Dating the Gospels & Daniel

[John 1720]

No, your 'evidence' that 1 Clem was composed pre-70 CE is that the cult is referred to in the present tense, I have provided evidence of a book composed post-70 CE that also refers to the cult in the present tense. Therefore, the existence of referrences to the cult in the present tense cannot be used to establish a pre-70 CE date.

Again, since this is a Christian forum substituting out "temple sacrifice" for the liberal acceptable term "cult" doesn't help the dialog. Most people on the forum believe the elements of the "temple sacrifice" in Jerusalem was orchestrated by God in order to foreshadow the true temple sacrifice which is Christ. Calling it "cult" elsewhere may be fine but since this is a Christian forum I think most would deem it offensive, insulting and disrespectful to God. I see no reason for you to insist on substituting "cult" every time I mention 'temple sacrifice' in Clement - which by the way is the exact phrasing Clement uses. So why disrespect his letter also? What is with liberals switching out words anyway - it's rather an Orwellian remapping of history sort of like "the ministry of truth" in the novel 1984. What is the need to eliminate A.D. and temple sacrifice from Christian vocabulary - especially on a Christian site?
I didn't see any empirical evidence for your postulate that the Book of Hebrews was post A.D. 70 other than you stated it was so Ray. Now how exactly did you prove that? I also maintain, as many other reputable sources that the date is A.D. 60's before Nero's persecution and certainly before the desturction of the Temple at Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. It was probably written somewhere around A.D. 63 and while I know authorship is in dispute the earliest witness, namely Clement of Alexandria, who was perhaps either a 3rd or 4th generation Christian tells us:

Paul wrote it in Hebrew and Luke translated into Greek (Eusebius, History 6.14.2).

Other than this

1. The letter references Paul's disciple Timothy (Hebrews 13:23) both placing it early and lending credence to Pauline authorship, which would have had to predate A.D. 66.
2. The present lack of any physical persecution (Hebrews 12:4) puts it fairly early before Nero caused the calumity that Clement is most likely referring to in his letter, which took place between AD 65-67.
3. There is a definite lack of any reference to the destruction of the temple, even though it is written to the Hebrews, that also lends credence to a date before A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the 2nd Temple. This was most likely written to Christian Jews leaving in and about Jerusalem so it would have been extremely unlikely for the author to have ignored it.
4. Comparing Jesus to the High Priest would have also been to a people very familar with Jewish rites and atoning sacrifice.
   • For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relations to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1)
   • Jesus being the true High Priest and only mediator between God and man

Conclusion: Since he mentions both the temple sacrifice, Timothy - Paul's disciple, no Nero-ian persecution or war with the Romans, while we do have a very Jewish letter targeted towards Judaic Christians, as well as a mid 2nd century confirmation which has not been disproven, I'd say my argument for Clement being pre A.D. 70 is far from being analogously rebutted.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[ebia]

Again, since this is a Christian forum substituting out "temple sacrifice" for the liberal acceptable term "cult" doesn't help the dialog. Most people on the forum believe the elements of the "temple sacrifice" in Jerusalem was orchestrated by God in order to foreshadow the true temple sacrifice which is Christ. Calling it "cult" elsewhere may be fine but since this is a Christian forum I think most would deem it offensive, insulting and disrespectful to God. I see no reason for you to insist on substituting "cult" every time I mention 'temple sacrifice' in Clement - which by the way is the exact phrasing Clement uses. So why disrespect his letter also? What is with liberals switching out words anyway - it's rather an Orwellian remapping of history sort of like "the ministry of truth" in the novel 1984. What is the need to eliminate A.D. and temple sacrifice from Christian vocabulary - especially on a Christian site?

Cult, in this sense, is not at all derogatory. It's the technical way of referring to practices such as, but not limited to, Temple sacrifice. It's a completely different and technically precise use of the word to "dodgy group of brainwashing...".

 

[Iosias]

I didn't see any empirical evidence for your postulate that the Book of Hebrews was post A.D. 70 other than you stated it was so Ray. Now how exactly did you prove that?

