Redating Revelation and other NT works, while destroying the Quelle Myth

[Brianroy]

An early dating of the New Testament is grounded in the historical
anamnesis and witness of those of the generation, which saw, heard, and physically touched Jesus Christ.  In contrast, it is those who choose to do what the scribes and Pharisees did to the masses while Jesus taught or performed miracles -- to commit apodokimazo (Gr. "to actively keep from proving")1 -- to illegitimately and deceptively proclaim disbelief, which will potentially turn thousands upon thousands AWAY from Christ.  

                                          
      Beginning with Clement (bishop at Rome57 -100/101 A.D.)

By looking first at Clement, I wish to bring you into the First Century from a more proper perspective, so that yo may see without the purple haze that "Q" and other theories have placed upon the minds of those looking at the New Testament era.

 The bishop of Rome in the first centuries of  Christianity was never a pontifex maximus  (the top “high priest”) over  Christianity, as Roman Catholicism has re-envisioned history to be.  But the fact of the matter is that 1 Clement was written by Clement , who was THE HEAD of the Churches at Rome, who confessed more than once, that there was NO PAPACY present.

I Clement was written prior to A.D. 70 by the THIRD bishop of the Christian Churches at Rome.  Roman Catholicism incredulously calls him the third pope.  If so, by his own words and closeness to the apostles, Clement’s own words should have the greater weight in our considerations of debating about the man.  

I Clement was most likely in the months following the persecutions by Nero Caesar following his burning of Rome.  There is debate as to whether that July 18-19 burning of Rome was in A.D. 62 or in A.D. 64.  If that date is ever finalized, that year, be it 62 or 64 A.D., would finalize the year in which I Clement was written also.   I have adopted the date of 62 A.D.  I Clement was written sometime between September and November following the Great Fire of Rome, and the following persecutions and torching of the Christians.2

Sometime in the two months prior to the letter of I Clement, there was a tumult created by some one or two affluent persons who sought to engage in sedition against the Presbyters at Corinth.  

I Clement, .47 reads thus:  
– It is disgraceful…and unworthy of your Christian profession that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and the*very* first* Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its Presbyters.  And this rumor has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected (or differ) with us….”


Clement confesses of  not being over all churches:

"Let us cleave, therefore, to those who cultivate peace with godliness, and not those who hypocritically profess to desire it…For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock."3
   
…let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us
Honor the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of G-D….” 4

These words were written when John the Apostle was yet alive, as was probably Phillip the Apostle also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           

 Of Jerusalem still actively sacrificing daily (pre-70 A.D):   
   
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to G-D in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming
Gravity, and not going beyond the rule of ministry prescribed to him.  Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem only.5
         
In the year 62 A.D. (or 64), when I Clement was written, following the fires and persecutions at Rome, the Church at Corinth would have been only about 13 years in existence.  The Christian denomination of the Hebrew Faith was only 32 (or 34) years old when Clement dictated this epistle as one bishop writing to another bishop's province.  Clement was a former missionary under Paul while at Corinth.6

        One or two members had raised a sedition against the holy and blameless bishop over the Corinthian Churches, for no other reason perhaps, than just because they could.  It amused them, or perhaps they were part of a greater agenda.  The point did not matter in regards as to whether these men were pretenders of Judaism, Greek philosophy, or worshippers of Roman or Greek deities.  What did matter is that the leaders had to have been men of great influence within the Church; and at Corinth, and that meant wealth.  Whoever these two men were, they had great wealth and were either great benefactors only, or both benefactors and Presbyters over their own large congregations.  If Presbyters, then as we read that word, we should translate it as Chief Reverend or Rabbi, so that we might get the modern concept or understanding of this position.
 
   In Paul's letter to the Corinthians some 9 years previously, Paul criticized those whose congregations were claiming pre-eminence over others in the city.  At the time, those factions divided themselves as followers of the Apostle Paul, followers of the Apostle Peter, and followers of the Evangelist Apollos.  According to Hippolytus, Silas  was the appointed  bishop of Corinth of Achaia,7 and as we can see in this retrospect, it was probably the Presbyters of the factions of "Apollos"  and of  "Peter" from  53 A.D., who were (probably) the ones who then  had successfully  removed Silas (more the follower of Paul’s way of thinking)  in 62 A.D. without any just cause or excuse.  
 
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, viewed “Presbyters as [those who made up the membership of] the Sanhedrin of GOD.”8   The view, which appears in Ignatius’ letter to the Trallians, was almost certainly penned or dictated by Ignatius while in Smyrna in the presence of Polycarp.  Hence, we have an “organized” structure of the Christians, based in and out of Jerusalem until the death of James on Passover 55 A.D.  And afterwards, there would form multiple Sanhedrins, or congresses of 70.  These would first evolve out of Antioch of Syria, Ephesus of Asia, and Corinth of Achaia…each having a 3 day travel radii to participant Christian synagogues or assemblies, and 70 church leaders to represent their districts and region.  

An Ephesian Church Roll Further  Dismantling  a Modern  Dating "Spin"

When the Church history and the roll of the bishops of Ephesus were read in circa 207 A.D., (in the same Third Century A.D. in which some New Testament’s critics contend the NT was "created"), it clearly showed that at its very origin: that is, along with Ephesus’ first bishop (Timothy), John and his Apocalypse were recorded as being present at Ephesus’ origin or beginning (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).  

 But is this possible?

Timothy, a companion of Silas (bishop of Corinth), whom we know to have been Paul’s disciple, served as bishop in Ephesus, under Paul, from ca. A.D. 52 - ca. August 53 (the approximate date of the Ephesian uproar, which some reckon as in the Spring months).  

Timothy then would have had to continue serving to a certain year as  bishop, even  after the uproar had passed,  without the guidance of an apostolic overseer, for a period of months.    As we shall see later, I say "months" because  this is the testimony of John through Polycarp through Irenaeus in one of the essential quotes liberal scholarship fears to let you know about.

  And, as we shall see in the chronology of Luke's Book of Acts, John (by inference) returned from his exile and came back to Ephesus, by April of 54 A.D.  

In Hebrews 13:23 testifies, we do know that Timothy at some point left the bishopric of Ephesus in order to have been arrested elsewhere and set free.
.
 In examining the life of Paul through Acts, I place this as likely being late fall or early winter the year before Paul died; hence, A.D. 56 (if we accept 2 Timothy 4:6-21 at face value).  

Some definitive years of the book of Acts:
44 A.D.   -- The death of a Herod in 44 A.D.  listed in Acts 12:21.  
47 A.D.  --The Jerusalem Conference  on Pentecost 47 A.D. in Acts 15:7.

        Galatians 2:1 identifies that the Jerusalem conference was 14 years after Paul’s conversion (i.e., through the use of “dia”/”through” ff.. “meta” in  1:18).   That means that the calculation isn’t PLUS Galatians 1:18’s  “meta”/”after  3 years, as though to be 17 years…but rather it keeps the 14 tally.  This allows Saul (who would become “Paul”)  about 3 years to persecute Christians viciously in Judea, before setting out for Syria with Sanhedrin  letters of authority to do the same.  
 
49 A.D. -- The Claudine expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts 18:1-2.)9
49 – 51 A.D.  -- For the next 18 months (Acts 18:11), until the spring of 51 A.D.  Paul is in Corinth.   Paul then sails to Syria (Acts 18:18), and then goes to Ephesus of Asia.  
51-53 A.D. --  Paul still travels, but his time from this point at Ephesus is reckoned for 2 years (Acts 19:10).  This brings us to the summer months of 53 A.D.

 That is the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts.

The question of filling in the blanks of Paul’s length of imprisonment will be answered later, because as we shall see, the 2 years Paul will stay in Rome (Acts 28:30) is a FINAL stay.  It is my contention, after having examined all of the evidence, that this year is almost certainly 57 A.D.  Critics are given only one other year as a remote possibility: 58 A.D.

     Therefore, we are given a timeline of 53-55/56  A.D. in which John the Apostle must be banished, write the Apocalypse / Revelation, and come to Ephesus with the book in order for there to be an unbroken succession at Ephesus between Paul the Apostle, and John the Apostle, as we shall see Irenaeus testify.   If Timothy is indeed a Semikah rabbi (disciple) of Rav Paul, then as long as he remains in Ephesus for up to a year after Paul leaves, it is as if Paul’s rule yet remains unbroken (though he be temporarily absent), and Irenaeus is vindicated.
  
But Timothy, indeed, at some point traveled to Rome.  There, he was imprisoned for an unknown offense (Hebrews 13:23), most probably in relation to Paul’s execution on June 29 of that year.  And curiously enough, it was Trophimus, and not Timothy, who was martyred along with Paul the Apostle.9  



 History from Nicene Era Thyatira tells of a 53-54 A.D. Apocalypse

The post-Nicean 4th century apologist, Epiphanius (ca. 310-402 A.D.),  in Against Heresies / Panarion, declares that John wrote his Apocalypse during the (end of the) reign of Claudius Caesar. The following is my reconstruction of the passages, in order to encapsulate what is being declared.

“Even the people of Thyatira testify this is to be true … [that]… (The Holy Spirit) did foretell (the Apocalypse) through the mouth of John (the Apostle)… who indeed did prophesy… during the reign of Claudius Caesar…when he was upon the isle of Patmos.”  Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.33.8

“…after his (John’s) return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar…the Holy Spirit [not much later] compelled John to publish forth his Gospel…several years into his residing in [Ephesus of] Asia.”    

Epiphanius, Against Heresies,    4.12.1

This tradition was given through Thyatira of Asia to Epiphanius in the post-Nicene era.  It was something that could be verified in the manuscripts of more than one Presbyter of Thyatira’s possession at that time.

 Epiphanius also tells us in these same two passages (excised here for clarity), that John died above the age of 90.  If John was recruited by Jesus in late 26 A.D., and died between 96-98 A.D.; then,  according to recruitment requirements among Torah lawyers,  John would have had to  have been a minimum of 25 years of age for religious service under his Semikah rabbi.

That is, John the Apostle's birth can now be calculated to the first 7 months of the Julian year of 1 A .D. , or within two years before that date.  Hence, a death above 90, but not yet 100, and a fulfilling of what Epiphanius tells us, is that John was 95-97 at the time of his death.  Not, as some translators of Epiphanius have misrepresented in translating Epiphanius’ passage here, that John was above 90 when first coming to or from Patmos, or above 90 in the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54 A.D.).  



