Patmos was actually Pithom in Egypt

 The Isle we currently identify with Patmos was mentioned rarely in Antiquity, and it's known that it was originally named Letois after Leto because of myths about Artemis raising it out of the Sea at the request of Selene.  It's not till the Fourth Century any Church commemorating John writing Revelation was founded there.  There are lists from sources like Tacitus of islands being used as penal colonies by Rome in the 1st Century and Patmos/Letois is never among them.

I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Mary Magdalene not any of the 12, and that she wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John, or at least 1 John. I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of the erroneous John in Ephesus tradition.

The New Testament talks about Ephesus more then any other location that's not in Israel, never is anyone named John ever there.  Remember Ephesus is also where Timothy was when Paul wrote two Pastoral Epistles to him.  Revelation includes a message for Ephesus and other Churches in Asia which people often think implies John knew them.  But I feel it would have proven the Supernatural quality of this message better if it was able to address their issues so well even though this John had never been anywhere near them.

The John of Revelation however does not actually claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee.

Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus.  It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be.  

There are times in Scripture where the name of a City on an Island is treated as the name of that Island, like Melita/Melite in Acts 28:1.

Last time I flirted with this idea of an alternate location for Patmos I wound up going down the Cyprus/Paphos route for a somewhat arbitrary reason, but now I have a better theory.

I recently visited Pithom's Wikipedia page and the Greek transliteration of the name listed is Πατούμος Patoúmos, a spelling that is literally Patmos with an ού added in the middle.  This spelling apparently comes from Herodotus Histories II.158 where my version (Translated by G.C.Macaulay and Revised by Donald Lateiner, published by Barnes & Noble Classics) transliterates it Patumos.

Now at face value calling Pithom a island may seem weird, but it's in the Nile Delta, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that someone in Pithom in the first or early second century would have thought of it as being an island.  A lot of these kinds of terms were not defined as strictly as how we define them today, the Peloponnese was sometimes called an island for example. There is also debate about the location of Pithom, the reference in Herodotus with this spelling places it by the Royal Canal. 

Pithom is a Biblical location from Exodus 1:11, a lot in Revelation is thematically presenting itself as a repeat of the history of The Exodus.  And there apparently are some Hebrew texts where there is no letter for O between the letters for Th and M which could explain this Patmos spelling's one difference from Herodotus.

The oldest surviving texts we have of Revelation are from Egypt, some examples being Papyrus 47, 98 and 115, but that's true of a lot of Ancient Texts, the Nile Valley is for Climate reasons a place where more ancient texts survived then in other regions.

The Cyprus theory I looked into before involved identifying the John of Revelation with John Mark, and based on Tradition this Egypt identification potentially does the same.  And so again I'll point out that the function Mark is serving in Acts 13-14 is essentially the same one John is performing in Revelation.  2 Timothy 4:11 does also tell us Mark had been with Timothy at Ephesus for a time.

Naturally a lot of this is circumstantially supported by my Babylon in Egypt thesis.  

Revelation 12:9 is about identifying various Supernatural Biblical Antagonists with each other, Isaiah 14 isn't explicitly quoted but the context is clearly implying it, a King (The Dragon has 7 Crowns) being cast out of Heaven for rebelling against God.  The Old Serpent is the Serpent of Genesis 3, Satan and The Devil are well known, but who is the "Great Dragon"?  Well the only other Bible Passage to use that two word phrase is Ezekiel 29:3 which calls Pharoah King of Egypt the Great Dragon.

In the prior chapter of Ezekiel the Nagyim(Prince) of Tyre was the moral ruler who sought to deify himself but the Melek(King) of Tyre is clearly Satan being in a sense identified with Melqart the Patron pagan god of Tyre.

Ezekiel 29-32 is likewise all about Egypt and Pharoah but still presented as a bunch of separate Prophecies even given on different dates.  It's possible that sometimes the focus is on the Human ruler and sometimes on Satan as identified with an Egyptian Deity. 

