The Real Testimonium

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:22 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:22 pm
Preaching against the law is a Pauline concept transposed retroactively into the life of Jesus by Mark.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but where does Jesus preach against the law in Mark (by which I mean -and suspect you may mean- the laws of Moses)?
Preaching was the wrong term, but Mark is clearly drawing on Paul's epistles and contradicting the law as Paul would.
Mark 7:1-19 + Mark 2:23-28 are good examples where Mark takes up Paul's ideas.

Jesus is only opposed to the oral Torah of the Pharisees (i.e., "the tradition of the elders") in Mk. 7:1-19 ("So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?'"). Jesus then defends the written Torah by saying, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

If Jesus were to have nullified "the word of God" then he would be a hypocrite too, like he calls the Pharisees. Paul, on the other hand, nullified the written Torah.

The same goes for "reaping" on the Sabbath in Mk. 2:23-28. The oral Torah interpreted work very stringently and Jesus defended himself by citing the OT.

In Mark 10:1-11, Jesus also goes against the law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

In this case Jesus is presented as preferring another part of the Torah (Gen. 1:27 and 2:24) to Dt. 24:1-4, so it doesn't follow that he's nullifying the Torah, since he's using it to support his opinion. But Mark appears to have missed an important element of this issue, unlike Mt. 16:8-9:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

This is in keeping with Dt. 24:1, which says, "If a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds some indecency in her, he may write her a certificate of divorce," But the oral Torah allows divorce "for any reason," as per Mt. 16:3 ("Then some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?'"), but Jesus allowed it only for sexual immorality, which was his interpretation of "some indecency." Mark may have missed that, but in any event, Jesus uses the Torah to support his position in both cases.

It should also be noted that Jesus is pro-sacrifice in Mk. 1:40-44.


Then a leper came to Jesus, begging on his knees: “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him, and the man was cleansed.

Jesus promptly sent him away with a stern warning: “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering Moses prescribed for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”
Last edited by John2 on Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8788
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by MrMacSon »

Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:58 am
5. There was a man who was a Jew; but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same: but in all respects a wicked man. He then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity; and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem. And when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves: on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it; ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome. At which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia: but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers: on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.
It looks like Paul :shock:
Yes, it does.

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:26 pm Yes, I thought the same. Tiberius making it a little too early goes against it though. Otherwise, very close indeed!
It's a passage out of Josephus Antiquities, ie. Ant 18.3.5, published in the 90s AD/CE.

The part Sinouhe highlighted doesn't refer to Tiberius, so I'm not sure why you do
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:01 pm
Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:58 am
5. There was a man who was a Jew; but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same: but in all respects a wicked man. He then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity; and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem. And when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves: on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it; ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome. At which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia: but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers: on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.
It looks like Paul :shock:
Yes, it does.

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:26 pm Yes, I thought the same. Tiberius making it a little too early goes against it though. Otherwise, very close indeed!
It's a passage out of Josephus Antiquities, ie. Ant 18.3.5, published in the 90s AD/CE.

The part Sinouhe highlighted doesn't refer to Tiberius, so I'm not sure why you do
Probably because Josephus clearly places the events under Tiberius, as indicated by the first words just after the "highlighted" "part."
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by davidlau17 »

This is an interesting theory. Assuming you're correct that there was really only one expulsion of Jews from Rome that occurred under Tiberius (as per Cassius Dio), there certainly seem to be parallels between Ant 18.3.5 and Suetonius' Chrestus.

Btw, for those interested, here's what Cassius Dio had to say regarding the expulsion of Jews from Rome.
Roman History, Book LVII:
As the Jews flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he [Tiberius] banished most of them.

Roman History, Book LX:
As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he [Claudius] did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Sinouhe »

John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:44 pm
Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:22 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:22 pm
Preaching against the law is a Pauline concept transposed retroactively into the life of Jesus by Mark.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but where does Jesus preach against the law in Mark (by which I mean -and suspect you may mean- the laws of Moses)?
Preaching was the wrong term, but Mark is clearly drawing on Paul's epistles and contradicting the law as Paul would.
Mark 7:1-19 + Mark 2:23-28 are good examples where Mark takes up Paul's ideas.

