Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

58 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
calibre of Peake expresses fi-ustration: “The statement of Irenaeus ‘it
was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation,’ is difficult,
since Irenaeus wrote his great work about A.D. 180-190, nearly a
century after the closing of Domitian’s reign, and his birth probably
at least a quarter of a century later than the death of Domitian. “51
ln addition, the time phrase cannot be pushed too far in this
regard for a very important reason: “It should be noted that the
words rrp& nj3 rkk TGG A ops-navofi cipxij~ do not stand in immediate
connection with &op&Oq; they are added to explain h’ r~c
xjjw~~paq yEVE@. Further, the Greek preposition np6~ (the use of
which with the dative in a temporal sense is very unusual) does not
seem to express quite so sharply as the English preposition ‘at’ the
notion ofa point oftime. ”5 2 How can such observations be considered
the least unreasonable? The evidence against the usefulness of Irenaeus
for late date advocacy continues to mount.
Incompatibilip of Irena.wsk Revelation Statements
Another problem with the commonly received translation is with
Irenaeus’s statement at 5:30:1:
He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work,
In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of
John, and the number of the name of Antichrist: “As these things are
so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies. “5 3
Irenaeus’s mention of ancient copies of Revelation indicates his awareness
of its circulating “at a much earlier time. “5 4 Irenaeus’s statement
may be suggestive as to the date of Revelation. Lee comments that
such a statement tends to suggest “an early date for the inscripturation
of the original master document itself. Clearly, the original
autograph must have been still more ancient than even any of the
‘most ancient copies.’ For even the ‘most anchmt copies’ could only have
been made after the original auto~aph. . . . And to the 185 A.D.
Irenaeus, the ‘most ancient’ copies of all of the various ‘am”ent copies’
had apparently all been made, well before ‘the end of Domitian’s
51. Peake, Rmelation, p. 72 n. 1.
52. Chase, “Date,” p. 434.
53. Eusebius Ecclessiastieal History 5:8:5-6. Cited horn .%haff and Wace, eds., Nuene
and Post-Nuens F&hs 1:222.
W. Guthrie, Introduction, p. 933.