How to Read the New Testament

Townhall ^ | 5/21/2007 | Mike S. Adams

[DreamsofPolycarp]

FWIW, suicide bombers have that same attitude.

sorta kinda. I guess that is why I also love Hunter Thompson's works. It is the whole "cowards die a thousand deaths....." thing. Yeah, I am a romantic.

Polycarp had good cause to mock death, the last and most fearful enemy. I am not sure Mohammed Atta or Hunter Thompson did. I suppose if you are stepping into an eternity of misery, hopelessness, despair, dissolution and the absence of all that is good, it doesn't really matter how you go out, does it?

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Since I have already "hijacked" this thread once (!), I will simply state that we can certainly discuss this further in the future if you like. If you want to start a thread or pick up on one discussing textual criticism, please feel free to ping me, my friend.

Since the issue here is preterism (which I have managed to mangle into a sub-discussion of dispensationalism/covenant theology), I should probably refrain from charging ahead on this particular issue here, as it is at the most, tangentially related to the subject (let's have pity on the owner of the thread!).

If we talk in the future on this, I will look forward to a chat with someone motivated as I am to stand foursquare on the inerrancy and preservation of God's word for us, His people. I always learn new stuff in these things.

peace

DoP

[Uncle Chip]

That may be true but there is no written historical records abscribing such a thing; it's pure conjecture.

There is nothing more conjecturing and disdaining of the historical records than this ridiculous preterist fantasy. Name for us all the writers of the early church who agree with this fantasy --- there are none. For 400 years Irenaeus' statement was never challenged until the historical/theological revisionists of Rome came to the fore.

I just love the way preterist reformists dismiss the obscure writings of the early church as extra-biblical when arguing with Catholics, but then find a new found love for these obscure writings when they are needed to dredge up arguments for their preterist dreams.

Furthermore Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna, one of those seven churches of Asia that received John's letter. Who would have been in a better position to know firsthand just when that letter was delivered to Smyrna. As a matter of fact, Polycarp may have still had the original letter from John to which his disciple Irenaeus probably had access. Of all the early church fathers, Irenaeus is the most credible and theologically orthodox.

But here is a good question for you:

Why would God ask one apostle [John] to step all over the work of another apostle [Paul]? Why would he instruct John circa 64 AD to send letters to the very churches that the apostle Paul had established [Ephesus] and was in continual contact with through his most recent letters [Ephesians, Colossians/Laodiceans] circa 60 AD?.

You guys are trying to assert that in a mere 4 to 8 years those churches decayed from what Paul wrote of in his letters [60 AD] to the sad situation in those churches that John describes. This is an assertion that defies all credibility.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Furthermore Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna, one of those seven churches of Asia that received John’s letter.”

Are you familliar with the writings of Papias, “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times”.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

He certainly believed in a future-tense, literal, earthly Kingdom.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I dont' buy this particular preterist argument.

I think your questions re: the timing and influence of Irenaeus are good ones. They do militate, in my opinion, against this view of an "early date" for Revelation. I have always understood a better dating of about 90-95 AD.

It is a logical problem why God would appoint one apostle to "watch over" another one, as you rightly point out.

As to whether the churches could sink so low in such a short period of time, it is interesting to note that Paul references at the very least an apostasy that is almost complete in Asia (Asia Minor, home of most of the Revelation churches) in II Timothy 1:15. When one reads church history it is AMAZING how quickly the churches become moribund, powerless, dead and lifeless when God withdraws His Spirit, and conversely, when revival comes, one wonders at the amazing power of God to completely turn a church (and consequently a culture) on its head.

Irenaeus, as we have seen before, is clearly chiliast. It is important, however, to note two things as well:
1) Irenaeus himself acknowledges that the NON CHILIAST VIEW WAS PROMINENT AS WELL AS CHILIAST. I don't know whether it was to you or to someone else, but I have already mentioned how Irenaeus "argued" his chiliast position with other church members, indicating that the "a mil" view was definitely up and going strong, and that there was a split in the church view even at that early age.

2)Arguing a "historic pre mil" position is a radically different thing than arguing a dispensational pre mil position. Historical pre-mils are essentially covenant theologians who argue for a 1000 year reign of Christ, without all the gobbledegook of a secret rapture of the primarily "gentile" church, and setting up a revived Jewish theonomic state (i.e. "Israel"). You will find very little (actually none) support for the dispensationalist schema in Irenaeus, or Papias (no original writings exist). Irenaeus clearly teaches the church will go through persecution (the tribulation!) under the antichrist.

[Uncle Chip]

Irenaeus himself acknowledges that the NON CHILIAST VIEW WAS PROMINENT AS WELL AS CHILIAST.

Is it possible that this is because the Non-Chiliasts rejected the Book of Revelation as Scripture, and only in the Book of Revelation is the 1000 years prophesied. It was after all the last book written and many refused to acknowledge it as part of the scriptures. Once it was accepted, the chiliasm therein had also to be accepted --- unless they were disciples of Origen's allegorical readings of scripture.