Jesus is only opposed to the oral Torah of the Pharisees (i.e., "the tradition of the elders") in Mk. 7:1-19 ("So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?'"). Jesus then defends the written Torah by saying, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

If Jesus were to have nullified "the word of God" then he would be a hypocrite too, like he calls the Pharisees. Paul, on the other hand, nullified the written Torah.

The same goes for "reaping" on the Sabbath in Mk. 2:23-28. The oral Torah interpreted work very stringently and Jesus defended himself by citing the OT.

In Mark 10:1-11, Jesus also goes against the law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

In this case Jesus is presented as preferring another part of the Torah (Gen. 1:27 and 2:24) to Dt. 24:1-4, so it doesn't follow that he's nullifying the Torah, since he's using it to support his opinion. But Mark appears to have missed an important element of this issue, unlike Mt. 16:8-9:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

This is in keeping with Dt. 24:1, which says, "If a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds some indecency in her, he may write her a certificate of divorce," But the oral Torah allows divorce "for any reason," as per Mt. 16:3 ("Then some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?'"), but Jesus allowed it only for sexual immorality, which was his interpretation of "some indecency." Mark may have missed that, but in any event, Jesus uses the Torah to support his position in both cases.

It should also be noted that Jesus is pro-sacrifice in Mk. 1:40-44.


Then a leper came to Jesus, begging on his knees: “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him, and the man was cleansed.

Jesus promptly sent him away with a stern warning: “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering Moses prescribed for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”
Well, when i was a judaïzer, i had the same reasoning : i was trying as best I could, to claim that Jesus was a very pious and law observant Jew, by trying to harmonize the 4 Jesus of the Gospels, obviously favoring the Jesus of Matthew.
But the Jesus of Mark grants little importance to the law. It is a Pauline gospel whose main interest, (in addition to show that Jesus is the messiah), is to show that the new alliance is also intended for pagans.

It is almost universally recognized that Mark 7 begins with a dispute over rabbinical traditions but concludes more globally against dietary laws.
On the other hand it is true that Matthieu who Judaizes Marc as much as possible, corrects the shot and concludes the incident on the tradition of the elders. But that's another gospel.

The same for divorce. Mark uses Genesis to contradict a mosaic law. Genesis does not legislate about divorce, Moses does. So Jesus goes against the law of Moses which authorizes divorce with a letter of repudiation. Invoking Genesis does not prevent it from contradicting a mosaic law.

And we still have the same thing with the ears of wheat. Invoking an episode from the Old Testament (besides he makes a mistake with the high priest) does not prevent Jesus' followers from breaking the Sabbath.

By the way, i don't think theses stories are historical events.
It is more than doubtful to imagine that Pharisees are hiding in a field to watch over Jesus in the middle of the Sabbath.
The Gospel of Mark is nothing more than a succession of short theological sketches.
It reminds me the text "Life of Aesop" which stages Aesop in the same way.
It should also be noted that Jesus is pro-sacrifice in Mk. 1:40-44
Because the leper is a jew. Which is again very Pauline. Jews can practice law, Gentiles cannot. Jesus is found in pagan territory many times in Mark (the decapolis) but we never see him refer them to the law, which is obviously no coincidence.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Okay, I will review some of the evidence regarding Revelation.

