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.

Translation issues in Revelation that could be important.

They involve the Subject of The Beast and comes from chapters 13 and 17.

In Revelation 13:5 the KJV says The Beast will "continue" 42 month.  That reading being my default understanding of the verse has always lead me to interpreting it as saying the end of the 42 months must be when the Beast is defeated in Revelation 19 and they begin when the Mortal Wound is healed.  Since the meaning of "Continue" in my mind meant his life and reign being prolonged past the point when it should have ended.

But I recently checked the Young's Literal Translation and it says that The Beast was given authority to "make war" for 42 months.  Now this is not actually a perfectly hyper literal translation because the Greek word for War isn't in the verse, but it is elsewhere in the chapter and associated with The Beast in other chapters.  For example in both Revelation 11:7 and 13:7 the phrase "make war" appears, and in both the word for "make" is the Greek word translated "Continue" in 13:5, in fact the same word is translated lots of other ways as well.

I think the "make war" appearances are actually best translated "wage war".  In 13:7 the waging of war is defined as something The beast is given power or authority to do.  And 13:4 was also about the Beast's prowess in warfare. So it makes sense that what The beast "makes" or "wages" in those other verses is what is probably the context of verse 5.

The next is not a criticism of the KJV, but more the way we casually talk about Revelation 17 that may not even be supported by any actual translation.  And that is how we often refer to the Woman as Riding the Beast.  The Language the text uses is that The Beast is carrying the Woman.  And this difference is significant in terms of who can be presumed to have the agency in this situation.

The third is perhaps not a matter of a single word.  But I'd already argued on this Blog that I think the Miracles or Wonders that the later part Revelation 13 attributes to the Second Beast are meant to be believed by those being deceived to be performed by the First Beast.  But I didn't much try to support that with anything in the actual text of Revelation 13 but from inferences drawn by other prophecies I then assumed to be about the same persons.  I'm now more skeptical of a lot of those assumptions about what passages are and aren't about the "Antichrist", but instead have been thinking about what it means that the miracles are performed "in the sight" of The Beast, or "before the beast" in the YLT.

Such language exists in The Hebrew often about the relationship between The LORD and His Prophets or Anointed Ones.  In those Contexts is about how what the Agents of God are able to do what they do because of Power or Authority given to them by God or Jesus.  The natural perversion of that would be a False Prophet attributing his miracles to the person he's seeking to deceive the world into thinking is a god.

However another issue near here is about the Image of The Beast.  The KJV says that the Second Beast convinced the people to "male" an Image of the Beast but other translations say something like "set up" which I think is more accurate looking at the Greek verb itself.  The issue is the "make" translation had at times lead me to think the Image is something that didn't exist already prior to this, but the Greek is actually NOT using a word for Create. So it could be referring to doing something with an Image that was already there.

When was Jesus's Not One Stone Prophecy fully fulfilled?

You might think the answer to that is obvious and well known, but you'd be surprised.  First I'm going to quote the account of the Prophecy from Mark 13:1-2 since I think it's the most complete account of exactly what Jesus in this case.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" And Jesus answering said unto him, "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down".

Notice that it isn't JUST about The Temple, it's about all the Buildings, plural.  

While Matthew and Luke's account of this in their main Olivet Discourse chapters downplay the inclusion of other buildings, Luke 19:44 also refers to not one stone being left, with The Temple not even being the focus, that Prophecy is about the entirety of Jerusalem.

The 9th of Av in AD 70 (presumed to be August 4th on the Roman Calendar) as recorded in Josephus Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapters 4-5 is the day The Temple was destroyed in the sense of not being able to be used as a Temple anymore.  Remember what happened to the Notre Dame Cathedral a few years ago?  The worst case scenario people were fearing that day is basically what happened to The Temple on the 9th of Av.  The next day however as recorded by Josephus in Wars Book VI Chapter 6 there are clearly still standing ruins.  

The beginning of Book VII is when Titus demolishes even those ruins and thus this is where most Christians talking about AD 70 via Josephus (both Preterists and Futurists) say the Not One Stone Prophecy was fulfilled.  Except Josephus tells us there were three towers that Titus left standing, in my view as long as those three towers were still standing this Prophecy of Jesus was incomplete.

In AD 131 Emperor Hadrian while visiting Jerusalem after ending his extended stay in Egypt announced his plans to rebuilt Jerusalem as a Greco-Roman City with a Temple to Zeus being built over the former site of The Temple.  I think the early stages of that project is when even those three remaining towers were torn down.  

Then after Hadrian left the Near East for Asia Minor in 132 the Bar Kokchba Revolt broke out.  That probably stalled the reconstruction project even though the Rebels never held Jerusalem during that war.  Then after the revolt was put down in 135 the project restarted.

