A Millennium already past

This post shall be me playing Devil's Advocate with Post-Millenialists and Partial Preterists, by arguing that their eschatological position does not necessarily require allegorizing the time period of The Millennium.

There is a common misnomer out there that believing in a Literal Thousand Years means believing The Kingdom of that time period ends at some point, which is why you occasionally see an argument that the Nicene-Constantinople Creed's quotation of Gabriel in Luke 1:33 somehow was specifically a refutation of Pre-Mil.  However the only thing Revelation 20 explicitly says happens exactly a Thousand years later is Satan being let out of the Abyss, he then stirs up Gog and Magog and they besiege the "Beloved City" however their siege fails.  Revelation 21 and 22 are about the separation between the spiritual and physical finally completely ending, not about a completely New Messianic Kingdom starting.  The Greek word translated New in those chapters isn't Neo which I wrote an entire post on already.

Now at face value it seems like everything from Satan being let loose to the White Throne Judgment happens pretty rapidly.  But that's because we're reading a summary, maybe it will happen quickly but it could theoretically all take decades, centuries or maybe even another thousand years to play out.

So Post-Mils and Partial Preterists do have the option to consider identifying The Millennium with an exactly one Thousand year time period of recorded Church Age history, and placing us right now in Revelation 20:9 with the "Camp of the saints" being understood spiritually rather then tied to a specific geographical location.

And in that context I have a few hypothetical models to propose, because even though I'm not Post-Mil currently I have considered it.  

But first I want to address how most of these models implicitly identity the "Hoards of Gog and Magog" with principally the Turks and perhaps by extension other Altaic peoples like the Mongols.  This part of Revelation is among the Bible passages that have been abused by White Supremacists so I want to make myself clear, IF any of these interpretations are true it's about the Turks having a specific role to play in God's plan, however I believe in Universal Salvation meaning all of them are still Children of Adam who God Loves as much as everyone else.  So do not use this material to justify being Racist.

Now on to the hypothetical Millenniums.

I place the end of the 70 Weeks of Daniel in 37 AD one Week following the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost in 30 AD, which I argued for on this blog years ago.  Low and behold 1037 AD is the beginning of the reign of Tughril the first Sultan of the Seljuk Turks.  It was under his leadership that the Turks first moved south of the Gates of Alexander into Persia.

However it was under Alp Arslan and Malik Shah that the Seljuk Turks first came into conflict with "Christendom" around 1070 AD.  The significance of 1070 minus 1000 I shouldn't need to explain to Preterists.

In 1135 AD a thousand years after the defeat of the Bar-Kochba Revolt Seljuk Ruler Imad Al-Din Zengi crossed the Eurphrates River.  1137-1144 contained other notable events.

Later in the early 1300s a Thousand years after Constantine is when the Ottomans under Osman I and Orhan and other Turkic Tribes conquered deeper into Western Anatolia capturing what had long been core Byzantine territories including the cities that housed the 7 Churches of Revelation 2-3. They besieged Nicaea just a few years after the one thousand year anniversary of the Council of Nicaea.  324 was the year Constantine defeated Licinius and began the founding of Constantinople, 1317-1326 was the Seige of Bursa which secured Ottoman control of most of Asia Minor with only the core area around Constantinople still free.

The decade from 380-390 is when Theodosius I firmly established Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire.  Ticonius published the first real Post-Millennial interpretation of Revelation in 380.  A thousand years later 1380-1390 would be when the Ottoman Empire really began entering Europe.

The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans was in 1454 BC, about 3 years following the Millennial Anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon.

There isn't a single event in the reign of Emperor Justinian that doesn't have it's Millennial anniversary during the reign of Suliman The Magnificent.  I actually already made a post on arguing for Bible Prophecy being fulfilled in the time of Justinian, that was mainly in the context of playing Devil's Advocate with Historicism, but it can be adapted for this purpose.

Some people have an odd fixation on viewing Bible Prophecy from an Anglo-Centric POV.  Interestingly the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons was pretty complete by 640.  One thousand years later and 1640 is when the English Civil War starts.