We can start with the identification of Babylon in Revelation, which is clear. The Sibylline Oracles make an identification between Babylon and Rome explicit: "From heaven into the dreadful sea and burn the vast deep, and Babylon itself, and the land of Italy, because, of which there perished many holy faithful men among the Hebrews and a people true. ... Thou city of the Latin land ... And the river Tiber shall lament for thee." (Sibylline Oracles, at 5:215-230)

As I've written before, Rome as the great city Babylon mentioned in Revelation is the only hypothesis that explains all of the data in the text in a plausible manner, chiefly, (1) the description of the economic and political significance of the great city that rules over the world, (2) why the author has it out for the city, (3) indications of date of authorship during the exiles undertaken against some Jews in the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD) that bear against the pre-70 AD interpretation that is allied with understanding it as Jerusalem, (4) indications of provenance in the text that place the original Greek text in Roman Asia Minor for whom Babylon was just another dusty barbarian village, and (5) other details such as the cosmopolitan inhabitants there, the seven hills (for which Rome was famous), the fornication with client kingdoms, and the name "Babylon" itself represented as a "mystery" (not literally) that is to be understood as a reference to the one that sacked Jerusalem.

Next, we can be reasonably sure that Nero is portrayed as the beast and one of its heads. Again, we find evidence outside of Revelation for this kind of prophecy about Nero, both in non-Christian and Christian sources.

Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3 has it thus: "After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother [i.e., Nero, who killed his mother Agrippina]: who himself (even) this king. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one [i.e., Peter] will be delivered into his hands."

Sibylline Oracles, book IV, 155-165: " A mighty king [i.e., Nero] shall like a runaway slave flee over the Euphrates' stream unseen, Unknown, who shall some time dare loathsome guilt Of matricide, and many other things, Having confidence in his most wicked hands. And many for the throne [i.e., Galba, Otho, Vitellius] with blood Rome's soil while he flees over Parthian land. And out of Syria shall come Rome's foremost man [i.e., Vespasian], Who having burned the temple of Solyma, And having slaughtered many of the Jews, Shall destruction on their great broad land."

Sibylline Oracles, book V has an interest in numerology and enumerating the emperors:

[Julius Caesar] The very first lord shall be, who shall sum
Twice ten with the first letter of his name;
In wars exceeding powerful shall he be;
And he shall have the initial sign of ten;
20 [Augustus] And in like manner after him to reign
Is one who has the alphabet's first letter;
Before him Thrace and Sicily shall crouch,
Then Memphis, Memphis cast headlong to earth
By reason of the cowardice of rulers
25 And of a woman unenslaved who falls
Upon the wave. And laws will he ordain
For peoples and put all things under him;
But after a long time shall he transmit
His power unto another, who shall have
30 [Tiberius] Three hundred for his first initial sign,
And of a river the beloved name,
And the Persians he shall rule and Babylon;
And then shall he smite Medians with his spear.
[Gaius / Caligula] Then shall one rule who has the initial sign
35 Of the number three. [Claudius] And then shall be a lord
Who shall for first initial have twice ten;
And he shall come to Ocean's utmost water
And by Ausonia cleave the refluent tide.
[Nero] And one whose mark is fifty shall be lord,
40 A dreadful serpent breathing grievous war,
Who sometime stretching forth his hands shall make
An end of his own race and stir all things,
Acting the athlete, driving chariots,
Putting to death and daring countless things;
45 And he shall cleave the mountain of two seas
And sprinkle it with gore; but out of sight
Shall also vanish the destructive man;
Then, making himself equal unto God,
Shall he return; but God will prove him naught.
50 [Galba, Otho, Vitellius] And after him shall three kings be destroyed
By one another. [Vespasian] Then a great destroyer
Of pious men shall come, whom seven times ten
Shall point out clearly. But from him a son,
[Titus] Whom the first letter of three hundred proves,
55 Shall take the power. And after him shall be
[Domitian] A ruler, of the initial sign of four,
A life-destroyer. [Nerva] Then a reverend man
Of the number fifty. Next, succeeding him
[Trajan] Who has the first mark of the initial sign
60 Three hundred, shall a Celtic mountaineer,
Into the strife of battle pressing on,
Escape not fate unseemly, but shall be
Worn weary unto death; him foreign dust,
But dust that of Nemea's flower has name,
65 Shall hide a corpse. And after him shall rule
[Hadrian] Another man, with silver helmet decked;
And unto him shall be the name of a sea;
And he shall be a man the best of all
And in all things discreet. And upon thee,
70 Thou best of all, above all, dark-haired one,
And upon thy shoots shall be all these days.
[Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, and Marcus Aurelius] After him three shall rule; but the third one
Shall at a late time hold the royal power.

