Replies

Unclear?

Exactly. Here's Gentry's comments (since you're apparently too convinced in your error to read them for yourself):

(I apologize for the formatting. I've had to remove the Greek original because of font issues as well as footnotes. Please consult the original .)

The (“that was seen”) is commonly considered to refer back to the immediately preceding noun, (“Revelation” or “apocalyptic vision”), in the preceding sentence. Irenaeus is af- firming, it is argued, that John “saw” (i.e., received by vision) the prophecies of Revelation at a time fitting the late date theory of composition: “no such long time ago, “ “almost in our own genera- tion,” and, more precisely, “at the end of the reign of Domitian.” As the external evidence section of the present study is developed, additional ancient historical witnesses will be considered. But the importance of this evidence found in Irenaeus’s work is universally recognized and demands careful and lengthy consideration. How shall early date advocates deal with such strong and forthright testi- mony by this noteworthy ancient church father? As a matter of fact, there are several considerations that tend to reduce the usefulness of Irenaeus for late date advocacy. These will be brought forward in some detail.
The Translational Problem
Certainly the two initial considerations in any judgment regard- ing the interpretation of a crucial documentary witness are those of textual certainty and translational accuracy. In that there are no crucial questions regarding the integrity of the text of Irenaeus’s statement raised from either camp in the debate, we can move directly to consideration of the matter of translational accuracy.
On the matter of translation there has been a good deal of debate on various aspects of the statement in question. In fact, “this transla- tion has been disputed by a number of scholars.” 10 According to Peake and Farrar the problem of translational accuracy was first broached by J. J. Wetstein in 1751.] 1 We should note at the outset, however, that most scholars doubt there is a problem of translation. For instance, Robinson (an early date advocate) speaks of the alleged translational problem as “very dubious.” 12 Moffatt (a vigorous late date advocate) discounts the supposed problem with just one sen- tence, stating that the proposed revisions are “ingenious but quite unconvincing. ” 13 According to Barnes, Chapman “is frankly con- temptuous” against the proposed reconstruction of Irenaeus.’4 There are, however, a number of noted scholars who have disputed various parts of the common translation. Among these are J. J. Wetstein, M. J. Bovan, S. H. Chase, E. Bohmer, James M. Macdonald, Henry Hammond, F. J. A. Hort, Edward C. Selwyn, George Edmundson, Arthur S. Barnes, and J. J. Scott. 15
Three of the major problems with the generally accepted transla- tion will be dealt with below: (1) The referent of (“was seen”). (2) The significance of the time reference: (“no long time ago was it seen, but almost in our own time”). (3) The overall internal confusion in Irenaeus suggested by the incom- patibility of Irenaeus’s statements on Revelation.
Indisputably, the most serious potential objection to the common translation has to do with the understanding of “was seen. ” What is the subject of this verb? Is it “him who saw the Apocalypse” (i.e., John) or “the Apocalypse”? Which of these two antecedents “was seen” “almost” in Irenaeus’s time and near “the end of the reign of Domitian”? Swete records for us a significant observation from master expositor F. J. A. Hort: “Dr. Hort, it appears, in his lectures on the Apocalypse referred to an article by M. J. Bovan in the Revue de Theologie et de Philosophti (Lausanne, 1887), in which it was sug- gested that the subject of&opa@ in Iren. v. 30.3 is not rj &IoKcLhxpzc but d njv &ioKciJvyw $opaK6ro<, i.e. d Tcobwq<.’”7 Such is all the more significant when we consider the observations of the first English translators of Irenaeus:
The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is utiortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of the greater part of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanies. The text, both Latin and Greek, is often most uncer- tain. . . .
Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix.]8
S. H. Chase, the writer of one of the most persuasive and compre- hensive articles on this matter, heard Hort’s May, 1889, lecture and recorded some of that very lecture:
My note is as follows . . . : – ‘The passage of Irenaeus is urged against dating the Apocalypse shortly after Nero’s death. A suggestion, however, has been made in a French periodical: it is a question of the interpretation of Irenaeus. The writer raised the question whether Irenaeus means to say that the Apocalypse itself belongs to Domitian’s reign. What is the subject of .40pa0q? He or it? For the latter note the phrase just used [i.e. T05 Kaz’ rr)v ChTOK&@JW ~opcrK6zo<]. But there is the fact that the language of Irenaeus is difiicult on this [i.e. the common] theory. Why yap? But if Irenaeus meant that he, John, was seen, this is in accordance with his favourite phraseology.’19
For Hort, the (“for”) in Irenaeus’s statement is syntactically difllcult to account for unless it makes reference back to the main idea of the preceding statement: “it [the name of the Beast] would have been spoken @ him.” Chase notes that Irenaeus is fond of yhp in such contexts, which lends support to the re-interpretation of Irenaeus at this point .20 Hort also recognizes the general tendency of Irenaeus to use dpckw with persons, rather than of visions or things (such as a book, as here, i.e. Revelation). For as Swete comments of Hort’s position: “he admitted ‘the difficulty of accounting for yc@ on the common interpretation, and the force of the argument from the use of dpbo.’”z’
Chase moves beyond the purely grammatical ambiguity relative to syntactical structure to the actual thematic flow of the passage cited:
The logic of the sentences seems to me to require this interpretation. The statement that the vision was seen at the close of Domitian’s reign supplies no reason why the mysterious numbers should have been expounded “by him who saw the apocalypse,” had he judged such an exposition needful. If, on the other hand, we refer ;mpaeq to St John, the meaning is plain and simple. We may expand the sentences thus: “Had it been needful that the explanation of the name should be proclaimed to the men of our own day, that explanation would have been given by the author of the Book. For the author was seen on earth, he lived and held converse with his disciples, not so very long ago, but almost in our own generation. Thus, on the one hand, he lived years after he wrote the Book, and there was abundant opportunity for him to expound the riddle, had he wished to do so; and, on the other hand, since he lived on almost into our generation, the explanation, had he given it, must have been preserved to U S.”22
Chase’s observations are quite perceptive. Upon recognizing the ambiguity of the passage when narrowly conceived in terms of purely grammatico-syntactical analysis, he then proceeds upon sound her- meneutic principle to elucidate Irenaeus’s precise point by considera- tion of the contextual flow.