Thyatira, Daughter of Jezebel

I have a complicated relationship with the Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3.  What I've been doing lately is trying to develop my own modified form of it, that's almsot more of a genealogy then a Timeline, but also it's fluidity allows the eras to overlap.  But I still consider any such view less important then the idea that at any time there are some Churches that fit all of these descriptions.

When I was most hostile to the idea I emphasized it as tied to a Western Bias in looking at Church History.  And Thyatira being both the Roman Catholic and Medieval Church was vital to how I painted it that way  But as a student of History I should have known better.  The Catholic Church did impact the lands of The Bible during the Middle Ages, and that impact is still felt today.

One aspect of that is the Maronite Church which claims to have always been in Communion with Rome and is still the dominant form of Christianity in Lebanon.

However The Crusades are the bigger deal.  Catholic Kingdoms ruled Jerusalem for nearly a Century and places like Cyprus, Acre and Antioch for longer.  Then the Fourth Crusade had Latins take over much of the Eastern Empire's territory.  The Cities of the Seven Churches themselves always remained part of the Greek Empire of Nicaea, but the Catholic Empire was near by.  And then the Knights Hospiltars' rule of Rhodes gave them presence in the Eastern Mediterranean till after The Reformation started.

And since then the Maronites have become no longer the only Eastern Rite Catholic Church.  The Melkite Greek Catholics are the majority of Christians in Modern Israel, and the Chaldean Catholic Church are the Majority of Christians in Iraq, something that should perhaps be considered more often in the Mystery Babylon and Papal Antichrist debates.

Protestants seeing Catholicism in this message tend to overlook the good things that are said about them.  And indeed the good things said about Thyatira are the good things that can be said about Catholics even today.  Maybe not the Church Hierarchy as an institution, but many individual Catholics and local Parishes do take seriously the Church's mandate to give to the poor and care for the sick better then most Protestants, especially in the modern U.S. who've gotten wrapped up in that Prosperity nonsense.

This Church getting the longest message is often used to justify it getting the longest time period in the Seven Ages view.  While it has the longest message it's not half the total.  The modified version I'm considering would begin the Thyatira era with Pope Gregory I and ends Pergamos's primacy with the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 and then begin Sardis with the preaching of John Ball and John Wycliff in the 1370s and ends Thyatira primacy with the death of Mary Queen of Scots.  So it still has more of the timeline then anyone else.

It is the figure of Jezebel in the message who is the most enigmatic.  With even speculation on the original 1st-2nd century local context being unsure what to make of her.  Later Church history doesn't seem to associate any female Prophets false or otherwise with this city, the Montanists claimed their prophetic lineage from Philadelphia.  Scholars even disagree on if the intent is to reference the Old Testament personage or if this was an individual literally named Jezebel.

The Anti-Paul cultists out there have from time to time thrown out the idea that this Jezebel is Lydia of Thyatira from Acts 16.  There is no real evidence of that besides she's a woman linked to both this location and Paul and these people are determined to believe all the bad things said in these 2 chapters are directed at Paulian Christianity. 

The association of this message with Protestant criticisms of Catholicism has often resulted in this Jezebel being associated with The Catholic view of Mary, sometimes specifically that this is referring to a Demonic Entity that is behind those Marian Apparitions.  However I feel Jesus is definitely referring to a flesh and blood female Human claiming the office of Prophet.  But eschatologically it could be applicable to multiple false Prophets who've filled this role over the ages.

Perhaps my most controversial Hot Take on the applicability of this prophecy is that maybe if Thyatira is Catholicism then Jezebel is Jeanne d'Arc? (Joan of Arc for uninformed Anglophones, I only got used to the proper pronunciation because of all the Anime she pops up in.)

I get annoyed every time Protestants try to claim her as some kind of Proto-Protestant (including one website I read on the Historicist view of Thyatira), she actually called for a Crusade agaisnt the Hussites, the actual Proto-Protestants of 15th Century Europe. She was in fact both religiously and politically conservative and even reactionary.  In fact I don't think any woman living in 15th century Europe would be more hostile to modern Feminism.  And again I don't think any of the talk of "Fornication" in this chapter or 17-18 is actually about Sex, the Greek word is a word for prostitution but in my view is here about spiritual whoredom, i.e. Idolatry.  Catholic Idolatry was something Jeanne promoted in claiming specifically Catholic Saints talked to her in her visions.