Sibylline Oracles, Book V, 485-493: "In the last time, at the turning of the moon, There shall be raging through the world a war And carried on with cunning, and in guile. And from the limits of the earth shall come Fleeing and pondering sharp things in his mind, 490 A matricidal man who every land Shall overpower and over all things rule, And see all things more wisely than all men."

Dio Chrysostom, a contemporary of Domitian, attests to the widespread enthusiasm for a return of Nero: "…for so far as the rest of his subjects were concerned, there was nothing to prevent his continuing to be Emperor for all time, seeing that even now everybody wishes he were still alive. And the great majority do believe that he is, although in a certain sense he has died not once but often along with those who had been firmly convinced that he was still alive." (Dio Chrysostom, On Beauty 21.10)

Philostratus writes that Apollonius of Tyana compared Nero to a beast: "Morever, in my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it h as, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. However, they say it is a civil beast, and inhabits the midst of cities; but to this extent it is more savage than the beasts of mountain fand forest, that whereas lions and panthers can sometimes by flattery be tamed and change their disposition, stroking and petting this beast does but instigate it to surpass itself in ferocity and devour at large. And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mothers, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet." (Life, IV.38)

The reference in Revelation 13:3 to "one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed" then would make sense as a reference to the Nero redivivus myth. Moreover, "Regardless of the number, Nero is the only name that can account for both 666 and 616, which is the most compelling argument that he, and not some other person, such as Caligula or Domitian, was intended." (link) In addition to the manuscript variants, both numbers are attested as early as Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V.30.1).

The references to Nero thus set a terminus a quo. The epistle attributed to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, suggests that there was no Christian community there while Paul was active: "But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him." Since Smyrna is one of the seven churches addressed by Revelation, that implies that Revelation came later. Irenaeus claims that the vision to John of Patmos was seen "almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian's reign" (Adv. Haer. 5.30.3). If the reference to seven kings refers to the emperors, starting from either Julius or from Augustus, then the sixth emperor would be Nero or Vespasian (skipping the three "rebel" emperors in the Year of the Four Emperors), and the eighth would be Domitian at the latest. Similar to what we see in the Sibylline Oracles, it's possible that the text pretends to know things in the future (by implying a false setting for the text in the past), but it's unlikely that it doesn't exploit all of its knowledge of the future sequence of emperors, making it unlikely to date after Domitian, just as the fifth book of the Sibyllines likely dates to the Antonines.

It's not completely clear to me which emperors correspond to the author's enumeration; fortunately, it's also not necessary to know. Among those who identify the heads of the beast as the emperors and who place its composition after Nero, the most common enumeration is Augustus (1st), Tiberiuis (2nd), Caligula (3rd), Claudius (4th), Nero (5th - "fallen"), Vespasian (6th - "who is"), Titus (7th - a "short time"), and Domitian (8th), where Domitian is portrayed as a sort of Nero redivivius figure (putting him in a negative light).

As compelling as that enumeration is, it's somewhat unsatisfying in its identification of Vespasian as Nero (who he clearly is not and which isn't the conventional form of the Nero redivivus myth). It's also a little bit unsatisfying in seeing Vespasian's reign as the fictive setting, which doesn't have the advantage of a pre-70 setting of allowing the author to foretell the destruction of Jerusalem (mentioned in Revelation 11:2). It's notable that Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian all took the name of "Caesar" in the year 69, simultaneously. It's also interesting that the previous emperors, from Augustus to Nero, had all been adoptive sons. Titus and Domitian are the first natural sons to become emperor. Perhaps, then, the author grouped together Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian as the seventh head of the beast, corresponding to the Flavians, who shall remain for a short time (understandably, a wish of the author, if he were suffering under Domitian). The Sibylline Oracles, similarly, name the Antonines together as one entry. This would make the enumeration of the previous six run from Julius to Nero, the one "who is" in the fictive setting of Revelation. This would allow the arrival of the revived, 8th head of the beast, Nero, to take place in the future and to be part of the upheaval at the end of time, more in accordance with the overall mythology of Nero's return.

