The Real Testimonium

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
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)
Jesus also avoids an attempt on his life in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 4:28-30

On hearing this, all the people in the synagogue were enraged. They got up, drove Him out of the town, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw Him over the cliff. But Jesus passed through the crowd and went on His way.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Philo speaks of the treatment of the Jews by the emperors obliquely, and with evident purpose and bias, so as to make it almost impossible to understand without reference to the other sources on the matter, despite Philo's proximity in time. It seems a matter of strategy for Philo not to remark openly on the expulsion of the Jews under Tiberius, instead designing a narrative according to which the allegations against the Jews in Rome came from another man during the reign of Tiberius, namely Sejanus. Thus, Philo indirectly confirms that something happened to the Jews in Rome under Tiberius, while (apparently) refusing to say much about its true nature and motivations.

But he [i.e., Augustus Caesar] never removed them from Rome, nor did he ever deprive them of their rights as Roman citizens, because he had a regard for Judaea, nor did he never meditate any new steps of innovation or rigour with respect to their synagogues, nor did he forbid their assembling for the interpretation of the law, nor did he make any opposition to their offerings of first fruits; but he behaved with such piety towards our countrymen, and with respect to all our customs, that he, I may almost say, with all his house, adorned our temple with many costly and magnificent offerings, commanding that continued sacrifices of whole burnt offerings should be offered up for ever and ever every day from his own revenues, as a first fruit of his own to the most high God, which sacrifices are performed to this very day, and will be performed for ever, as a proof and specimen of a truly imperial disposition. (158) Moreover, in the monthly divisions of the country, when the whole people receives money or corn in turn, he never allowed the Jews to fall short in their reception of this favour, but even if it happened that this distribution fell on the day of their sacred sabbath, on which day it is not lawful for them to receive any thing, or to give any thing, or in short to perform any of the ordinary duties of life, he charged the dispenser of these gifts, and gave him the most careful and special injunctions to make the distribution to the Jews on the day following, that they might not lose the effects of his common kindness.

XXIV. (159) Therefore, all people in every country, even if they were not naturally well inclined towards the Jewish nation, took great care not to violate or attack any of the Jewish customs of laws. And in the reign of Tiberius things went on in the same manner, although at that time things in Italy were thrown into a great deal of confusion when Sejanus was preparing to make his attempt against our nation; (160) for he knew immediately after his death that the accusations which had been brought against the Jews who were dwelling in Rome were false calumnies, inventions of Sejanus, who was desirous to destroy our nation...

Despite the attempt of Philo to say that Tiberius continued the policy of Augustus, the line about Augustus that the Jews were "never removed from Rome" under his reign suggests that there was at least a proposal that they would be removed under another reign (or, indeed, just such an expulsion from Rome). The action performed under Tiberius would fit the bill. Philo is writing in the time of Gaius (Caligiula), before the emperor Claudius, so it couldn't be a reference to an expulsion under Claudius.

The account of Tacitus shows that the expulsion could be described without implicating the emperor (instead of the Senate), so Philo's account isn't necessarily mendacious. It may be merely tendentious.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Babylonian Talmud, 31a tells how Hillel accepted heathens as proselytes:

https://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_31.html
Our Rabbis taught: A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, 'How many Toroth6 have you?' 'Two,' he replied: 'the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.'7 'I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].8 [But] he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth;9 the following day he reversed [them] to him. 'But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,' he protested. 'Must you then not rely upon me?10 Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too.'11

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen was passing behind a Beth Hamidrash, when he heard the voice of a teacher14 reciting, And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod.15 Said he, 'For whom are these?' 'For the High Priest,' he was told. Then said that heathen to himself, 'I will go and become a proselyte, that I may be appointed a High Priest.' So he went before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte on condition that you appoint me a High Priest.' But he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. He then went before Hillel, who made him a proselyte. Said he to him, 'Can any man be made a king but he who knows the arts of government? Do you go and study the arts of government!'16 He went and read. When he came to, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death,17 he asked him, 'To whom does this verse apply?' 'Even to David King, of Israel,' was the answer. Thereupon that proselyte reasoned within himself a fortiori: if Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent,18 and who in His love for them He designated them, Israel is my son, my firstborn,19 yet it is written of them, 'and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death': how much more so a mere proselyte, who comes with his staff and wallet! Then he went before Shammai and said to him. 'Am I then eligible to be a High Priest; is it not written in the Torah, 'and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death?' He went before Hillel and said to him, 'O gentle Hillel; blessings rest on thy head for bringing me under the wings of the Shechinah!'20 Some time later the three met in one place; said they, Shammai's impatience sought to drive us from the world, but Hillel's gentleness brought us under the wings of the Shechinah.21

Traditionally Hillel is said to have been active for forty years, starting 100 years before the destruction of the temple (about 30 BCE to 10 CE), which may be regarded as approximately correct. So Hillel was slightly before the time of the Christians.

Hillel is attributed with a number of sayings, not unlike the figure of Jesus.