Babylon in Egypt

The existence of a place called Babylon in Ancient Egypt, not poetically or spiritually but as it's literal official name, is a pretty fascinating subject.  Babylon in Egypt was also the embryo of the city now known as Cairo, the Capital of Modern Egypt and religiously important to both Muslims in Egypt and Coptic Christianity.

Speculation that this could be relevant to Biblical uses of the name Babylon mostly focus on 1 Peter 5:13's usage, since Marcus/Mark is said to be with him in the same verse and tradition says Mark went to Egypt.  But I'm as skeptical of the Mark in Egypt traditions as I am the Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus traditions.  My theory is the Christian Community of Alexandria was largely founded in the late 1st or early 2d century by Christians from Cyprus and their particular interest in Mark and Barnabas comes from their connection to Cyprus.  I think Peter and Mark were in Seleucia on the Tigris when that Epistle was written.

For New Testament relevance I've actually become very interested in Babylon in Egypt possibly explaining the use of the name in Revelation.

The main argument against this that isn't more an argument for Babylon being somewhere else would be that the only explicit reference to Egypt in Revelation is calling the "Great City" Spiritually Sodom and Egypt in chapter 11, with "Spiritually" in a context like this being presumed to be mutually exclusive to literally or geographically, and elsewhere The Great City is explicitly Babylon.  I have two responses to that.

1st from a certain POV you could almsot argue actual Egypt was only still Egyptian Spiritually by this point, the land had been increasingly colonized by the various Empires of Daniel 2&7 and their native languages were on the decline being largely only still used for Spiritual things, yet Egyptian Paganism still thrived both in Egypt and throughout the Empire.

2nd is that I feel the relationships between certain key terms in Revelation are not as geographically synonymous as a casual reading assumes, and that some relate to each other more abstractly.  The Babylon Fortress was from 30 BC onwards a Roman Military fortress, it was central to how Rome enforced it's military might in the region.  The fact is a significant number of the Roman troops involved in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War were probably troops who had been stationed in the Babylon Fortress before it started.

So this view need not conflict with arguments for Babylon being Rome, the Seven Hilled City of Revelation 17 I still believe refers to the Seven Hills of Rome.  I stand by my argument for how the Great City of Revelation 11 could be Rome and for the Roma Cult argument that the Woman of Revelation 17 is the people of Rome no matter where they dwell.  The Beast is definitely still the Roman Empire.  Or "Great City" could refer to different cities in different contexts, sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes Rome and sometimes Babylon in Egypt.

But before I return to Revelation I want to speculate on how even some Hebrew Bible references to Babylon could be this Babylon in Egypt.  

The origins of there being a settlement in Egypt called Babylon do predate the Roman Fortress and possibly go back to Babylonian Refugees in Egypt during the time of Assyria's Conquests contemporary with King Hezekiah of Judah and thus also the Prophets Micah and Isaiah.  Based on the conclusions of the Languages of the Table of Nations post the language of the Babylonians was a Canaanite Language, so Babylon in Egypt could be one of those Five Cities from Isaiah 19.

The Biblical chapter divisions we're used to aren't in the original text, the famous Bethlehem Prophecy of Micah 5 is actually in the context of Micah 4 which refers to the Migdal Eder and Zion.  Micah 4:10 has the Daughter of Zion after giving birth go to Babylon, well Christians know this was actually fulfilled by going to Egypt, both with Mary in Matthew 2 and then the people as a whole after being conquered by Titus, Josephus says Titus stopped at Alexandria with his Captives on the way to Rome and then once at Rome started his Triumph in the Temple of Isis.  Latter after the Fall of Masada the surviving Zealots go to Egypt to rile things up there.  This arguably also fulfills the prophecy of Israel returning to Egypt in Hosea 8:13-9:3.

In the time of Isaiah this Babylon in Egypt was possibly a settlement of ethnic Babylonians (like a little Italy or a Chinatown) so Isaiah could have referred to them in Ethnic terms, he could have called them the Daughter of Babylon for the same reason he called Tyre the daughter of Sidon.

Ezekiel 20:36 justifies calling the land of Egypt a wilderness fitting the third verse of Revelation 17.  And Ezekiel 23 associated Egypt with the theme of Israel's Idolatry as Spiritual Whoredom/Adulatory which is another theme Revelation 17 is drawing on.

What really compels me though is the possibly of the Babylon of Isaiah 13-14 being a Babylon in Egypt thus justifying placing the Seat/Throne of Satan in Egypt.  I've already talked on this blog about how I now view the King of Babylon of Isaiah 14 as having never been a mortal ruler but always a title of Heylel ben Shachar.

Sobek was often depicted as with Isis healing the murdered Osiris.  Sobek's association with Ra which became his main form during Ptolemaic and Roman times could explain why The Dragon of Revelation 12 is Red since Ra is usually depicted as a Red Sun rather then Yellow.  And that association with The Sun also provides relevance to the Babylon fortress being in the area of Heliopolis.

