Young's commentary valid? Re: Greek

[OldShepherd]

I recently came into a copy of Robert Young's commentary on the NT. I have a question about his reason for rejecting the common understanding of Irenaeus' reference to "Domitianou" in the dating of Revelation.

Young was a noted NT scholar but I believe that "Domitianou" is the genitive of "Domitian." Young appears to be saying that "Domitianikos" is. Here is the relevant passage. with an attached photo of the actual print version.

• Robert Young (1885)
  "It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation)

[Robyn Banks]

Young:
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation)[/list]

The context strongly supports the conclusion that Irenaeus referred to Domitian, not Nero.

Irenaeus wrote:

• "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [ he ] was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Irenaeus makes special mention of John surviving to "almost ... our day." If John had only survived to the 60s, this would have been only as long as many of the other apostles, and hardly worth a mention. So it is highly probable that "almost ... our day" is considerably later. And to be during the reign of a 'Domitian', it would require to be the 90s.

So on contextual grounds, Young's point is incorrect.

Of course, and this goes beyond the immediate scope of your question, the correctness of Irenaeus' statement is still moot.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Waterrock]

Dear Old Shepherd,

Imho, Young's is just incorrect. Irenaeus should be understood (as Robyn said) to be referring to Domitian.

Basically one piece of internal evidence /might/ points to an earlier date: the description of the kings in Revelation 17 can be made to make sense if one interprets them as Roman Emperors, in just the right way (in a preterist kind of approach). But I still favor the date of about A.D. 96, in the reign of Domitian.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[Jaltus]

I would check out Gentry's Before the Fall of Jerusalem, though while I disagree with his conclusions, he lays out the case very well for the disputed quotations.

[OldShepherd]

08-23-2003 @ 12:35 AM post located here
Jaltus:

I would check out Gentry's Before the Fall of Jerusalem, though while I disagree with his conclusions, he lays out the case very well for the disputed quotations.

Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. Gentry fails to convince me, his argument appears to be exhaustive, but I see some speculations in there. For example, Gentry appears to make much of a presumed grammatical error in the quote, but Irenaeus' only comes to us through a secondary source, not the original. If there is a grammatical error it may not be Irenaeus', but that of a copyist.

[OldShepherd]

08-23-2003 @ 12:35 AM post located here
Jaltus:

I would check out Gentry's Before the Fall of Jerusalem, though while I disagree with his conclusions, he lays out the case very well for the disputed quotations.

I did as you suggested and read some of Gentry's, Before Jerusalem Fell, the online first edition. I may be shooting myself in the foot here,but I have some issues with this book.

• p.46 The evidence from Irenaeus that is deemed so compelling is found in Book 5 of his Against Heresies (at 5:30:3). Although originally composed in Greek, today this work exists in its entirety only in Latin translation. Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question is preserved for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History at 3:18:3 (see also 5:8:6):
  
  [greek]ei de edei anafandon en tw nun kairw khputtesqai tounoma autou, di ekeinou an eppeqh tou kai thn apokaluyin eorakotos oude gar pro pollou cronou ewpaqh alla scedon epi ths hmeteraV geneaV, proV tw telei Dometianou archV[/greek]
  
  This crucial statement occurs at the end of a section in which Irenaeus is dealing with the identification of “666” in Revelation 13. That statement, along with its larger context, is generally translated:
  
  “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been nounced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
  
