Klewis --
You have some good insights. That is, where you agree with me, I think you are correct
klewis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:18 amFirst, the book of Revelation was written after 70 CE... decades after the destruction of Jerusalem while depicting its writing prior to its destruction (see Rev 10:1-11).
I believe you are correct here. The problem is in the Source Texts and the rewrite in the Domitian and early Post-Domitian Court. See below.
The entry of the beast narratives come from Daniel, and was the last text added to Revelation.
You may be correct here and the reason appears to be that the Original is describing Jannaeus and his fight against Demetrius Eucerus, a Greek General. I believe that Demetrius sacrificed on the Altar at Gerizim, in parallel to descriptions in Daniel (Let the reader note this.).
The person, that John is describing as the beast is Domitian.
Very, very good!
Domitian is the only one that would fit that context. Vespasian when he became emperor, he made his two sons co-emperors. When he died, Titus became emperor for a little while, 2 years, and then Domitian became emperor again.
Right. On. Target.
Now to the question that you are asking. Lots of passages that are claimed as history in Revelation is actually quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Or from materials that found their way to Rome after the destruction of the Temple. Rewrites of Jannaeus and the Hasmoneans and Mishmarot.
However, it is my belief that John was predicting the end of the world at 105 CE and the 10 days of being imprisoned was 10 years from 96 CE to 105 CE.
We're not too far off. The Roman part comes after the death of Domitian AND after the death of Verginius Rufus. Pliny the Y and Tacitus spoke at his funeral and they had a hand in the creation of, for example, the Empty Tomb [written around the "Empty Tomb" stories of Otho dying at Brixellum and Verginius Rufus leaving out the back door as he is about to be proclaimed Emperor by his troops - Edit]. I have Mark at about 110 and the organization of the NT falls into place at about this time. The rewrite of the Jannaeus/Hasmonean Story would be appropriate for these few years.
I will have to get back on the source for 11:8.
I have this as the deaths of Aristobulus 2 and his son Alexander:
Josephus, Ant..., 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..."
Note the odd wording here, that Ari was buried by those of Caesar's party and yet his body also lay embalmed in honey. Curious.
Ari is preserved in honey to provide the main Motif for the Story
Sorry, I hope this was at least a good start.
No apology needed!
Best,
CW