=====================================================

1      e.g., Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31 & 12:10;  Luke 9:22, 17:25, 20:17
2        cf.  Tacitus, Histories, Annals 15.  Christians were falsely accused for the fires of Rome.  Some crucified, some placed in animal skins and dogs set on them, others were turned into human torches (probably an oil grease) and set on fire like candles to illuminate Nero’s vast gardens; etc.
3      I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches - .15, .16    
4         I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .21
5       I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .41
6           Philippians 4:3 tells us that when the call came from Paul, Clement was in Philippi.  The identification was also made by Origen in his commentary on John 1:29.    Of note: Origen says Clement  even spoke of those people who are on the other side of the impassable ocean, which were  called “antichthones”  by the Greeks (Origen de principiis, 3.3.6), but as kosmos (peoples / worlds) in I Clement, .20.   Instead of Paul preaching to Britain, as some few contend…according to Origen, it was Clement who founded Christianity in Rome by making a trip there at some unknown time in the 50s or 60s A.D.  
7      Hippolytus,  on the 70 disciples, .16 lists Silas as that bishop who succeeded Peter and Paul.

8       Ignatius,  Epistle to the Church at Tralles, .3
9     cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.2-6.  

[Brianroy]

A matter of history being taken literally

The word “history” comes from the Greek “historia” -- which means, “To investigate” and “to diligently seek out.”  Simple referencing to commentaries, for example, is not a reasonable attempt to research.  The failure to “thoroughly search out” would not have preserved us a Herodotus from Antiquity.  Like with the students and teachers of the Talmud, those who accept commentaries appear to -- more often than not -- put the opinions of men ABOVE the Words of GOD.   That is the danger we must avoid.  We are all accountable to attempt the greatest accuracy on important issues, and this requires both time and laborious effort.  Time and effort, which is often relegated to students and others, with the “scholar” behaving more like an editor than a researcher on his own merits.

       In the dating of Revelation to 95 A.D., using Irenaeus as the primary source, name one commentary which cites all three of Irenaeus’ relevant quotes concerning the dating of John's Revelation to justify its date.  Do they even at least expose any serious reader to a possibility of an early New Testament completely written before A.D. 70?  

The noted author, and Christian Lecturer-Evangelist, Josh McDowell, in “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and “He Walked Among Us” (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers © 1972, 1988, respectively) points even the casual lay person to 3 points of interest in considering the N.T. Dating.

1)   Over 40 years ago, William Foxwell Albright dared to tell the world, in 1963, that all the books of the New Testament were written no later than the 80’s A.D.  Albright declared that every N.T. book was written by a baptized Jew in the First Century A.D.10   “Every N.T. book”, means even the Apocalypse of John as being pre-90 A.D.

2)   13 years later, a scholar from Cambridge, John A.T. Robinson, released his work showing the New Testament was written entirely prior to 70 A.D.11

3)   This same N.T. Scholar, Robinson, was interviewed by Time Magazine the following year, where he reiterated his claim, and challenged the academic world to prove him wrong.12  

Most Academic scholars will lazily use only one quote from Irenaeus to “prove” 95 A.D. as an earliest possible date for Revelation.  Therefore, I will use this same author and other early witnesses to show that they easily fail to invest a proper amount of time and effort on even just this one particular and most important topic -- in the dating of the New Testament.  Because the early dating of the New Testament clearly points to the power and effect of the Cross, and demonstrates down through the ages the veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  


Caius speaks from the past

         Caius was a contemporary to Irenaeus, who along with Hippolytus, and others, probably was exposed to -- and learned directly from -- Irenaeus.13  Caius, a ca. 190 A.D. Church Leader in Rome,14  was what we consider a Third generation hearsay witness.  John transmitted his teaching to Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, who taught Caius.15  What is his witness?  That Paul wrote to only 7 Churches out of respect and acceptance of Revelation.  That is, Revelation was written before the deaths of Peter and Paul!

 “…The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John,           writes to no more than 7 Churches by name, in this order:
     1) to the Corinthians,     2)  to the Ephesians,   3)  to the Philippians,
     4) to the Colossians,      5)  to the Galatians,      6)  to the Thessalonians,
     7) to the Romans.
              
 Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for
               their  Correction, it is yet shown – that is, by this Sevenfold Writing           -- that there is   One Church spread abroad through the whole world.”16  
      
Now, while we can debate the order which Caius presents17 – what is irrefutable is the repetitive declaration that John’s book of Revelation was the reason why Paul limited himself to only 7 Churches, both having read and having approved the Apocalypse prior to his own death in Rome.  

The question then becomes, if we accept the witness that Revelation was written PRIOR to the death of Paul, could we accurately pinpoint the year Paul died as an early year?  

The academic culture believes we need a post 85 A.D. Revelation, because Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60.   They reason that until its full restoration in A.D. 85, Revelation could not have been written.  That is, if Revelation was written, it was penned either before A.D. 60, or after A.D. 85; with no room in between.18    So then, what is the historical witness?


Testimony from Irenaeus

In ca. 181 A.D., Irenaeus, a second-generation hearsay witness from John, writes:

 “We have learned from none others than from those whom the GOSPEL –
  the Plan of our Salvation --  has come down to us, which they at one time,
  did proclaim in public;  and at a later period, by the will of GOD,
   handed  down to us, in the Scriptures – to be the ground and pillar of our
   Faith.  Matthew indeed issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews     in their  Own dialect  while Peter and Paul were preaching in  
   ROME 19,   and laying   the FOUNDATIONS of the CHURCH.20  

  After their departure, 21 Mark, the disciple and interpreter of   Peter,   did also hand down to us 22   in writing, what had been  preached by Peter -  – and Luke as well, that companion of Paul,
 Who had recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. 23  

 Afterwards, John, the Disciple of the LORD – who also leaned upon His breast,           -- did himself publish a Gospel during His Residence at Ephesus of Asia.” 24  

Other support
In ca. 190 A.D., Clement supplements (Irenaeus) from Alexandria, Egypt, writing:
    “The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first 25  …
     [Then] as Peter had preached the Word at ROME publicly,
     by the Spirit  declaring the Gospel,  many who were present
     requested that Mark …should write them out.
     And having composed the Gospel,
he gave it to those who had requested it…
     Last of all, John…being persuaded by his friends, but inspired
     by the SPIRIT, composed a Spiritual Gospel.” 26  

So what can we learn in these quotes from Irenaeus and Clement?  

1)   That Matthew was the 2nd written Gospel, and that by inference, Luke was written prior to Peter and Paul being in Rome.  27
2)   Mark’s Gospel is actually the 3rd Gospel, not sourcing from either Luke or Matthew, but from Peter himself (who was the sole source of Mark’s material).  All this occurring in ROME.  Twice, Mark is listed as the next to last Gospel, and twice John’s is listed as the last Gospel to be written.
3)   John’s Gospel is written AFTER the deaths of Peter and Paul.
4)   The letter of Hebrews is clearly distinguished as “Paul’s Gospel”, penned by his student Luke.  

This book which bears the message to Ephesus from Luke, “the brother Timothy [might we add, your (at one time) bishop] is set at Liberty” (Hebrews 13:23), is understood in the light that Mark indeed, did hand to John, in Ephesus of Asia, in writing, the Sermons of Peter and the Gospel of Paul.  We receive further affirmation that Luke penned it, and was called as “Luke’s Digest, even though men [such as Irenaeus] usually ascribe it to Paul” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).


A Limit set by the death of Mark in 62 A.D.

"Mark,” says Eusebius, "dies in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, in Alexandria of Egypt." 28

       This, we would reckon as A.D. 61-62.  In the First Century, the optimum travel time between Alexandria and Rome was a minimum of 12 days.  However, if Mark ran a circuit tour of visiting various Churches, say Corinth and Philippi and Ephesus and Antioch and Caesarea and Jerusalem, for example, then his travel would have taken him months before he would have reached Egypt.

 This pushes us back a year to 60-61.  Then, it would have taken time for a non-Apostle like Mark to establish the Church at Alexandria, especially among 400,000 Jews who lived there, and to ensure its foundation.  That Church Organization still exists from Antiquity to this Day, being only younger than the Roman Church by what is counted on one hand for a difference of years.  And in order to establish and build such a Church, Mark alone would then need twice the time it took Peter and Paul to establish Corinth or Rome together.  This gives us an additional subtraction of 3-4 years from the death and martyrdom of Mark, pushing us back to Mark leaving Rome somewhere around 57-58 A.D.

 Church Tradition dating to the Third Century, in Rome, strongly adheres to the day of Peter and Paul's martyrdom as being on June 29 of an unknown year.29    The rolls of the bishops would have still been present in Rome in that period, and therefore, the veracity of the day and month -- being left unchallenged, is probably an attempt at authentication by its citation.  Therefore, we should accept the date of June 29 of 57 or 58 A.D. 30  
 

