REVELATION: IT'S CENTRAL THEME ILLUMINATED

Prophecy Questions Blog ^ | February 1, 2017 | Charles Meek

[Boogieman]

“Most of the evidence for the late dating of Revelation comes down to a passage in Irenaeus.”

Actually, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius all present evidence for this.

“The Greek is ambiguous. It could mean that the Revelation itself was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign, or that John, who saw the Revelation, was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign.”

It’s not ambiguous at all. Eusebius introduces the state of persecution under Domitian’s reign (Hist. Eccl. ch.17), which included a great number of notable Christians being put into exile. Immediately following that, he tells us that John was exiled to Patmos during THIS persecution (Hist. Eccl ch. 18), which could only be referencing the persecution he had just introduced in the previous chapter. He follows this up by citing Irenaeus, who states John saw the Revelation, and IT was seen at the end of the reign of Domitian. Interpreting that sentence to try to make it seem as if “John” was being seen would be to completely ignore the context of the preceding statements in Irenaeus, so anyone interpreting it that way is clearly doing so with an agenda.

“Are the other commentators who say that John was exiled during Domitian’s reign perhaps just retrojecting this on the basis of Irenaeus’ comment?”

We could “perhaps” many things, but absent any evidence, it would be pure speculation.

“Some sources say”

What sources? I showed you mine, show me yours.

“That doesn’t support the late dating, because John would have been an old and infirm man by the AD 90s.”

Show me a source which says Roman persecutors were so kind as to not force elderly Christians to do hard labor, please. Otherwise, this is more pure speculation (or perhaps wishful thinking) rather than evidence.

“And the Syriac commentaries on Revelation say flatly that it was written during the reign of Nero, as does Epiphanius.”

Ephiphanius stated that John, the brother of James, the beloved apostle, was exiled to Patmos in the reign of Trajan (even LATER than Domitian!), not the reign of Nero, and that he wrote his GOSPEL there. He says nothing of the writing of the Apocalypse of John, nor does he even make it clear if he believes this John is the same John who authored that book. There is only the implication, by mention of an exile to Patmos, that they are same, but no clear statement of this at all. This stands in stark contrast to the other commentators who state their information with certainty rather than implication.

Ephiphanius is also a later commentator than the other 3, so if you really are going to argue that “perhaps” later commenters are simply repeating information from Irenaeus, then your own argument applies to Epiphanius, and moreso, considering the late date of his writings!

As for your “Syriac commentaries”, they are of unknown authorship and date, so I don’t know how much weight we can ascribe to those. At least they do actually state what you are trying to claim, but if only one set of commentaries, among dozens from that era, is the only one to make the claim, that doesn’t seem to me to be strong evidence that this is accurate information.

[captmar-vell]

Thanks for posting Boogieman, good information,