"What is unpleasant to thyself that do not to thy neighbour; this is the whole Law, all else is but its exposition." (above)

"If I am not for myself, who is for me ? And if I am for myself alone, what then am I ? And if not now, then when ?" (Aboth, i. 14)

"Separate not thyself from the congregation" (Aboth. ii. 4)

"Appear neither naked nor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping" (Tosef. Ber. c. ii.).

"Judge not thy neighbour until thou art in his place" (Aboth, ii. 4)

"He who wishes to make a name for himself loses his name; he who does not increase [his knowledge] decreases it; he who does not learn is worthy of death; he who works for the sake of a crown is lost" (Aboth, i. 13)

"He who occupies himself much with learning makes his life" (Aboth. ii. 7)

"He who has acquired the words of doctrine has acquired the life of the world to come" (Aboth. ii. 7)

"Say not: When I am free from other occupations I shall study; for may be thou shalt never at all be free" (Aboth. ii. 4)

"The uncultivated man is not innocent; the ignorant man is not devout; the bashful man learns not; the wrathful man teaches not; he who is much absorbed in trade cannot become wise; where no men are, there strive thyself to be a man" (Aboth. ii. 5)

"Be like the students of Aaron. Love peace and pursue peace. Love humanity and bring them close to Torah." (Pirkei Avot 1:12)

Yevamot 46b implies that proselytes (at least, if they were men) were expected to be circumcised and given a sort of baptism:

Rabbah stated: It happened at the court of R. Hiyya b. Rabbi — (and R. Joseph taught: R. Oshaia b. Rabbi; and R. Safra taught: R. Oshaia b. Hiyya) — that there came before him a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not performed the ablution. The Rabbi told him, ‘Wait here until tomorrow when we shall arrange for your ablution’. From this incident three rulings may be deduced. It may be inferred that the initiation of a proselyte requires the presence of three men; and it may be inferred that a man is not a proper proselyte unless he had been circumcised and had also performed the prescribed ablution; and it may also be inferred that the ablution of a proselyte may not take place during the night.

This is all of interest here, due to the references regarding the expulsion under Tiberius that mention Jewish proselyte activity in Rome as a cause and also because of the statement of Josephus that the Jew who escaped to Rome was interpreting the law of Moses, if perhaps at variance with the way that others were interpreting it.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Tacitus at once shows why proselytes were disliked by Romans and that this dislike extended to their tribute for Jerusalem (Histories 5):

(4) To ensure his future hold over the people, Moses introduced a new cult, which was the opposite of all other religions. All that we hold sacred they held profane, and allowed practices which we abominate. ...

(5) Whatever their origin, these rites are sanctioned by their antiquity. Their other customs are impious and abominable, and owe their prevalence to their depravity. For all the most worthless rascals, renouncing their national cults, were always sending money to swell the sum of offerings and tribute. This is one cause of Jewish prosperity. Another is that they are obstinately loyal to each other, and always ready to show compassion, whereas they feel nothing but hatred and enmity for the rest of the world. They eat and sleep separately. Though immoderate in sexual indulgence, they refrain from all intercourse with foreign women: among themselves anything is allowed. They have introduced circumcision to distinguish themselves from other people. Those who are converted to their customs adopt the same practice, and the first lessons they learn are to despise the gods, to renounce their country, and to think nothing of their parents, children, and brethren. However, they take steps to increase their numbers. They count it a crime to kill any of their later-born children, and they believe that the souls of those who die in battle or under persecution are immortal. Thus they think much of having children and nothing of facing death. ...

Josephus indicates that the wealth being sent to Jerusalem was well known and required an escort to protect it, in passage from Parthia (Ant. 18.9.1):

For which reason the Jews, depending on the natural strength of these places, deposited in them that half shekel which every one, by the custom of our country, offers unto God, as well as they did other things devoted to him; for they made use of these cities as a treasury, whence, at a proper time, they were transmitted to Jerusalem; and many ten thousand men undertook the carriage of those donations, out of fear of the ravages of the Parthians, to whom the Babylonians were then subject.

As Cicero mentions, Flaccus had instituted monetary controls and, considering it a violation of them, seized the temple tax sent from Roman Asia (For Flaccus, 67-69):

As gold, under pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that it should not be lawful for gold to be exported out of Asia. And who is there, O judges, who cannot honestly praise this measure? The senate had often decided, and when I was consul it came to a most solemn resolution that gold ought not to be exported. But to resist this barbarous superstition were an act of dignity, to despise the multitude of Jews, which at times was most unruly in the assemblies in defence of the interests of the republic, was an act of the greatest wisdom. “But Cnaeus Pompeius, after he had taken Jerusalem, though he was a conqueror, touched nothing which was in that temple.”

