the MC and you reject it because you are committed to the late date.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are not linguistically equipped to discuss Irenaeus. It's clear from what you have written that you don't know the first thing about Greek or Latin.

The only people I know of who claim that the word essentially always translated as "that" can also be read as "he" are the Preterists. There are indeed cases in both Greek and Latin when the actual wording can be taken either way. But there are also other cases in which the wording is not so indeterminate. So without actually examining the Latin text or a Greek fragment, I cannot evaluate this Preterist claim. But I have, to date, been unsuccessful in attempting to find an online text of Book 5 in Latin of in a Greek fragment.

But even if an indeterminate word was used, the text itself does not make sense when interpreted to mean "he." For the argument being made was that the Revelation had been given so recently that if there were any current benefit in knowing the name, it would have beenincluded in the Revelation. To imply that what Irenaeus meant was that John would have revealed that name after writing the book, implies that Irenaeus thought the Revelation came from the mind of John, rather than from the Holy Spirit. Thus, interpreting the text this way requires that you think Irenaeus himself was an heretic who denied that the scriptures come from God himself.

 

[Biblewriter]

As I pointed out to you before, the "Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John" is from the sixth century. You have confused it with the far earlier Acts of John. This work is not Ante Nicene. You can read about its date in Keith Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament, p. 347.

This claim certainly militates against the opinions of the scholars of the past, some of which attached the long title to this document, and some the short title.

 

[timtams]

This claim certainly militates against the opinions of the scholars of the past, some of which attached the long title to this document, and some the short title.

Which scholars of the past? There has been various titles for the work, but it has not been confused by any reputable scholars to my knowledge (Gentry and Hitchcock confused it, but they are hardly reputable scholars).

 

[timtams]

The only people I know of who claim that the word essentially always translated as "that" can also be read as "he" are the Preterists. There are indeed cases in both Greek and Latin when the actual wording can be taken either way. But there are also other cases in which the wording is not so indeterminate. So without actually examining the Latin text or a Greek fragment, I cannot evaluate this Preterist claim. But I have, to date, been unsuccessful in attempting to find an online text of Book 5 in Latin of in a Greek fragment.

But even if an indeterminate word was used, the text itself does not make sense when interpreted to mean "he." For the argument being made was that the Revelation had been given so recently that if there were any current benefit in knowing the name, it would have beenincluded in the Revelation. To imply that what Irenaeus meant was that John would have revealed that name after writing the book, implies that Irenaeus thought the Revelation came from the mind of John, rather than from the Holy Spirit. Thus, interpreting the text this way requires that you think Irenaeus himself was an heretic who denied that the scriptures come from God himself.

Correct me if I am mistaken but I am not aware that E. Earle Ellis was preterist, nor Stolt. Ian Boxall in his landmark work on Patmos in the Reception History of the Church acknowledges the ambiguity too. To my knowledge, he isn't even a Christian let alone a preterist. This is just a non-issue and a red herring.

The Latin isn't as ambiguous as the Greek. The Latin CANNOT refer to the apocalyptic vision as the subject.

 

[timtams]

But even if an indeterminate word was used, the text itself does not make sense when interpreted to mean "he." For the argument being made was that the Revelation had been given so recently that if there were any current benefit in knowing the name, it would have beenincluded in the Revelation. To imply that what Irenaeus meant was that John would have revealed that name after writing the book, implies that Irenaeus thought the Revelation came from the mind of John, rather than from the Holy Spirit. Thus, interpreting the text this way requires that you think Irenaeus himself was an heretic who denied that the scriptures come from God himself.

Not at all, it implies that if anyone would have understood the meaning, if it were meant to be known, then John would have, for he was given the vision. The context is not about when Revelation was given. The context is that John would have declared the name when he discussed the matter with the elders, at the end of Domitian's reign.

 

[timtams]

The only source that is unquestionably previous to the sixth century and clearly said the Revelation was written before the reign of Domatian was the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis, which was written in the late fourth century.

Epiphanius thought it was Claudius. Nero's name was Nero Claudius Caesar, so it makes sense that some thought it was Claudius. However, you can't confused Domitian (Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus) and Claudius.

 

[timtams]

The only source that is unquestionably previous to the sixth century and clearly said the Revelation was written before the reign of Domatian was the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis, which was written in the late fourth century.

There was also:
The Muratorian Canon (second or early third century)
Tertullian (as quoted by Jerome)
Irenaeus

It's also implied by the Acts of John (second century), Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria (early third century).

It's also in the Syriac title to the book of Revelation from perhaps as early as the fourth century. It's also in the Syriac History of John from the fourth century.

 

[Biblewriter]

There was also:
The Muratorian Canon (second or early third century)
Tertullian (as quoted by Jerome)
Irenaeus

It's also implied by the Acts of John (second century), Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria (early third century).

It's also in the Syriac title to the book of Revelation from perhaps as early as the fourth century. It's also in the Syriac History of John from the fourth century.

In answering my claim about sources "previous to the sixth century," you ignored my word "unquestionably." This word does not apply to "opinions" held by professed "scholars," but to provable facts.

I maintain my position that the Muratorian Cannon, being from a highly unreliable source, is itself unreliable as to even its text. For the opinion of the widely acclaimed Wescott was that it was copied out by an ignorant and careless scribe “given to arbitrary alteration of the text before him.” He also said of theMuratorian fragment, "It has been shown that a fragment of thirty lines contains three serious omissions and at least two other changes of words wholly destructive of the sense, and it would therefore be almost incredible that something of the like kind should not occur in a passage nearly three times as long." And those statements are why I stated that his conclusion that the Muratorian fragment was reliable, was itself unreasonable. (see my article that I linked for citations.)

Although I spent considerable time researching this subject, I never found any statement by Jerome quoting Tertullian as saying anything that would even imply John being banished by Nero. Please quote the passage you are speaking of, with explicit citation.

Even if your observations concerning Irenaeus were correct (which I do not accept) he most certainly did not even imply that the Revelation was given during the time of Nero. But here I must ask if you actually have the Greek and Latin texts of the last two sentences of the third paragraph of chapter 30 of the fifth book of "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus. Or are you simply relying on the word of "experts" whom you have decided to trust. I devoted considerable time searching for these online, and am not sufficiently interested to spend the significant amount of money required to purchase a paper copy. And as I said earlier, I cannot personally evaluate your claim abut this without seeing the actual Latin (and, as you have implied it is available) Greek wording of this passage.

Clement of Alexandria did indeed make a statement that could be interpreted to mean that the Revelation was given during the time of Nero. But that interpretation depends, in its entirety, on the implication of the word "tyrant." Preterists claim this means Nero, but numerous ancient writers used this word in speaking of Domatian. So it is not correct that Clement of Alexandris "implied it." He only said something that can be interpreted to imply it. That is materially different.

And the Oldest Syriac Manuscript that says the Revelation was given during the reign of Nero is the Philoxenian Version, which is thought to have been made by Polycarpus of Mabug in about 508 A.D., not in the fourth century.

Please provide a quotation, with citation for your claim that this is stated in the Syriac History of John. And also for your claim that it is stated in "the second century Acts of John.

I get the distinct impression that you are arguing with me without having even bothered to read my very long paper on this subject, to which I provided a link.

 

[Biblewriter]

Epiphanius thought it was Claudius. Nero's name was Nero Claudius Caesar, so it makes sense that some thought it was Claudius. However, you can't confused Domitian (Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus) and Claudius.

Here you are ignoring my word "clearly." An implication is not a clear statement.

 

[Biblewriter]

s I said previously, It is my opinion that this interpretation makes Irenaeus out to deny the inspiration of the Scriptures.