But that is by no means my only or even main theory.

I think the reason people are confused by the name dropping of Jezebel is because we don't properly think of Old Testament Jezebel as someone claiming to be a Prophetess.  But the role of Prophet Biblically is not just about giving predictive Prophecies or even for claiming to have directly communicated with God, it's being a forth teller of God's word.  And there are in that case two types of false Prophets, those who attribute false words to the True God, and those who promote false gods.  Jezebel was the chief False Prophet of her era because she was leading the propagation of Baal Worship.  

The Prophetess of Isaiah 8 was in my opinion probably the wife of Uzziah and mother of Hezekiah.  And while Biblically the word Prophetess is never used of her Jewish tradition does call David's Wife Abigail a Prophetess because she did Prophesy.  That's two precedents for a Prophetess of YHWH being a Queen-Consort of the House of David, so the Queen-Consort of Ahab being his False Prophetess rhymes quite nicely.

My reading of Jezebel does have a bit in common with what I said of Jeanne d'Arc above.  Even though she was a woman who held power, she and her daughter Athaliah I see as conservative women driven by a lot of internalized misogyny.  So I am a bit annoyed that a certain famous Feminist website has named itself after her.  I get it, they don't want to give The Bible the benefit of the doubt on Gender issues so see it as empowering to embrace a Biblical Villainess.  But I do believe The Bible's historical narrative allows more nuance then people realize, that some Heroes aren't Lionized as unconditionally as we assume, and that some villains it is okay to emphasize or sympathize with.  Jezebel and Athaliah are simply the worst to claim as Feminist icons, Delilah I actually like but what most people assume about her is also off.  Even Athaliah would be better since she was a Queen-Regent and not another example of the trope of a woman wielding power because of who she's screwing or is related to, she even tried to massacre her own grandchildren to be rid of that pretense.

Back to Revelation chapter 2.  Since the name itself is a point of contention, I decided to look at the Greek text.  The Greek spelling is Iezabel.  That spelling makes perfect sense to me as a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Iyzebel.  But I'm also struck by how much it resembles the Romance Language European names Isabel/Isabella and other variants.

The Wikipedia page for the name Isabel/Isabella says they are forms of Elizabeth.  But that seems utterly ridiculous to me.  As if Catholic Europe doesn't want to admit how often they've been unwittingly naming their daughters after one of The Bible's notorious villains.

The most famous Isabella is Isabelle of Aragon the first Queen of Spain, who the Catholic Church does highly revere, giving her the title "The Catholic".  She hasn't been made a Saint yet, but remember Jeanne wasn't canonized till the 20th Century, it can take awhile.  She died just before the Reformation but among her children and grandchildren were the fiercest Catholic political opponents of the Reformation, they include two Holy Roman Emperors and Bloody Mary.

However since I earlier defined this era as tied to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, perhaps I should look to figures who lived then.  The sin of Jezebel in Revelation 2 is Iconophilia, which prevailed at this council.

Empress Irene was the major political force behind the Council.  What's interesting is how much her biography resembles Athaliah rather then Jezebel.  She was first a Queen-Consort, then Queen-Mother and then Queen-Regent, and was in the end overthrown by a Coup.  But I suppose the only part that doesn't also apply to Jezebel is being an actual ruling Queen.

Update February 18th 2023:

I've argued earlier on this blog for Revelation being written during the reign of Hadrian.  And it has now occurred to me that perhaps many Jews and Christians during that era saw Empress Pompeia Plotina, as a Jezebel figure.  She was the wife of Trajan and by adoption Mother of Hadrian, she's the only Roman empress known to have been also deified in Egypt, and in Rome she was associated with Virgin Goddesses like Vesta and Minerva.  She held the title of Augusta and there are coins depicting her, she lived until at least 121 AD so a few years into the reign of Hadrian, and she was deified in Rome after her death.

Update March 5th 2023: 

I'm adding this update because I read Fred Harding's The Apocalypse Deception, I wrote a review of the Book on Amazon but it hasn't gone live yet, I find it interesting but have to reject it's main thesis which is that The Revelation is a Satanic False Prophecy.  But it's relevant here because there is a whole sub chapter on Thyatira.