Pharaoh King of Egypt being a title of an Egyptian god first is likely to make one think of Osiris or Horus, but for this Dragon reference I actually think Sobek is who Ezekiel had in mind.  Sobek was depicted as a Crocodile so an animal that Hebrew words for Dragon and Serpent could describe.  He was associated with the Pharoah's power but also with The Nile.

Back in Exodus the Pharoah of the Exodus is described as being drowned in the Sea, so that's a Biblical reason a Pharoah of Egypt could be described as rising out of The Sea.  Ezekiel 30:24 described Pharoah as having a "deadly wound" meaning this is the Hebrew Bible precedent for the Mortal Wound, and it's specifically from a Sword.  Ezekiel 32 calls Pharoah a Dragon again but the KJV translates it "whale" then returns to the sword that will come upon Pharaoh but also in verse 7 says something quoted by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.  The Olivet Discourse also arguably alludes to Isaiah 19 with the Kingdom agaisnt Kingdom and Riding on a Cloud imagery.

Now there is a book published already about a theory of an Egyptian origin for the Book of Revelation, but that's about interpreting the whole of Revelation as actually based on Egyptian Paganism and probably ties into general fringe theories about Christianity being based on Egyptian Religion.  I may still buy the book someday to see where our ideas overlap, but I already know for example that in their theory The Dragon is Apep/Apophis while my ideas see The Dragon in an Egyptian Mythology context as Sobek, with The Beast then as Osiris who's deadly wounds are healed by Sobek.

When discussing the Image of The Beast the word "make" in some translations is a mistake, "set up" is a better translation, the Image in question doesn't necessarily come into existence then.  In Genesis 5 Seth is called the Image and Likeness of Adam like how Adam is the Image and Likeness of God. Luke 3 calls Adam the Son of God, likewise both Jesus and all of humanity are called both Son of God and Image of God. Romans 8:29 and Hebrews 1:2-3 further show how the Image of God and Son of God are linked concepts.   So if The Beast is on some level Osiris in Revelation 13 then the Image of The Beast could well be Horus.

It's also possible then that the imagery of the Beast from the Earth has something to do with Banebdjedet.

None of that Mythology is the primary purpose of any of those symbols, there are Biblical reasons for all of it, but it can make an interesting parallel.  But their relevance to interpreting Revelation may be in how the Pharoahs were worshiped as incarnations of both Osiris and Horus, and that the Roman Emperors were also worshiped as Pharaohs in Egypt.

This has also lead me to a new candidate for the name 666 identifies, Σέραπιός Serapios a variant form of Serapis.  But it also wouldn't be difficult to construct a Comparative Mythology theory in which my 666=Iapetos theory compliments this Osiris connection.

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.

I think it's possible Patmos wasn't where we think it was.

The Isle we currently identify with Patmos was mentioned rarely in Antiquity, and it's known that it was originally named Letois after Leto because of myths about Artemis raising it out of the Sea at the request of Selene.  It's not till the Fourth Century any Church commemorating John writing Revelation was founded there.  There are lists from sources like Tacitus of islands being used as penal colonies by Rome in the 1st Century and Patmos/Letois is never among them.

I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Lazarus (and maybe also his Sisters) not any of the 12, and that they wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John.  I also believe John was never in Ephesus and that one of the False Apostles of Ephesus mentioned in Revelation 2 is the origin of that false tradition.  I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of that tradition.

The New Testament talks about Ephesus more then any other location that's not in Israel, never is anyone named John ever there.  Remember Ephesus is also where Timothy was when Paul wrote two Pastoral Epistles to him.  Revelation includes a message for Ephesus and other Churches in Asia which people often think implies John knew them.  But I feel it would have proven the Supernatural quality of this message better if it was able to address their issues so well even though this John had never been anywhere near them.

Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus.  It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be.  And this John does not claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee either.

There are times in Scripture where the name of a City on an Island is treated as the name of that Island, like Melita/Melite in Acts 28:1.

The first time the New Testament uses a word for Island/Isle is Acts 13:6, while Paul, Barnabas and someone named John were on the Island of Cyprus, when they arrive at a city on Cyprus called Paphos.  It is upon leaving Cyprus in this chapter that this John separates from Paul and Barnabas.  It's pretty easy for me to imagine Patmos being an alternate form of or nick name for Paphos.