====================================================


10      Christianity Today, magazine, January 18, 1963    “Toward a More Conservative View.”  
11      Robinson, John A.T.  Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976.  (Out of Print).
12      Time,  March 21, 1977.
13     The importance of Irenaeus is that he probably has two direct links to John in his Instruction.  The first is obviously Polycarp, who John declares he saw and learned from in Smyrna (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.).  The second link to John was through Papias.  Irenaeus had probably met and learned from Papias, and if he did not, he had access to those who had; and Irenaeus had possession or regular access to the complete works of Papias’ 5 books and those sayings and teachings of the Apostles and Jesus that did not make it into the New Testament, but should have (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3-4).  Further, Irenaeus also had access to and learned from other unnamed elders and presbyters had conversed with John for many years, such as he mentions in the cited passage heretofore.
14     There may be debate as to Tertullian being a Fourth Generation witness, having learned from Proculus who learned from Irenaeus, etc.  However, the insight granted us by Tertullian in his work  “Against the Valentinians” 3.5.  perhaps can be taken either way.  Either that Tertullian met Irenaeus the man, and despised his abrasiveness; thus, elevating Proculus as a better role model.  Or that it was Proculus that had met the meticulous Irenaeus, and transmitted his teachings to Tertullian.  What is important to note, is that by 190 A.D., there was an agreement in ROME (and perhaps other major Churches) as to the completion of the New Testament canonization.
        Caius and other Church Leaders were involved in the Canonization of the New Testament by the close of the Second Century.  Such was his position in ROME among the Christians.  For he writes in the Muratorian Canon, how that no more books may be added to the prophets or the Apostles to the end of time, as the number is made complete for those works which ought to be read in public among the Churches.  The one point that shouldn't be missed in all of this, is that when Caius and his contemporaries speak of Christianity being proclaimed in ROME, they speak of doing so in private meeting places, and not in public streets or squares in ROME.  The fact that Peter and Paul at one time spoke publicly in the streets or wherever, freely, appears to just blow their minds that such a day ever was.
15   We also have the probability of a secondary transmission of Polycarp to Pius, bishop of Rome, who also passed along the teaching and book of the Apocalypse in the 150’s A.D, verifying the veracity of Irenaeus’ teachings.  When Polycarp came to Rome, he would have been a very healthy and well above 110 years old, when he made the trip by ship and donkey drawn carts.  
16       Caius, Fragments 3.3  
17     My general evaluation on these Church letter dates correspond as:
1)   Corinthians 1 & 2 in 52 –53 A.D. from Asia.
2)   Ephesians in October 56 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
3)   Philippians in 57 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
4)   Colossians in 54 A.D.  from captivity in Israel.
5)   Galatians in 48 A.D.  
6)   Thessalonians in 54 A.D.  from Asia.
7)   Romans in 53 A.D.  perhaps from either Macedonia or the isle of Troas.
   Therefore, the phrase, “in this order”, may actually appear to mean: “received among the Churches as part of the Canon in this order.”  If that is the case, and the intent, then we see that by 190 A.D., many of the epistles of the New Testament were already well tested and established in both its makeup and distribution.  We therefore see a 190 A.D. Roman Church, when examined through Irenaeus, as being familiar with the entire New Testament, with the exceptions of Philemon and 3 John.  Philemon is familiar to Ignatius out of Antioch of Syria, and 3 John probably only among the Asiatic Churches at the time of Caius’ above evaluation.
18     This thesis was written by me, and as my work product (i.e., my copyright).  So far, in the contacting of “evangelical” or  “apologetic” “Christians”,  I found myself fulfilling Isaiah 53:1’s  “Whom shall believe our report?  And to whom is the ARM  [YHVeH Messiah] of the LORD revealed?”  
19   Matthew is traditionally said to have died on November 16 of an unknown year in Macedonia according to the Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle.  If the date of death were correct, then Matthew would most likely have died in A.D. 56 on that date of November 16.
20   That is, laying the ground and pillars of the Scriptures.  This will have occurred, as we shall see, between 55-57 A.D.
21   Their deaths -- in ROME.  Another indicator to the early dating of Revelation:  In A.D. 62 or 63, Clement, bishop of ROME, tells the Corinthians that Paul had already preached the West (by inference, ROME, I Clement 5:6-7), and that the purpose of evangelizing was toward achieving the set number of “elect” {or Israelites}, which would indicate the knowledge of Revelation’s 144,000 quota (I Clement 2:4).
22    Generically “to us in Asia.”  Specifically, “to John in Ephesus of Asia.”  John is called the disciple of the LORD, an Apostle, an elder, and is identified as the evangelist by Anatolius as being the “evangelist John, who leaned on the LORD’s Breast” in Anatolius, Paschal Writings, .10.  
23     The Book of Hebrews.  Contrary to later speculation that Paul claimed Luke’s Gospel as his own.
24     Irenaeus 3.1.1.  
25      Luke’s was completed in Corinth of Achaia in 50-51 A.D., approximately 5 years before Matthew’s in Jerusalem.
26      Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14 – citing Clement of Alexandria
27       This can be further supported by Jerome.  In 398 A.D., in his preface to Commentary on Matthew, Jerome tells us “Luke the physician…composed his book in Achaia and Boeotia.”  That is:  Corinth of Achaia, and near Athens in Boeotia.  Prior to going to Athens in Acts 17:16, Luke goes to Berea in Acts 17:10.  I believe that he is so impacted, as his statement in Acts 17:11-12 tells us, that he meets Theophilus in this city of Berea, and by the time Luke reaches Athens in Acts 17:16, it appears that Luke may have begun to piece together his rough draft Gospel outline (in part) from the parchments and scrolls of Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:13).  These are they, which probably contain eyewitness testimonies and teachings as early as Acts 13:1 from Antioch.  Luke then would then have conducted various Apostolic interviews in Corinth, confirming, adding, and editing source material, before finally completing his Gospel in either A.D. 50 or by the Spring of 51 A.D.
28    Eusebius H.O.C., 2.24.  In 2.16, Eusebius lists Mark as being the “first” who was sent to Alexandria, and the “first” to establish churches in that particular Egyptian city.
29    Roberts,  Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8.  p. 485,  “Acts of the Apostles.”  Although the story appears to be just that, there is little or no reason to doubt that such an odd date as June 29 would have been made up, but rather the author would have wanted to close on one well known fact as if to justify the reason for observance of the date that was being observed already.  This date of June 29 falls very closely with Paul’s 2 whole years in his own hired house (Acts 28:30).  Had he arrived in May of 55, followed by 2 whole years, and then receiving “a 30 day reprieve for the condemned” dating from Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus .32) or the later Senatorial reprieve of 10 days for the condemned issued in A.D. 21 (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius .75).  And as Eusebius cites in H.O.C. 5.21, that once any man is brought to trial before Caesar and the Senate, …”once led to trial, and that would by no means CHANGE their purpose, should not be dismissed.”
              One example that I have not seen anyone yet use in Roman history to date the trials of Peter and Paul, is that we do know with fair certainty, before even beginning to research the date of Peter and Paul's trials in Rome, that Peter and Paul were NOT executed in either November or December of any year, as the Court Calendars were dark in those months in Rome since the time of Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus, .32).  Further, they would not have been executed in A.D. 56, because in that year, Seneca  -- not Nero -- was Consul in ROME  (Grant, Michael   The Twelve Caesars, N.Y.: Barnes & Noble, © 1975, 1996 reprint, p.155).
Suetonius tells us that Nero held 4 consulships, which limits his interactions with the Apostles to these times:      
1)   Two months (in A.D. 55)
2)   Six months  (in A.D. 57)
3)   Four months (in A.D. 58)
4)   Six months  (in A.D. 60)       (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, 6.14)

[Brianroy]

Other Considerations: Separating History from Myth-making
          
     Now, in the mid-Second Century, someone wrote in the Anti-Macionite prologues that: “Mark…after Peter’s death, wrote down (his) Gospel in the region of Italy.”  In other words, he wrote down perhaps more copies of the original, but NOT in ROME.  This answers the dual testimony of Mark's copying down his Gospel both before and after the death of Peter in ROME.  Then comes the question, “Why did Mark feel compelled to leave ROME to either make more copies of, or to finalize, his Gospel?”

        Ancient Roman historians warn of an out of control Nero, with his raging hormones, whom repetitively demonstrated an inability to sanely and rationally to rule as Caesar. 31    Tiberius moved to Caprae (Capri) in circa 26-27 A.D. to exercise total dominion and to shield his perversity, but Nero remained in Rome.  Nero was much the more insulated by the Praetorian Guard than perhaps any Caesar before him, and as a reckless youth, he gradually became increasingly sociopathic.  However, he soon found that much like Tiberius (who had to beg for the Senate to send Laodicea earthquake relief ca. 17 or 23 A.D) 32, he, Nero,  (but for the Senate) held near absolute power in only one province, wherever Caesar resided.  And for Nero, that province was ROME.  Not in Asia, where the Apostle John resided.  Not in Gaul.  Not in Briton.  Just in ROME.  Nero’s oppression and vices were at times so horrible, that even as one passed from inside ROME to outside the city, (unless you ran into the Camp of the Roman Legion), it probably felt as if you were being liberated.

 For, as Tertullian writes,  
 “…Nero…assailed with the Imperial Sword – the Christian Sect – making progress especially then at ROME.” 33

Therefore, unless Nero traveled somewhere else -- such as Corinth, --his power and focus was not “near-absolute” anywhere where he was not.  In jurisprudence, Nero specifically saw cases that were under his “sphere” only in the years of 55 (for 2 months), then in 57 (for 6 months), then in 58 (for 4 months), and lastly in A.D. 60 (for 6 months). 34

  Therefore, Paul could only have been executed in one of two years, A.D. 57 or 58.  For reasons stated in relation to Mark, 60 A.D. is just not a possible year.  Hundreds of years later, the "illustrious” Jerome, who had access to the most ancient manuscript copies of the Church at the time, in A.D. 392, agrees with this.  For he writes:


55 A.D.     "…In the 25th year after our LORD’s Passion, 35

55-56 A.D.     that is the 2nd year of Nero, 36
   at the time Festus procurator of Judea, 37 succeeded Felix,  
                        he [Paul]  was sent   bound to Rome, 38  

57 A.D.:   and remaining for 2 years in Free Custody, 39
   disputed daily with the Jews concerning the Advent of Christ.

Propaganda:   …Paul was dismissed by Nero that the Gospel of Christ might be preached
                         also in the West.

67 A.D.:           …He, then, in the 14th year of Nero,
same day:     on the same day with Peter,  was beheaded in ROME
                        for Christ’s sake, and was  buried in the Ostian Way

57 A.D.:          the 27th year after the LORD’s Passion.” 40    

    
 
Jerome, earlier in his opening in chapter 1 of "On Illustrious Men,” cites a beginning of 42 A.D. for Peter’s reign, and an ending of 67 A.D.   Obviously, this is impossible if he and Paul are co-founding Corinth, or if Peter is to also visit Asia’s Churches.41    

       However, the specific analysis I want you to see is this:  where Jerome evokes “the LORD’s Passion”, (which is on a March 23 according to Lactantius’ Letter to Donatus, .2), Jerome holds vehemently to a dating of 55-57 A.D. for the presence of Peter and Paul in ROME!
      
 Clearly, Jerome identifies, along with other evidence as we have seen, that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30.  Now, such is the character of Jerome: when evoking the Passion, he refuses to lie, fearing loss of his eternal soul.  Others after him also, refuse to change the utterance of Jerome where the Passion of Jesus is evoked. This speaks volumes, and tells us, that even as late as 392, there was a clear knowledge or information still available, that specifically dated the persecutions and deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul as being quite early in Nero’s reign.  