Either way, it seems likely that the book was written while Domitian were emperor, and there are interesting connections between the actions of this emperor and the text of Revelation.

Domitian was known as the "lord of the earth":

Pergamum, much more fortunate than pine-clad Ida,
though Ida allows herself to be pleased on a cloud of holy rape —
for surely she gave the high ones him {Ganymede} upon whom always
troubled Juno looks, recoiling from his hand, refusing the nectar.
But you have the gods’ favor by your beautiful nursling {Earinus}.
You sent to Italy a minister {Earinus} whom with kindly brow
Ausonian Jupiter {Domitian} and Roman Juno {Domitian’s wife} alike
view and both approve. Not without the will
of the gods is the lord of earth {Domitian} so well pleased.

{ Pergame, pinifera multum felicior Ida,
illa licet sacrae placeat sibi nube rapinae
(nempe dedit superis illum quem turbida semper
Iuno videt refugitque manum nectarque recusat),
at tu grata deis pulchroque insignis alumno
misisti Latio placida quem fronte ministrum
Iuppiter Ausonius pariter Romanaque Iuno
aspiciunt et uterque probant, nec tanta potenti
terrarum domino divum sine mente voluptas. } (Statius, Thebaid, 3.4.17-20)

Martial addressed him likewise:

If you regard, Caesar, the desire of the People and Senators
And the true joys of the Latin toga,
Return their god when their prayers demand it. Rome envies
Her own enemy, although many laurels come:
That barbarian sees the lord of the earth nearer, and
He both fears and enjoys your visage.

si desiderium, Caesar, populique patrumque
respicis et Latiae gaudia vera togae,
redde deum votis poscentibus. invidet hosti
Roma suo, veniat laurea multa licet:
terrarum dominum propius videt ille, tuoque
terretur vultu barbarus et fruitur. (7.5)


My book, as you are about to enter the laurel-wreathed palace of the lord of the world [terrarum domino], learn to speak with modesty, and in a reverent tone. Retire, unblushing Venus; this book is not for you. Come you to me, Pallas, you whom Caesar adores.


A gentle dove, eliding down through the silent air, settled in the very lap of Aretulla as she was sitting. This might have seemed the mere sport of chance, had it not rested there, although undetained, and refused to depart, even when the liberty of flight was granted it. If it is permitted to the affectionate sister to hope for better things, and if prayers can avail to move the lord of the world [dominum mundi], this bird is perhaps come to you from the dwelling of the exile in Sardinia, to announce the speedy return of your brother.

Domitian of course wasn't the first emperor to be addressed as the "lord of the earth." Ovid earlier addressed Augustus in the same way:
Parce, precor, saecli decus indelebile nostri, terrarum dominum quem sua cura facit. - Epistulae ex Ponto

Pray pardon, Oh everlastingly honour of our age, whose zeal has made him lord of the earth.
According to Suetonius, Domitian was especially keen on being addressed by the titles of "Lord" and "God" (Domitian 13):
With no less arrogance he began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, "Our Lord and our God bids that this be done." And so the custom arose of henceforth addressing him in no other way even in writing or in conversation.

Pari arrogantia, cum procuratorum suorum nomine formalem dictaret epistulam, sic coepit: "Dominus et deus noster hoc fieri iubet." Vnde institutum posthac, ut ne scripto quidem ac sermone cuiusquam appellaretur aliter.
Martial and Statius show that they could alternately address him as "Lord of the Earth" and "God," not only with a fixed phrase of "Lord and God." Dio Cassius likewise writes:
For he even insisted upon being regarded as a god and took vast pride in being called "lord" and "god." These titles were used not merely in speech but also in written documents. (67.4.7)
And Dio Cassius informs us that Domitian:
received the privilege of employing twenty-four lictors (67.4.3)
This was a new honor that Domitian accorded to himself, as his predecessors had twelve lictors.