[HarleyD]

There is nothing more conjecturing and disdaining of the historical records than this ridiculous preterist fantasy.

I'm only trying to understand the proper dating of Revelation. I'm not interested in the preterist "fantasy". Dr. E article intrigued me because it was the first time I've seen references to early writings on the dating of Revelation being before 70AD. Here is more.
Dating the Book of Revelation

I might add that I have, in the past, investigated the claims that the early church fathers placed the date in the late 90s. The conclusion I came to simply looking at the text, was that these writers were simply parroting what Iraeneus stated. What Iraeneus stated which may not have been correct. If you will note in the above reference, this was the same conclusion others have come to.

I just love the way preterist reformists dismiss the obscure writings of the early church as extra-biblical when arguing with Catholics, but then find a new found love for these obscure writings when they are needed to dredge up arguments for their preterist dreams.

No one I know of dismisses the writings of the early church. We will say they are prone to errors-wouldn't you agree? This all started with a posting of numerous references by church fathers pointing to ONE comment by Iraeneus. Could it be, just posibly, that Iraeneus was incorrect or that he used the wrong name? He was, after all very old at the time of this writing and he was writing about events that happened much earlier.

There are far more earlier works dating Revelation before 70AD than 90AD. Yet you are willing to say the Syrian text and other manuscriptures are in error.

Furthermore Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna, one of those seven churches of Asia that received John's letter. Who would have been in a better position to know firsthand

So? Couldn't he goofed? His text doesn't square with the Syrian text of the Bible. Now which one would you be willing to say is in error? Which has the error in it?

But here is a good question for you: Why would God ask one apostle [John] to step all over the work of another apostle [Paul]? Why would he instruct John circa 64 AD to send letters to the very churches that the apostle Paul had established [Ephesus] and was in continual contact

Why would Christ prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem and then the disciples set up HQ in the downtown district? I don't know. But Paul's message to the Ephesians
"Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,"

is not out of line with Revelation
Rev 2:3-4 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

That, besides Philadelphia=Phillipians, is the only church I can match up. Neither book is inconsistent with each other.

Now if the preterist are arguing that all seven churches in Revelation are somehow directly related to one of the churches Paul wrote to (e.g. Sryna=Colosians), I'm not sure about that.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Is it possible that this is because the Non-Chiliasts rejected the Book of Revelation as Scripture

that is certainly a theoretical possibility. However, if it were a canonics issue would you not expect Irenaeus to address THAT as the centerpiece of his argument, rather than ASSUMING they were both seeking an explanation of the 1000 year pericope in Rev 20? He argues from the position that both are aware of the 1000 years issue, rather than attempting to tell them the reasons why Revelation should be accepted (It was written by John, John was an apostle and a real holy man, He was close to the Lord....., the stuff you would expect if the book's authority was in doubt). We find so much support for Revelation in OTHER church fathers (all you have to do is turn to the index if you have a copy of the ante-nicene fathers to see the quotes), that I really don't think the issue is one of canonics. Interestingly enough, that issue did not really arise until later.

DoP

[P-Marlowe]

His text doesn't square with the Syrian text of the Bible. Now which one would you be willing to say is in error? Which has the error in it?

Um....

The Syriac reference to Nero is not in the text. It is in the margin notes, and nobody knows when those margin notes were added. Suffice it to say that there is more evidence that Irenaeus' reference to Domitian is more reliable than an anonymous reference found in the margins of a text for which there are no extant copies before the 6th Century AD.

So who do we believe, Irenaeus or some anonymous 6th Century Syrian scribe?

[HarleyD]

The Syriac reference to Nero is not in the text. It is in the margin notes, and nobody knows when those margin notes were added.

True enough but they certainly didn't pop up.

Suffice it to say that there is more evidence that Irenaeus' reference to Domitian is more reliable than an anonymous reference found in the margins of a text for which there are no extant copies before the 6th Century AD.

This would be a true statement if the Sryian manuscript was the ONLY reference. Iraeneus wrote his piece in Heresy around 174AD. Yet Clements wrote around the exact same time:
(On the Timing of John's Banishment) "And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)- 150-215AD

The Muratorian Canon of 170AD states:
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

This agrees with what Clements writes around the same time frame. Now it would seem to me that if you have the Canon of a church stating that John preceed Paul in his writings, and Clements writing the same that, that would be far more conclusive than one person (Iraeneus) writings of the same period.

Doesn't the bible state that you need two witnesses? ;O)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Syriac reference to Nero is not in the text. It is in the margin notes.

Where do you get " margin notes." It's on the title page.

From Harley's excellent link...

DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION

...we find that the opening title page for the Book of Revelation of the Syriac Vulgate Bible says, "The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."

