Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

118 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
is before the destruction ofJerusalem.15
The present writer deems certain of the arguments suggested
above to be doubtful. For instance, many early date advocates,
especially of the 1800s and very early 1900s (among them we could
list Macdonald, Terry, and Scha~ ‘G to name but a few), used the
argument from idiom. The validity of these observations, however,
is questionable. The “crudeness” of Revelation’s Greek does not
necessarily suggest a primitive grasp of the language. Its unusual
grammar and syntax are perhaps more determined by the purpose
at hand (prophetic panorama), the means of its reception (by vision
through angelic mediator, e.g., Rev. 1:1 ), and the subject matter
(covenantal wrath). Austin Farrer observes that “the suggestion that
St. John wrote like this because he knew no better may be dismissed
out of hand. He was writing a Christian Ezekiel or Zechariah in the
phrase of the 01d.”]7 Farrer suggests that John adopted “an artificial
language, Septuagintic Greek, in which to handle” the imagery. 18
John, as it were, wrote in much the same way as a modern rapturous
saint might write using the language of the King James Version.
Septuagintic Greek permeated John’s mind and heart while he was
overwhelmed (cf. Rev. 1:17; 5:4; 17:6; 19: 10) by the drama unfolding
before him (he “saw,” 1:2; 5:1,6; 6:lff.; 7:l~; 8:2K; 9:1K; 10:1; etc.)
and around him (he experienced, Rev. 1:12, 17; 4:1, 2; 10:4, 9, 10;
11:1, 2; 13:1; 19:10; etc.).
In addition, the argument from the number of churches may be
discounted as based upon insufficient evidence. The number could
well be a limitation based on symbolic requirements. And if there
were many churches, it would have been cumbersome to list them
all in the preface; the churches listed could be representative churches.
Certain of the arguments, however, are not only stronger, but
virtually certain, e.g. the contemporary reign of the sixth king]g and
15. Brooke Foss Westcott, Thz Gospel Awordirzg to St. John (Grand Rapids: Baker,
[1908] 1980), pp. clxxiv-clxxv.
16. Macdonald, L~e of St. John, pp. 152-15~ Terry, Hermewutics, pp. 240-241; Schaff,
Hz.stoy 1:428-429. At one time this was deemed to be the major argument by some, e.g.,
Westcott, Gospel AccoTding to John.
17. Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Zmages (Bostom Beacon, 1949), p. 24.
18. Ibid.
19. Feuillet observes of the relative strength of the internal evidence from Revelation
17 as compared to the external evidence from Irenaeus: “The chief objection which could