Accordingly, it seems like the reference in Revelation 4:10-11 functions as a reference to the new honors given to Domitian, which don't belong to him: "the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: 'You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.'" (Rev 4:10-11)

The text implies the identification of Babylon as Rome (as both destroyed Jerusalem).

References to “the great city” are:

(1) Rev. 11:8. And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

(2) Rev. 16:19. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and Babylon the great was remembered in the sight of God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

(3) Rev. 17:18. And the woman [Babylon] whom thou sawest is the great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

(4) Rev. 18:9-10. And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and lived wantonly with her, shall weep and wail over her, when they look upon the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

(5) Rev. 18:16. saying, Woe, woe, the great city, she that was arrayed in fine linen and purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearl!

(6) Rev. 18:18. and cried out as they looked upon the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like the great city?

(7) Rev. 18:19. And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, wherein all that had their ships in the sea were made rich by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

(8) Rev. 18:21. And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.

All the other references are easily understood as Babylon, a cipher for Rome, but the first one gives us trouble. Here is the surrounding passage (ASV):

“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and one said, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. And the court which is without the temple leave without, and measure it not; for it hath been given unto the nations: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the earth. And if any man desireth to hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth and devoureth their enemies; and if any man shall desire to hurt them, in this manner must he be killed. These have the power to shut the heaven, that it rain not during the days of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they shall desire. And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that cometh up out of the abyss shall make war with them, and overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. And from among the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations do men look upon their dead bodies three days and a half, and suffer not their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. And they that dwell on the earth rejoice over them, and make merry; and they shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwell on the earth. And after the three days and a half the breath of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them that beheld them. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they went up into heaven in the cloud; and their enemies beheld them. And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell; and there were killed in the earthquake seven thousand persons: and the rest were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.”

As with the phrase “the great city,” that other phrase “the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations” (which in our passage refers to people that dwell on earth and would rejoice over the death of the witnesses), when read with cognate expressions elsewhere in Revelation, favors reading the reference as Rome. Here is a later reference to the beast:

“and it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and there was given to him authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him” (Rev. 13:7-8)

Here also is a reference to Babylon (Rome):

“And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot [Babylon] sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.” (Rev. 17:15)

This kind of phrase is also found in several references to heaven, where the New Jerusalem is. Here you see a parallel being developed, between Babylon (Rome) where people who dwell on earth worship the beast and New Jerusalem where people who are in heaven worship the Lord of lords. All “the peoples and multitude and nations and tongues” are found in both the earthly Rome and in the heavenly New Jerusalem, according to their allegiances.

That Jerusalem was figuratively called Sodom in the scriptures is true, but that it was called Egypt isn’t quite as clear (despite the reference to receiving plagues like those delivered unto Egypt). The presence of Egypt alerts us to different possibilities behind this figurative reference. Egypt held Israel in captivity, just as Babylon did. Israel, obviously, could not hold itself in captivity. The great city elsewhere identified as Babylon is here figuratively identified as Egypt and Sodom. We can easily suppose that the third cipher Sodom, a place that did not hold Israel captive, may just refer to the great wickedness of Rome (Babylon), which is frequently attested in the text of Revelation itself.

There is no polemic elsewhere against Jerusalem, the name of the heavenly and holy city, which is one more reason for seeing Rome here.

One really decisive piece of evidence, moreover, is that the “holy city” of Jerusalem on earth had been already destroyed and trampled under foot, something the author understood in his historical situation and explicitly mentions as belonging to a prior event in this passage (Revelation 11:2). It hardly merits a description later in the same passage, presumably still regarding the city in which the two witnesses were lying dead in the street, that “the tenth part of the city fell” after the entire holy city had been sacked and trampled under foot (unless, of course, we read “the great city” in this passage as being distinct from “the holy city” Jerusalem).

To all that has been said, we can add the evidence adduced above that the emperor was regarded as the "lord of the earth," mentioned in Revelation 11:4 (a contrast to the "God of heaven" in Revelation 11:13). It is common knowledge that the emperor ruled from Rome, so the "two witnesses," who "stand before the Lord of the earth" (Revelation 11:4) and who are protected by breathing fire, can be determined to be testifying in the heart of the unbelievers' empire, in the city of Rome.