You would think someone would have corrected that error fast, if it was an error.

History is such a fascinating study because it's never static. "Facts" change with political and social pressures. Up until the mid-19th century, the early dating for Revelation was widely accepted as fact (no doubt in great part because it lined up with the New Testament so easily; Scripture made sense Biblically as well as temporally.)

What happened in the mid-19th century to change the situation? The Industrial Revolution was poised to alter entire continents and the world economy was set to be calibrated on oil. Hence, a "rethinking" of history and Biblical facts was "helpful" to the geopolitical reality.

Finally, who likewise benefits by letting Rome off the hook for being the Beast of Revelation, whether it's the Roman city, the Roman government or the Roman emperor?

Recall how "sad and regretful" most of those "empathetic" Roman soldiers looked as Christ walked to Calvary in "The Passion" and how blood-thirsty and wild-eyed all those pesky Jews were portrayed.

History is still being rewritten. We just think we're too sophisticated now to fall for it.

[P-Marlowe]

When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero]

The stuff between the brackets is editorial comment, is it not?

Doesn't the bible state that you need two witnesses? ;O)

My eschatology (such as it is) is not contingent upon a late date for Revelation. The preterist position is completely destroyed if Revelation was penned after 70AD. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was penned much later than 70AD and as late as 96AD. It is the preterist who must grasp at straws. It is the preterist who has the burden of proof and it is the preterist who must produce at least two witnesses.

The Tyrant Previously Identified as Nero. LOL!

[P-Marlowe]

Where do you get " margin notes." It's on the title page.

It is on the Title Page of a document that dates to the 5th Century AD.

John didn't write it. Nobody knows who put it there.

Probably some 5th Century St. Scofield malcontent.

[Suzy Quzy]

Nyer just posted an article on The Apocalyptic Mass by Scott Hanh that is VERY intersting, I think. NYer, I don’t know how to do the link,,,can you put it on this thread please?

[Uncle Chip]

This would be a true statement if the Sryian manuscript was the ONLY reference. Iraeneus wrote his piece in Heresy around 174AD. Yet Clements wrote around the exact same time: (On the Timing of John's Banishment) "And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)- 150-215AD

That's funny because E B Elliot cites the very same Clement and this same story, as well as Eusebius's comments on it, as evidence of the late date of Revelation:

"Clement's support to a later date is found in story involving St. John after he returned from Patmos. The point being made that John was quite an old man when it occurred.

"Next Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as acted out by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, 'after the death of the tyrant;' and represents him as at that time an infirm old man. Now 'the tyrant,' whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be: since, at the time of Nero's persecution, St. John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.

Thus it must rather have been the tyrant Domitian. So, in fact, Eusebius expressly explains Clement to mean. " (vol. I, p. 33-34)[Historicist.com]

[xzins]

The Syriac Vulgate is dated kindly about 400 and later than that if one is being strict, up to the 500’s.

In short, any heading in it was very late, and was no different than the heading in any of our current bibles....an addition by an editor/scribe.

In this case it’s entirely in keeping with the scholarship that says early Christianity held to a late date of Revelation and that that did not change until much later....400-600 being much later.

There is no logical explanation for Christian writers continuing to look to the future for the fulfillment of Revelation events if such things had already taken place. And the ante-nicean fathers never mention such things except as future events.

Ooops....The Apostles forgot to mention to anyone that everything was fulfilled. How careless of them!

Gimmeabreak!

[P-Marlowe]

Gimmeabreak!

Granted.

[HarleyD]

The stuff between the brackets is editorial comment, is it not?

The stuff in brackets is not editorial comments. Rather it let the read know who the subject is about without having to post the entire piece. These references are pulled out of my above piece. The reference to the document is there if you would like to check it out.

My eschatology (such as it is) is not contingent upon a late date for Revelation. The preterist position is completely destroyed if Revelation was penned after 70AD. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was penned much later than 70AD and as late as 96AD. It is the preterist who must grasp at straws.

Neither is mine (such as it is) but I would question the "preponderance of evidence". What evidence? I thought that is what we were discussing here? The evidence of one person's one statement that is contradicted by a Canon and another person of the same period? That is what it boils down to. This is a preponderance of evidence?

I would say dispensationalists who would like to toss out 1900 years of church teaching that believers are the new Israel, simply based upon one tiny statement that is suspect, are more likely to be grasping at straws.

The Tyrant Previously Identified as Nero.

Next time you see an article about Prince, check to see how many times they use the name "Nero" in place of his name.

[P-Marlowe]

The evidence of one person's one statement that is contradicted by a Canon

The Title page of the Book of Revelation in my St. Scofield Reference edition states that the book was penned in 96AD. You can't find better evidence than that.

[Uncle Chip]

And this also from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History Book III:

Chapter 17. 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, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us."

Chapter 18. The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.

"1. 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.

2. 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: 3. "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.

4. 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. 5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.