The book I was referring to was Josephus' Antiquities. I was citing Raymond Brown as my source for the claim:

Josephus' Antiquities, also uses the present tense and that was written some twenty years after the destruction of the Temple

 

[John 1720]

The book I was referring to was Josephus' Antiquities. I was citing Raymond Brown as my source for the claim:

Well you didn't cite and quote for us to analyze and used that vague reference to indicate that this seemingly invalidates the Book of Hebrews being pre A.D. 70. Obviously, as I indicated in the previous post, there are other reasons for also validating Hebrews was pre A.D. 70. I do have a rather worn copy of Josephus Antiquities here but don't have the time nor the inclination to look through the whole volume to know what quote from Josephus that you're talking about. All proof stands on its own merits and not on how famous or obscure the author is. Josephus, who was the commander of the Galilean forces during the Jewish revolt prior to the destruction of the 2nd Jewish temple would of course have witnessed firsthand the ongoing temple sacrifice. He also wrote and compiled his memoirs and musings at various times, so that should also be considered, even if he published his works 20 years after the War.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[John 1720]

Cult, in this sense, is not at all derogatory. It's the technical way of referring to practices such as, but not limited to, Temple sacrifice. It's a completely different and technically precise use of the word to "dodgy group of brainwashing...".

Ah, I get it now. Its simply passive-agressive perjorative word associations aimed to annoy believing Christians. Thanks for clearing that up.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Iosias]

Well you didn't cite and quote for us to analyze and used that vague reference to indicate that this seemingly invalidates the Book of Hebrews being pre A.D. 70. Obviously, as I indicated in the previous post, there are other reasons for also validating Hebrews was pre A.D. 70. I do have a rather worn copy of Josephus Antiquities here but don't have the time nor the inclination to look through the whole volume to know what quote from Josephus that you're talking about. All proof stands on its own merits and not on how famous or obscure the author is. Josephus, who was the commander of the Galilean forces during the Jewish revolt prior to the destruction of the 2nd Jewish temple would of course have witnessed firsthand the ongoing temple sacrifice. He also wrote and compiled his memoirs and musings at various times, so that should also be considered, even if he published his works 20 years after the War.
In Christ, John 1720

I would agree that Hebrews is pre-70 CE, but it is by no means certain.

Do you think it possible 1 Clem could be post-70 CE?

 

[John 1720]

I would agree that Hebrews is pre-70 CE, but it is by no means certain.

Do you think it possible 1 Clem could be post-70 CE?

Of course its possible, dating ancient texts in not an exact science but, that said, it is statistically not as probable as being pre A.D. 70. There are several keys within the letter as well as ancient commentary about the letter that I believe put it before A.D. 70 and I believe it being pre A.D. 70 may bring a better understanding of the ancient Church. Of course the dating of the letter itself isn't germane with respect to the Christian faith either way so this is all a minor point for us. There are much more profound and deeper battles for believing Christians these days.
Why do I think 1rst Clement is pre A.D. 70? It is not by any one verse nor by any one witness but as wisdom states the entwining of many threads makes for an stronger cord, which is not easily broken.

Ecc 4:12 Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

1. An implied association with Peter & Paul setting examples for the Church at Corinth as well as himself. The language lends itself to have been an active, 'eyewitness' example among them.

   1Clem 5:2
   By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.

2. In the letter he the language also implies having been to Corinth as well as others his familar with those who had. Its not a leap to go back the Clement Paul mention's as being part of his ministry.

   A Schism at the Church of Corinth, Greece
   1Clem 1-2 The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. For who that had sojourned among you did not approve your most virtuous and steadfast faith?

   Of course documentation on when this schism actually took place would help us pinpoint. While there are blackout years post Paul I find no evidence of sedition in A.D. 100. Hegesippus (A.D. 110 to 180), who was the 2nd known church historian (the 1rst being Luke) comments on and praises the orthodoxy of the Corinthian Church in his time until late in life, about A.D. 170 when he wrote

   And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith.

3. The Active Temple sacrifice (which there is no need to further talk about as it is displayed for all to evaluate in previous posts.
4. The early witnesses to Clement of Rome and his knowing the Apostles
   • According to Tertullian (Late 2nd century) the Roman Church claimed Clement was ordained by St. Peter.
   • Jerome states that the Romans state he championed Peter's ministry after his Peter's death in Rome.
5. The contention that His ministry had to have been thought to be quite early (in Apostolic times) to have been included in our earliest complete collection of New Testament writing, namely the Codex Sinaiticus.

That's about all for now.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Iosias]

Of course its possible, dating ancient texts in not an exact science

You believe it's pre-70 but could be post-70; I believe it's post-70 but could be pre-70. It's not worth being dogmatic about things that are not clear cut.

 

[John 1720]

You believe it's pre-70 but could be post-70; I believe it's post-70 but could be pre-70. It's not worth being dogmatic about things that are not clear cut.

