In considering the external evidence on the date of the book, we must take note that many scholars believe that John wrote in the later part of the first century during the reign of Domitian, about A.D. 95-96, well after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Although several of the Fathers make this assertion, all base their position on the comments of one person, Irenaeus bishop of Lyons in France. Irenaeus said this: "We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist, for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign." While this statement appears rather straight forward, Terry points out that "...the critical reader will observe that the subject of the verb... was seen, is ambiguous, and may be understood either of John or the Apocalypse."
So, the question is this, who or what was seen? It may have been John that Irenaeus claims was seen, since the Apostle is reported to have lived to almost one hundred years of age. Actually, the logic of the sentence requires this interpretation. If the Revelation was "seen" at this late date, how would that have helped determine who the Antichrist was? In and of itself, possessing a copy of the Revelation does not answer that question. On the other hand, if John was "seen"-well certainly he could personally reveal who the Antichrist was! So, clearly, the seeing of John is really the only thing that makes sense. "The nearness of the vision cannot open the symbols of the book. It was the author John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning of the mystic name."
If, on the other hand, this passage is stating that John saw the Revelation at this time, then that is powerful testimony for a late date. Unfortunately, this quote will never be able to tell us more than it does, which is nothing certain, making this source of questionable force in the argument.
One other possibility exists as to whom Irenaeus was referring when he made reference to Domitian. It is a possibility that he was referring to "(Nero Claudius Caesar) [who] was originally named Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus," instead of referring to Titus Flavius Domitianus, commonly known as Domitian. If Nero is here referenced, then there is no confusion in Irenaeus, just in his interpreters. But again the ambiguity cannot be cleared up.
In considering the testimony of the Fathers we should also take note of Jerome's statement that John was seen in A.D. 96 but was so weak and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people." Could a man in this condition endure an exile on an island like Patmos? And while there would he have the energy and presence of mind to write such a taxing book as Revelation? It simply does not seem reasonable.
Another Father of the Church, Clement of Alexandria tells us that divine revelation ceased under Nero: "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero." If the ministry of the apostles ends with Nero, then the Revelation would have to have been written before Nero died.
In a document called the Muratorian Canon, we have the oldest Latin list of New Testament books. "In it the author described John, whom he acknowledged as the author of the Apocalypse, as the predecessor of Paul in writing to seven churches. Since it is generally agreed that Paul was martyred in A.D. 67 or 68, Revelation would have to been written prior to the death of Paul." Obviously, Paul completed his seven epistles before he died. Since John was Paul's "predecessor" in writing to seven churches, John would have written Revelation before this date.
As you can see, the external evidence provides some considerable indication that John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70. But, let us now turn to the internal evidence. Consider these points:
So, the question is this, who or what was seen? It may have been John that Irenaeus claims was seen, since the Apostle is reported to have lived to almost one hundred years of age. Actually, the logic of the sentence requires this interpretation. If the Revelation was "seen" at this late date, how would that have helped determine who the Antichrist was? In and of itself, possessing a copy of the Revelation does not answer that question. On the other hand, if John was "seen"-well certainly he could personally reveal who the Antichrist was! So, clearly, the seeing of John is really the only thing that makes sense. "The nearness of the vision cannot open the symbols of the book. It was the author John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning of the mystic name."
If, on the other hand, this passage is stating that John saw the Revelation at this time, then that is powerful testimony for a late date. Unfortunately, this quote will never be able to tell us more than it does, which is nothing certain, making this source of questionable force in the argument.
One other possibility exists as to whom Irenaeus was referring when he made reference to Domitian. It is a possibility that he was referring to "(Nero Claudius Caesar) [who] was originally named Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus," instead of referring to Titus Flavius Domitianus, commonly known as Domitian. If Nero is here referenced, then there is no confusion in Irenaeus, just in his interpreters. But again the ambiguity cannot be cleared up.
In considering the testimony of the Fathers we should also take note of Jerome's statement that John was seen in A.D. 96 but was so weak and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people." Could a man in this condition endure an exile on an island like Patmos? And while there would he have the energy and presence of mind to write such a taxing book as Revelation? It simply does not seem reasonable.
Another Father of the Church, Clement of Alexandria tells us that divine revelation ceased under Nero: "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero." If the ministry of the apostles ends with Nero, then the Revelation would have to have been written before Nero died.
In a document called the Muratorian Canon, we have the oldest Latin list of New Testament books. "In it the author described John, whom he acknowledged as the author of the Apocalypse, as the predecessor of Paul in writing to seven churches. Since it is generally agreed that Paul was martyred in A.D. 67 or 68, Revelation would have to been written prior to the death of Paul." Obviously, Paul completed his seven epistles before he died. Since John was Paul's "predecessor" in writing to seven churches, John would have written Revelation before this date.
As you can see, the external evidence provides some considerable indication that John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70. But, let us now turn to the internal evidence. Consider these points:
No comments:
Post a Comment