The evidence thus points to the holy city being Jerusalem and to the great city being Rome, including this reference in Revelation 11:8.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:56 pm I think the great city in this context has to be Jerusalem, since it is where Jesus was crucified
In the context of this thread, this is petitio principii.

We're considering the alternative that he left Palestine and was active in Rome, like the figure described in Josephus and Suetonius.
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:56 pmand it is the setting at the beginning of the chapter.
There are three locations being described here. First, there is the "temple of God," which belongs to the New Jerusalem, which is part of John's vision.

Second, there is the "courtyard outside the temple" in the "holy city," which is trampled by the nations, corresponding to the events of the First Jewish War (66-73).

Third, there are the "two witnesses" who stand to testify before the "lord of the earth," who is the emperor (who is in Rome), where "some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial" and "inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them." The "holy city" (Revelation 11:2) had already been trampled previously by the nations. Now this "great city" (Revelation 11:8) suffers an earthquake, where "a tenth of the city collapsed" (Revelation 11:13) and seven thousand die. This is not entirely consistent with a city that had already been trampled by the nations, but it is entirely consistent with the damage being to a different city, the great city where people from every tribe, language, and nation gather (again, of course, Rome).
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:56 pm
I sent plagues among you like those of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, along with your captured horses. I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camp, yet you did not return to Me,” declares the Lord.
This compares the plagues to those of Egypt. Neither Israel nor Jerusalem could really be like Egypt, because they could not hold Israel in captivity, the way Egypt did. Only another nation could. In the Bible, the nations that held Israel in captivity were Egypt and Babylon. The current nation holding Israel in captivity, in the writer's time, were the Romans. Their great city is figuratively called Egypt and Babylon because of what they have done to the Jewish people.
And the "two witnesses" and olive trees in Rev. 11:4 are like the two anointed ones in Zechariah 4:8=11 who are mentioned in the context of Jerusalem.
They're mentioned in the context of a vision, and there is no specific location associated with the objects of the vision (Zechariah 4:1-3).

Then the angel who talked with me returned and woke me up, like someone awakened from sleep. 2 He asked me, “What do you see?” I answered, “I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lamps on it, with seven channels to the lamps. 3 Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.”

The reference to "the seven eyes of the Lord that range throughout the earth" (Zechariah 4:10) don't place the figurative lampstand in the Jerusalem temple or any particular earthly location, even if they "rejoice when they see the chosen capstone in the hand of Zerubbabel." Neither are the "two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth" (the olive trees) associated with Jerusalem. If anything, the location for all of these things in the vision is heaven. The two olive trees are frequently identified with Enoch and Elijah, who were believed to have been translated to heaven. Whatever the particular identification of the two olive trees, the vision of the lampstand in Zechariah is figurative of God and "the seven eyes of the Lord that range throughout the earth," so the overall vision doesn't have any specific earthly location given.
I don't think it matters if Rome (or Babylon) is called a "great city" elsewhere in Revelation, since there can be more than one great city in the world
This isn't the only evidence available, but, actually, yes, the author is, remarkably, 100% consistent. Babylon/Rome is consistently the great city. Meanwhile, Jerusalem is consistently the holy city. The only place where an exception is pleaded is in this passage.
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:56 pmand in this case the city is described as being "where their Lord was also crucified," which by every account I am aware of was Jerusalem, and it just seems like the simplest and best interpretation to me.
That's just it, then, isn't it? Many interpreters feel constrained by this assumption.

It is indeed remarkable how mainstream the Rome interpretation is among scholars, even those who believe the Gospel story, attesting to the fact that it is by far the stronger argument on its merits.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

It may be helpful for me to quote the passages that I previously just referenced, for easier review in this thread.

