Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

346 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
John’s ‘apocalyptic vision.’’’” This is a serious blunder. It is obvious
that they are not even aware that in the original Greek of Against
Heresies, there is no “impersonal pronoun ‘that’” !33 The “that”
which forms the basis of their argument is an English translator’s
interpolation! To argue as they have is equivalent to stating that an
italicized word in the Bible _indicates God emphasized the point,
when actually it is the translator’s cue to the reader that the English
has been supplied despite the lack of any term in the original language.
This is a debater’s technique – one which loses points when
the debater’s opponent has read the primary source’s citation in its
original language.
Third, they write: “since it is called ‘the apocalyptic vision,’
which is something John saw, then ‘was seen’ refers to what John
saw — ‘the apocalyptic vision’ — rather than someone having seen
John.”3 4 Again, they do not seem to have done their homework
adequately. In the fkst place, the original Greek does not have the
word “vision” (which they feel suggests the verb of seeing). The word
in the original is d170K~ uqrIc (“revelation” ). “Apocalyptic vision” is
an amplified translation by the English translator! In the second
place, as I have shown, the context also makes reference to John.
having been seen alive, even using the same Greek word for “saw.”35
In fact, this seems to be Irenaeus’s main point!
Fourth, though properly citing Hort as an early date advocate
who allows Irenaeus’s statement to refer to the book of Revelation
and not to its author, House and Ice leave no indication that Hort
did so with resemations. Hort found the grammatical structure of
Irenaeus’s sentence difficult to account for on the common translation,
as I have noted.36 The readers of House and Ice’s book would
not be aware of Hort’s reservation, thus their argument becomes an
effective “debater’s technique” by invoking Hort’s name.
Finally, having dealt with Chilton’s brief objection to Irenaeus,
they write: “Chilton’s approach is nothing more than a debater’s
technique. When you do not have strong reasons against something
32. House and Ice, Dominion Ttuology, p. 251.
33. See above, pp. 46-59, for the Greek text and comments on it.
34. House and Ice, Dominion Thologv, p. 252.
35. See above, pp. 52-54.
36. See above, p. 50.