To Jerome, when the name of GOD was evoked in such a way as to evoke “the efficaciously atoning Passion”, not even the Pope (or should we say, Bishop of ROME) could persuade him to "fudge" Church History. Claudius Nero becomes Claudius, except where the “Passion” of the LORD is evoked: then the truth is told!  Perhaps in A.D. 392, there was a rivalry with the Church in Alexandria, and therefore a need for a 25 year leadership by Peter to counteract the Church started by a de facto successor of Peter, Mark.  Who knows?

So, Jerome now identifies A.D. 57 for us.  And the point of this, as at the beginning, that in dating John’s Revelation, even from the crucifixion do we see historical testimony from out of the ancient past.  This reinforces that which Caius tells us specifically, how that Paul approved the Apocalypse before he died, and confined the number of his letters to his Churches, based solely on the number of Churches written to in the Apocalypse.  Therefore, we are limited to a book of Revelation that was written only within Paul’s lifetime and after the founding of the Churches of Asia by Paul and other apostles of Jesus Christ.  






====================================================


30       Re: Bruce, F.F.  “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?”  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,  © 1943, 14th Edition 1980, p.83         Now, if F.F. Bruce’s assessment is correct, that the Ephesian riot took place in 54 A.D., the entire dating of the N.T. as I lay out must be bumped up a year.  This could account for Paul’s expectancy of death in and desertion at 2 Timothy 4:16; but this could just as easily be explained as Paul simply referring to Jerusalem and his trial before Festus and Felix as the context of what he tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:16.    
31     e.g.,  Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .20 - .29
32     Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius,  .8    The earthquake relief / petition of funds was also made in behalf of Thyatira, and Chios also.  Some historians have reckoned this earthquake at 17 A.D., while other opinions appear to be 23 A.D.  
33     Tertullian, Apology, .5    
34      Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .14
35     Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that Jesus was crucified on March 23, "the tenth of the Kalends of April".  He also goes on to explain that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero", before Peter and Paul came to ROME.
36    Claudius died on October 13, 54 A.D.  (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45)    This is perfectly in line with the account given by Epiphanius, as stated earlier, in which John was both exiled to Patmos, and returned WHILE Claudius was emperor.
            Nero was installed almost as soon as the news of Claudius’ October death was made public (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero,. .  Roman Emperors could appear to reckon their reign, like governors, from June 1 to May 31.  Hence Nero’s 1st year could be reckoned in one of TWO ways: the actual calendar year of 365 days from when he took office in mid-October 54 A.D  (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45; Nero .; or by reckoning  the time up to June 1, followed by the 365 days thereafter.
37     Josephus, 20.8.9.  If Nero sent Festus straightway with a Legion in November 54, Paul would then have been sent from Jerusalem, and on his way to ROME no later than January of 55 A.D., about one to two months prior to the death of Festus, who used his extra Legion to wage a swift winter campaign in the Israeli countryside.  This still falls well within the timeline needed for a 53 A.D. Revelation authorship, and a death of Peter and Paul in Rome in A.D. 57.
38    More correctly, Paul arrived in Rome in 55 A.D.  Luke records his stay as 2 whole years in a rented house, in which Paul awaited to stand before Caesar.  Since Paul died on June 29 of 57 A.D., and if we subtract a 30 day imprisonment in bonds from June 29 in which he and Peter had time to change their minds toward the deities of Rome -- we reach an arrival date for Paul in Rome in the latter part of May 55 A.D.  By February or early March of 55, Festus was dead.  The martyrdom of James, the bishop of the Christians in Jerusalem, occurs on Passover in A.D. 55 just weeks after the death of Festus.  (Re: Hegisippus’ account in Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.23; and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1.).  Paul  was on an island for about 3 months, subtracting to April, then March , then February.  Then, allotting travel by ship and by pedestrian means, we are looking at a date no later than the first week of February, probably mid-late January 55 A.D. for Paul’s shipwreck experience.
39      Acts 28:30.  The emphasis is that Paul stayed in his own rented house.  Like Ignatius, in later times, he would have been chained to a special guard, and allowed to move about the city of ROME on rare occasions from time to time.  The important thing to remember is that Paul’s house became an instant Church, in which others congregated and or met with him (Acts 28:17 ff.).
40      Jerome, “On Illustrious Men”, .5
41    Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.25, cites Dionysius of Corinth writing Soter of Rome, “…Peter, and Paul both sowed in Romans and Corinthians alike.  For both of them sowed in our Corinth and taught us jointly:  in Italy too, they taught jointly in the same city, and were martyred at the same time.”  Cf.: I Corinthians 1:12, and I Peter 1:1.
   In 44 B.C., Corinth was rebuilt into a “New Corinth”, a forced retirement settlement of former Legionnaires, Knights (L. “equestor ordo” -those of an upper social class who were senatorial financiers and contacts), and freedmen.  There was an intense connection between Corinth and Rome when Peter and Paul arrived and stayed just 93-94 years later.  It also tells us why that after the evangelism of Asia, funded by the Corinthians, the next effort was in Rome.  Asia was home to the temples of Emperor Worship.  Once the Gospel was clearly victorious in Asia, the Corinthian sponsors of the missionary efforts felt confident of their ambitions toward converting the people of Rome also.  The noble Erastus was most likely of the “equestor ordo”, a Roman Knight, and financial sponsor of the Senator of Achaia as well as that of the Christian Churches funded by Peter and Paul in that region.  The success of the evangelism of Asia probably relied quite heavily on Erastus’ position of influence in the Empire at the time, and an unspoken relationship with those around Emperor Claudius.

[Brianroy]

Anti-pope Hippolytus

In the appendixes to Hippolytus, we are informed by an unknown scribe assumption that is added into the tradition. 42   The scribe, there, erroneously tells us Peter’s preaching was limited to Asia Minor and to Italy,.  And yet, we find that Jerusalem, the coastline cities like Caesarea and Antioch, and even the city of Corinth – all places where Peter help found churches – all are erroneously left out.  Why?

 Hippolytus was the first official anti-Pope of the Churches at Rome.  An earlier Protestant style reformation precedent occurring under Caius and some other presbyters in the mid 180s A.D., when Victor the 13th bishop sought to create the earliest form of a papacy, unaccountable to his local Sanhedrin of Christian Church Presbyters within his own sub-urbicary of influence (distances of less than 3 days journey by foot or by boat, hence generally 100 miles or less).  After Victor was rebuked, and repented, and cast out the idolaters and the Roman and other alien deities brought into the enclave gatherings (formerly secret gatherings of Christ believers only) of the Churches of Rome; Victor’s next successors proved even more corrupt in mind and conscience.   

In circa 216 A.D., Hippolytus, though to the dispute of Roman Catholics, was voted as the true bishop of Rome by the Sanhedrin presbytery…but within 20 years, via conspiracy and corruption, he was exiled to Sardinia and murdered.  But the backlash was that he was above reproach, and his martyrdom was that of a saint.  By declaring an unverified claim of reconciliation, and having no successors, the churches of Rome again reunited.  Hippolytus' death is alleged to have been torn limb from limb by being tied to wild horses, and then what was left of him was thrown into a canal, where he then drowned some time after the commencement of the reign of Maximin the Thracian (A.D. 235 – 239).

Therefore, by example, we must – as historians – also investigate and analyze what corruptions or alterations may, or may not have, crept into the texts…and come to the best conclusions we can, based on the factual information available.





Irenaeus: the authority only partly quoted by scholars

The best information relating to John outside the New Testament comes from Irenaeus.  So, what does the witness of Irenaeus tell us about the date of John's Revelation and exile?   

 “…As the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the Disciple of the LORD, that John conveyed to them that information.  And   he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.”43

Further on, Irenaeus drives home this very point in his next book, writing…
            “…Again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul,
                  and having
                 John remaining among them permanently
                 until the times of   Trajan,
                 is a true witness of the Tradition of the Apostles.”44   


The plain sense of these passages from Irenaeus clearly supports a view that there was no exile for John from the time he took over at Ephesus.45   This should hold a stronger witness to us when we accept that Irenaeus teacher, Polycarp, was hand picked and installed as bishop of Smyrna, by John himself.46    Clement of Alexandria, in saving the historically based tale of “A Rich Man who finds Salvation”, appears to support an early dating of the Apocalypse, saying:     
 
                  “…This is not a myth, but a Word  [??], handed down and
                        committed carefully  to memory, regarding the Apostle John.
                        When the tyrant died,
                       
           [tou turannou teleuthesantos –
           “the tyrant came to a lesser                   
           End”…perhaps implying natural causes like a heart 
                        attack in his sleep]

                        he [John] returned from the island of Patmos
                        to Ephesus, and (then) being invited, went away to the neighboring  Districts of the nations:  appointing bishops here, setting Churches in order there, and ordaining such as were  (made known to him) by the Spirit.”47

So how old and lacking of vitality is John, when he indeed returned to Asia? 

At the first entering of Asia from his banishment by the tyrant (which is lingo for Procurator), John does not go about like an old man at the end of his life.  John vigorously runs a circuit tour, and visits and reorganizes and appoints beyond Asia, like a ‘man on a mission’, ‘full speed ahead’.

  The word “tyrant” speaks clearly that John’s persecutor was a local Procurator, and NOT a distant Caesar who would have banished to Pontia, off the Italian Coast.48.  Caesar would not have allotted John to some obscure island, living almost comfortably in a fishing village, somewhere in the Aegean.  So, we ask, is there more to point to a local Provincial Official as tyrant, and a local Ephesian or Asian persecution than that of an Emperor?  In the example of the grandsons of Judas, half-brother of Messiah, these were brought to ROME by the EVOCATUS in Domitian’s reign, but then were despised by the Emperor as “ignorant” and set free.49 


 Tertullian tells us that before being banished from Asia,
“…The Apostle John  [in Ephesus] was first plunged, unhurt,
 into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile.”50 
and thereby indicates the extreme likelihood of a local or provincial ruler.