Here is Antiquities 18.3.5:
There was a man who was a Jew; but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same: but in all respects a wicked man. He then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity; and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem. And when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves: on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it; ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome. At which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia: but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers: on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.
The references:
There are several interesting parallels between the "man who was a Jew" and the NT figure (Chrestus / Christ):

(1) "an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws" (Mark 2:24, Mark 14:58, Mark 15:3, John 19:7)
(2) "by the fear he was under of punishment for the same" (Mark 3:6 and the opposite of Mark 14:49 where Jesus submits)
(3) "living at Rome" (Revelation 11:8, Suetonius' Claudius 25, Acts 18:2)
(4) "professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses" (Mark 7:10, Mark 10:3, Mark 12:19, John 5:46, 1 Cor 7:10)
(5) "in all respects a wicked man" (Mark 2:16, Mark 3:22, Mark 7:5, Luke 7:34, John 10:20, John 10:33)
(6) "procured also three other men" (Mark 1:16-20, Mark 5:37, Mark 9:2, Mark 14:33, Gal 2:9)
(7) "to send purple and gold ... to ... Jerusalem ... spent the money themselves" (1 Cor 16:3, 2 Cor 8:10, 2 Cor 9:2, Rom 15:26, Gal 2:9-10)
Here are the passages referenced:

(1) "an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws"

The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” (Mark 2:24)

“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:58)

And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” (Mark 15:2-4)

The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

(2) "by the fear he was under of punishment for the same"

Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. (Mark 3:6)

"Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." (Mark 14:49 - instead of attempting to escape, Jesus willingly submits, something predicted three times previously in Mark)

(3) "living at Rome"

"Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city--which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt--where also their Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8)

"He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus." (Suetonius, Claudius 25)

"There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome." (Acts 18:2)

"He distributed the Jewish youths, under the pretence of military service, among the provinces noted for an unhealthy climate; and dismissed from the city all the rest of that nation as well as those who were proselytes to that religion, under pain of slavery for life, unless they complied." (Suetonius, Tiberius 36)

"There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites." (Tacitus, Annals 2.85)

"As the Jews flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he [Tiberius] banished most of them." (Dio Cassius, 57.18.5)

"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city [Rome], he [Claudius] did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." (Dio Cassius, 60.6.6-7)

(4) "professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses"

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)[d]— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." (Mark 7:10-13)

“What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:3-12)

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:18-27)

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (John 5:46)

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

(5) "in all respects a wicked man"

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (Mark 2:16)

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” (Mark 3:22)

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” (Mark 7:5)

The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Luke 7:34)

Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?” (John 10:20)

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:33)

(6) "procured also three other men"

As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him. When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him. (Mark 1:16-20)

He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. (Mark 5:37)

After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. (Mark 9:2)

He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. (Mark 14:33)

James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:9)

(7) "to send purple and gold ... to ... Jerusalem ... spent the money themselves"

Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Corinthians 16:3)

And here is my judgment about what is best for you in this matter. Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. (2 Corinthians 8:10)

For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action. (2 Corinthians 9:2)

For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. (Romans 15:26)

James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. (Galatians 2:9-10)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

There is an additional notice about the expulsion of the Jews under Tiberius that I didn't see before:

"There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites." (Tacitus, Annals 2.85)

If this is at the same time as the other senate action in Annals 2.85, which was in "the same year" as the death of Germanicus, it was in the year 19. See here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D85

Josephus and Tacitus may give implicit witness in favor of Dio Cassius by recording an expulsion under Tiberius without any known reference to one under Claudius.

Unlike all the rest, Tacitus implies that the Senate made the decision, leaving out mention of the emperor Tiberius.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:09 am (2) "by the fear he was under of punishment for the same"

Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. (Mark 3:6)

"Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." (Mark 14:49 - instead of attempting to escape, Jesus willingly submits, something predicted three times previously in Mark)
In the Gospel of John, Jesus withdrew from moving around publicly in Judea, in order to avoid (or at least delay) his capture and execution.

John 11:45-57

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

55 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56 They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they asked one another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the festival at all?” 57 But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was should report it so that they might arrest him.

Post Reply