This John in Acts 13 was appointed to be Barnabas and Paul's "Minister", the specific Greek word used here implies a type of recorder or record keeper, someone who will be writing stuff down. His record of these events was probably used as source material by Luke when he compiled Acts, though I don't think Luke simply copy/pasted it.  The Book of Revelation is it's John serving that exact same function.

The reason scholars are pretty sure the John of Acts 13 is John Mark is because these events are referenced back to in Acts 15:37-40 where he's called both John and Mark.  That passage also tells us Barnabas and John Mark went back to Cyprus.  So could this John Mark have written Revelation at Paphos on Cyprus?  If John Mark is also the Mark who was a relative of Barnabas then he was a native of Cyprus to begin with.

But what if Mark and Revelation could have the same author?  Literary analysis only focuses on if Revelation lines up with books we've named after John son of Zebedee.  Mark's Gospel is likewise his record of what Peter preached.  Differences in literary style could perhaps be explained by him being the recorder of different reciters.

Acts 13 at Paphos is the only place outside of Revelation the word Pseudoprophetes (False Prophet) is used of a singular individual.

Kittim was a Son of Javan Son of Japheth in Genesis, but the name pops up a few times in Bible Prophecy.  It's pretty agreed on that it's an early name for the island of Cyprus, it's just disagreed to what extent Kittim extends beyond that, or if it's more specifically just Kition.  

Cyrpus at one point in it's ancient history was divided between Ten City-State Kingdoms, one of them was based in Paphos, one was Salamis and one was Kition.

The Wikipedia page for Paphos says some interesting things about the local Greek Mythology.  For one it's the source of the legend of Pygmalion, a myth about a statue named Galatea being brought to life by Aphrodite, many people talking about this story leave out that it was specifically a statue of Aphrodite.

The local cult of Aphrodite at Paphos believed the version of her origin story where she rises from the Sea, (the word for Sea in question being Thalassa the same one Revelation uses) after the genitals of Ouranos (Heaven) were cut off and cast into it (Nonnus, Dionysiaca 12.43, it's also in Hesiod).  Serpents were often used as Phalic Imagery in antiquity, so to a literate Greek reader Revelation 12 talking about the Old Serpent being cast out of Ouranos to the Earth might seem evocative of that castration.

The Greek text of Revelation may not define the Beasts out of the Sea and Earth as inherently masculine as our English Bibles make us assume.  The word for "Man" is always Anthropos which actually means Human and is not really gender specific.  And English is often forced to make pronouns Gender Specific that were not always so in the original.

There was also precedent for Aphrodite being worshiped as a War deity, Aphrodite Areia.  "Who is able to Make war with the Beast".

So it might be some of these local Pagan traditions influenced the Symbolic Imagery Jesus choose to use to communicate His message to this John.

It is also part of the Mythology of Paphos that they were colonized by Arcadians who fought in the Trojan War.  I have long theorized the Arcadians of Greek Mythology are the Arkite tribe of the Canaanites.  And I also think that Troy was partly based on the Northern Kingdom of Israel.  There is also a legend mentioned by Strabo about Paphos being founded by Amazons, who I also have wild speculations about.

Pygmalion was also the name of a King of Tyre who's reign is typically dated to 831-785 BC, he is known to have built colonies on Cyrpus and Sardinia.  His grandfather was the brother of Jezebel, Jezebel's father had been a priest of Astarte according to Phoenician historians quoted by Josephus.  Dido the founder of Carthage was the sister of Pygamlion of Tyre, she had stopped at Cyrpus on the way to Carthage.  Dido had also been married to a Priest of Melqart (The King of Tyre of Ezekiel 28:11-19).

This is why Cyrpus is often viewed as the origin of the cult of Aphrodite, or rather that it was on Cyprus Astarte became Aphrodite.

