Irenaeus and Victorinus

chrysostom · May 18, 2012

here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

HisServant · May 18, 2012

chrysostom said:
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

It has long been debated as to whether Revelations 3 obvious sections where written by 3 separate authors and later put together.

Which puts the entire book under suspicion, it also puts the canon committee under suspicion for accepting it into the bible. (There was much debate also about including the Apocalypse of Peter).

No other book in the bible has divided Christianity as Revelation has.

chrysostom · May 18, 2012

HisServant said:
It has long been debated as to whether Revelations 3 obvious sections where written by 3 separate authors and later put together.

Which puts the entire book under suspicion, it also puts the canon committee under suspicion for accepting it into the bible. (There was much debate also about including the Apocalypse of Peter).

No other book in the bible has divided Christianity as Revelation has.

Christianity is divided
but
you can't blame it on Revelation

HisServant · May 18, 2012

chrysostom said:
Christianity is divided
but
you can't blame it on Revelation

You can on the Protestant side... Dispensationalists are the ban of protestantism and it wasn't even a topic that the reformers debated.

chrysostom · May 18, 2012

HisServant said:
You can on the Protestant side... Dispensationalists are the ban of protestantism and it wasn't even a topic that the reformers debated.

why do you think it is not debated more here?

HisServant · May 18, 2012

chrysostom said:
why do you think it is not debated more here?

Because they are in the majority... and they have been so ingrained with their eschatology it's usually futile. When people grow up in a particular denomination whether it be a protestant or catholic sect, its very hard to break out of and see the truth.

And there has been quite a few topics on dispensationalism here in the past.

chrysostom · May 18, 2012

HisServant said:
Because they are in the majority... and they have been so ingrained with their eschatology it's usually futile. When people grow up in a particular denomination whether it be a protestant or catholic sect, its very hard to break out of and see the truth.

And there has been quite a few topics on dispensationalism here in the past.

I really have not noticed your views on Revelation

HisServant · May 18, 2012

chrysostom said:
I really have not noticed your views on Revelation

You would have to know the world view of a 1st century christian, as I am sure all the imagery and symbolism in Revelation would be plain as day to them.

My personal opinion is that the book is about the end of Judaism and not about the end of the world.

chrysostom · May 18, 2012

HisServant said:
You would have to know the world view of a 1st century christian, as I am sure all the imagery and symbolism in Revelation would be plain as day to them.

My personal opinion is that the book is about the end of Judaism and not about the end of the world.

it has been suggested that John the Baptist wrote the first version
and
looking at chapters 4 thru 11 it does makes sense
and
others have reason to believe that it was first written in Hebrew
and
later translated into Greek

chrysostom · May 18, 2012

this points to John the Baptist

John 1:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Revelation 5:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

chrysostom · Feb 27, 2014

don't want to lose this thread

Desert Reign · Feb 27, 2014

chrysostom said:
here we have Irenaeus in the second century talking about "ancient copies" of Revelation
and
here we have Victorinus in the third century commenting on Revelation without mentioning any of the seven churches
and
we also have Eusebius in the fourth century mentioning some of the seven churches and Revelation
but
never associating them
so
what can we conclude from all this?

there must have been an earlier version of Revelation that did not include the seven churches
and
there are other reasons to suspect this

I read the link to Irenaeus in reference to the 'ancient copies'. However, further on he mentions the following:

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

So it seems the word 'ancient' is not as ancient as may appear.

Edit. Now had a look at Victorinus, though I am a little confused because the translation is only partial. It seems to be just selected examples of Victorinus' commentary. Clearly the editor didn't think it useful to include those verses where he is just commenting on factual details of the seven churches. But judging from the rest of the verses that are included, they are clearly there.