  p. 49 fn 16. There is another area where some scholars have deemed there to be a problem with the common interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement. Taking the lead of Guericke, a few expositors have called into question the proper understanding of Irenaeus’s [greek]Dometianou[/greek]. Guericke is bothered by the absence of the definite article before [greek]Dometianou[/greek] . Stuart relates his argument thus: “Guericke suggests, that when Irenaeus says, ‘the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, [greek]proV tw telei thV Dometianou archV[/greek] that the adjective [greek]Dometianou[/greek] (for adjective it may be, and if so, it is one which is genneris communis, and not the proper name of Domitian), belongs, in accordance with the Greek formation, to the name [greek]DomitiuV [/greek] , and not to Domitian which would make an adjective of the form DomitianikoV If it were a proper name, he says it should be written [greek]tou Domitianou [/greek].. Now Nero’s name was [greek]DomitiuV[/greek] Nero, and not Domitianus, which is the name of the later emperor’’ (Stuart, Apocalypse, 1 :282 -283n). If such a re-interpretation of the phrase is permissible, and if we interpret the first portion of the sentence from Irenaeus along the common lines, then this would make Irenaeus testify that the Apocalypse was written near the end of the reign of Nero. This particular approach to the Domitian identity is very rarely held even among convinced early date advocates. Farrar says that “no scholar will accept this hypothesis” (Farrar, Early Days, p. 407). (This must be an overstatement, since Guericke was a reputable scholar.) Stuart doubts its validity, as did Macdonald. Not only does it seems abundantly clear that Irenaeus intended the Emperor Domitian by this reference, but the argument above is much stronger, more widely held, and to be preferred. 17. Swete, Revelation, p. cvi. Although it should be noted that Swete comments that Hort did not accept Bovan’s argument calling for such a re-interpretation of Irenaeus. 18. ANF 1:311-312. The translation and introductory remarks were by Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, according to the first edition of the translation: The Writings of Irenaeus, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880).

"some scholars have deemed there to be a problem with the common interpretation of Irenaeus’s statement" and “a few expositors have called into question the proper understanding of Irenaeus’s [greek]Dometianou[/greek].” Note, it does NOT say that scholars have proven Irenaeus to be wrong but “deemed to be a problem” and “called into question” But wait there is much more.

“the adjective [greek]Dometianou [/greek] (for adjective it may be, and if so, it is one which is genneris communis, and not the proper name of Domitian)” Notice the speculation here, “Domitianou” MAY BE an adjective, instead of a noun, and IF SO. . .. If that is true, none of the scholars quoted, nor Gentry himself, ventures a guess how to interpret it as an adjective. ALL published translations render it as a noun.

“If it were a proper name, he says it should be written [greek]tou Domitianou[/greek]/tou Domitianou.” Is this true? Let us look to the New Testament where a similar phrase occurs, Luke 3:1. There are four proper names in this verse, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Philip. All four have the genitive ending, “ou” as “Domitianou” and none of the four have the definite article, “tou.” And all four are translated as nouns, NOT adjectives.

If, as Gentry asserts, Irenaeus is wrong because it lacks the definite article then this verse is also in error.

• Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,[/font][/size]
  
  Luke 3:1 [greek]en etei de pentekaidekatw thV hgemoniaV tiberiou kaisaroV hgemoneuontoV pontiou pilatou thV ioudaiaV kai tetrarcountoV thV galilaiaV hrwdou filippou de tou adelfou autou tetrarcountoV thV itouraiaV kai tracwnitidoV cwraV kai lusaniou thV abilhnhV tetrarcountoV[/greek].

And be careful to note this statement which is buried in a footnote.

• This particular approach to the Domitian identity is very rarely held even among convinced early date advocates. Farrar says that “no scholar will accept this hypothesis” (Farrar, Early Days, p. 407). (This must be an overstatement, since Guericke was a reputable scholar.) Stuart doubts its validity, as did Macdonald. Not only does it seems abundantly clear that Irenaeus intended the Emperor Domitian by this reference, but the argument above is much stronger, more widely held, and to be preferred.

Later on page 55 Gentry discusses the Latin translation of Irenaeus, which supports the traditional understanding. Note, carefully that Gentry cavalierly dismisses the Latin translation with this phrase, “But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur.” Now that certainly sounds convincing doesn’t it? But wait, how do we know what Irenaeus wrote in Greek?

Scroll back up to the first quote and you will see this statement by Gentry, “Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question is preserved for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Irenaeus died in 202 AD, Eusebius wrote his church history in 315 AD, more than one hundred ten years AFTER Irenaeus died. Therefore the Greek quote in Eusebius also did NOT come with Irenaeus’ “imprimatur” and the absence of the definite article may be nothing more than a copyist’s error.

• p.55 Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apocalypsin viderat. Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est. The Latin translator may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly understood. This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur.
  
  Irenaeus’ Historical Errors
  
  In Against Heresies we read a very unusual historical statement:
  
  For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who bath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old:) and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle?
  
