Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
You must have John dead around the time of the destruction of the Temple. Otherwise, your position makes no sense.
He didn't die at that time if the datings of the general epistles (inroads of and fight against gnosticism) has any validity.
Already answered: The "Ancient" Syrian translation of the Revelation didn't come until at least the sixth century, and more likely a millennium later.
Melito of Sardis (175 A.D.)
And what is the full quote?
The Muratorian Canon (180)
Here's the relevant quote:
It is necessary for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches . . . yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all.Let's think about this for a second. This canon, on its face, is claiming that the Revelation was penned before any or at least the majority of Sha'ul's letters, which would put the date in the 50s at the very latest. No one thinks the Revelation was written that early! Even among preterists it's believed that the Revelation was written after Sha'ul was martyred. So clearly this testimony is proven completely false and is therefore worthless to you as support to the preterist dating system!
In the Early Church, it was only Irenaeus who perhaps assumed a late date of 95 A.D. for the writing down of the Book of Revelation.
I've already proven this one false.
Advocates of the Early-Church-in-general's earlier (Neronic) date for the Book of Revelation, include: Epiphanius,
Fourth century.
Andreas of Caesarea
Sixth century.
Arethas of Caesarea,
Ninth century. Given the fact that these names seem to be listed in order of date, I'm going to forego bothering to date them all. Sufficient to say, you're continuing to prove my point that early-dating Revelation came in later centuries. Again, how exactly is this helping your case?
I don't understand. Please explain.
If John lived a good long life after the fulfillment of all prophecy with the destruction of the Temple, living all the way to the end of the century as evidenced by the inroads of gnosticism into the church, then he would have explained who the antichrist was and all the other Revelation stuff in one of his letters, or to one of his church members, or to a friend.
Therefore, it's necessary for him to have died.
Does anyone care that the city of Philadelphia was renamed Flavia by Emperor Vespasian in 69? [An interesting sidenote has Vespasian in Egypt in 70 where he had a vision at the Temple of Serapis. Temple laborers were convinced he possessed divine power and could work miracles. He left his son, Titus, to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple.]
Would be kinda funny for the writer of Revelation to write a letter to a city using the wrong address.
Additionally, Laodicea was mostly destroyed by an earthquake in 60-61, from which it never recovered. This also would be kinda funny for the writer to address a "lukewarm" pile of rubble as if nothing had happened.
Just a little historical context without any theological pretext.
How do you know he didn't. He may have, and we just don't have a record. But it all speculation. There is nothing requiring John to have died immediately after receiving and recording the Revelation.
If that happened, do you think the people of Philadelphia themselves EVER referred to their city (or their Church) using the middle name of the Emperor of Rome? I doubt it.
I'm sure that while the Roman Governor may have referred to Philadelphia as Flavia, the people in Philadelphia probably referred to the Emperor as Flatulence but I doubt he would have answered to that name.
I also doubt very seriously if Jesus would have used the Roman emperor's name in a letter praising the Church that had been named the "Church at Philadelphia" even before Flavius Vesparian came to power.
And now you have Laodicea being destroyed at least 5 years before the earliest date anyone has given to the Book of Revelation. I dare say that most cities in that area were largely destroyed by earthquakes every decade or so and rebuilt upon the same ground. That was the nature of building and architecture back then. A 5.0 earthquake which would do little damage today would do major damage to unreinforced concrete or unreinforced brick or stone buildings. I'd say that within 30 years of 61 AD Laodicea would have been largely rebuilt (and probably knocked down again a couple of times in the interim).
Yes there is. If he'd been alive he would have told everyone who the antichrist is, what the 1000 years represented, what were the meanings of the different visions within the book.
They wouldn't have been standing around afterwards saying they were still waiting for the antichrist to be revealed for one thing.
Assuming (in my humbly ignorant way) that world news travelled at a certain pace - both in terms of briskness and thoroughness. Then again, would the vision be of a grander scale than that based on temporal happenings.