This sort of argumentation is why Wetstein, too, understood ‘~ohn” (which immediately preceding the verb becomes “him who saw the apocalypse”) to be the nominative of &Jpa6q, rather than “Revelation.”23 Macdonald agrees, and states the case dogmatically:
[Irenaeus] argues that if this knowledge [i.e., regarding the identity of 666] had been important at that time it would have been communi- cated by the writer of the Apocalypse, who lived so near their own time. . . . There was therefore really no ambiguity to be avoided, requiring him to use the name ofJohn or the personal pronoun as the subject of q, the verb of sight. The scope requires this nomina- tive and no other. 24
But there is still more to the contextual argument. In his Ecclesias- tical Histou (5:8:5,6) Eusebius again cites Irenaeus’s statement (Against Heresies 5:30:3), this time with more of the context (Against Heresies 5:30:1):
He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist “As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters. . . .” And farther on he says concerning the same: “We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.”25
Notice should be made of the personal knowledge that is empha- sized by Irenaeus: “those who have seen John face to face testifj.” It rather clearly seems that the (“was seen”) of the latter quotation (the very one under consideration) is but the dim reflection of the former quotation’s more precise statement: (“those who have seen John face to face testifj”). In fact, the very verb in question (d@o, at Herewk 5:30:3) appears in this immediate context (in Agaimt Hereszks 5:30:1 ) employed of John himself ‘Ititiwqv topaK&ciw.26 Furthermore, “this interpretation is in harmony with the characteristic thought and phraseology of Irenaeus. “27 By this is meant that Irenaeus constantly emphasizes the organic and living unity of the Church’s life. Irenaeus shows a concern to demon- strate carefully that one Christian generation is in touch with the next generation since the time of the apostles. “The men of one generation heard from the lips of the men of the previous generation what they themselves had heard and seen. “28 We must recognize that Irenaeus’s work sought to demonstrate that “the same gospel which was first orally preached and transmitted was subsequently committed to writing and faithfully preserved in all the apostolic churches through the regular succession of the bishops and elders. “2 9
In the 1913 Bampton Lectures at the University of Oxford, George Edmundson offered his analysis of the problem, which is along the lines of Chase’s:
But surely this rendering [i.e., the common rendering of Irenaeus] is wrong. It should be “for he (St. John the writer) was seen . . . almost in our generation toward the end of the reign of Domitian.” It is of the Seer and his ability to declare the name of Antichrist that Irenaeus is speaking. The misunderstanding about the meaning of the passage is largely due to Eusebius, who after a reference to Domitian’s perse- cution proceeds “in this (persecution) report [he] tihns that the Apostle and Evangelist John, who was still living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos,” and then he quotes Irenaeus in support of his statement. 30
Edmundson feels that Eusebius imparted this wrong historical data as a result of reading too much into Origen’s comments on Matthew 20:22. That is, apparently Eusebius merely assumed that John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian, based on Origen’s obscure com- ment.3’ Edmundson thus surmised that this led Eusebius astray in his historical arrangement of the data at this point.
A further reaso~ for Irenaeus’s emphasis is that “to say of one ‘he was seen,’ meaning thereby he was still alive at a certain time, might seem unusual, whether in Greek or English, as applied to an ordinary man. When we consider, however, how much would be thought of seeing this most aged apostle who had seen the Lord, there is nothing unnatural in the use of such an expression. In fact this verb is applied to him in precisely the same sense in the be~nning of the chapter.”32
The evidence rehearsed above has not convinced everyone. Even early date advocates such as Hort, Stuart, Guericke, and Robinson 33 fail to endorse such a re-interpretation of Irenaeus. Stuart dismisses the re-interpretation on the grounds that “the ancients clearly under- stood the matter” along the lines of the common interpretation.34 Robinson points out two problems that appear to him to be fatal to the re-interpretation of Irenaeus. 35 The first is that the Latin transla- tion of Irenaeus stands against it by its use of viswn (which better suggests a thing, such as a book), instead of visa (which is more suggestive of a person). This argument is closely related to Stuart’s. The second is that Irenaeus twice elsewhere says John lived to Trajan’s reign, not just to Domitian’s.36 If Irenaeus is to be re- interpreted here along the lines of Chase and others then there would seem to be some confusion in Irenaeus’s record.
In response to these three objections, we offer the following explanations. First, regarding Stuart’s statement that the early fa- thers seemed to have understood him in terms of the common inter- pretation, it should be noted that although many ancient fathers employed Irenaeus with high regard, they do not seem to have regarded him as a final authority. For instance, contrary to Irenaeus, Tertullian placed John’s banishment after his being dipped in a cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Nero’s reign. 37 Photus preserved extracts of “Life of Timotheus” in which he states that John’s banishment was under Nero. Others who record a pre- Domitianic date for John’s banishment include: Epiphanies (Hewsie$ 51:12, 33), Arethas (Revelatwn 7:1-8), the Syriac versions of Revela- tion, Hi.rto~ ofJohn, th Son of Zebedee, and Theophylact (John). Though Eusebius quotes Irenaeus as proof of the date to which John lived (i.e., into the reign of Trajan),38 he disagrees with Irenaeus as to the Johannine authorship of Revelation. 39 In light of all this “We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.”w
Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apoca~psin uiderat. Neqw enim ante multum tempoti vi-sum est. The Latin translator may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly under- stood. This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur. Indeed, re- nowned Church historian John Laurence von Mosheim — who com- posed his famous Church history in Latin – spoke quite despairingly of the Latin translation of Irenaeus. He laments that Irenaeus’s writings “have reached us merely through the medium of a wretch- edly barbarous and obscure Latin translation.”4’ Schaff agrees that this translation employs “barbarous Latin. “42 Stuart calls it “a dead literality.”4 3 Having remarked on the obscurities of Irenaeus’s Greek (see quotation above), the translators of Irenaeus for the Ante-Nicesw Fathers add that “the Latin version adds to these difllculties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. . . . Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. “w
Not only was the translator inadequate to the task, but he probably had no independent knowledge of the matter apart from what he had learned fi-om his own reading of Irenaeus. Hence, his mistake (if it be one) could be due to the very real ambiguities of the text that have led modern Greek scholars into debate over the trans- lation.
In addition, it may well be that the Latin text is corrupt. The science of textual criticism has an impressive capacity to work back to the original readings of corrupted texts through the application of sound philological and critical principles. Chase suggests that the problem may indeed be one of accidental textual corruption in light of the following intrinsic probabilities: “The translator, especially with ujv&oKdiqJw before him in the Greek text, could not have been ignorant that ‘ALIOKCilVplC is a feminine substantive. Espe- cially when contractions were used, vim-s and uium would be easily confused. It appears to me probable that the somewhat strange vi.wm e.rt points back to an original ZJisus est. The latter words, if they seemed difficult, would easily be corrupted into vfium e$t.”45
The third problem with the re-interpretation of Irenaeus is ex- plaining how Irenaeus could speak of those who saw John toward the latter end of Domitian’s reign in light of the fact that he also tells us John lived into Trajan’s reign. In Agaimt Heresies Irenaeus writes that John “continued with the Elders till the times of Trajan.”4G Surely Irenaeus would not contradict himself by suggesting in one place that John lived until the end of Domitian’s reign, while in another saying that he lived to Trajan’s reign.
The problem, however, is not as diflicult to overcome as might initially appear. In the first place, Domitian died in A.D. 96 and Trajan became emperor in A.D. 98 (after a very brief reign by Nerva). Swete states of Irenaeus’s reference that it speaks of John’s “having lived to the time of Trajan, i.e. to the year 98 at least.”4 7 Orz@ two years separati th rei~. It is not unreasonable to suppose that almost a century later the two years’ difference separating the two emperors could have been blurred by Irenaeus. It must be remem- bered that dating then was very imprecise because chronicles were not kept by Christians. As Robinson notes regarding problems of chronology during that era: “The sources, Roman, Jewish, and Chris- tian, are largely uncoordinated and share no common canon of chronology such as is supposed by any modern historian.”48
In the second place, Irenaeus does not say (upon the reconstruc- tion of his argument as per Chase and others) that John died at the end of Domitian’s reign. He simply says he “was seen” (bpddq) at that time, perhaps by those who spoke to him face to face (to whom lrenaeus refers). Possibly there is a contrast of ideas between these two references, a contrast that involves John’s advanced age: “Obvi- ously the statement that the Apostle ‘was seen at the close of Domi- tian’s’ reign cannot be considered inconsistent with the statement that ‘he continued with the Elders till the times of Trajan.’ It may well be that there is an intentional contrast between the phrase IZt--6jJElVEV aikof~ and &opc@q. The former appears to me simply to suggest the idea of survival, the latter (as used by Irenaeus) of free intercourse. ln his extreme old age, in ‘the times of Trajan,’ [if it be well into Trajan’s re@, KLG] it can hardly be but that, though he ‘continued with’ the Church, St John withdrew from the society of the Christians at Ephesus; he was no longer ‘seen.’ “4 9 Such is an entirely reasonable hypothesis.