When people say the reason Rome is called Babylon in Revelation was to try and hide what they were talking about from Romans who might happen to read it I get annoyed.  What makes Babylon in some sense Rome is entirely Rome's own self identification, no Patriotic Roman reading the text would see chapter 17 refer to a City on Seven Hills with Seven Kings and fail to recognize that. It is attempts to find an alternate Sola Scriptura explanation for those symbols that leads one away from Rome and to Daniel 7 and other prophecies referencing the same animals or symbolic Harlots.  It is studying the Hebrew Bible references being drawn on that points one to Egypt as the secret actual focus of the narrative, if it's not as straight forward as simply being Babylon or more broadly Iraq.

For more Egyptian Relevance to Revelation beyond just Babylon read this follow up post.

https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2023/02/patmos-was-actually-pithom-in-egypt.html

Things that are NOT signs of the End (a partial Matthew 24 commentary)

[1] And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
[2] And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?

I agree with Preterists that when The Disciples said "these things" they were thinking of what Jesus said in the prior verse and probably also what He said at the end of chapter 23.  And I suspect they assumed those things happen at the same time as what they asked about next, the sign of Jesus's Parousia and of the end of the Age.

However there is a theme throughout the Gospels of the Disciples being mistaken about certain things and Jesus then trying to correct them.  And that this is one of those is implied by what Jesus says next.

[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Assumptions are frequently key to how deceptions work.

Verses 5-7 are what verse 8 calls the beginning of sorrows.  They are also called the Non Signs by the late Chuck Missler because of the last part of verse 6  "see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet".  But I think it's particularly notable that the "wars and rumours of wars" was what directly preceded that statement.  

The Temple was destroyed because of a war, and it wasn't the only war going on at that time, there had recently been rebellion in Britain and then civil war broke out because of Galba overthrowing Nero starting the year of the four emperors.  The rumors of wars refers to wars that could have happened but were averted, like the tensions between Rome and Parthia at this time.

I'm still of the opinion that the fist proper false Christ was Bar Kochba, but still a more fluid definition of what it means to be a false Christ is applicable to many people both before and during the first Jewish-Roman War.

The verse that proclaims all of these to be not actually signs is rightly used often to make fun of the more sensationalist Futurists.  But it's 70 AD Preterism especially Full Preterism that it outright founded upon ignoring the ramifications of Jesus saying this, if the end was always a mere 40 years away max then it was never not nigh.

I think even the Persecution discussion is really part of the Non Signs, Roman Persecution started with Trajan but the first empire wide one was under Decius and the only really great one was the Diocletian Persecution.  But the end of Roman persecution ushered in Persian Persecution, and even today in many countries Christians are being persecuted.

I've also come to agree with Preterists that the word for "World" in verse 14 being neither Kosmos or Aion is one that can be interpreted as meaning the domain of the Roman Empire.  But even then The Gospel still hadn't reached all of the Roman world by 70 AD.  

It was in the late Second Century that it first came to Gaul and Britannia, I'd been attracted to the various legends and fringe theories about New Testament characters coming to First Century Albion myself in the past, but they don't hold up as even Geoffrey of Monmouth says The British Church began with Lucius in the time of Eleutherius, around then is also when Tertullian first mentions Christians being in Brittan.  There are misleading legends tied even to that Lucius as I don't think he was a King but maybe was Lucius Ulpius Marcellus.  And The Church in Gaul started a little before then with Pothinus and Irenaeus who moved there from Ionia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Miletus).  With Britain you can try to make an excuse that it wasn't part of the Empire yet when Jesus made this Prophecy, but Gaul absolutely was.

Still while verse 14 can be interpreted as having that limited scale I'm inclined to think it's not.  That word translated world is a particularly fancy Greek word for Household.  While Greco-Romans did use if for the Imperium like in Luke 2:1's account of the Census decree.  I think Jesus means the Household of Adam, since Son of Man is the title for Himself that He likes to use when describing The Parousia.

Preterists will then try to prove this was fulfilled in the first century by taking certain things Paul said in Romans and Colossians out of context.  Paul is talking about what the mission of The Church during the Age of Grace is, in context he clearly does not see that mission as actually already accomplished or he wouldn't still be doing what he's doing.  When Preterists "Proof Text" like this it's just like the worst Futurist bad understanding of the concept of using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, just cause those verses use similar language doesn't mean they solve each other.

Verse 15 is where the actual signs of the end start, that is the fig tree showing it's leaves in verse 32, the Generation that sees that is the one that shall not pass away in verse 34.

I've already deconstructed the notion of that being applicable to anything in 70 AD.  I think the similar yet different description in Mark can be applicable to Hadrian's Abomination, but Matthew is different.  Getting into that here would distract from the main point at hand, I'm still not entirely decided on it myself.