Philadelphia sat in an important location. Expositor's Bible Commentary says, "About twenty-five miles southeast of Sardis, along the Hermus River valley, lay the important high plateau city of Philadelphia, modern Alasehir. A main highway that ran through the city connected Smyrna (about a hundred miles due west) to northwest Asia, Phrygia, and the east. Furthermore, the imperial post road of the first century A.D., which came from Rome via Troas, Adramyttium, Pergamum, and Sardis, passed through this valley and Philadelphia on the way to the east. So situated, Philadelphia became a strong fortress city. To the northeast was a great vine-growing district, which, along with textile and leather industries, contributed greatly to the city's prosperity."
The name Philadelphia came from the founder of the city, "Attalus II (159-138 B.C.), who had been given the epithet ‘Philadelphus' (brother lover)" because of his love for his brother (Expositor's Bible Commentary). But this was not the city's only name.
"Still another name of the city was Decapolis, because it was considered as one of the ten cities of the plain. A third name which it bore during the 1st cent. AD was Neo-kaisaria; it appears upon the coins struck during that period. During the reign of Vespasian, it was called Flavia. Its modern name, Ala-shehir, is considered by some to be a corruption of the Turkish words Allah-shehir, ‘the city of God,' but more likely it is a name given it from the reddish color of the soil.
"In addition to all of these names it sometimes bore the title of ‘Little Athens' because of the magnificence of the temples and other public buildings which adorned it. Philadelphia quickly became an important and wealthy trade center, for as the coast cities declined, it grew in power, and retained its importance even until late Byzantine times" (International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database, 1996, article "Philadelphia").
"According to Strabo, the whole region was earthquake prone (Geography 12.579; 13.628). In A.D. 17 an earthquake that destroyed Sardis and ten other cities also destroyed Philadelphia. Consequently, many people preferred to live in the rural area surrounding the city. The fear of earthquakes caused those who continued to live in the city to leave it at the slightest sign of a tremor.
"After the devastating earthquake, Tiberius came to the peoples' aid and had the city rebuilt. In gratitude the citizens renamed it Neocaesarea (‘New Caesar'). Later the name was changed to Flavia (A.D. 70-79), and this, along with Philadelphia, continued to be its name through the second and third centuries A.D…" (Expositor's Bible Commentary).
I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it and add some background? I'm pretty thick sometimes. :>)
And I just guessed that.
It is also interesting that Laodicea was destroyed before the earliest date for the Book of Revelation. By the time the book was written Laodicea was considered once again a rich city. It probably took at least 10-15 years to go from rubble to rich thus belying any assertion that the book of Revelation was written within just a few short years of such a major devastation.
Apparently Laodicea was completely restored at the beginning of the second century thus making the 95 AD date for Revelation much more likely than a 66-67 AD date. I suspect that in 67 AD the city was still on the rebound and would not have been referred to as "rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". I suspect that in 67 AD they were still in need of much.
"I suspect that in 67 AD the city was still on the rebound and would not have been referred to as "rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing". I suspect that in 67 AD they were still in need of much."
I think we can safely say that between 62-64A.D. Laodicea was not in the spiritual decline that we find in Revelation.
Col 4:12 "Epaphras, who is [one] of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them [that are] in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea."
Seems Paul did not have anything negative to say about the church.
According to the commentaries I have been consulting both Laodecia and Collossae were leveled by the same Earthquake about a year AFTER Paul's letter to the Collosians. Thus it would be literally impossible to believe that by the time John penned the book of Revelation in 66 or 67 that the Laodiceans had recovered from that earthquake to the point that they were "rich and in need of nothing." I suspect that it would have taken at least 10 years to re-establish their commerce base, which would then move the date of the book of Revelation out to at least 74 AD.
This of couse would be too late for the book of Revelation to be considered a prophecy of events in 70 AD. If it referenced the events of 70 AD it would have to be considered an allegorical history book.
Good find BD.
Laodicea was located 40-50 miles SE of Philadelphia, and 11 miles West of Colossae, and 6 miles South of Hierapolis --- (see Col. 4:13, 16 and Col. 2:1; 4:15). In the year 361 A.D. a Council was held here which established the canon of the New Testament.