First I did mention above that some people read the text as saying this Woman was literally named Jezebel, however I always considered that unlikely and had pretty much ruled it out before I bought this book.  But Harding is presuming there is no other reading in order to make Revelation seem nonsensical and ridiculous.  This chapter of Revelation already established that Hebrew Bible names will come up symbolically.

The teachings of Jezebel are basically the same as what's called the Doctrine of Balaam in the message to Pergamos.  But why use a different Biblical villain here when the text reused the name of Nicolaitans for a different doctrine?  It's because of the different context, Pergamos was a center of the Imperial Cult so the imagery of Idolatrous Adultery with a Foreign Pagan King was mot potent there.  In Thyatira the source of the Corruption is seemingly more internal, and the very name of Thyatira makes using a female symbolic figure who was a daughter of a Canaanite King poetically fitting.

Harding as a Hyper-Paulian asks why Jesus didn't just tell them to excommunicate this Jezebel, at which point I get confused because the entire Jezebel part of the message begins with Jesus saying "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel", I really don't know what he thinks that sentence is saying other then "You need to excommunicate her".

He also claims there is no other evidence there ever was a Christian Community in Thyatira in the Pre-Nicene era, but claims this only of Thyatira of these seven which I find odd.  Four of these cities are never explicitly mentioned (at least by this same name) elsewhere in The New Testament, Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis and Philadelphia.  Thyatira is missing from Polycrates letter on the Quartodeciman controversy but so are Pergamos and Philadelphia.  As far as the lack of a documented line of Bishops, I think all of these traditional lines from Eusebius are exaggerated because he wanted to push Episcopal polity further back into history then it actually existed, Thyatira may have not had it precisely because it was the most Paulian and Paul intended Church government to be Congregational with Presbyterian characteristics, Episcopal Polity came from the Heretic Igantius.  But the Traditional identification for Philadelphia doesn't have any known Bishops prior to the time of Constantine either.

Acts absolutely does depict Paul as visiting the general area of where Thyatira is but without naming specific cities on his third journey, and a native of Thyatira living in Philipi was converted previously.  It's highly unlikely a Paulian community wasn't established here.  Revelation 2 predicts Great Tribulation to fall on Jezebel and her followers in the near future, maybe those of the Thyatira Church who survived that simply moved elsewhere.

Also Lydia was a Merchant, that job required traveling, and we know independent of Acts 16 that Thyatira was important to the Trade of Purple during this period.  So it doesn't mater that we're never explicitly told she had ever traveled back to her hometown, her job basically required her to do so regularly.  

The Wikipedia page for Thyatira (titular see) mentions a second century Bishop named Carpus.  And there was also a Bishop representing Thyatira at Nicaea I, Chalcedon and Nicaea II the Ionophilic Council.

By the Third Century the city was a stronghold of the Montanist sect (my source on that being Epiphaninius Adv Haer LI 33) which did involve prominent Prophetesses.  Montanus was also said to have began his ministry in an unidentified town of Mysia, Thyatira I'd referred to above as Lydian but it was also arguably part of Mysia, sometimes placed right on the border between them. Maybe Montanus's claim to Prophetic succession from Amia of Philadelphia was a lie to obscure actually inheriting his prophetic lineage from the false prophetess of Thyatira?  On the other hand the Montanists seem opposite to what Jezebel was teaching since they were proto-Donatists opposing letting the Lapsi back into the Church while "Jezebel" was basically saying it's okay to Lapse. Maybe they were a movement formed after the time of this "Jezebel" as a reaction going in many ways in the opposite direction?  And of course people who like the Montanists could consider seeing them as those praised in the Message for not following Jezebel.

Speaking of the very concept of Prophetesses, Harding also in this part of the book engages in the typical Patriarchal abuse of 1 Timothy 2:12 which I've addressed in multiple posts on my other blog, Neither Male of Female and it's follow up, Women Pastors, ect and may address further in the future.  But it's also amusing that's he's willing to engage in this criticism of the established Canon, including breaking down stylistic reasons Revelation can't share an author with the other books attributed to an author named John, but then builds so much of this argument on the most disputed Epistle of Paul.