In the first place, he acted wisely, as he did in many other instances, in leaving no room for his detractors to say anything against him, in a city so prone to suspicion and to evil speaking. For I do not suppose that the religion of the Jews, our enemies, was any obstacle to that most illustrious general, but that he was hindered by his own modesty. Where then is the guilt? Since you nowhere impute any theft to us, since you approve of the edict, and confess that it was passed in due form, and did not deny that the gold was openly sought for and produced the facts of the case themselves show that the business was executed by the instrumentality of men of the highest character. There was a hundredweight of gold, more or less openly seized at Apamea, and weighed out in the forum at the feet of the praetor, by Sextus Caesius, a Roman knight, a most excellent and upright man; twenty pounds weight or a little more were seized at Laodicea, by Lucius Peducaeus, who is here in court, one of our judges; some was seized also at Adramyttium, by Cnaeus Domitius, the lieutenant, and a small quantity at Pergamus.

The amount of the gold is known; the gold is in the treasury; no theft is imputed to him; but it is attempted to render him unpopular. The speaker turns away from the judges, and addresses himself to the surrounding multitude. Each city, O Laelius, has its own peculiar religion we have ours. While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire and the dignity of our name and the institutions of our ancestors. And they are the more odious to us now because that nation has shown by arms what were its feelings towards our supremacy. How dear it was to the immortal gods is proved by its having been defeated, by its revenues having been farmed out to our contractors, by its being reduced to a state of subjection.

We can see here that the collection for Jerusalem was already considered suspect by the Romans in the days of the Republic. Later, of course, when the temple was destroyed, a punitive tax would take its place (the "Jewish tax").

So the story told by Josephus makes sense against this backdrop. An acrimonious dispute over the collection of money for Jerusalem could easily have tried the patience of Tiberius, the Senate, or both.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Matthew 17:24-27 has a story, according to which, "sons" are not obligated to pay the temple tax.

24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

25 He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”

This, of course, leaves open the status of "strangers." Is the implication that the tax is binding on nobody, or is the implication that a collection should be made but only among "strangers"?

The former makes sense, but the latter could too. In the Septuagint, the word "proselyte" (προσηλύτους) is used for "foreigners" / "stangers" (e.g. 1 Chronicles 22:2). The word in Matthew is "others" (ἀλλοτρίων). But maybe there was a practice of making this collection only among proselytes, or specifically, only among semi-proselytes who did not take up the circumcision and the full law (those sometimes called "God fearers" or "proselytes at the gate").

This brings to mind Galatians 2:9-10, where the three pillars impose one condition on Paul's mission to the uncircumcised:

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.

Accordingly, the uncircumcised were asked to take up a collection for "the poor," a Jewish community in Jerusalem.

The fact that they were targeting the uncircumcised for this collection for Jerusalem and using it for their Jewish faithful in Jerusalem, instead of the traditional collection for the temple (which they did not observe), would have been particularly incendiary, both to other Jews (who would think it improper to be collecting and not transmitting the funds to the temple) and to the Romans (who saw the conversion of proselytes as sapping the strength of their people, diverting both their loyalties and their funds to a foreign nation).
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by andrewcriddle »

One problem with denying a Jewish expulsion under Claudius is that we have 2 relatively early sources for it. Suetonius and Acts. It is very unlikely that Suetonius is influenced by Acts and IMO unlikely that Acts is influenced by Suetonius. This independent corroboration makes it likely that Claudius did carry out some form of expulsion.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Sinouhe »

IMO unlikely that Acts is influenced by Suetonius.
Why not ?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:31 pm 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.

<SNIP>

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.
Revelation 11:4
These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.
MUST be a reference to Zechariah 4:11-14
11 Then I said to him, “What are these jtwo olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?” 12 And a second time I answered and said to him, “What are these jtwo branches of the olive trees, which are beside the two golden pipes from which the golden oil1 is poured out?” 13 He said to me, x“Do you not know what these are?” I said, “No, my lord.” 14 Then he said, y“These are the two anointed ones2 who stand by zthe Lord of the whole earth.”
i.e. Lord of the earth in Revelation is God (definitely) and probably IMO God as dwelling in Jerusalem (see the parallels in Zechariah).

Andrew Criddle
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by andrewcriddle »

Sinouhe wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:12 am
IMO unlikely that Acts is influenced by Suetonius.
Why not ?
The Twelve Caesars was written during the reign of Hadrian which is IMO after the writing of Acts (others on this forum would disagree).
It was written in Latin whereas Acts is written in Greek and its sources appear to be Greek texts.
There is AFAIK no other evidence suggesting Acts made use of Suetonius.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Sinouhe »

The Twelve Caesars was written during the reign of Hadrian which is IMO after the writing of Acts
A lot of scholars now consider that the acts were written between 100 and 130.
It was written in Latin whereas Acts is written in Greek and its sources appear to be Greek texts.
« Luke » was a learned man living in the empire.
It would not be a surprise if he can read latin.
There is AFAIK no other evidence suggesting Acts made use of Suetonius.
I can see some similarities between Luke/Acts and the life of Augustus.
Nothing groundbreaking by the way but this idea is not as dumb as it sounds.
Last edited by Sinouhe on Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply