Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

Irenaeu-s, Bishop of Lyons 57
tian’s’ reign cannot be considered inconsistent with the statement
that ‘he continued with the Elders till the times of Trajan.’ It may
well be that there is an intentional contrast between the phrase
IZt--6jJElVEV aikof~ and &opc@q. The former appears to me simply
to suggest the idea of survival, the latter (as used by Irenaeus) of free
intercourse. ln his extreme old age, in ‘the times of Trajan,’ [if it be
well into Trajan’s re@, KLG] it can hardly be but that, though he
‘continued with’ the Church, St John withdrew from the society of
the Christians at Ephesus; he was no longer ‘seen.’ “4 9 Such is an
entirely reasonable hypothesis.
The Signt@ance of the Time Refererwe
Not only does the contextual emphasis on personal contact with
and knowledge of John provide a clue to the referent of .hptitlq, but
also the phraseology as to when “John” or “it” was seen. We turn
again to Chase, who offers a penetrating insight into this further
aspect of the problem:
On which of the two suppositions is the language of Irenaeus more
natural, on the supposition that he is referring to the date of the vision
and of the publication of the Book, or on the supposition that he is
referring to the time when St John was still alive and still associated
with the members of the Church? Now Irenaeus wrote the third book
of his great work when Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome (3:3:3), i.e.
between 175 A.D. and 190 A. D.; and the fifth book cannot be of an
earlier date. Domitian was murdered in 96 A.D. Hence if the Apocalypse
was “seen” at “the close of Domitian’s reign,” nearly a hundred
years had elapsed when Irenaeus wrote his fifth book. Is it natural
that, in reference to a vision seen and a book composed nearly a
hundred years previously, Irenaeus should have used the expression
0662 ydp npd nofiofi ~6vov kopaOq, d,Ud O@dv km’ @G
@&rkpa< ygvetl~? On the other hand, such language is no more than
a venial hyperbole if he had in mind the prolongation of St John’s life,
the internal between whom and himself was spanned by the life of his
master, Polycarp of Smyrna. As we learn from the Epistle to Florinus,
Irenaeus had a most vivid remembrance of Polycarp as Polycarp had
a most vivid remembrance of St John. 50
This problem is so obvious that even a late date advocate of the
49. Chase, “Date,” p. 435.
50. Ibid., p. 433.