I intend to make a future post on broader claims of incompatibility between Paul and Revelation in the future, I'll maybe say more on Harding then.

I do want to elaborate on why Thyatira has it's name.  The city existed before Seleucus I Nicator but in 290 BC he renamed it to celebrate learning his wife had given birth to a Daughter.  Seleucus was the successor of Alexander who initially specifically inherited just Babylonia, he conquered everything else from there.  Meanwhile one of the names Thyatira is said to have had before this is Semiramis the Greek form of the name of an Assyrian Queen who Greek legendary histography exaggerated into being the founder of Babylon. Five verses of the Hebrew Bible refer to a "Daughter of Babylon", Psalm 137:8, Isaiah 47:1, Jeremiah 50:42, 51:33 and Zechariah 2:7.  Some imagery of the discussion of Jezebel is repeated when discussing Mystery Babylon in chapter 17.  So there could be a Poetic connection there.

Thyatira also may have been a city that was already Greek before the time of Alexander, I'm not sure if that means anything, but like Pergamon and Smyrna it would have been specifically an Aeolian colony. 

It's also interesting that today Thyatira has a Catholic Titular See not a Greek Orthodox one when in general this is an historically Orthodox region.  

Can every argument for applying The Olivite Discourse to 70 AD fit the Bar Kochkba Revolt even better?

My answer is not Luke 21 but definitely Mark 13 and Matthew 24 if they can be interpreted Preteristically at all.

First of all even the Preterist interpretation of "this generation", as I documented when arguing for my late date for Revelation there were indeed eyewitnesses to Jesus still around in the reign of Hadrian.

70 AD Preterists obsess over an argument that a Biblical Generation is 40 years because the wandering in the wilderness was to kill off a generation.  But not all of them actually died, that statement was hyperbole, it was mostly just about the 10 spies who gave the bad report.  Numbers 14:33-24 clarifies it was 40 years because the spy mission was 40 days.  Genesis 6 and the lifespan of Moses support making a Biblical generation up to 120 years.

Matthew 24 is the one I'm most strictly futurist on because of certain details completely unique to it, but rhetorically I shall  keep it in mind here.

With Luke 21 it's unique characteristics are what makes it most applicable to 70 AD.  Only Luke 21 actually uses the name of Jerusalem at all, when foretelling it's desolation which is language borrowed from Jeremiah about the fall to Nebuchadnezzar indicating what happened to Jerusalem then will happen again.

But Luke 21 does NOT contain a statement that this time of trouble is will never be surpassed.

The Bark Kochba revolt did not add anything to the destruction of Jerusalem since this time the Rebels never even had Jerusalem to begin with.  But for Judea as a whole that war was far more catastrophic and destructive then the 66-73 AD war and over a shorter period of time.   Many historians consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora.  It is only the fact that it doesn't have it's own Josephus that makes it less analyzed by historians and scholars and less romanticized by artists and poets.

Luke 21 is about things that happened before the "beginnings of sorrows", Matthew 24 about things that happen after, and Mark 13 about things that happen during.  Meanwhile the second time Matthew and Mark's discourses bring up the issue of False Christs has no parallel in Luke at all.

This is significant because contrary to popular opinion the era leading up to and during the 66-73 AD war was NOT filled with would be Messiahs.  Josephus only ever uses the word Christ when describing what Jesus was called. There were would be prophets, and secular revolutionaries, but no claimed Messiahs.  Jewish prophetic expectations of the time were generally that the Messiah can't come till after Rome has already fallen.

Bar Kochba was the first to ever claim to be the Messiah as a rebel leader, that was his innovation.  And he really was the second person after Jesus to ever truly claim that title at all.  Meanwhile since Preterists don't take literally the stuff involving the Sun, Moon and Stars, maybe Stars falling from heaven is also wordplay on the name of Bar Kochba?  Kukbe is the word used in the Peshita?

The Abomination of Desolation is a very specific phrase, that has connotations more specific then just the etymological meanings of the words used to construct it.  Of the two places where the phrase appears in Daniel the one in chapter 12 is probably what Jesus is revealing to still have at least one more yet future fulfillment.  But it's the context in Daniel 11 that defines it.

