Posted 26 December 2004 - 05:57 AM
If the Praeterist interpretation were true, then we would expect to find that the earliest expositors of these prophecies understood them as the Praeterist does. We would expect to find that the earlier the commentator, the more Praeterist would be his view.
We would expect to find clear evidence that these prophecies were first understood according to a Praeterist interpretation, and that the later commentaries would become increasingly less Praeterist, as a result of later expositors living in an environment increasingly removed from the original context in which the prophecies were intended to be read.
But in fact, what we find is the complete opposite. We find that the earliest expositors and commentaries do not reflect the Praeterist position. They reflect the Historicist position. Not only that, but we find that it is the Praeterist view which emerges very late, not the Historicist position.
In fact, we find that modern Praeterists are compelled to appeal to expositors and commentaries which were written centuries after the earliest Christian commentaries, and we find also that a complete Praeterist exposition does not appear until the late 16th century.
This is the absolute opposite of what the Praeterist insists we should find, and it is encumbent upon the Praeterist to explain this anomaly in his claims.