====================================================
42    HIPPOLYTUS ON THE TWELVE APOSTLES:
1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.
2. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patræ, of Achaia; and there too he was buried.
3. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.
4. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.
5. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there.
6. Bartholomew [i.e., Nathanael], again, to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward.
Allanum,  [perhaps Albanum],  of the great Armenia.
7. And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, of Parthia.
8. And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margois,  and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spear at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there.
9. And James the son of Alphæus, when preaching in Jerusalem, was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple.
10. Jude, who is also  Lebbæus, preached to the people of Edessa,   and to all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there.
11. Simon the Canaanite,  the son of Clopas, who is also Jude, became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120 years.
12. And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven apostles, and preached in Jerusalem, and fell asleep and was buried there.
13. And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ; and beginning at Jerusalem, he advanced as far as Illyricum, and Italy, and Spain, preaching the Gospel for five-and-thirty years. And in the time of Nero he was beheaded at Rome, and was buried there.
   
Note: Nautically, to add Spain makes no sense.  To say as far as Yugoslavia and Italy is acceptable, because both would lay upon the same Adriatic Sea in relative close proximity of some 150 miles apart, and 283 miles travel.
 To add Spain, involves a sea voyage in excess of 500 more miles, and in a conflicting direction, is to be ruled as an obvious corruption crept into the text.   

43    Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5 
44     Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.  – so often neglected and missed by those who quote Irenaeus on this very dating issue.  (ibid.).
45    This witness given by Irenaeus appears to be about as solid for jurisprudence as we could ever ask of ancient testimony.  In examining that transmission of testimony – from 30 A.D. ff.
        Of Christ:  John to 68 years           [98 A.D.]        following the death and resurrection of Christ
Polycarp  to 126 yrs.   [156 A.D.]      following the death and resurrection of Christ
Irenaeus to 172 yrs.     [202 A.D.}     following the  death and resurrection of Jesus
       
         Of John:        Polycarp  to 58 years    [156 A.D.]     following the death of John
   Irenaeus  to  104 years  [202 A.D.]     following  the death of John
   Caius,  (Tertullian?),  Hippolytus       to circa  A.D.  217,  (220) and 236 
                                                                    (See also note 5, for Tertullian)
     Jerome, “On Illustrious Men”, .9, is apparently ignored in respects to his theory, which was molded primarily by reading Eusebius, it seems. For Jerome records:           “Then, in the 14th year after Nero, Domitian having raised a Second Persecution, he [John] was banished to the isle of Patmos [in 82 A.D.]  and wrote the Apocalypse…he returned to Ephesus under Nerva, and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan….  Worn out by old age, (John) died in the 68th year after our LORD’s Passion, and was buried near the same city.”  If that is the case, the traditional evidence indeed points to a death of John perhaps on or just after Passover 98 A.D.  Nerva died in January of 98 A.D.
46       Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics, .32

47     Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man who shall find Salvation?”,  .42  (Ibid.)
48    Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .54 and Eusebius, H.O.C., 3.18   shows that Pontia, off the Italian Coast, was in use from at least the 20s to the 90s A.D. as an isle of banishment. 
49    Eusebius, H.O.C., 3.20    Note at the end documentation of the persecution of these half-great-nephews of the LORD, how that Eusebius leaves off the record and switches to his own opinion or misconception.  This occurs when he writes,  “This is the statement of the historians of the day.”
50      Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics, .36 

[Brianroy]

John’s own “Revelation” witness

     And what is the testimony from Revelation 1:9?

" I,  John,  the brother, even of you,  and co-sharer :in the Affliction  [], and in the Kingdom,  and remaining under Jesus Christ  --
came to be in the island of Patmos  through the Word of GOD,
and  through the bearing of witness to Jesus Christ."51     
   
 In Patmos, we find that John—in Revelation 1:9 -- experiences the "Affliction" or “Tribulation” of Thlipsei: from “Thlipsis” (in the Greek).  It is not the actual bondage of Chains, as we find with the Greek “Desmos” (e.g. Acts 26:31, 22:30, and cf. 20:23).  Thlipsis is an emotionally and psychologically horrifying period of stress, where one feels as though a great weight were crushing down on top of them, while also being squeezed from all sides.  In short, John felt great humiliation.  But why? 

Well, who else but the goddess Artemis / Diana – a false idol, a mythical / fabricated deity -- would receive the credit for sparing John’s life from the boiling oil among the silversmiths and the great majority of the Ephesians?  The silversmiths, priests, and priestesses of Artemis in Ephesus would most assuredly point to John and attempt to use his miraculous deliverance for years to come: citing John as he who was saved from boiling oil by the goddess Artemis.  And whether Jew or Jewish Christian, that stress and humiliation alone is almost enough to drive some to suicide.  So, it seems, John became a recluse in a place where he felt comfortable.  That recovery was accomplished by his fishing in an out-of-the-way fishing community, which still exists to this day as a witness to us all.  And for the purposes of quashing such a myth as what Ephesians might have called a victory of Diana, John went back to Ephesus for the remainder of his life after the death of the local Roman governor of Asia in March/April 54 A.D.

         So can we demonstrate the  year of the Exile of John?   Yes.  For we know that  Paul arrived in Rome in May 55 A.D.  One year earlier, at Pentecost, he was taken up at the Temple while confirming some Nazarites who were offering up their hair, grown since birth.52  That was 54 A.D.  We do read in Acts 20:17 ff. how that Paul sent for "the elders of Ephesus", and gave a long speech.  Why did Luke include this speech in his Book of Acts if it was unnecessary?  And so, as for me, I am persuaded that it is at this point that Paul officially hands over the trust of Ephesus to John the Apostle,53 and instructs those that had trusted Paul, to now trust John.  Therefore, in ca. April of 54 A.D., as Epiphanius had earlier testified, while Claudius was still Emperor, John began his permanent residence as Overseer of the Churches in Asia from a residence in or just outside Ephesus.54  Therefore it is the most likely that, it would be at this time, while on his way to Jerusalem, that Paul would affirm the Apocalypse of John, having read and approved it, to all thereafter.

        The year prior, in A.D. 53, Paul had been in Ephesus, at the center of mob frenzy, (probably in July or early August of 53, or perhaps an even earlier month).  So then, we ask: "Well, what happened after that riot?"55   Obviously, because of the tumult, the Governor of Asia must have come with troops, looking to set an example.  And, there is little doubt that poor John stayed behind after the uproar, and was offered up for sacrifice when the soldiers and Governor came.  Hence, the boiling oil.  Hence, upon his miraculous deliverance by YHVeH, John was to be banished for as long as that particular Governor ruled in Asia.   
   

The one quote only applicationof Irenaeus of 95 A.D. addressed

 Lest we forget, Ephesus was one of the cities of the seven wonders of the Ancient World.  It house the Temple of Artemis, which was struck by lightning and had its marble roof burn down on the same night Alexander the Great, was born.  Which Temple also stood upon the place of the sacred Meteor/Asteroid fragment, which was worshipped by the Amazons.  That same legendary meteor was promoted as having had carved out much of the Ephesian harbor -- and to have made the hill upon which the Temple of Artemis/Diana stood.  Tens of thousands of pilgrims flocked here every year, and purchased silver statuettes of Artemis, and paid the priests of the Temple to stand on holy ground, and still more denarii for them to perform prayers and rituals before their eyes.56   
 
Diana / Artemis (as an idol) was a “cash cow” for the Ephesians, for the Procurator, and for ROME.  And there are scholars who actually think a “well-greased” Roman Official is going to let the Ephesian Uproar slide, and chase away the tourists, and reach the ears of the Senate in ROME without consequence, in this period of the Roman Empire?  So, when John was plunged unhurt into boiling oil, to who did the crowds of Ephesus shout their praise?  To Artemis.  And what sentence but banishment --"for a deliverance from the gods" or “goddess” -- could any Procurator appointed by, and representing ROME, have given?  Therefore, a Claudian period banishment and writing of Revelation actually fits the historical testimony, regardless of ill-notioned Preterists who might misinterpret the Revelation some 1950 years later. 

             So then, we can logically conclude or rationally interpret the historical evidence to show that John’s return.  This occurs in a relatively short enough time frame of about two seasons from the date of his Revelation on Rosh HaShana in 53 A.D. (Revelation 1:10)57, to his installation in ca. April of 54 A.D., which is still during the reign of Claudius as Caesar in ROME  -- was indeed short enough.  Short enough, at least, to let the elders and John to later declare that no sufficient period lapsed between Paul’s leaving and John’s return from island self-imposed exile upon Patmos. 

            But then there's the 95 A.D. "proof" that is supposed to be emphatically accepted by all true "scholars", but which even Jerome contests in .9 of his “On Illustrious Men”, that has still yet to be addressed. 

So, what about scholars who use but an abbreviated quip using Irenaeus 5.30.3. to justify 95 A.D. for Revelation’s authorship year?  Let us look at a more full excerpt and ask:  What is really being said by Irenaeus?

“…Teitan…among many persons, too, this Name is accounted Divine, so that even the Sun is named “Titan” by those who now possess.  This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of Vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment, because he pretends that he vindicates the oppressed.  And besides this, it is an ancient Name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant.  Inasmuch, then, as this Name, ‘TITAN’, has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many we infer, that perchance he who is to come will be called  ‘TITAN’.58

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 announce by
him who beheld the Apocalyptic Vision.  For *  [He} * was seen no
very long time since, but almost in our day, at the end of Domitian’s
reign.

 [was seen –  pros to telei  tas  Dometianou  archas…up alongside and with
/ during the completion of Domitian’s reign.”]

 But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this
man comes, we may avoid him, being aware who he is….”59 

So exactly what was seen - “to be asked” the meaning of 666?  
It was a "he" that could be seen to be asked, not an "it" that could be seen to be asked the meaning of 666.

Was the Apocalypse nothing more than a holographic movie floating above the isle of Patmos, to where we could go: “O floating floaty…tell us the meaning of 666!?”  Of course not!  That’s silly!  And yet, that is the contention that appears to be made by those wishing to discredit the New Testament without a grounding in good source Lower Criticism.


 John the Apostle was seen “up alongside and with/during the completion of Domitian’s reign.  Any questions, then for over 40 odd years, until the completion of Domitian’s reign; you have a question about Revelation…John’s alive and living in Ephesus…go and ask him. 

The statement that Irenaeus now passes down to us in Against Heresies, is from Polycarp, an eyewitness and bishop installed by John himself in circa February 70 A.D.  Again, John was available to all who had questions about 666 until the end of Domitian’s reign, in October of 96 A.D.  The inference of Irenaues’ other two quotes is that if John lived until about the beginning of Trajan's reign, in 98 A.D., then John may have been ill or incapacitated for over a year (a fulfillment of John 21:18).  John most likely died in March/April 98.A.D.