I work with statistics every day and while there are never any guarantees we'll be 100% right we wouldn't accomplish very reliable engineering if we didn't rely heavily on statistical evidences. It works in many applications including finance, engineering, or quantum physics. We use it because we don't want to employ random guesswork but get as close as we can to being correct in our hypothesis. Since we don't know there is going to be a lower limit and and upper bound limit to the dating but one always uses the evidence before them to bring that close. One piece of evidence I neglected to list previously in my quick post this morning is Clement's mention of just coming through a persecution. Now we know of Nero's persecition in AD 64-67, which stopped subsequently. We also know of Domitian's persecution, where both Jews and Christians suffered towards the end of his reign AD 95. You might recall this is when John was purported to have written the Book of Revelation. Other than that there was no persecutions in Rome so this clue also helps to pinpoint a date for Clement writes in chapter 1.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.

So its not so much a choice between the late 60's to AD 100 but more a choice of either the late 60's after Nero's death or the mid 90's after Domitian's death (AD 96) if we want to explain the calamitous events surrounding the Church at Rome. Of course the temple would have been rubble for 25 years when Domitian died so Clement's mention of the Temple sacrifice being ongoing pretty much eliminates it as a viable possiblity. Clement also finishes the letter with possibly another hint to the dating :

Chapter 59
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus: that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for among you, and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.

Point: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito had names of the Caesar's household. When after service they were made freedmen they would have kept their Royal name indicating they were from the house of the Empress Messalina. This points to being freed about AD45 let's say hypothetically at the age of 33. If we advance another 22 years we probably have men in their mid 50's. Of course we can't say the same about AD 95, which would have been 50 years later. They then would have been 83 - certainly not the age you'd expect to see messengers sent out hundreds of miles.
The other man is Fortunatus. Now if this was to be hand picked man to interface with the Church of Corinth you couldn't find one better than a certain Fortunatus that Paul mentions in his letter to Corinth. (1)

1Corinthians 16:17 I am glad about the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for what was lacking on your part they supplied.

Again a Corinthian Fortunatus in AD 67-68 is only about 10 to 12 years removed from Paul's letter to the same Church. In AD 96, however, it would have been almost 40 years removed and the chances dwindle for such an excellent candidate for which to bring the message.

(1) The Church in Rome in the First century - George Edmundson

 

[Iosias]

I work with statistics every day and while there are never any guarantees we'll be 100% right we wouldn't accomplish very reliable engineering if we didn't rely heavily on statistical evidences.

The realm of literary analysis is not as scientific as engineering and physics; my field is biblical studies (Hebrew Bible).

 

[John 1720]

The realm of literary analysis is not as scientific as engineering and physics; my field is biblical studies (Hebrew Bible).

Well, as new applications abound, merging disciplines can sometimes have a positive effect in unraveling previous unknowns and guesswork. Take our antiquated dating of the human race 50 years ago or crimes committed where we couldn't identify a perpetrator but now can through DNA. The wealth of available information, fuzzy logic and statistics as well as computer driven analysis may help us all in providing insights and new leads in the same way. It's all good as long as we adept enough to vet the data and filter out disinformation.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Bible Truth 53]

We also know of Domitian's persecution, where both Jews and Christians suffered towards the end of his reign AD 95. You might recall this is when John was purported to have written the Book of Revelation.

There's no evidence for a Domitianic persecution of Christians, nor that John wrote Revelation during his reign--Edmundson actually addresses both of these points, and is well worth reading on them. That is why I think 1 Clement is closer to Nero's reign, and probably pre-70 AD.

All this talk about scholars is a little nauseating though, as though the mention of a name were an argument in itself, above and beyond the arguments they have. I recently bought a book by Herron, the English-speaking secretary to Cardinal Ratzinger, and he argues very firmly for the earlier dating. The debate isn't over, and it isn't settled.

 

[John 1720]

There's no evidence for a Domitianic persecution of Christians, nor that John wrote Revelation during his reign--Edmundson actually addresses both of these points, and is well worth reading on them. That is why I think 1 Clement is closer to Nero's reign, and probably pre-70 AD.

All this talk about scholars is a little nauseating though, as though the mention of a name were an argument in itself, above and beyond the arguments they have. I recently bought a book by Herron, the English-speaking secretary to Cardinal Ratzinger, and he argues very firmly for the earlier dating. The debate isn't over, and it isn't settled.

Agree any hypothesis to dating should either stand on its own merits and evidence and not on some man or lady who proclaims themself to be an expert. Who proclaims them to be an expert in the first place - there are many out there with no other agenda but to undermine the Gospel and Christianity in general.

