12.07.2013 Views

Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry

by Kenneth L. Gentry

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

344 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />

“Early Christian tradition is almost unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse<br />

to the last years of Domitian.”) Certainly, there are other early<br />

writers whose statements indicate that St. John wrote the Revelation<br />

much earlier, under Nero’s persecution. 16<br />

Chilton was careful to note that not all ancient sources supported a<br />

late date for Revelation. 17 Thus, he is not set against “t/u voice of<br />

church tradition. ” In fact, he specifically mentions “there are other<br />

early writers whose statements indicate” that Revelation was written<br />

under Nero.<br />

I have noted in great detail in the text of this book that there are<br />

a number of significant early date voices that may be heard from the<br />

stream of ancient tradition. Among them I could list Clement of<br />

Alexandria (despite House and Icels – and others), the Muratorian<br />

Canon, Tertullian, Epiphanies, the Syriac versions of Revelation,<br />

and Arethas, and probably Papias and The Shepherd of Herrnas. 19<br />

There simply is no “voice [singular] of church tradition concerning<br />

the date of Revelation. ” It is time for late date advocates to admit<br />

this. Neither is there an “overwhelming voice of the early church” in<br />

this regard. 20<br />

Nor may it be stated that Clement of Alexandria,<br />

Ongen, Victorious, and Eusebius “had no witnesses to the contrary.”21<br />

Nor should it be said that “if there were some validity to the<br />

early date, some trace of this competing tradition should have surfaced.<br />

However, it has not!”2 2<br />

Nor may we believe that there is “clear<br />

and historically accepted witness of the early church to a Domitian<br />

date.”2 3<br />

To quote House and Ice against themselves: their critique<br />

of the early Church tradition seems to be “speculative”2 4<br />

and a<br />

“debater’s technique.”2 5<br />

After carefully reading House and Ice, I seriously suspect that<br />

neither of them has read the original references in context in Clement<br />

16. Chilton, Days of V2ngeame, pp. 3-4.<br />

17. And his f~tnote pointed the interested reader to exhaustive research in works<br />

by Moses Stuart and James M. Macdonald.<br />

18. House and Ice, Dominion Theolo~, p. 253.<br />

19. See chapter 6 above.<br />

20. House and Ice, Dominion T/zolo.., p. 253.<br />

21. Ibid.<br />

22. Ibrd., p. 254.<br />

23. Ibid, p. 258.<br />

24. Ibid., p. 253.<br />

25. Ibid., p. 252.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!