Featured A Curious Omission

Is it scholars we are looking to for our proof? I noticed your list is of basically modern scholars. I have a list as well, both older and modern. In fact there was a time when the earlier date was the majority view. And very few of these in my list are preterists BTW:

Andreas (fifth century), Arethas (tenth century), Theophylact (1071),
Luis De Alcasar (1554-1613), Henry Hammond (1653), John Lightfoot
(1658), Hugo Grotius (1664), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), Frank Abauzit
(1733), Hardouin (1741), J. J. Wettstein (1751), Bishop Thomas
Newton (1754), Harenburg (1759), Johann Gottfried Von Herder
(1779), E. G. Hartwig (1780), Eichorn (1791), N. Nisbett (1802), J. C.
25L. Gieseler (c. 1820), Frederick Bleek (1820), F. H. A. Ewald (1828), F.
J. Züllig (1834), J. A. Stephenson (1838), Moses Stuart (1845), Albert
Schwegler (1846), Wm. M. L. Dewette (1848), Gottfried Friedrich
Lücke (1852), Karl A. Auberlen (1857), Düsterdieck (1859), Charles
Pettit M’llvaine (1859), F. D. Maurice (1861), Philip S. Desprez
(1861), Charles Wordsworth (1866), J. B. Lightfoot (1867), B. Weiss
(1869), Henry Cowles (1871), James Glasgow (1872), H. Gebhardt
(1873), J. E. Renan (1873), A. Hilgenfeld (1875), A. Immer (1877),
Dean Plumptre (1877), James M. McDonald (1877), James Stuart
Russell (1878), Robert Young (1822-1888), Israel P. Warren (1878),
Alexander Brown, R. W. Dale (1878), J. T. Harris, J. H. Noyes,
Thomas Rattray (1878), Edward Reuss (1880), Samuel Davidson
(1882), B. F. Westcott (1882), Milton S. Terry (1883), William Hurte
(1884), August Neander (1889), F. W. Farrar, C. A. Goodhart (1891),
A. Plummer (1891), T. Randell (1891), W. H. Simcox (1893), W.
Sanday (1893), F. J. A. Hort (1894), William Newton Clarke (1894),
E. Hampden Cook (1894), G. O. Field (1895), John David Michaelis,
Philip Schaff, E. P. Gould (1896), G. Salmon Dean Stanley Tilloch, F.
C. Baur, Aube, Krenkel, Reville, Volkmar, Bunsen, Rudolf Stier,
Guericke, Niermeyer, Hentenius, Edward Robinson, Dr. Dollinger, E. C.
Selwyn (1900), William S. Urmy (1900), B. W. Henderson (1903), H.
J. Holtzman (1912), G. Edmundson (1913), A. S. Peake (1919), A.
Weigall (1930), A. D. Momigliano (1934), Ulrich Beeson (1956), C. C.
Torrey (1958), K. A. Eckhardt (1961), James Hamilton (1962), Jay
Adams (1966), Foy Wallace (1966), Max R. King (1971), Franklin
Camp (1974), J. Massyngberde Ford (1975), Ray Hawk, John A.T.
Robinson (1976), Jessie E. Mills, Jr. (1978), Edward E. Stevens (1978),
Cornelius Vanderwaal (1979), Burton Coffman (1979), Timothy A.
James (1982), David H. Chilton (1985), Arthur M. Ogden (1985),
Greg L. Bahnsen (1989), Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (1989), Ron McRay
(1990), Janice E. Leonard (1991), John Noe (1991), Joseph R. Balyeat
(1991), Kenneth J. Davies (1992), Don Preston (1992), Gary DeMar
(1994), Albert R. Pigeon (1994), Eugene Fadeley (1995), Joseph M.
Daniels (1996), John L. Bray (1996), Arthur Melanson (1998), Robert
Charles Sproul (1998), Daniel E. Harden (1999), Randall E. Otto (2000),
James A. Henry (2002), Samuel M. Frost (2002), Tom and Steve
Kloske (2003), Kurt M. Simmons (2003), Brian L. Martin (2004), Ian
D. Harding (2005), Michael Alan Nichols (2010), Glenn L. Hill
(2010), Stephen Temple (2012), Tony Everett Denton (2012), Charles S.
Meeks (2013)

I have more to add to this topic, but I wanted to get this out first.

 

duplicate post

 

I have more than conjecture. I have both internal and outside evidence for a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation and the other books of the NT. I will gladly go into any particular that you want.