As to what evidence we have on Domitian judge for yourself:
1. First He certainly was no friend of Christianity as illustrated even in Wikipedia
2. Concerning the relatives of our saviour. Fragment of Hegissipus from Eusebius History of the Church - Domitian stood ready to persecute leaders of Christianity and mentions that there was an ongoing persecution which he stopped.ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
3. Eusebius mention several early Fathers such as Irenaues stating John wrote the Revelation while banished on Patmos during the reign of Domitian
4. De Viris Illustribus Notes from Jerome was Published in the 1400's when Hegissipus notes were still extant and verifiable

1. Domitian's reach extended well beyond the economy. Late in A.D. 85 he made himself censor perpetuus, censor for life, with a general supervision of conduct and morals. The move was without precedent and, although largely symbolic, it nevertheless revealed Domitian's obsessive interest in all aspects of Roman life. An ardent supporter of traditional Roman religion, he also closely identified himself with Minerva and Jupiter, publicly linking the latter divinity to his regime through the Ludi Capitolini, the Capitoline Games, begun in A.D.86. On 18 September, A.D. 96, Domitian was assassinated and was succeeded on the very same day by M. Cocceius Nerva, a senator and one of his amici.
2. There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done. So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work. Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life. Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.
3. Chapter XVII.—The Persecution under Domitian.
   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. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us,711 although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.712
   Chapter XVIII.—The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
   It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:“If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.
   
4. In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

I'm sure I could dig up plenty more if this does not suffice.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Bible Truth 53]

As to what evidence we have on Domitian judge for yourself:
1. First He certainly was no friend of Christianity as illustrated even in Wikipedia
2. Concerning the relatives of our saviour. Fragment of Hegissipus from Eusebius History of the Church - Domitian stood ready to persecute leaders of Christianity and mentions that there was an ongoing persecution which he stopped.
3. Eusebius mention several early Fathers such as Irenaues stating John wrote the Revelation while banished on Patmos during the reign of Domitian
4. De Viris Illustribus Notes from Jerome was Published in the 1400's when Hegissipus notes were still extant and verifiable

Edmundson deals with number 3 in particular and argues that Irenaeus does not place Revelation under Domitian. Tertullian and Hegesippus do seem to have known a persecution of Domitian, however they tell us that Domitian brought a quick end to it, and there is no evidence it affected anyone outside Palestine. As Edmundson notes, Domitian's later persecution of the Roman nobility was not a persecution of Christians, even though Eusebius tries to portray as such. Furthermore, that persecution ended only with Domitian's death--his persecution of the Christians (which I think took place about c75 for various reasons) was ended by Domitian himself--they weren't the same.
Jerome wrote De Viris Illustribus c. 400 and largely depended upon Eusebius.

 

[John 1720]

Edmundson deals with number 3 in particular and argues that Irenaeus does not place Revelation under Domitian. Tertullian and Hegesippus do seem to have known a persecution of Domitian, however they tell us that Domitian brought a quick end to it, and there is no evidence it affected anyone outside Palestine. As Edmundson notes, Domitian's later persecution of the Roman nobility was not a persecution of Christians, even though Eusebius tries to portray as such. Furthermore, that persecution ended only with Domitian's death--his persecution of the Christians (which I think took place about c75 for various reasons) was ended by Domitian himself--they weren't the same.

Jerome wrote De Viris Illustribus c. 400 and largely depended upon Eusebius.

Hi Again Bible Truth,
I probably would agree on one point - that Domitian did not seek to root out Christiany but with one caveat; only as long as it did not interfere with the cultic traditions of Rome or his power as both Emperor and self proclaimed Roman deity. Domitian ruled with an iron hand and his first act was to disband the Roman Senate and move the powerbase of Rome to wherever he, the emperor, cared to be. The Senate absolutely hated him and he had many enemies but also strong allies, such as the military. Domitian sought to subdue anyone he thought would interfere with how he viewed both himself and Rome. All were to be subservient and peaceable to Rome or they were simply removed, one way or the other. If he thought you had the potential to be a trouble maker you were probably only banished, but if he caught wind that you were stirring up trouble you would most likely be executed. So while Christians weren't exactly singled out they were definitely an at risk people group - especially leadership figures. For instance in the same timeframe that John was purported to have been banished Domitian had dragged relatives of Christ's family before him. I mentioned in the previous post that this was reported by Hegesippus a very early Jewish Christian and also our earliest chroniclor of Christian history. Hegesippus writings were certainly extant in Jeromes day, nearly 3 centuries later. Purportedly his hypomnemata or Memoirs were known to have even been extant up to the seventeenth century before being burned.

