Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T20:42:25.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis: Critique of the Irenaeus Source as a Witness for the Contemporary Historical Approach to the Interpretation of the Apocalypse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Barclay Newman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , October 1963 , pp. 133 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 133 note 1 A. Wickenhauser, Die Offenbarung des Johannes p. 21.

page 133 note 2 Martin Rist, The Revelation. The Interpreter's Bible, XII, 354.

page 133 note 3 Joshua Bloch, On the Apocalyptic in Judaism, p. 28. ‘There was no sudden transition whatever from prophecy to apocalyptic.’ Clyde W. Votaw, ‘The Apocalypse of John; I, Jewish Apocalyptic Literature’, The Biblical World, xxxi (1908), 33, states that this literature went through a process of development and did not appear suddenly ‘full fledged’. S. J. Case, The Revelation of Join, 58–65 demonstrates ‘apocalyptic features in the prophets’ Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Joel, and especially Ezekiel. Cf. H. S. Bellamy, The Book of Revelation in History, p. 10, who assumes apocalyptic literature is distinctly post-exilic, that the roots of apocalyptic cannot be sought in the prophets, and that the apocalyptic elements in the minor prophets and Ezekiel are of later date than Daniel.

page 134 note 1 Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen, Zeitalter, edited by Hugo Grossmann, p. 12.

page 134 note 2 Loc. cit. Cf. Porter, The Message of Apocalyptical Writers, p. 20, ‘The transition from prophecy to apocalypse was not sudden, and the book of Daniel does not create a wholly new type of literature’.

page 134 note 3 J. Skinner, Isaiah I-XXXIX, p. 192; H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic, pp. 23, 24.

page 134 note 4 For a discussion of the relationships and differences between prophecy and apocalyptic cf. the following: Rowley, op. cit. pp. 13ff.; R. H. Charles, Religious Development Between the Old and New Testaments, pp. 12–46; Wikenhauser, op. cit. pp. 9–12; Frank C. Porter, ‘Prophecy and Apocalypse’, The Biblical World, XIV (1899), 36–41; John Thompson, Books Which Influenced Our Lord and His Apostles: Being A Critical Review of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, pp. 193–212. That apocalyptic is in some measure a ‘child of prophecy’ is affirmed also by George Ricker Berry, ‘The Apocalyptic Literature of the Old Testament’, J.B.L. lxii (1943), 9ff.; Shailer Matthews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament, pp. 21 ff., sees the outgrowth of apocalyptic literature from the ‘Day of Jehovah’ concept of prophecy; W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, pp. 56–9, understands apocalyptic as a natural development from the concept of an ‘eschatology of woe or bliss’ in the pre-exilic prophets; E. Lohmeyer, ‘Apokalyptik’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1926), i, 402, states, ‘Naheverwandt ist sie ihrer Form nach der israelitischen Prophetie, gleich der sie göttliche Offenbarung (άποκάλυψıς) geben will, ihrem Inhalt nach der national bedingten Hoffnung auf eine kommende herrliche Zukunft des Volkes’. Karl F. Budde, Geschichte der althebraischen Literatur, p. 351, sees an essential relationship between the prophets and apocalyptic at the point of understanding that the future does not possess a meaningless conglomeration of events, but is controlled by God's intent for history. C. C. Torrey, ‘Apocalypse’, The Jewish Encyclopedia, i, 471, believes the closest related precursor of the Jewish apocalypses to be the ‘characteristically developed eschatological element in the later Hebrew prophecy’.

page 134 note 5 Bloch, op. cit.p. 27.

page 134 note 6 Johannes Behm, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, p. 2, observes that the real artistry of the author is ‘alten Formen neuen Inhalt zu verleihen’. Lohmeyer, ‘Die Offenbarung des Johannes 1920–1934’, TR, vs (1934), 284, points out that there exists a similar relationship between apocalyptic literature and Dante's Divine Comedy, yet no one attempts to interpret the latter according to these images which preceded it in earlier similar literature. Lohmeyer continues, ‘…um zu bestimmen was er ist, nutzt es wenig, sondern nur an der Stelle zu bleiben die die Offenbarung Johannes selber bezeichnet, und in ihr nach seiner Bedeutung zu forschen’.

page 135 note 1 Cf. Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der Jüdischen Gemeinde, p. 5, ‘Apokalyptik ist Geheimwissenschaft; ihr Stoff sind die Geheimnisse des Kosmos, ihre Freunde sammelten sich wohl in abgeschlossenen Kreisen’.

page 135 note 2 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, v, xxx, 3, Ante-Nicene, 1, 559–60.

page 135 note 3 ‘At this time, the story goes, the Apostle and Evangelist John was still alive and was condemned to live on the island of Patmos for his witness to the divine world. At any rate, Irenaeus, writing about the number of the name ascribed to the anti-Christ in the so-called Apocalypse of John, states this about John in so many words in the fifth book against Heresies…’ (Lake, Eusebius, i, 235). Three factors seem to have contributed to Eusebius' conclusions: (1) the Irenaeus passage; (2) the Apocalypse i. 9, 10; and (3) his desire to portray the more ‘romantic’ aspect of the Christian faith of the past by relating it to a persecution context. This third factor has determined histilization of the other materials. It is shown above that the Irenaeus passage does not suppor this thesis; and, by a slight change in punctuation, Apocalypse i. 9, 10 is made to read otherwise

John is not interested to state why he is on Patmos; rather he is concerned to affirm that his vision is received while ‘in the Spirit’. Compare xvii. 3 (έν πνεúματı). This is the same thing about which Paul is concerned in relation to his gnostic opponents at Corinth (II Cor. xii). Cf. Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth, on II Cor. xii, pp. 174–82.

page 135 note 4 Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John, p. c.

page 136 note 1 E.g. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, revised by Cyril Richardson, p. 30, ‘of this persecution under Domitian few details are known, but it must have been of severity in Rome and in Asia Minor’. To support this theory of a Domitian persecution he appeals to I Clement, i; Rev. ii. 10, 13, 14, in loc. cit. n. 5.

page 136 note 2 Irenaeus, v, xxvi, 1, Ante-Nicene, i, 554–5.

page 136 note 3 Roberts, Ante-Nicene, i, 559, n. 5.

page 137 note 1 Irenaeus, v, xxx, 3, Ante-Nicene, i, 559.

page 137 note 2 Irenaeus, v, xxviii, 2, Ante-Nicene, i, 557.

page 137 note 3 Irenaeus, v, xxix, 2, Ante-Nicene, i, 558.

page 137 note 4 Irenaeus, v, xxx, 1, Ante-Nicene, i, 558.

page 137 note 5 Irenaeus, v, xxx, 1, Ante-Nicene, i, 559.

page 138 note 1 Irenaeus, III, iii, 4, Ante-Nicene, i, 416.