After the Christianization of the Roman Empire, The Virgin Mary began taking on aspects of the worship of many Olympian goddesses, including Aphrodite/Venus.  An Adonis Cave in Bethlehem became the Church of the Nativity.  Still it's important to avoid the bad Hislop derivative research you see being promoted by many Protestants, Hebrew Roots followers, Neo-Pagans and New Atheists. Nimrod did not have a wife named Semiramis, but it is true that the title "Queen of Heaven" in Pagan mythologies was often given to goddesses associated with the planet Venus.  And there is indeed a Church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in Paphos, and a few others elsewhere on the island of Cyrpus.

The title of Theotokos (Mother of God or God-Bearer or Birth-Giver of God) is part of Mary's quasi deification, so even though I'm not Nestorian I have my own reasons for not using that title for Mary, it's not Biblical so it doesn't matter if it's technically accurate. Aphrodite/Venus did have mother goddess aspects, as the mother of Aeneas she was a mother to Rome, and she was sometimes the mother of the god named Love.  Indeed one of the confusions of the conflicting accounts of Greek mythology is how Eros was both a son of Aphrodite but also a primordial deity who existed before Aphrodite's parents, sometimes Eros was even made the very first god.

There is a theory that one or both of the Jewish Temples (or maybe the Tabernacle of David) stood where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos.  So that's a pretty literal definition of an Abomination of Desolation.  But if you want a more symbolic one there is the fact that Catholics defend their Marian Doctrines by saying Mary is the Tabernacle and Ark of the New Covenant.  The New Testament actually teaches that every and all believers are The Temple/Tabernacle of God.

Update April 2020: I've decided this post should be viewed first and foremost as an argument for John Mark being the John of Revelation.  As a relative of Barnabas he was probably also born on Cyprus so so Jesus using Cypriot perspectives on things in the Vision is just evidence of that more so then Patmos being Cyprus.

I still have my doubts about the traditional identification of Patmos.  Is there any solid proof Letois was called Patmos before being associated with The Revelation?  Or that that association happened before the Fourth Century?

Update May 27th 2020: It has just been brought to my attention that there are some texts published by von Soden which say "John" wrote his Gospel after returning to Ephesus from Paphos.  That doesn't directly relate to Revelation at all, and ties into traditions I now consider false, but it is an interesting witness.
Here is the best link I find for a source on them.
Further Updates: The author of that book I've also interacted with on the comments section of a Preterist blog.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/04/06/john-mark-beloved-disciple/comment-page-1/#comment-17
And they've written another blog post on the subject.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/05/28/the-confusion-of-cyprus-and-patmos/

Update: We now need to depend on the Way Back Machine to read these.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210227203210/https://deanfurlong.com/2020/05/28/the-confusion-of-cyprus-and-patmos/

A Pre-Tribber on interpreting Revelation Chronologically

They and various forms of "Mid-Trib" like me seem to be the only ones inclined to take it Chronologically.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/reading-revelation-chronologically/

Reading Revelation Chronologically

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

• End Times
• Prophecy

Q. John’s gospel is the least chronological of the four gospels. Events are out of order and a very unequal amount of verses are applied to certain events versus other events in Jesus’ life. So it would seem unlikely then that John’s book of Revelation would be completely in time order. Perhaps some parts of the Revelation are chronological, and others are placed thematically. This is a critical issue, since from reading your material it appears the primary basis of your belief in pre-Trib is because Rev 4 & 5 in chapter order precede the rest of the book. Can you please enlighten me as to how you see it and why?

A. I’ve read lots of opinions about whether the Revelation is chronological or not, and the only exceptions to a chronological reading that makes sense to me are;

1) John could only write about one thing at a time so there are places where multiple things are happening together and he could only describe them one at a time,

2) where he brought a particular subject to its conclusion before back tracking to pick up another train of thought, or

3) where he’s providing some background to help us understand something. These are all obvious. Otherwise, I don’t think it makes sense to depart from a chronological reading.

It’s not fair to compare the Revelation with John’s gospel. In the Revelation John was essentially “taking dictation” from the Lord, and the writing style is so different that some scholars debate whether he even wrote it.

Finally, there are several much stronger proofs for a pre-trib rapture that make a chronological reading of Revelation unnecessary to support the case for one.