There are three or four different Hebrew words that get translated "Abomination" in the KJV, the one used in Daniel is not even related to the one used in Leviticus 18-20 and Ezekiel 40-48.  But more importantly to the topic at hand, the precise one used in Daniel is everywhere it appears a synonym for an Idol or False god, from Deuteronomy 29:17 to 1 Kings 11 to Jeremiah 32:34.

But what makes the Abomination of Desolation special is it's being placed inside The Temple (not near it) by a Pagan ruler who had outlawed their faith.  The history of the Hasmonean revolt was to first century Jews not just the reason behind Hanukkah, it was to them as the Revolutionary War or French Revolution is for modern America and France.  When Jesus used this phrase he knew exactly what imagery he was evoking and so did His audience.

Now I'm open to a more "creative" interpretation of what a Futurist fulfillment of this for Matthew 24 may look like, but that's about redefining what this would mean for the New Testament Church with the help of II Thessalonians 2 just as we redefine a number of Hebrew Bible concepts under the doctrine that now we are The Temple.  If you're going to insist this is about the Judea of that time, then you have to be specific to what that idea meant to those Judeans.

70 AD Preterists bend over backwards coming up with every excuse they can to apply that phrase to something that happened in 70 AD.  They take a passage from the Talmud claiming Titus had sex with a whore on a Torah scroll and sliced open the veil with his sword.  Leaving aside how I doubt Titus would have had the means, motive or opportunity to do that from what the actual eyewitness Historian tells us, even this Talmud passage doesn't call that an Abomination of Desolation or compare it to Antiochus Epiphanes in any way.

The timing is also wrong, by the time Titus was able to anything anywhere near The Temple it was already too late to run.  Jesus speaking of the Abomination of Desolation as an event that begins the time of trouble not occurring at the middle or end of it. That fit Hadrian who's said to have set up the initial Idol in 31 AD sparking the Rebellion even though the full Temple is built after.

Preterists aren't the only ones refusing to distinguish between the Olivet Discourses, there are also Futurists who want to use Luke 21 to say Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies again.

Yes the three discourses are "parallel" in a lot of ways, but the differences are there for a reason and ignoring them because you don't want to think Jesus was foretelling more then one thing is simply not respecting the text.  In the case of Luke it has to do with how this isn't even the only place that Gospel records Jesus talking about the fall of Jerusalem, that is a theme of the entire Gospel in a way it's not in the others.

So plenty of people want to argue that Luke 21:20 is about the same thing as The Abomination of Desolation because Jesus then advises basically the same reaction.  As if there can't be more then one good reason to get out of Dodge.

Remember the OG Abomination of Desolation preceded that Jewish revolt, and since they won that war the city was never surrounded by armies.

One of the oldest examples of Patristic support for viewing the Abomination of Desolation as already re-fulfilled is Jerome applying the term to the Statue of Hadrian set up where The Temple formally stood which was still standing when he wrote his commentary on Matthew.  Jerome may have been off on saying it was specifically over the Holy of Holies, in the Bordeaux Pilgrim the two Statues he saw were separate from the "stone" the Jews anointed which I think may have been where the Ark once rested.  Epiphanes' statue was on the Brazen Altar according to 1 Maccabees 1:54-59.

We even have a secular pagan gentile source on this happening, Cassius Dio.

[69.12.1] At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, 

[69.12.2] for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposedly made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them. But when Hadrian went farther away, they openly revolted.

Meanwhile somewhat less reliable sources like the Historia Augusta say Hadrian also banned Circumcision and sacrificed Pigs to this Idol making it echo Antiochus Epiphanes even more.  And like then this caused the war rather then being caused by it.  It seem Pigs were depicted on Coins minted in Aelia Capitolina.

And like in 70 AD the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem did as Jesus advised and fled, becoming the Nazarenes of later generations, some may have went to Mesopotamia and also became among the ancestors of the "Nestorians" or other Syraic Rite sects.

The Latest Date for The Book of Revelation

I am about to settle the matter of a late date for the writing of Revelation in a way that even my fellow Futurists might not like since I now believe it was even later then the reign of Domitian.  But this view could be compatible with Preterism if you left the 70 AD obsession in favor of the real Desolation of Classical Israel.