  The careful detail he meticulously recounts in his argument, and the reference to the eyewitness accounts, should be noted. Yet,no respected New Testament scholar asserts that the biblical record allows for a fifteen year or more ministry for Christ, or of His having attained an age in excess of forty. We must vigorously assert that Irenaeus was “strangely mistaken about the age of Jesus.”73 As Selwyn notes in another connection regarding Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (3:11:8): “Meanwhile as to Irenaeus, it must be owned that he is inevitably pursued by his own sayings. No man who has written down the statement, that there must be four gasps because there are four winds, can fairly hope to preserve the same reputation as a judge of evidence after it as be fore.”74. P. 64

Gentry is again critical of Irenaeus, here a perceived error in Jesus age. However, as Gentry said earlier this work comes to us only in the Latin translation and Gentry must have forgotten his own advice, “But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur.

[Jaltus]

Like I said, I do not agree with his conclusions, but he does set the evidence out quite clearly. So far I have found Gentry more able at arguing against his position than for it.

[roger_pearse]

Scroll back up to the first quote and you will see this statement by Gentry, “Thankfully, however, the particular statement in question is preserved for us in the original Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Irenaeus died in 202 AD, Eusebius wrote his church history in 315 AD, more than one hundred ten years AFTER Irenaeus died. Therefore the Greek quote in Eusebius also did NOT come with Irenaeus’ “imprimatur” and the absence of the definite article may be nothing more than a copyist’s error....

p.55[/b] Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apocalypsin viderat. Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est. The Latin translator may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly understood. This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. [b]But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeus’s original and thus did not come with his imprimatur.

I have no view on the issue in question, but I have doubts about these two paragraphs, methodologically.

Firstly, there is a considerable difference between a quotation in the same language, and a translation. The former is, other things being equal, going to be a lot closer to the words of the original.

Secondly, in both cases corruption or copyist error is posited. It is not legitimate to do this, as a kind of general approach. It's just too easy to do, and leads straight to rampant subjectivism. No real reason is given in either case to suppose textual corruption. As such, we should accept the text cited by Eusebius as accurate, unless we have hard evidence otherwise; and regard the ancient Latin translation as reliable, but secondary, again unless we have evidence to the contrary.

The concept of Irenaeus' 'imprimatur' is meaningless if tested on ancient texts in general. All of them are transmitted via copying and translation. All of them could be corrupt; in practise, we find such a view does not point in any useful direction, save subjectivism.

(I don't know in which direction these quotes point -- I just don't think the method good).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 05:37 AM post located here
roger_pearse:

I have no view on the issue in question, but I have doubts about these two paragraphs, methodologically.

Firstly, there is a considerable difference between a quotation in the same language, and a translation. The former is, other things being equal, going to be a lot closer to the words of the original.

Secondly, in both cases corruption or copyist error is posited. It is not legitimate to do this, as a kind of general approach. It's just too easy to do, and leads straight to rampant subjectivism. No real reason is given in either case to suppose textual corruption. As such, we should accept the text cited by Eusebius as accurate, unless we have hard evidence otherwise; and regard the ancient Latin translation as reliable, but secondary, again unless we have evidence to the contrary.

The concept of Irenaeus' 'imprimatur' is meaningless if tested on ancient texts in general. All of them are transmitted via copying and translation. All of them could be corrupt; in practise, we find such a view does not point in any useful direction, save subjectivism.

(I don't know in which direction these quotes point -- I just don't think the method good).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

My point exactly. Gentry does not equitably apply his reasoning across the board. Since he raised the issue concerning the Latin text, he should have applied it to Eusebius. He did not, therefore his conclusion is biased.

We have no way of knowing if Irenaeus wrote the Latin translation himself or not. The Latin supports the interpretation that the vision, not John, was seen almost in Irenaeus' time, and that John was banished by Domitian, not Nero.

The questions concerning the Greek are not major problems. One question is whether it means John or the vision was seen almost in Irenaeus' day, the pronoun could go either way. The Latin supports vision. And the other is the absence of the article tou before Domitianou, and whether Domitianou is an adjective or a noun. The following text in Eusebius and the Latin supports noun, and as I noted above, there is at least one passage in the NT where four nouns occur without the definite article.

[roger_pearse]

We have no way of knowing if Irenaeus wrote the Latin translation himself or not.

I've never encountered a suggestion that Irenaeus composed the Latin version, and it would be unusual -- indeed, he would probably mention it if so (cf. Tertullian De Baptismo which did have versions in each language). I believe it's a good, fairly literal translation, from late antiquity. (if I remember correctly).

All the best,

Roger Pearse