=====================================================
46       Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics, .32
47     Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man who shall find Salvation?”,  .42  (Ibid.)
48    Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .54 and Eusebius, H.O.C., 3.18   shows that Pontia, off the Italian Coast, was in use from at least the 20s to the 90s A.D. as an isle of banishment. 
49    Eusebius, H.O.C., 3.20    Note at the end documentation of the persecution of these half-great-nephews of the LORD, how that Eusebius leaves off the record and switches to his own opinion or misconception.  This occurs when he writes,  “This is the statement of the historians of the day.”
50      Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics, .36 
51       Literal Translation, mine. 
52       Acts 21:17-34
53      Cf. endnote 42.  It is quite possible that John, at this time, is in the neighboring districts on his circuit tour; while Paul’s faithful attempt to persuade him to return to Ephesus, but are resigned to accept John over them, though reluctantly, and with tears.
54     This appears to be confirmed in 398 A.D. by Jerome, in his Preface to his Commentary on Matthew, where he writes:      “John…when he was in Asia, [he was there] at the time when the seeds of heresy were springing up (I refer to Cerinthus, Ebion, and the rest…whom the Apostle Paul frequently assails).  He [John] was urged by almost all the bishops of Asia, then living, and by deputations from many Churches, to write more profoundly concerning our Savior’s Divinity.”
55       Acts 19:21 – 20:1
56       Cf. Tertullian, Apology, .13   
57      The Jewish Festival of Rosh HaShana is not just "the head of the (new) year", but is also known as "The LORD's Day", and the "Day of YHVeH's Trump".  The 40 days prior, from fortieth to the second day prior, the sound of the trump is made with the shofar.  The day before Rosh HaShana is a day of silence and Awe, as the people await Rosh HaShana, which is the day when GOD Himself is supposed to blow His own Shofar, and herald His Kingdom Come on Earth.  Later, the LORD’s Day came to be exclusively known as the “Resurrection Day” of Jesus.  And there should be great care and consideration given to this.
Day 1 of the Tribulation Period begins within 45 days following Rosh Hashana.  This is preceded by the Enochian or unseen rapture of the Church (Genesis 5:24), which is given in type in Revelation 1:19-20’s relationship (meta tauta ff.) with Amos 5:8 and the mythology of the Pleiades.  A sudden snatching away of 7 daughters placed in the heavens, out of reach as though now constellations. The removal is by the sound of the Trump, low-level-legato, the same as given in the Dead Sea “War Scroll”.   Day 1290-1291 will fall on or about First-fruits, or Easter.  This is the Resurrection Day of Jesus, and this will be preceded by the visible rapture of the Church, such as seen in Revelation 11:11-12.  Following this, we read Revelation 6:12 ff. in which GOD terribly punishes those left upon the Earth, and in the prophets of the Old Testament, this great tribulation of another 1335 days is called “The LORD’s Day” or “The Day of the LORD”.  The question of persecution and exile of John from Ephesus only makes sense from Luke’s exposition of the Ephesian riot, and being residual persecution thereafter.  From John’s Jewish perspective, being a ritual Kohen Priest wearing a high priest’s sacrificial garment (etc.), it seems more plausible to stay close to a Torah Observation that John himself would have followed -- and not which we would have “liked” or “preferred” thousands of years later.   
58    T = 300   E=5   I = 10   T=300   A=1   N=50    totaling 666.    The man will be arrogant like Superbus, an ancient Roman ruler who was the first to be saluted and hailed, who also made it a point to sleep with new brides before their husbands did, etc.  His name will be worshipped like Apollo, who is identifiable in Antiquity as Horus: the son of Osiris and Isis.  Isis is Ceres, the daughter of Prometheus, called IO by the Greeks; because when Attica (Athens) began to become “civilized”. IO thus represented, from here, all time begins.   Osiris became known as Bacchyus, deity of the underworld. Osiris, as Bacchyus, was celebrated with a Mardi gras atmosphere of phallic orgies, because his relationship to Ceres was a celebration of deliverance by his being oversexed, -- whose god was the belly, and what lay below it.  Therefore, the Greek and Romans, who descended themselves (in part) from ancient Hyksos or Syriac Egyptians, will also have this 666 absorbing a religious identity in which deity is found even in alligators and frogs and what have you.  A veritable “god of forces” who is worshipped like the sun, more so than even Hitler ever was in the Munich stadium by his own faithful in the mid to late 1930s…
59    Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.3-4   

[Brianroy]

Conclusion

As we look at the quote, let us ask the origin and end result of an argument for a mid-90’s Apocalypse?  Is it the hope of 19th , 20th , and 21st Century liberals  (who first put forth this nonsense) to make John a senile old man so that the Apocalypse could be dismissed as a weak link that could be further used to dismiss other Scriptures?  What is really behind the thought process that created the Original Theory about a late Revelation date? 

      In Against Heresies, 5.30.3-4, it appears that Irenaeus is saying that John, or *[he]*, not [it], was available until the end of Domitian’s reign, to be asked about the Apocalypse, and just about anything else. 

This is exactly what Irenaeus tells us in the beginning, or .1, of that same 30th Chapter of Book 5:  that people “who saw John face to face” inquired about the correctness of the number that appeared in the most ancient or first manuscript copies kept by the bishop of Ephesus.60 

The ones with questions about 666, or anything really, could approach John himself,61 and ask John himself, until the end of Domitian’s reign in 96 A.D. 
 
          An alternative interpretation may also be that Irenaeus is including himself in the equation of “almost” witnesses.  If that is the case, then Irenaeus was most likely born, by his testimony here, about the end of Domitian’s reign, perhaps the circa 95-96 A.D. date that “most scholars” have erroneously accepted as John’s writing the Revelation.  The statement made by Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5.30.4.) fits this theory: that Irenaeus is stating that he was too young to have asked or remembered John, using words to this effect, being perhaps as old as 3 years old when John died.  If this is the case, Irenaeus was a healthy 107 years old when he died in Lyons under the persecutions of Severus; and in his mid 80s when he wrote “Against Heresies”. 
     
                 The Book of Revelation is not a book about the Jewish War with Rome.  However, an early date of either it, or the New Testament, needs to be not feared by Christians, who were called “Chrestians” by the Romans (which means, “the gracious ones.”)  For Christians love truth: and especially truth that is grounded in the history and traditions that uplifts and glorifies the Name of GOD.

Paul, we also have found out, is interwoven in history with John.  Paul approved the book of Revelation, and included its content in his letter of 2 Thessalonians.  While Paul was alive, Luke and then Matthew was written.  After Paul's death (along with Peter), then Matthew, the mysterious Quelle or Source document of misled scholarship , was written...after the genealogy Gospels.

In 1959, S. Petrie in his NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 3  article, ‘Q is only what you make it’, destroys the validity of "Q" as a self contradiction.   (Wenham, John    Redating  Matthew, Mark, and Luke   Downer’s Grove: Inter-varsity Press, 1992,  p. 42).

  And if we have known this at least that long, why all the jockeying in Biblical Criticisms now, as if "Q" were a settled fact, when it is more unstable than jello on a heated hot-plate?


  I am confident that once the shock has settled -- many competent and clear thinking scholars may indeed re-evaluate the prior centuries of unjust anti-Christian venom, based on subjective hatred more than objective pretext, and exonerate this re-dating of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament.  Once understood in its proper historical context, doors of understanding that have heretofore been closed, I fully expect, will open and bless millions upon millions.  And all this began with the crucifixion of GOD with us, “Immanuel”, crucified on a Roman Cross; and the cloaks of zeal upon the disciples to whom this was revealed, to tell the world about the gloriousness of this event: how GOD paid for our sins, and wants none of us to perish in those sins (John 3:16).   


====================================================

60       Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.1.    The focus begins with those :en  pasi  tois  spoudaiois  kai  archaiois  antigraphois.
    The emphasis on Archaiois. 
            “Such, then, being the state of the case, that this number [666] being found in the most    approved and original copies from the beginning, and  (having) those men who saw John face to face bearing their Testimony….”  Et cetera.
61     Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5   (ibidem).   “We also have John’s foster churches.  For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse  [the scroll of Revelation], the order  [or succession] of the bishops, when traced up to their origin  [i.e. their start or first bishop], will yet rest on John as their author.”  When Paul was sent to Jerusalem for Pentecost 54 A.D., he had already approved Revelation.  On his was up, he stopped in Miletus (Acts 20:15).  Here, he met with the bishops and elders of Asia, including Ephesus, and gave up his apostolic authority over them (Acts 20:32).  After which, it appears that Timothy went to Ephesus with these men, and very soon thereafter, though appointed bishop, he was joined and overseen by the Apostle John.
==================================================

Supplement: Historic Dates of New Testament Authorship

Letter or Work   When Written      Written in / from 
Jude                  Pentecost, A.D. 47      Jerusalem, Israel
James          Pentecost, A.D. 47      Jerusalem, Israel
Galatians                         A.D. 48                 Philippi, Greece
Gospel of Luke   A.D. 50         Corinth, Achaia


I Thessalonians   February - July, A.D. 52   Ephesus, Asia
I Corinthians   July - November, A.D. 52   Ephesus, Asia

Revelation                Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53   Patmos, Aegean

Romans                    October - November, A.D. 53   Corinth, Achaia


Titus                     February, A.D. 54      Troas, Aegean Sea
Colossians   May - November, A.D. 54   Jerusalem, Israel
I Timothy      May - November, A.D. 54   Jerusalem, Israel

II Thessalonians   August - December, A.D. 54   Ephesus, Asia

Gospel of Matthew   May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56   Jerusalem, Israel

Philemon                   A.D. 56         Rome, Italy
II Timothy                 October, A.D. 56      Rome, Italy
Ephesians   October, A.D. 56      Rome, Italy
   
Philippians   February - April, A.D. 57   Rome, Italy
I Peter   March - April, A.D. 57      Rome, Italy

Gospel of Mark   June, A.D. 57   Rome, Italy

II Peter                      June, A.D. 57      Rome, Italy

Acts of the Apostles    July, A.D. 57   Rome, Italy

Hebrews                       July, A.D. 57      Rome, Italy


I John (severed intro)       August - October, A.D. 57   Ephesus, Asia
Gospel of John   August - October, A.D. 57   Ephesus, Asia

2,3 John   A.D. 58 - A.D. 96         Ephesus, Asia

[Admin1]

That's quite a work Brian.  I can only presume pasted from elsewhere.  One day maybe one of us will read it from beginning to end.