It was founded by Antiochus II, a Seleucid king who reigned from 261 - 246 B.C. It was named after his wife, Laodice, who later poisoned him. It was originally built as a strong garrison on the strategic eastern trade route. It was also a center of Hellenic culture. After 190 B.C. it became a great, wealthy center of industry, and was especially famous for its high-grade black wool. It was a financial Mecca; the home of the millionaires of the day; the city of bankers and high-finance. There were many luxuries for the people (theaters, a stadium, a gymnasium equipped with baths, etc.).
Laodicea was situated in the area of some hot springs which emitted lukewarm water that was used in their baths. There was also a famous school of medicine here, which was noted for its production of a remedy for weak eyes called "Phrygian powder."
It was a very wealthy and self-sufficient city. After an earthquake in 60 A.D., they refused any assistance from the Roman Empire. Tacitus writes: "The same year Laodicea, one of the most famous cities of Asia, having been prostrate by an earthquake, recovered herself by her own resources, and without any relief from us." Such wealth attracted the Jews. In 62 B.C. Flaccus (the Roman governor of Asia) seized some contraband gold being shipped illegally to the Jews in Jerusalem. From this amount of gold it was estimated that there were nearly 11,000 Jews in the city of Laodicea at the time.
The city was a center for Emperor worship. "The Cult of Carian Men" was also located here, a group identified with Zeus. The people of the city were so rich and self-reliant that they were all but unbearable ..... an attitude which carried over into the church there.
The Nature of the “Riches”We should note also that it may be that the reference to “riches” made by John is a reference to spiritual riches, and not to material wealth at all.
These riches and other goods in which the Laodicean Church and Angel gloried we must understand as spiritual riches in which they fondly imagined they abounded. . . . [T]his language in this application is justified by numerous passages in Scripture: as by Luke xii. 21; 1 Cor. i:5; 2 Cor. viii. 9; above all, by two passages of holy irony, 1 Cor. iv. 8 and Hos. xii. 8; both standing in very closest connexion with this; I can indeed hardly doubt that there is intended a reference to the latter of these words of our Lord. The Laodicean Angel, and the church he was drawing into the same ruin with himself, were walking in a vain show and imagination of their own righteousness, their own advances in spiritual insight and knowledge.A good number of commentators suggest allusion here to 1 Corinthians 4:8 and Hosea 12:8. Additional passages such as Luke 18:11, 12; 16: 15; and 1 Corinthians 13:1 can be consulted as well. If this interpretation of “riches” in Revelation 3:17 is valid, then the entire force of this argument is dispelled. Surprisingly, this is even the view of Mounce: “The material wealth of Laodicea is well established. The huge sums taken from Asian cities by Roman oficia.ls during the Mithridatic period and following indicate enormous wealth. . . . The ‘wealth’ claimed by the Laodicean church, however, was not material but spiritual. . . . [T]he Laodiceans felt they were secure in their spiritual attainment .“Ease of Recovery
In addition, there is the impressive historical evidence of the situation that tends to undermine the rationale of the argument, even if material riches are in view. Most ruinous to the entire argument is the documented fact of Laodicea’s apparently effortless, unaided, and rapid recovery from the earthquake. Tacitus reports that the city did not even find it necessary to apply for an imperial subsidy to help them rebuild, even though such was customary for cities in Asia Minor. As Tacitus records it, Laodicea “arose from the ruins by the strength of her own resources, and with no help from us. ” This is as clear a statement as is necessary to demonstrate that Laodicea’s economic strength was not radically diminished by the quake. Despite the quake, economic resources were so readily available within Laodicea that the city could easily recover itself from the damage. Interestingly, both Morris and Mounce make reference to this statement by Tacitus, despite their using the argument to demand a late date.
Furthermore, it would seem that the time element would not be extremely crucial for “earthquakes were very frequent thereabouts, and rebuilding doubtless followed at once. ” The quake occurred in A.D. 61; if Revelation were written as early as A.D. 65 or early A.D. 66 (as is likely), that would give four years for rebuilding. We must remember that the recovery was self-generated. Simple economic analysis demands that for the resources to survive, rebuilding would have to be rapid.
Gentry, "Before Jerusalem Fell", pp. 319-321
(Gentry devotes a section in his book to the condition of the seven churches.)
You are correct. As it is written, "there is nothing new under the sun".