My first objection is that taking it chronologically inherently helps Pre-Trib, Pre-Trib sees The Rapture not in Revelation at all so really it's chronology should be irrelevant to them.  I see it clearly in the middle of the book, from the latter part of Chapter 11 through chapter 14, with the key moment being The Rapture of the Man-Child.

1), His intent was clearly to try as much as possible to write things down as he saw them.

2), Certain subjects ARE clearly scattered about, the book is clearly not organized by subject, even The Beast gets a reference before his formal introduction.

3), This I assume is mainly about the mystery of the Seven heads, and maybe the various time statements.

The reason Revelation's Authorship confuses people is indeed because it was really written by Jesus with John as his stenographer.  It's actually wrong to say Jesus wrote none of The Bible.

Since Jack Kelly knows John's Gospel is the least Chronological, I wonder if he is wiling to admit Jesus ministry wasn't three years but only one tops.

Could the second Witness be John?

I've argued before for the second witness being Enoch.  And I still feel strongly convinced by all those arguments.  But I've become aware of a compelling argument being made that the other Witness is John, the Beloved Disciple to whom the Revelation was given, himself.

At the end of Revelation 10 John is told.  "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."  Maybe this just means him preaching the message of Revelation to the world after he finished it.  But early Church tradition doesn't record such an epic final ministry, though Irenaeus says he lived into the reign of Trajan.  The compelling thing is, it's the very next chapter that discuses the Two Witnesses.

Of all the verses Preterists misuse to make it sound like the New Testament says Jesus' Second Coming must happen in the lifetime of his ministry.  Matthew 16:28 (and it's parallels in the other synoptics) is the strongest.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

 I have for awhile favored the argument of Chuck Missler and others that this refers to the Transfiguration in the next chapter.  Which was a glimpse of the Kingdom.  But I've read recently that the Greek word Tis translated "Some" here can also me "a certain one".

At the end of John's Gospel.  Jesus says concerning the Beloved Disciple who is the book's author.

"If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

We are told that many interpreted this to mean he wouldn't die.  But then we are told that was incorrect, "yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

The correction is often taken as assuring us it doesn't give John any unusual lifespan, or anything else like that, but that this was simply fulfilled in a way by him having the vision that is The Book of Revelation.  But the correction was only about thinking John wouldn't die, The Two Witnesses will die.

John is traditionally believed to have not died a Martyr, a few sources all drawing on Papias who's original work we don't have say he was Martyred during the reign of Domitian.  But our oldest quoter of Papias, Irenaeus, who has supposedly an indirect connection to John via Polycarp, was unaware of this and says John lived into the reign of Trajan.  Zahn T argued that the reference in Papias is actually to John The Baptist.

A work attributed to Hippolytus of Rome called "On the Apostles and Disciples" records certain traditions I don't believe, mainly Peter dying in Rome, and it follows Catholic dogma of confusing certain of the 12 with the Brothers of Jesus.  But what it says about John is interesting.

"John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."

Matthew 10:35 and 20:20 have been interpreted as implying both sons of Zebedee would die Martyrs.  James is the only one of the 12 who's death is recorded in the History of the New Testament, in Acts 12.  But if John is one of the Two Witnesses then his is recorded in Prophecy.

Thematically I think it would fit well with my argument for The False Prophet being Judas Iscariot.  Having a disciple on each side relevant to the End Times.

How does this effect Rapture timing disputes?  Any argument that the Two Witnesses ministry can't be during the Church Age would be destroyed by this, since John is absolutely part of The Church.  It would give more credence to an argument that the Rapture of the Witnesses is part of the Rapture of The Church if one of them is one of the 12.  And the statement from John 21 would require their death to be very near when the Rapture happens.

Also, read Acts 3 and 4 carefully.  Peter and John sort of serve as a type of the Witnesses there.  Just as Elijah did during his first ministry.

Thing is, there are still arguments I made for Enoch that I feel are pretty difficult to refute.  And this would require that the early traditions about John's death are false, which they could be, but I'm forced to wonder why they would pop up?  But that he's traditionally the only of the 12 not Martyred is interesting.