Objectors may object that I'm making it too late to be legitimately Apostolic.  I don't see it that way of course.  Quadratus of Athens in his apology to Hadrian written for Hadrian's visit to Athens in 124 or 125 AD says that some of those healed and risen from the dead by Jesus were still alive at that time.  Today it is verified as being possible to live to 122, and I as a Creationist believes what humans can live to has deteriorated not increased over the millennia.  Pliny using documents related to a Roman Census of 74 AD says in one region of Italy there were many people who were over 100, 4 were 130 and some up to 140.  So I have no doubt that in Judea some people born BC lived through the Bar Kochba Revolt and that some people who were healed by Jesus and then witnessed Him Risen made it even into the reign of Antonius Pius.

The responsibility for keeping the Canon pure is The Holy Spirit's not Man's, it would not have been allowed to become universally accepted by Churches in every region if it wasn't the True Word of God.  Eusebius of Caesarea had to acknowledge that it was universally accepted even though he was personally biased against it.

The oldest reference to the existence of Revelation is Justin Martyr.

Dialogue with Trypho 81.4 "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

Why does this quote make me think he's referring to something still very recent?  Because he's not even aware of there being a book, just that the vision happened, as if the text of the book proper still hadn't left the region of those seven cities but the gist of the message had spread by word of mouth.

The Message to Pergamon refers to a Martyr there named Antipas.  The traditions about Antipas say he was cooked alive in the Red Bull of the Serapion.  The Serapion of Pergamon was a second century structure, like the Temple to Trajan it was a project probably started during Trajan's reign but finished under Hadrian.  Now in a prior post about Pergamon I simply considered this a reason that detail of the tradition must be wrong, since I as this post itself shows don't inherently trust traditions.  However there is another factor to consider.

As I pointed out in the post on The Roma Cult it is not a coincidence both references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 are the two cities that were centers of the imperial cult in the province.  In those cities everyone was required to offer sacrifices to the Emperor, nothing else about the religious views of an individual mattered.  Jews were exempted because the Romans recognized them as an ancient religion, and during the first century Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.

Even if you believe the mythology about the Neornian Persecution that was a brief persecution that didn't effect people outside Rome.  The Policy that lead to the systemic Christian Martyrdoms alluded to in Revelation 2-3 didn't begin till during the reign of Trajan, that's what the correspondence with Pliny The Younger was all about.  But Pliny was governor in Bithynia, our oldest confirmation this was going on in the province of Asia was during the reign of Hadrian when Gaius Minicis Fundanus was governor there.

In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians he seems to claim Smyrna didn't have a Christian community during the lifetime of Paul. Preterists have attempted to explain this as only meaning not when Paul was in Philippi.  But what I find interesting is the inclusion of Polycarp in the letter Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome. His intention in the letter is to claim that these communities had been practicing Passover how they currently were from the beginning, so I feel it's logical to deduce that at least the first name associated with each city was a founder of that Christian community.  Meaning Polycarp himself may have founded the Church in Smyrna, and his birth is popularly estimated to have been 69 AD.

"But we know Ephesus wasn't founded by the people Polycrates associated with it because of Acts 18-20" you may object.  That original Ephesian Christian community I think was driven out of the city and dwelt in Melitos and Polycrates was citing the origins of the second Ephesian church.  I think Paulian communities generally took the opposing position on Passover because of how Paul stressed the Resurrection's link to First Fruits, hence Rome being who Polycrates was trying to convince.  That's also why he couldn't cite Pergamon/Troy and Thyatira as being with them on this, they were also Paulian.

Neither Smyrna, Sardis or Philadelphia are mentioned by name anywhere in Acts or in the letters of Paul, technically neither is Pergamon but I suspect Pergamon could have been the place Paul and Luke called Troy.  Meanwhile Laodicea and Hierapolis are mentioned by Paul only in letters I personally believe he wrote after the point when traditionalists claim he died.  Basically the letters Secular Scholars think Paul didn't write I think were written between 70-100 AD.

In the ongoing debate between if Revelation was written during Domitian or Nero's reign.  The Nero proponents may have numbers on their side, yes seemingly more sources said it was Nero (and some Claudius).  But Domitian advocates have antiquity on their side, Irenaeus is the first person to ever directly say anything about the when of Revelation's writing at all.