3. Victorinus of Pettau (260)
Commentarii in Apocalypsin [Commentaries on the Apocalypse]. This commentary was written about 260 by Victorinus of Pettau (Ptuj, Yugoslavia), who died in the Diocletian persecution around 304. ANF 7:344-60. English; Iohannes Haussleiter, ed. Victorini episcopi Petavionensis opera. CSEL 49. Leipzig, 1916. Latin edition that includes Victorinus’s commentary and Jerome’s recension in parallel; Reprinted in PLS I:102-72; Martine Dulaey, ed. Victorin de Poetovio. Sur l’Apocalypse. SC 423. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1997. Latin with French translation; PL 5:317-44. Latin. In 1994, Dulaey was working on a new critical edition of the commentary for the Corpus Christianorum series. Notice of it is in the booklet “Corpus Christianorum: Volumes in Progress.” Turnhout: Brepols, 1994, 11. By January 2008, William Weinrich of the Luther Academy in Latvia had completed and submitted an English translation of Victorinus’ Apocalypse commentary to InterVarsity Press for a new series of patristic biblical commentaries in translation. This new series will differ from their Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture in that it will provide translations of entire commentaries, not simply excerpts.

Link.

In other words, it seems you are simply looking at an incomplete translation of Victorinus' commentary.

I did also manage to track down an English translation of the whole commentary (which is quite brief) and the following comment on Revelation 1:7 appears conclusive.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

7 The seven churches, each of which He calls by name, to whom the letters were composed, which are not the only or the principal churches. But what He says to one, He says to all. It makes no difference; whether a military troop of a small number of soldiers, or by it the whole army is indicated. Finally, as in Asia, so in the whole world: seven churches as all. Paul taught that the seven named are the one Catholic Church. Indeed, at first, so he might keep this (rule), he did not exceed the number of seven churches, but wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Galatians, to the Philippians, and to the Colossians. Afterwards he wrote to individual people, but did not exceed the number of seven churches, as he summarized in brief in his preaching to Timothy: so that you will know how you must behave in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God.o

I hope this helps and you are not too disappointed but the issue seems to revolve solely around incomplete information.
[/FONT]

chrysostom · Feb 28, 2014

Desert Reign said:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I hope this helps and you are not too disappointed but the issue seems to revolve solely around incomplete information.
[/FONT]

I am a little disappointed in that you completely ignore the fact that both Eusebius and Victorinus do not specifically name any of he churches that John wrote to in Revelation

can you explain this?

Desert Reign · Feb 28, 2014

chrysostom said:
I am a little disappointed in that you completely ignore the fact that both Eusebius and Victorinus do not specifically name any of he churches that John wrote to in Revelation

can you explain this?

Victorinus' reason for not mentioning the churches by name is explained by himself in the quote above. However he certainly does allude to seven names. This is logical when you think how short the overall commentary is. The specific names were just not important to him.
As to Eusebius, if you can provide a link I will have a look.

Timotheos · Feb 28, 2014

This may be off topic, but I don't think it is probable that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse of John. The book claims to have been written in Patmos, and John was in Ephesus.

I wouldn't have included it in the Canon, but I hesitate to say so now. It wasn't written by an apostle so it has no more authority than the false Apocalypse of "Peter".

chrysostom · Mar 1, 2014

Timotheos said:
This may be off topic, but I don't think it is probable that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse of John. The book claims to have been written in Patmos, and John was in Ephesus.

I wouldn't have included it in the Canon, but I hesitate to say so now. It wasn't written by an apostle so it has no more authority than the false Apocalypse of "Peter".

what if it was written by John the Baptist?

musterion · Mar 1, 2014

Don't know about the other guy but Victorinus makes some really cool knives.

resodko · Mar 26, 2015

chrysostom said:
don't want to lose this thread

:noid:

dialm · Mar 26, 2015

Tradition
Popes
Councils

In the Roman system the above were at least equal to scripture. It was up to Rome to decide what was and what was not. If you look at the first Reformer and the Pope who opposed him you might find that the two agreed that the book of Revelation was inferior, (all be it on different grounds).

chrysostom · Mar 26, 2015

dialm said:
Tradition
Popes
Councils

In the Roman system the above were at least equal to scripture. It was up to Rome to decide what was and what was not. If you look at the first Reformer and the Pope who opposed him you might find that the two agreed that the book of Revelation was inferior, (all be it on different grounds).

many do not understand it
but
are inspired by it

it could be the most significant book in the bible

Irenaeus and Victorinus

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Well-known member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

BANNED

BANNED

Well-known member