...but for now, can you summarize in a sentence or two what the point is?

[Brianroy]

Rick,
  Quelle ("Q" / "Source") and late NT dating is based on modern myth making.

Quelle, according to Mark's own historical tradition, as well as through tradition left by other Apostles, DOES NOT EXIST IN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OR TRADITION.  Period.

Quelle is a higher criticism of texts without the lower criticism foundations, and falls like a house of cards in a windstorm.

There are those, like J. Charlesworth, who in the Jesus Seminar and in BAS "Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism," wrote that there were no organized churches (and hence no Christianity or NT) until the 240s A.D., about the time of a wild-eyed heretic (or words to this effect).   I am sure that at least 5 Sanhedrins of Christians (70 Presbyters, and 1 Bishop) at Antioch of Syria, Ephesus of Asia, Corinth of Achaia, Rome of Italy, and Alexandria of Egypt...would disagree.  That is, 355 men out of antiquity who would beg to differ, if we could all now stand before the bar of G-D and put the statement on trial in the after-life.

But since we cannot now do that, then...

  It is time we get back to what the literary history testifies to, and go from there.  If we can intelligently speak on these things in examining Josephus (as James Tabor did at a BAS 2000 Seminar regarding Herod's temple)...then moreso, should we do this in relation to the NT.

In fact, the absence of hostile accusations by the Jews themselves in their Mishna, Gemara, Talmud...a timeline of hundreds of years to expose a late NT...testifies to an early and reliable NT origin as well.  There is no accusation of late writing after the witnesses had died off, as Josephus was able to accuse those who fabricated history were attempting to do in their volumes. 

The entire work is by me, crediting as required.

 I am still looking for BAR scholars to at least consider an early NT date on the acceptance that it is a thesis (or if they wish, a theory or hypothesis) that has weight and merit to be more than credible as an alternate view.

 I hope other readers will also agree, and respond favorably as well.

[Brianroy]

Lactanius, On The Manner In Which The Persecutors Died, .1:  places  the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome 25 years after the passion of Christ.

 Acts tells us that the length of this stay was 2 years more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.1.1.) ca. 181-183 A.D.  Source - Polycarp...source for Polycarp: John the Apostle.

Matthew indeed issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect  while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.... 

After their departure  [their deaths in Rome] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us [in Ephesus of Asia] in writing, what had been preached by Peter....

Afterwards, John...did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus of Asia."                       


  The 2nd Century Anti-Marcionite Prologues make an effort to state:
"...Mark…after Peter’s death, wrote down (his) Gospel in the region of Italy."

Luke wrote his gospel while in Achaia in 49-51 A.D. for 18 months (cf. Anti-Marcionite Prologues).  Since the other 3 gospels were written in the same 2 years Peter and Paul were in Rome,  Luke is not  mentioned in the quote by Irenaeus. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Eusebius confirms this record from the traditions passed down to him in post-diaspora Israel, as well as that tradition passed down from Mark through the bishopric succession of Alexandria to Clement (of Alexandria) in the 190s A.D.

               "The Gospels which contain the geneologies were written first...  [Then] as Peter had preached the Word at Rome publicly, by the Spirit  declaring the  Gospel, many who  were present requested that Mark...should write them out.   And having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it...    Last of all, John...being persuaded by his friends, but inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."                            Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14   
                   citing Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt of ca. 190 A.D.

You will also find here, in Eusebius' H.O.C. 6.14, that the book of Hebrews is written in the Greek by Luke as the teachings (or gospel) of Paul. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scholar W.F. Albright, in 1955, stated unequivocally, that there is no excuse to date any N.T. book beyond 80 A.D.  Avraham Biran personally vouched for Albright's character, scholarship, and genius in a BAR interview a few years back.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1959, S. Petrie in his NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 3  article, ‘Q is only what you make it’, destroys the validity of "Q" as a self contradiction.  (Wenham, John    Redating  Matthew, Mark, and Luke   Downer’s Grove: Inter-varsity Press, 1992,  p. 42). 

‘ “Q” is a single document;
it is a composite document,
incorporating earlier sources;
it is used in different redactions;
it is more than one document.

The original language of “Q” is Greek;
The original language of “Q” is Aramaic;
It is used in different translations.

“Q” is the Matthean Logia;
[“Q”]   is NOT the Matthean Logia.

“Q” has a definite shape;
It is no more than an amorphous collection of fragments.

“Q” is a gospel;
[“Q”]  is NOT a gospel.

“Q” includes the crucifixion story;
[“Q”]   does NOT include the crucifixion story.

“Q” consists wholly of sayings and there is no narrative;
[“Q”]  includes some narrative.

All of “Q” is preserved in Matthew and Luke;
Not all of it is preserved;
It is better preserved in Luke.

Matthew’s order is the correct order;
Luke’s order is the correct order;
Neither order is correct. 

“Q” is used by Mark;
[“Q”]  is Not used by Mark.” ‘

[Brianroy]

There has been, in the not too distant past, those who wish to boast of the Gnostic work of the "Gospel of Judas" as if it were something new.

Something new?   Even the editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson in 1867, or the American Editor - A. Cleveland Coxe, could easily have dismissed those who just less than 2 years ago were tripping over each other to praise the "lost gospel of Judas".

Which even when read, is clearly myth:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

And that is the testimony also of the Early Church Father Irenaeus, who exposed this fraud some 1830 years ago. 

The school of Valentinius (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.30.15) produced the fictitious history of the Gospel of Judas (ibidem, 1.31.1)  in the second century A.D. 

These Valentinians were Gnostic heretics who sought to incorporate the Ogdoad of the Egyptian system of worship, adapted upon Greek philosophy in order to corrupt Christianity.  In many ways, the Gnostics were not too much different than a legal or spiritual version of the Cilician Pirates who worshipped Mithras and corrupted the Romans as mentioned by Plutarch (The life of Pompey, 24.5; cf. 24.1ff.).

Their overthrow, the Cilician Pirates 100 years before Paul comes on the scene, appears to  present the interesting possibility of a literary link to the Roman citizenship of the family of Paul and or Jews of Tarsus ...when the pirates were defeated by the promontory of Coracesium in Cilicia (ibid. 25.1).

Yet, perhaps there are some who missed even the journalistic assistance of the dismissal of the false gospel of Judas...

FOXNews.com - Biblical Expert: Gospel of Judas Probably Bunk - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

And from the British:

The leading biblical scholar and translator of the dead sea scrolls, Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford University, said: "The document is of interest for the ideas of the gnostics but it almost certainly adds nothing to our understanding of what happened 150 years before it was written.  ("Judas: this is what really happened" Julian Borger and Stephen Bates  Friday April 7, 2006...The Guardian)

We need to go back to a Classical approach to Bible Archaeology:
    But some may ask, what is such an approach?
In Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2007, Thomas W. Davis (director of the Cyprus American Archaeology Research Institute) wrote:
"{Classical} Biblical archaeology was, in simplest terms, a search for realia.  It was an attempt to ground the historical witness of the Bible in demonstrable historical reality." 

 In the books and writings of  W.F. Albright, archaeologist; Gleason Archer, Jr. and many other excellent scholars;   we see that this "classical approach" is indeed a valid one.

It is from this point of view that I wish to say history can indeed be validly put forth just as, if not more,  credibly than those that are at variance with it. 

Peace.

[Brianroy]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10,
 selective statements  from points 1 and 2
 

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.

 She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.

For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions  of the world.

  Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition.

For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

Most scholars are deficient in the proper and full reading of Irenaeus.  They oft cite him as the authority for dating John's Apocalypse, and then ignore his other writings.  Why?  Perhaps they are too busy copying the endnotes of their colleagues...perhaps they are too busy...perhaps philosophic arguments are simple a dinner exercise, and academic truths are as intangible as a good dinner conversation. 

Irenaeus is a third generation witness from Jesus, and a second generation witness from John the Apostle.  When discussing Church history in these first two centuries or the first 150 years of development, it is ludicrous to leave Irenaeus out.

Irenaeus clearly states that at all points of the Empire in 178-181 A.D., Christianity clearly was an organized, developed, and communicating religious system.  Germany communicates with Egypt and Spain; the Eastern provinces communicate with Libya and Italy.  Gaul communicates with Greece and Asia...and all the Christians provinces communicate one with another, and testify faithfully that history - tradition - faith that has been passed down to them from the Apostles. 

And what NT documents are communicated them?  If we judge from Irenaeus own quotations in Against Heresies, we at least have the entire Roman Empire saturated with: 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
 Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,
 Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,
I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter,
I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

It is impossible, if Christianity had any myths in history or tradition up to this point, to have had such a uniform consistency of the Faith throughout the Empire.  There is no doubt about it...the libraries of Caesar were thoroughly checked, the places of the NT visited, the rolls of the bishops unfurled, and Christianity, 100 percent, was found true and accurate historically and in the very legal sense of truthful as well.

Peace.

[Brianroy]

Justin, in his Apology, 1.34, says:

"And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah" etc.

"Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, 35 stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can [still] ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea."


From this, we gather:

1) There were still existing meticulously detailed Roman records about a century and a half after their entry.

2) The taxing Bureaucracy were thorough and exacting record keeping pack-rat Administrators; junkies for detailed information and administration.

3) Cyrenius was called the 1st procurator of Judea. 

4) Bethlehem was still existing in the second century A.D., as was known to have existed in Cyrenius' and Jesus' day.

5) The location of this Bethlehem rules out all other nominations for Jesus' birthplace, being 35 stadia from Jerusalem.  But pay attention to Justin, here.

1 stadia was roughly 606 - 630 feet to the Greco Roman.    35 stadia was roughly 4.0 to 4.1 miles  from  Jerusalem's Old City.

Hence, that Bethelehem of Jesus' is in the open fields and winding roads northeast of the current Bethlehem occupied by the Palestinians.  And it is these open fields that archaeologists should excavate. Here is the most likely area they will dig up a stone relic engraved with Bethlehem or some such information in it.

