Again, I would advise you to read Edmundson before deciding that Edmundson is wrong.
Irenaeus' work is not extant in the original Greek. The version you link to is largely translated from the Latin. The translation of the text you gave is according to the Greek, because the Greek is used where it is extant (the Latin is used where it isn't). The Greek is extant at this point because it is preserved as a quotation in Eusebius. The Latin cannot mean 'the apocalypse was seen'. The Greek is ambiguous, and Edmundson explains why it is a mistake to understand the subject as the apocalypse. Right now you don't really understand his position, and that is not a good foundation to reject it. But if you are satisfied to reject it without reading/understanding it, that is your prerogative. I'm just pointing out where the argument can be found.
Irenaeus' work is not extant in the original Greek. The version you link to is largely translated from the Latin. The translation of the text you gave is according to the Greek, because the Greek is used where it is extant (the Latin is used where it isn't). The Greek is extant at this point because it is preserved as a quotation in Eusebius. The Latin cannot mean 'the apocalypse was seen'. The Greek is ambiguous, and Edmundson explains why it is a mistake to understand the subject as the apocalypse. Right now you don't really understand his position, and that is not a good foundation to reject it. But if you are satisfied to reject it without reading/understanding it, that is your prerogative. I'm just pointing out where the argument can be found.
Upvote
0