Two Witnesses

[Kris]

Who were the two witnesses in Revelation? Did they exist back in the 1st century-- and if so, who were they?

[Stuart]

I presume you are referring to Revelation 11:1-14, an d the mention in verse 11:3 of two witnesses (by the voice from heaven)

And I will grant (δώσω) my two witnesses (δυσὶν μάρτυσίν μου) ...

Well to start this, let's look at Wikipedia, that sometimes accurate, sometimes randoms source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_witnesses

Since we tend to prefer the earliest Christian understanding to give us a guidepost we see this comment in Wiki

Early Christians, such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus of Rome, have concluded that the two witnesses would be Enoch and Elijah, prophets who did not die because God "took" them according to other Biblical passages.

These are our earliest Patristic sources, Irenaeus is reputedly in the reign of Commodus, but I think a bit later - let's say the end of the 2nd century; Tertullian from the reign of Severus, the first decade and a half of the 3rd century; Hippolytus from maybe a decade after Tertullian, although the cited work is considered spurious and likely much later. These speculations are then a hundred years or so before the Nicene counsel.

What is striking is they are based on Jewish myth surrounding Enoch and Elijah having ascended ("walked") without dying.

Here is the Hippolytus (considered dubious, could be 4th or 5th century) comment from Fragment from chapter 43 of the Dogmatical and Historical:

... Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, “And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.”(Daniel 9:27) By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1, 260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations.

Tertullian from Treatise on the Soul (de Anima) Chapter 49

Enoch no doubt was translated,(Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5) and so was Elijah;(2 Kings 2:11) nor did they experience death: it was postponed, (and only postponed, ) most certainly: they are reserved for the suffering of death, that by their blood they may extinguish Antichrist. (Revelation 11:3)

the Latin

Translatus est Enoch et Helias nec mors eorum reperta est, dilata scilicet; ceterum morituri reseruantur, ut antichristum sanguine suo extinguant

Translatus here is probably best translated "carried off" or "transferred" from one state to another.

I could not find the Irenaeus passage. But e-Cantena lists the following who also name Elias/Elijah and Enoch as the two:

The History of Joseph the Carpenter (6th or 7th century Greek, that only survives in Coptic and Arabic)
Gospel of Nicodemus: The Descent of Christ into Hell Gospel (aka Acts of Pilate; a middle ages work, might trace back into the 4th or 5th century)
The Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli, identifies Enoch anyway. This is derivative work, estimated to be from mid-3rd to turn of 5th century in origin, later date more likely IMO, too many elements fit post Decian era)

The presumption of 1st century origin is dubious. Revelation is very much a composite construction (multiple authors) and not a unity. Some chapters are written by very different authors. I'm of the camp the first layers were Jewish, and later layers were Christian. But that is neither here nor there.

The early interpretation definitely points to Enoch and Elijah. But that may or may not have been who the author had in mind.The immediate setting of the chapter appears to be during Jewish War the (42) months prior Jerusalem being sacked. Verse 11:8 seems to point to a tradition of Christ being crucified in Rome, which is interesting. Verse 11:12 however calls the two back into heaven, which supports the Enoch and Elijah concept.

(note 11:8 Christ crucified in Rome is almost as interesting as the celestial birth of Christ 12:1-6, during those 42 months; some screwy different theology going on there)

Good topic.

[Kris]

Thank you for your response. You provided some very good information. It seems like Enoch and Elijah being the two witnesses would inculcate that th writers expected this to happen in the future. For those that believe that Revelation was about the Roman destruction during Neros time, I wonder who the two witnesses might have been?

[Charles Wilson]

For those that believe that Revelation was about the Roman destruction during Neros time, I wonder who the two witnesses might have been?

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 7, 4:

"But some time afterward Cesar, when he had taken Rome, and after Pompey and the senate were fled beyond the Ionian Sea, freed Aristobulus from his bonds, and resolved to send him into Syria, and delivered two legions to him, that he might set matters right, as being a potent man in that country. But Aristobulus had no enjoyment of what he hoped for from the power that was given him by Cesar; for those of Pompey's party prevented it, and destroyed him by poison; and those of Caesar's party buried him. His dead body also lay, for a good while, embalmed in honey, till Antony afterward sent it to Judea, and caused him to be buried in the royal sepulcher. But Scipio, upon Pompey's sending to him to slay Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, because the young man was accused of what offenses he had been guilty of at first against the Romans, cut off his head; and thus did he die at Antioch..."

