The dating of revelation 100 free granny cam
In setting up this quote from Irenaeus, he refers to the book as “what is called the Revelation of John,” indicating a degree of doubt as to whether John actually wrote it.More significantly, Eusebius elsewhere places Revelation in the category of “spurious books” (3.25).What kind of sense would it make for Irenaeus to refer to copies of the apocalyptic vision as “ancient,” but also maintain that the vision itself occurred almost in his own lifetime?This problem is alleviated if we understand ἑωράθη as a reference to John himself (“he was seen”), rather than the apocalyptic vision (“it was seen”).Specifically he’s asserting that John was alive during (and affected by) the reign of Domitian.That said, Eusebius does claim that John’s confinement on Patmos occurred during the reign of Domitian.And just to belabor this point beyond what is necessary, here are a few of those examples: “And he was seen (ἑωράθη) by practically all mankind.
So why does Eusebius appeal to this statement from Irenaeus? It seems to me that the only way for the Irenaeus quote to count as “ample evidence” for John’s exile to Patmos under Domitian is if Eusebius were assuming two things: (1) that ἑωράθη (“it was seen”) refers to the apocalyptic vision itself, rather than to John himself, contrary to what I argued above; and (2) that the testimony of Revelation 1:9 is authentic: “I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” In other words, Eusebius would be reasoning as follows: 1.Irenaeus says that Revelation was written at the end of Domitian’s reign.2.In Revelation, John records that he was exiled on the island of Patmos (Rev. Therefore, John was exiled to Patmos during Domitian’s reign.he was alive) until very recently, almost in our own day.” And if ἑωράθη is actually referring back to John himself, rather than John’s apocalyptic vision, then this oft-referenced statement from Irenaeus does not support the later date of Revelation.To frame the issue a different way, we’re basically choosing which of the following statements makes better sense: a.
For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign’” (The History of the Church, 3.18).