Your list of scholars is noted. But when it comes down to it they all have only one ancient advocate for their view, Irenaeus, the same man who blundered seriously on several points. One was that he taught that Christ died as an old man. You are too quickly "extremely persuaded" on the testimony, when it comes down to it, one man.


I will show you as much evidence as you want. BTW, I was convinced on the earlier date of Rev. long before I was a preterist. It is tiresome to hear someone say that we preterists "need" an early date. The late daters are the needy ones. They need to get as much mileage as they can out of Irenaeus.

 

I think that error is still a possibility on the claim to have known John. For one thing the John here amy very well be what some scholars dub John the Elder. He also apparently lived in Ephesus. There is at least one ECF that speaks of these two Johns, but I forget the name now.

Also, assuming he met John (and it is possible) the probability is that he was not converted when he met the Apostle.

Bear in mind that this is at the tail end of the Neronic persecution. There were very few Christians left. Christ Himself said that when He comes will He find faith in the earth? And Paul had earlier said that all those of Asia deserted me. So, between the apostasy of professing Christians and their being killed - or going underground - it would be nowhere near as noticeable when Christ came as a thief in the night.


More later

 

I forgot to give the source of this list. Page 25-26 "What Happened AD 70", PDF. Ed Stevens.

 

You are following the line of the Dispensational charts that you have been taught. It has no basis in reality, no backing in Scripture.

I will continue to realize the presence of Christ and His Kingdom. He is here now "ruling in the midst of His enemies". But we are agreed on the working part.

 

Short List of Pre AD70 Rev. Advocates

Because sometimes less is more, I want to add this shorter list of advocates for a pre AD 70 date for Revelation. These are taken from the earlier, larger list, more well-known authorities. I added a few notes to some. Others are well enough known.

Henry Hammond (1653) the first English scholar to compare manuscripts of the New Testament
John Lightfoot (1658) one of the original members of the Westminster Assembly
Sir Isaac Newton (1727)
James Stuart Russell (1878) M.A. Degree at the age of 18, Kings College. Author of "The Parousia".
Robert Young (1822-1888) works: Bible Concordance and translator of "Young's Literal Translation" (YLT)
B. F. Westcott (1882) co-edited with F.J.A. Hort "The New Testament in the Original Greek"
F. J. A. Hort (1894)
Philip Schaff (1896) author of the 8 volume "History of the Christian Church", editor of the 38 volume "Early Church Fathers"
Edward E. Stevens (1978) author of, among many others, "What Happened in A.D. 70?"
Cornelius Vanderwaal (1979) author of "Search the Scriptures"
David H. Chilton (1985) author of Days of Vengeance" a commentary on Revelation.
Greg L. Bahnsen (1989) Theonomist author
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (1989)
Gary DeMar (1994)
R. C. Sproul (1998) among many other Reformed books wrote the preface to J.S. Russell's "The Parousia". Sproul was mainly positive, though not without some reservations on points raised.

It is ironic that many who hold Sproul in very high regard still consider the Full Preterism of this book that he prefaced as heresy.


NOTES
1. Philip Schaff showed exemplary courage in his later life. Even though his earlier editions of the History of the Christian Church assumed a late date for Revelation he, upon further study, corrected the date to pre-AD 70 in later editions. He wrote:

"The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or
96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by
Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders, 1257 but the internal
evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9,
68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70)." - The History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 653.

2. Although Theonomist Greg Bahnsen wrote a glowing Preface to Chilton's. "Days of Vengeance" he withdrew all further endorsements when Chilton converted to (what he considered was heretical) Full Preterism a few years after publication of the book.

 

Agreed. Quite a mixed group here.

 

There are several reasons. Deprecated or not it was the focal point of Jewish worship for over half of that first century. It was important to the Jews. Even Paul, who certainly was clear about just what the Temple no longer meant, still had a use for it in the Book of Acts.

Also, the destruction of the Temple and all the associated rites was an important didactic point. It had been foretold in the Old Testament so if any NT writings had been more recent than AD 70 then, yes, it would be very surprising if they would not have mentioned it.

 

On the contrary, it was the "actual words of the Bible" that finally led me to Preterism. The time statements, the growing awareness of the importance of audience relevance, and especially the incredible connections between certain OT passages with NT counterparts were quite convincing.

Soul liberty I understand as permission (for want of a better word) to follow your Spirit-informed conscience. For me that means I am free to obey and to proclaim what I believe God teaches in His Word. That list of names a few posts up was for a very minor point. The real issue is what the Bible teaches.