That would be Aristobulus 2 and Alexander. Ari 2 is embalmed in honey and if you note carefully the surrounding section in Revelation, you will see that there are other references to honey and the effects of a poisoned honey.
Pompey had battles with Mithridates and suffered a tremendous loss to Mithridates when the Romans faced a retreating Parthian Group which left behind poisonous Rhododendron honey. The Romans ate the honey and then faced counterattack from Mithridates and his troops.

That's my candidate story...

CW

[iskander]

For those that believe that Revelation was about the Roman destruction during Neros time, I wonder who the two witnesses might have been?

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 7, 4:

"But some time afterward Cesar, when he had taken Rome, and after Pompey and the senate were fled beyond the Ionian Sea, freed Aristobulus from his bonds, and resolved to send him into Syria, and delivered two legions to him, that he might set matters right, as being a potent man in that country. But Aristobulus had no enjoyment of what he hoped for from the power that was given him by Cesar; for those of Pompey's party prevented it, and destroyed him by poison; and those of Caesar's party buried him. His dead body also lay, for a good while, embalmed in honey, till Antony afterward sent it to Judea, and caused him to be buried in the royal sepulcher. But Scipio, upon Pompey's sending to him to slay Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, because the young man was accused of what offenses he had been guilty of at first against the Romans, cut off his head; and thus did he die at Antioch..."

That would be Aristobulus 2 and Alexander. Ari 2 is embalmed in honey and if you note carefully the surrounding section in Revelation, you will see that there are other references to honey and the effects of a poisoned honey.
Pompey had battles with Mithridates and suffered a tremendous loss to Mithridates when the Romans faced a retreating Parthian Group which left behind poisonous Rhododendron honey. The Romans ate the honey and then faced counterattack from Mithridates and his troops.

That's my candidate story...

CW

And a good story it is. Mine is Peter and Paul

[iskander]

Perhaps it means any two witnesses as i 2 Cor 13:1
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established

[toejam]

Catherine A. Cory suggests Elijah and Moses:

Although they are unnamed in the book of Revelation, these two witnesses appear to have connections to Elijah and Moses because of the things they are able to do to those who harm them (11:5-6). In the Old Testament stories Moses is identified with the plagues of the Exodus, especially changing water to blood (Exod 7:14-25). Elijah was said to have words like fire (Sir 48:1) and the ability to close up the heavens so that it would not rain (1 Kgs 17:1). According to the prophet Malachi, Elijah was expected to return to preach repentance before the end-time Day of Judgement (Mal 3:23-24). Deuteronomy 18:15-22 describes God's promise to raise up a prophet like Moses from among the people. Therefore the original readers of the book of Revelation would have readily recognized the connections that John was making between the witnesses in his vision and Moses and Elijah.

- Catherine A. Cory, in 'New Collegeville Commentary on the New Testament', p.858

[Giuseppe]

Bar Kokhba and his high priest, according to T. Witulski.

[FransJVermeiren]

Who were the two witnesses in Revelation? Did they exist back in the 1st century-- and if so, who were they?

They existed in the 1st century CE. Correction: He existed in the first century CE. The writers of the early Christian texts used all kinds of techniques to obscure the real course of events. Here 'one man with two functions' (royal and priestly messiah) has been changed into 'two men'. This one man is Jesus, who was active during the war (42 months - verse 2). The war circumstances are described in verses 7 to 10. Verse 11-12 describe Jesus' resurrection (survival) during the destruction of Jerusalem in the summer of 70 CE.

[DCHindley]

As far back as 1920 R H Charles, better known for his work on the Apocrypha and Jewish Pseudepigrapha (APOT, 2 vols, 1911), contributed two volumes on the Revelation for the International Critical Commentary series.

In it, when discussing the segment 11:3-13, where the two witnesses play their role, he discusses early Christian commentaries by Tertullian & Hippolytus of Rome, who considered these two to be Enoch and Elijah. He then notes some features of the narrative that identify the two as Moses & Elijah, the two who were seen by the disciples during the transfiguration.

He acknowledges that some think Enoch & Elijah are the older, and original, referents in the source used by the editor of Revelation, but he disagrees and thinks the original meant Moses & Elijah. He again acknowledges that it is possible that the editor of this passage may have thought his source referred of Enoch & Elijah, so he gives his reasons for thinking that the editor also had Moses & Elijah in mind.

When I get a chance to make corrections to the OCR scan of this part of the commentary, I'll post it here.

DCH