In addition Domitian promoted the Imperial cult worship in Ephesus, the apostle John's home base of operations. We know, since there are 13 statue base inscriptions commemorating the dedication of a provincial temple there, that this Imerial cult worship would have caused friction among Christians who would have declined to enter. His motive for arresting John then would have been, to remove outspoken opponents and John as an elder of at least the seven churches of Asia Minor would easily have been identified as a leader who would have taught non-conformance. Although John was surely already old by any Roman standard the line of thought may have been, 'better to have him out the way from influencing the masses'. I;m sure John was endeared to the people also so there was no reason to execute him when it would stir up the massess. However, the proconsul of Asia, Vettulenus Civica Cerealis, during the reign of Domitian wasn't so lucky; like many others he was perceived to be a higher threat level, maybe not so endeared to the people, and was subsequently executed along with other political enemies.
As stated previously Irenaeus is definitely who Eusebius is quoting when he states John's imprisonment on the Isle of Patmos was during Domitian's reign. Ireneaus also shows that John was living in Ephesus when he relates this rather amusing story:

John the disciple of our Lord was going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within rushed out of the bath house without bathing, exclaiming. 'Let us fly, lest even the bath house falls down seeing Cerinthus, the enemy of truth is within."

Clement of Alexandria (AD 155-215) in Who is the Rich man states that John returned from the isle of Patmos after the tyrant was dead - this tyrant is clearly identified by Eusebius as being Domitian.
Victorinus, author of our earliest commentary on the Book of Revelation in the 3rd century, wrote in it - commentary on Rev 10:11
[quote-Victorinus] When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated
[/quote]
So the early witnesses do abound. I for one believe these witnesses have never been impeached, although speculations and differences of opinions also abound. My recommendations is to not change ancient testimony unless we have a clear reason to impeach their witness or an earlier more reliable witness is found.

May God Bless,
In Christ, John 1720

 

[John 1720]

There's no evidence for a Domitianic persecution of Christians, nor that John wrote Revelation during his reign--Edmundson actually addresses both of these points, and is well worth reading on them. That is why I think 1 Clement is closer to Nero's reign, and probably pre-70 AD.

PS: Frankly don't know why Edmunson would say Revelation wasn't written during Domitian's reign. I'm sure he has a protracted point but clearly Ireneaus does indeed state this to be the case. Instead of quoting Eusebius - we can read Adverse Heresies - Irenaues' quote is to be found in Book V chapter 30 section 3d and 4a are quoted below.

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.
4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as "he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition," Revelation 17:8 as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Matthew 8:11

Hope that helps, John 1720

 

[Bible Truth 53]

Hi again,

Eusebius does indeed identify the tyrant with Domitian, but Clement does not.

Edmundson answers a lot of your points, especially on Irenaeus. He would dispute the translation you have provided, as would a number of other scholars, including Hort, Chase, and Earle Ellis. The early Latin translation doesn't agree with the English translation you provided either. John's banishment was from Rome in either case, not Ephesus.

 

[John 1720]

Hi again,

Eusebius does indeed identify the tyrant with Domitian, but Clement does not.

Edmundson answers a lot of your points, especially on Irenaeus. He would dispute the translation you have provided, as would a number of other scholars, including Hort, Chase, and Earle Ellis. The early Latin translation doesn't agree with the English translation you provided either. John's banishment was from Rome in either case, not Ephesus.

Why would he dispute Irenaeus' Adverse Heresies which has been an accepted translation for many centuries? It's a matter of public record and I don't hear many people jumping on that bandwagon.

 

[Bible Truth 53]

Why would he dispute Irenaeus' Adverse Heresies which has been an accepted translation for many centuries? It's a matter of public record and I don't hear many people jumping on that bandwagon.

Because he is convinced that it is a mis-translation of the Greek, and that the Greek couldn't mean what Eusebius thought. And he has the support of the ancient Latin translation. But if you want to know his reasons, you would have to read him for yourself.

 

[John 1720]

Because he is convinced that it is a mis-translation of the Greek, and that the Greek couldn't mean what Eusebius thought. And he has the support of the ancient Latin translation. But if you want to know his reasons, you would have to read him for yourself.

My friend, the quote I gave you was not from Eusebius, although a half a dozen posts back I had done that. In the more recent posts I was quoting Irenaeus directly from his extant work - which I have. It is also available here as well:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.30 (St. Irenaeus)

I believe it may be constructed by both the orginal Greek and a Latin copy version, which would have been much later - maybe about AD 380, but you may want to see if you can determine what he is talking about because as far as I know this extant work of Irenaeus is accepted and he reiterates the very same thing Eusebius said. Doubtful Eusebius would get away with interpolating on a work that others had access to.

In Christ, John 1720

PS: Here's what the site claims on about this particular work

At a Glance​

Genre: Gospel
Reliability of Dating: 5/5
Length of Text: 5/5
Original Language: Greek
Ancient Translations:


Modern Translations:
English