Thing is Irenaeus and Tertullian are already of the era when John son of Zebedee, the John who wrote Revelation, John the Presbyter, and the Beloved Disciple were all being conflated together by "patristic" tradition, I'm convinced those are 4 separate individuals one of whom was not named John, so by this point the "Early Church Fathers" are already fundamentally untrustworthy to me on this issue.  

Regardless it is of note that Irenaeus also said this John lived into the reign of Trajan.  And given the argument Preterists make about Irenaeus saying John being "last seen" during the reign of Domitian, he could have meant it was then he left for "Patmos" and the vision happened later.  Indeed his point in context is the recentness of the vision, so Domitian as the bare earliest date is in fact what makes most sense.

I think there was inevitably a desire of some to make Revelation older then it was, partly for concern that it's actual date was too young to be valid.  And in time as Origenists and Augustinians wanted to promote Post-Millennial and Prerterist interpretations of the book to force it back to the time of Nero.  So there is not a single "patristic" source I will consider a pure unbiased witness here.

I also currently believe the Nicolaitans were those promoting the Monarchical Church structure first truly popularized by "Ignatius".  I do not view it as a First Century problem at all.  Nothing the "Patristics" say on the Nicolaitans can be trusted because they WERE the Nicolaitans but in denial of that fact.

I would not consider it impossible that "The Tyrant" in some references might have originally been not a Roman Emperor at all but Simon Bar-Kochba who's persecution of Christians is witnessed in a contemporary source, Justin Martyr's apology to Hadrian.  Thing is I'm not convinced the reference to "Patmos" in chapter 1 is claiming a legal "exile" at all.

Futurists cite Cassius Dio as secular evidence Domitian was exiling people to Islands.  But this was for enemies who were Roman Aristocrats or at least citizens.  Of course if my theory that John Mark was John of Patmos is true then the name Marcus implies he was a Roman citizen.  While people exiled by Domitian were allowed to return as soon as he died, John may have chosen to continue witnessing Jesus to the natives of this island.  My hunch is John Mark was in Jerusalem for the spring feasts of 30 AD but probably not (by modern standards at least) an adult yet and so born between 10 and 20 AD.

In conclusion I think The Revelation was written down sometime in the reign of Hadrian.  If you still think the Sixth King of chapter 11 has contemporary with when John had the vision then Hadrian can be consider a 6th Emperor if you consider Vespasian's rise in the Year of the Four Emperors a sort of reboot.

Historia Augusta, Hadrian refrences Christians, In a letter

I'm not even gonna go into the fact that the Historia Augusta's historical reliability is questionable.

The following passage is about a letter written by the Emperor Hadrian which certain Atheistic scholars use to make a certain point, please read it in context.

For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen, boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, en [sic] in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quacksalvers. Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon, which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

       From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.

Again, make sure you've read this without any preconceived notions before I go on.
.
.
.
.


Now, here is how this is used by many modern Skeptics.

"Followers of Serapis were called Christians as demonstrated in a letter from Emperor Hadrian to Servianus, 134. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)".

The implied message being that before Christianity even existed the word "Christian" was a term for worshipers of Serapis in Alexandria, and how that becomes a term for followers of a Jewish Messiah varies but you get the point, it's another one of those Christ Myth theories.

Now, how many people reading the above citation without any bias or preconceived notions got that from the letter itself?????

If even one person did I'd be genuinely shocked.

Hadrian is clearly criticizing the way in Alexandria various distinct Religious traditions become mixed up together. Serapians act like Christians and Christians act like Serapians. And Christians are clearly placed with the Jews and Samaritans as people whose religious laws are supposed to be against the kinds of occult activities they were engaging it.

Does it contradict what the Bible implies about our History that Christians in Alexandria were doing this? No, The Bible warms about bad doctrines already popping up before it was even finished. And the problem of Christians engaging in Pagan rites they shouldn't be is addressed in Jesus message to the Churches of Thyatira and Pergamos.  Pergamos interestingly also had a Temple to Serapis as I noted here.

I'm sure there was a remnant of good Christians in Alexandria not doing this that Hadrian wasn't aware of, but that's besides the point, it shouldn't surprise Christians at all that this went on.