The heavenly battle in Revelation is taking place today and everyday. The "anti-christ" is the power of Satan on earth.
Revelation is our lot in the world. But the final victory belongs to Christ.
At the same time, there will most definitely be a specific end time, a judgment, a plague, etc. But that applies to us as individuals, too. If I step in front of a speeding train, that's my own personal Judgment Day. Satan pursues me because I have surrendered myself to Christ. Those who serve mammon look down on and discriminate against those of us who are marked by the angels because we attempt to live the Gospels.
Revelation is pertinent in so many ways. People get hung up on it being just "the future" or just "the past". It's much more than that and reflects matters much deeper than barcodes and new world orders...
Argument from silence. In fact, Paul had very little to say about the church in that city at all. We do know he wrote them a letter. We don't know what it said.
As long as we are speculating, assuming Paul is projecting the rosy condition at Laodicea, and since the letter to the Colossians was probably written about AD60, before the earthquake of 61, it may be possible that the earthquake precipitated some sort of spiritual decline within the church there. A separation of the wheat and chaff so to speak. Remember, Revelation 3 says that Laodicea was "neither hot not cold." Not outright apostasy, just a loss of zeal for the Lord. Certainly we've all seen churches go from being on fire for the Lord to blandness is 5-6 years or less.
Interesting. One preterist is arguing that they were destroyed and couldn't recover. The other is arguing they were destroyed and could recover. In other words, Laodicea offers no evidence for preterism.
The fact is that Laodicea was a wealthy city due to the banking industry that was there.
Laodicea was thriving in the 90's and it was thriving in the 70's. It seems a wash to me.
from Horae Apocalypticae by Rev. E.B. Elliott as presented by Bill and Sandy Kalivas
POINT 2
"Although some scholars have uncritically accepted the statement of St. Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) that the prophecy appeared 'toward the end of Domitian's reign' (i.e., around A.D. 96), there is considerable room for doubt about his precise meaning (he may have meant that the Apostle John himself 'was seen' by others). The language of St. Irenaeus is somewhat ambiguous; and, regardless of what he was talking about, he could have been mistaken." (p. 3)
External evidence to the dating of John's Revelation comes from writings from early church fathers and historians. There are no second or third century writings which mention or even point to a dating of Revelation during the reign of Nero. There are however, several extant writings which support the later writing, during Domitian's reign. The statement of St. Irenaeus is the primary and earliest support.
It is not surprising that Praeterists, having no strong witnesses of their own, must discount Irenaeus' statement. However, they do not stop there, but also subtlely attack his character by implying that he might not have known what he talking about and, further, allows this mistake to be recorded. Elliott thinks highly of St. Irenaeus as a scholar and church father as he states in the following passage:
"And considering Irenaeus' own very early era, relation to St. John, and character, -- that he was an Asiatic Greek, born nearly about the time of St. John's death, --that he was a disciple of Polycarp, which latter was a disciple of St. John, -- and that he was moreover one of the most learned, as well as most devoted of the Christian bishops of the age..." (vol. I, p. 2)
Of course, the statement itself comes under heavy scrutiny by those who cannot accept the later dating. It must! The original statement was given in Greek. The very construction of the sentence is taken apart and there are those who will claim it had not been interpreted correctly for centuries. Elliott is vehement in his opposition to this type of attack. He gives us the commonly held interpretation of the passage.
"For the testimony of Irenaeus -- Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John, -- is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable. Speaking of the name and number of the Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse: 'for it [the Apocalypse evidently] was seen no very long time ago; but almost in our age, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.' " (vol. I, p. 32)
In a footnote, Elliott proceeds to re-quote the statement in the original Greek and explain why St. Irenaeus could only be referring to the vision John saw and not to John himself.
In another footnote in his book, Chilton invites us to read Moses Stuart's work on Revelation to find early writers supporting a Neronic date. Would he also be interested to know what Professor Stuart thought about the construction of St. Irenaeus' statement? Elliott comments as follows "And here, in his opening summary, Professor Stuart admits distinctly in the first instance the futility of the attempts that have been made to get rid of Irenaeus' famous testimony asserting the Domitianic date, by supplying another nominative case... And really the true construction ... is so palpable, that one is astonished at this time of day to find any respectable writer so bewildering himself, as to attempt the revival of the absurdities that professor Stuart thus rejects." (vol. I, p. 534)
Further evidence from Irenaeus comes from his book Against Heresies as he discusses the number 666 and its interpretation. He, writing after 177 A.D., speaks of the embodiment of the number 666 as yet future to them.
But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation". Book 5 Chap. 30, Sec. 2)
POINT 3
"(St. Irenaeus, incidentally, is the only source for this late dating of Revelation; all other 'sources' are simply quoting from him. It is thus rather disingenuous for commentators to claim, as Swete does, that Early Christian tradition is almost unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of Domitian.) Certainly, there are other early writers whose statements indicate that St. John wrote the Revelation much earlier, under Nero's persecution." (p. 4)
There are many early church fathers and historians who have commented on dating of the book of Revelation. In this point, Chilton attacks all persons who would support the later date as being mere sounding boards to one early church father who "may have been mistaken." Yet as we read Elliott's work we find a wealth of information regarding early supporters as well as dissenters to an A.D. 96 date. We wish to note that in most all cases Elliott footnoted not only the work in which he found these opinions but additionally repeated the comments verbatim in the original Greek or Latin. This section will be long, but we feel necessarily so, in order to acquaint the readers with a full picture of the witnesses on both sides. We add a little background information for each man discussed which we found in "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by LeRoy Edwin Froom.
Tertullian is the first support mentioned. He lived from approximately 160-240 A.D., born in North Africa at Carthage, and converted to Christianity when he was 30-40 years of age. He became the father of Latin theology and creator of the church language in the Latin tongue. Tertullian's support of a 96 A.D. date is based on his references to persecutions of the apostles; Paul and Peter were put to death by Nero yet no mention of John and his banishment is mentioned as occurring during this time.
-- "First, Tertullian seems in no dubious manner to indicate this view of the Apocalyptic date. For in his Apology, after specifying Nero's as the first imperial persecution, and this one by the sword, (wherein, as he elsewhere says, Paul and Peter suffered, no mention being made of John,) he proceeds to notice Domitian's as the next persecution, and this as one in which Christians suffered by banishment, the well-known punishment inflicted on St. John. It is evident that Eusebius thus understands Tertullian; I mean as alluding to St. John's banishment as the act of Domitian." (vol. I, p. 33)
Titus Flavius Clemens or Clement of Alexandria lived from approximately 150-220 A.D. He was originally a pagan philosopher converted to the Christian church. He sought instruction from the most eminent teachers, traveling extensively to Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Palestine. He was a pupil of Pantaenus at Alexandria and was made presbyter in the church of Alexandria. 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)
Victorinus, who died in 303 or 304 A.D., was the bishop of Pettaw in Upper Pannonia, near modern Vienna. He wrote commentaries on several Old Testament books, Matthew and Revelation.
-- "Thirdly, Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw, and martyr in Diocletian's persecution, in a Commentary on the Apocalypse written towards the close of the third century, says twice over expressly, and in a part that bears no mark of interpolation, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the isle of Patmos when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian." (vol. I, p. 34-35)
Eusebius Pamphili lived from approximately 260-340 A.D. He was bishop of Caesarea and wrote Ecclesiastical History. In this work he relates events in the early church and his chronology places St. John on Patmos during Domitian's reign.
-- "To the same effect, fourthly is the very important testimony of Eusebius...on the date of St. John's banishment to Patmos, he distinctly intimates more than once his agreement with the tradition of the ancients, that referred it to Domitian's persecution: and indeed implies, as is perfectly evident, that he knew of no other tradition whatsoever as to the time of St. John's banishment to Patmos." (vol. I, p. 35-36)
-- "The same is the recorded judgment of Jerome; the same of Augustine's friend, Orosius; the same of Sulpitius Severus. Once more, we find an unhesitating statement of similar purport in Primasius; an eminent Augustinian commentator on the Apocalypse, of the sixth century. In his Preface to this Commentary, he speaks of the Apocalyptic visions having been seen by St. John when banished and condemned to the mines in Patmos by the Emperor Domitian." (vol. I, p. 36)
Jerome lived from approximately 340-420 A.D. He is most well known for his revision of the "Old Latin" translation of the Bible into what is known as the Latin Vulgate. He also wrote commentaries on many books of Scripture. Sulpitius Severus who lived from approximately 363-420 A.D. was an ecclesiastical historian born in Aquitania. He spent his later years in monastic retirement at Toulouse, in Aquitania.