As to which field...that is determined on the ground using common sense, and judging the terrain, etc. 


  They can Google Earth the area to a free satellite view, and verify what I say.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

Classical archaeology, and classical research (the reading of ancient source texts from those in or nearest to the period of study) is apparently a lost art, I guess.   


Peace.

[Brianroy]

"LUKE WAS a Greek, educated in the Greek schools, prepared for the medical practice which was held in high regard as a profession, and among the Greeks had attained to a place of eminence among the nations of the world. Greek doctors of medicine were in attendance upon many of the royal families of other nations. The Greeks were by nature and training, a race of creative thinkers who pursued their studies in a scientific manner. Their sense of what really constituted scientific accuracy and method in the recording of history was well developed.

The writings of Luke, both his Gospel and The Acts, demonstrates Luke's training as an historian.

He writes his Gospel to a Gentile friend, Theophilus. The name means "a god-lover," or "god-beloved," and may have been given him when he became a Christian. The words "most excellent" according to Ramsay, were a title like "Your Excellency," and show that he held office...Luke wrote the Gospel for Theophilus to use as a standard whereby to judge the accuracy of the many inspired accounts of our Lord's life which were written in the first century.

The facts he records were most surely believed by the first century church. Luke arranges the facts of our Lord's life in historical order as they occurred. The other Gospels do not claim to do that.

The arrangement of events was dictated by the purpose which each author had in writing his account. The sources of Luke's information were oral and written, from eye-witnesses of the events recorded.

He as a trained historian would carefully check over these accounts, investigating and verifying every fact. And this is what he has reference to when he uses the words "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." The words "having had perfect understanding" are literally, "having closely traced."

The verb means "to follow along a thing in the mind." The word was used for the investigation of symptoms. Thus it speaks of a careful investigation of all sources, oral and written, which purport to be accounts of our Lord's life.

Luke had the historian's mind, a thing native to the educated Greek. Herodotus, the father of Greek history, exhibited the Greek determination to get at the truth no matter how much work it required, when he travelled to central Africa to verify the account of the annual rise and fall of the Nile River. In those days this was a long and difficult journey.

 Sir William Ramsey said, "I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived, save only Thucydides."

Thus we have no doubt but that Luke made a personal investigation of all the facts he had recorded. He interviewed every witness, visited every locality. If Mary was still alive, he, a doctor of medicine investigated the story of the virgin birth by hearing it from Mary's own lips.

And as Professor John A. Scott, a great Greek scholar has said, "You could not fool Doctor Luke."

But Luke was not dependent alone upon his personal investigations for the accuracy of his record. He says that he closely traced all things from above.

The words "from above" are from a Greek word translated "from the very first," in the Authorized Version. The word occurs in John 3:31; 19:11; James 1:17; 3:15, 17, and is in every instance translated "from above." It is used often in contrast to a word which means "from beneath."

Paul had doubtless heard the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper from the eleven, but he also had it by revelation from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23). He had received his gospel by direct revelation in Arabia, and this was his check upon the gospel he heard at Jerusalem from the apostles.

So Luke claims to have closely investigated the facts he had received, and to have done so through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which fact guarantees the absolute accuracy of the record (Luke 1:1-4)."

Kenneth S. Wuest, "Word Studies In The Greek New Testament" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1979) pp. 52-54

[Brianroy]

In Eusebius' History of the Church, Book 5.21,
  we see the example of what Roman Law (almost assuredly dating to Augustus own time), does for those who appear before Caesar and the Senate, and do not recant their alleged "superstitions" and believe into the gods of Rome.

That is, Paul, by the same Roman Law (or custom),
once brought before Caesar (and de facto before the Senate also to give his plea),  could  by no means be released unless he paid  homage to the gods of Rome as true gods.

Since Church history and Paul's enemies, even all the enemies of Christianity over the last 19 centuries,   have no such accusation from that time unto this of Paul ever recanting Jesus... not even by later heretics... Paul died in Rome without ever being released. 

 

Book V.
Chapter XXI.—How Apollonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome.

1." .... in the reign of Commodus ...

2. ... And he brought to the judgment seat Apollonius, of the city of Rome, a man renowned among the faithful for learning and philosophy, having stirred up one of his servants, who was well fitted for such a purpose, to accuse him.

3. But ... made the charge unseasonably, because by a royal decree it was unlawful that informers of such things should live.

 And [the informer's]  legs were broken immediately,
Perennius the judge having pronounced this sentence upon him.

4. But the martyr,  [Apollonius]...
requested by the judge to give an account of himself before the Senate,
made in the presence of all an eloquent defense of the faith for which he was witnessing.

And as if by decree of the Senate he was put to death by decapitation;
 an ancient law requiring that those who were brought to the judgment seat and refused to recant should not be liberated.

 Whoever desires to know his arguments before the judge and his answers to the questions of Perennius, and his entire defense before the Senate will find them in the records of the ancient martyrdoms which we have collected."

Roman Law requires we dismiss Paul's intent to go to Spain as just that...intent:  . an ancient law requiring that those who were brought to the judgment seat and refused to recant should not be liberated.

In that, any dating of Paul's death in Rome, must be shortened to no more life than a 30 day temporary reprieve to consider praising Roman idols as gods, burning incense, etc., as experienced by the Scillitan martyrs at Carthage over 100 years later under the same Roman Law, dating back to the time of Jesus himself. 

The Scillitan Martyrs were executed in Carthage on July 17, 180 A.D., and were offered to have 30 days time to think over their testimony to Christ  by the proconsul  P. Vigellius  Saturninus, before being executed for denying the gods of Rome. 

ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The
 Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin
 and Sedrach, The Te | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The
 Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin
 and Sedrach, The Te | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 Or as Saturnius would put it, they were executed under Roman Law " after opportunity offered them of returning to the custom of the Romans [ and since]  they have obstinately persisted, it is determined that they be put to the sword."    As was Paul on June 29, A.D. 57.

Literary History gives us the Outline, and archaeology merely substantiates the correct Outline, or asks for its readjustment if it is not Outlined correctly. 

Biblical Archaeology is that which relates to the Biblical witness...it is not meant to be promoted as a tool to dismiss the Bible at every snicker and verbal dig a "Biblical" archaeologist or historian lecturer can make in his writing or lecturing.  If that is the case, we may as well open a field called Atheist Archaeology, where the same material is debated, but the harsh bias and predisposition to color the data with disbelief beforehand is openly manifest to all.

And it should be remembered, that without the literary historical witness, little sense would be made out of what archaeology has thus far uncovered.  And the greatest historically sound guidebook to archaeology and Israeli and Christian history, has always been...the Bible. 

Peace.

 

[Brianroy]

Archaeology is slowly turning the pages of time back to a testimonial accuracy given by the Bible itself.

 "No other work from Greco-Roman antiquity is so well attested by manuscript tradition as the New Testament.  There are many more early manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any other classical author, and the oldest extensive remains of it date only about two centuries after their original compostion."  W.F. Abright, THe Archaeology of Palestine


Bible Review Feb 1993
Reinterpreting John

Jesus seminar and liberal scholar, James H. Charlesworth, admits that the Gospel of John finds a scholarly consensus that it is a 1st century (prior to 100 A.D.) composition in the opening f his article: "How the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized our understanding of the Gospel of John".

 "Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many scholars considered the Fourth Gospel—the Gospel According to John—to be a mid-to-late-second-century composition inspired by Greek philosophy.
Today, 45 years later, a growing scholarly consensus finds John to be a first-century composition. More surprising still, it is perhaps the most Jewish of the Gospels. Elements that were once thought to be reflections of Greek philosophy were all there at the time in contemporaneous Palestine."

We are still discovering about the period of the 1st century A.D., because so many scholars wish to limit them to 20th and 21st century limitations.

On example is Magen Broshi, who in Jun 1978's BAR -- "Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem"  --  disbelieves the historic testimony of Josephus telling us that  (by the 60's A.D.)  there were 204 villages in Galilee (including Nazareth), and that not one of these villages had less than 15,000 people...including Nazareth. 


PACE -
The Judean War

In other words, when we look at the Nazareth of Jesus some 60 years earlier, we see a village that could have been no less than at least 6,000 or more that Jesus grew up in, and more likely 10-12 thousands.  With the building of Sepphoris' importance in the Galilee,

http://www.archaeologyodyssey.org/blog/bswbBlogSubPage.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=18&Issue=3&ArticleID=5

Nazareth may possibly have had a population as low as 5-6 thousands during the 5 B.C. census, surely by the fall of 26 A.D., the population could have doubled by the time Jesus left.  Or we could give the possibility that with the rise of huge Sicarii robber bands exceeding 4,000 from the 30s to the 60s A.D., that the migration from fields into walled villages was a reactionary effect at the time.  Josephus leaves us enough data, as does the NT documents, to show us that they were intelligently (not ignorantly) written in the period or near to the period they testify to. The NT was written by 57 (bar 2,3 John) or within 27 years of the Cross...and Josephus was written by 94 A.D., within 27 years of the start of the Jewish War.

The Israelites were apparently  historically and habitually ghetto dwellers (ghetto from the middle age Italian canon factory)...in that, they would huddle tight spaces of land, build two or three stories high, and pack tight singular or double apartment like rooms into confined blocks.  We know this was not only prevalent in Israel, but also in Alexandria of Egypts, which dimensions will not allow otherwise than heights of 4 and 5 story structures.

The whole point is...we have to re-evaluate the evidence from the eyes of the First century.  We have to relearn what we know and what we think we know, and retest that knowledge over time to ensure its assessment accuracy.

 My redating, with the past 18 years, has not only stood as I learn and re-test and re-evaluate, but it grows stronger as the years go by.  For that to be the case, it has to be more closer to what the historic testimony is, than any other I can thus far find, or until more evidence from archaeology (etc.) can further illuminate on the subject. 


Sometimes subjects like Josephus testimony of Galilean village population must be preceded with such exposure as the late 19th century urban construction.  In some ways, this kind of background research can also aid us in seeing why certain issues were challenged or left unchallenged by the liberal scholarship.  The late 19th century lack of city building codes, high structures made of wood, stone, etc.  -- grants us a modern look of the what was or might have been  possible in height and population densities in the ancient times.   But those kinds of issues are best left to another thread.

Peace.