We learn from Elliott, a scholar who read all the statements from the early historians that they did not merely mimic St. Irenaeus, but that they were themselves scholars and their statements are the result of their own research into this matter.
"Such is the later and subsidiary Patristic testimony still extant, to the fact of St. John having seen the Apocalyptic visions in Patmos under the reign of Domitian: -- a chain of testimony not to be viewed... as but the repetition of that of Irenaeus, whom indeed for the most part these writers do not even refer to: but as their own deliberate independent judgment, formed on all the evidence which then existed. As to any contrary early tradition respecting the date, if such there was, ...it can scarcely have been unknown the them. And their total silence respecting it is only explicable on one of two suppositions; -- viz. either that it did not exist; or that they deemed it undeserving of credit, and not even worth the notice." (vol. I, p. 36-37)
Next Elliott reviews the early works which placed the writing of Revelation during Nero's reign or earlier. He finds these works to be of questionable value.
-- "Nor can it be wondered at: seeing that as to any contrary statement on the point in question, there appears to have been none whatsoever until the time of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century: ...whose chief work, On Heresies, is decried ... as 'full of blots and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author:' ...For he speaks of St. John having prophesied when in the isle of Patmos, in the days of the Emperor Claudius: --a time when... it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of the Christian body whatsoever..." (vol. I, p. 37)
" ...another testimony to the early date of the Apocalypse. The subscription to a Syriac version of the book, written about the beginning of the sixth century, is thus worded; 'The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.' But of what value is this opinion, then first broached, as it would appear?" ( vol. I, p. 38-39)
Elliott adds this footnote which explains that Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero.
"May not the mistake have arisen from Domitian having sometimes the title of Nero given him; and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero?" He includes in this footnote further proofs given in Latin of this title applying to Domitian. (vol. I pg. 39, footnote 1)
Arethas born in 860 A.D. was archbishop of Caesarea and had great influence at the Byzantine court. His commentary on the Apocalypse was mostly a compilation, in which he mainly follows Andreas, who questioned the commonly accepted writing date of 96 A.D.
-- "Or again, [what of] the commentator Arethas, promulgated still two or three centuries later, to the effect that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; an opinion contradicted indeed elsewhere in the body of his work by himself?" (vol. I, p. 39)
"Alike the one and the other slept unnoticed for centuries. And, if waked up by critics of a more modern age, it has only been ... from the supposed necessity of such dates, in order to [justify] any possible explanation of the Apocalyptic prophecies." (vol. I, p. 39)
So we see that the earliest and most substantive testimony leans heavily in favor of a later, or Domitian date. And as to the contrary opinions supporting a Neronic date they are seen to be fewer in number, written later, and less tangible. It stands to reason, therefore, that the main support by Praeterists for a Neronic date is found by casting doubt on what was meant by the statements of key witnesses. In other words, what Praeterists have done to Irenaeus' statement is also done to the other key statements. Elliott goes into great detail to refute the arguments of this nature, however, we have not included them here for succinctness. (See Horae Apocalypticae vol. I, p. 39, footnote 6 for defense of Eusebius' statement and p. 34, footnote 2 for defense of Clement's story.)
POINT 4
"A good deal of the modern presumption in favor of a Domitianic date is based on the belief that a great, sustained period of persecution and slaughter of Christians was carried on under his rule. This belief, cherished as it is, does not seem to be based on any hard evidence at all." (p.4)
This argument is the one we find most puzzling of all. We do not require a period of slaughter and persecution of Christians under Domitian in order to believe the Book of Revelation was written in that period. In fact, we use the absence of this type of persecution to our advantage in the following manner: Under Nero Christians were more likely to be killed as were Paul and Peter, yet under Domitian, Christians were banished, as was John. Had John been brought before Nero, why was he not put to death as were so many others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.