On the Author of Revelations and the Throne of St. Mark

Did the author of the Revelations see this throne or one just like it?  Let's just go with that idea for the moment and imagine what he saw when he looked at the hexagon on the front.  One might argue that he didn’t see the world that was created in six days and is imbued with the quality of six. He saw a two-dimensional drawing of a cube, each line being the edge of one of the six faces. Is that a correct or incorrect interpretation of the image?

The Animal on the Back of the Throne of St Mark in Venice

It isn’t a lamb. It’s a ram. It has definite curved horns. The reason we have missed them is that the pictures of the front aren’t very good, and the horns curve down and run along the top of the head, just as they would have to if the ram were to get caught in brambles. (The Hebrew has sevach [Samech-Bet-Kaf], anything tangled like a big wild climbing rose or a big blackberry. The word is related to sevacha lattice and mesubbach complicated. This is different to sene [Samech-Nun-He], as in the Burning Bush.

That doesn’t mean the author of Revelations has mistaken what he saw. He has followed the lead of John’s Gospel in fusing the ram of Genesis with the purely secondary identification (in my opinion) of the Passover lamb. Mind you, the fusion probably does go back to the actual date of 37 A.D. It need not be an invention of the period of falsification

On the Ophite Diagram

The Ophite diagram from Alexandria mentioned by Origen in Against Celsus are worthy of note. That Origen has such a diagram in his possession is odd enough. He seems a little too familiar with the symbolism contained therein and often cites Jewish and Christian scripture to clarify 'errors' in Celsus. He also mentions the first four planetary rulers are lion, bull, snake and eagle which correspond to Michael, Suriel, Raphael and Gabriel. However he makes clear that the image of the seven planets does not prove that Christianity borrowed from Mithras as Celsus charges but adds:

If one wished to obtain means for a pro-founder contemplation of the entrance of souls into divine things, not from the statements of that very insignificant sect from which he quoted, hut from books--partly those of the Jews, which are read in their synagogues, and adopted by Christians, and partly from those of Christians alone--let him peruse, at the end of Ezekiel's prophecies, the visions beheld by the prophet, in which gates of different kinds are enumerated, which obscurely refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a better world; and let him peruse also, from the Apocalypse of John, what is related of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and of its foundations and gates. And if he is capable of finding out also the road, which is indicated by symbols, of those who will march on to divine things, let him read the book of Moses entitled Numbers, and let him seek the help of one who is capable of initiating him into the meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of the children of Israel; viz., of what sort those were which were arranged towards the east, as was the case with the first; and what those towards the south-west. and south; and what towards the sea; and what the last were, which were stationed towards the north. For he will see that there is in the respective places a meaning not to be lightly treated, nor, as Celsus imagines, such as calls only for silly and servile listeners: but he will distinguish in the encampments certain things relating to the numbers that are enumerated, and which are specially adapted to each tribe, of which the present does not appear to us to be the proper time to speak. Let Celsus know, moreover, as well as those who read his book, that in no part of the genuine and divinely accredited Scriptures are "seven" heavens mentioned; neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri. [Contra Celsum 6:23]

The crux of Origen's understanding of the Alexandrian sect is that human souls belong to one of the various 'living creatures' mentioned in the diagram.

The Traditional Rabbinic Material On the Dating in Daniel.

This can be an exercise in how to set out data and evidence in a satisfactory form.  We would start with exact translations of Rashi,  Saadya with a guide on separating what is transmitted from the comments by the transmitter, and on how to show the reader where the divisions lie. I was wrong in saying that Rashi, Saadya are puzzled by what they transmit: it would be better to say they don’t want their readers to be puzzled, but don’t want them to be fully informed either. The statement of policy in this respect is given by Maimonides. I can do all this in the form of working notes without waiting for my translations. I will try to find more Rabbinic support beyond what I have so far. I will need to add to what Maimonides says, two other pieces of information on the reticence of the Rabbinic sources in explaining CLEARLY what they transmit.

One is the statement on why there is no Targum to Daniel, the reason given being that there used to be one, but it was too explicit. The other is the statement of why the LXX of Daniel was replaced by Theodotion’s revision, namely that the original Greek translation was too explicit. Then I will have to give evidence for my claims about the authorship and dating of the Zadokite Document, and I will have to show which passages are specifically relevant to my article. Then I will have to quote any supporting evidence that is available from historical documentation.

I’ve seen for myself how evidence is set out, and source-references are given, in academic writing. I will have noticed that there are different ways of formatting, all of which are acceptable. However, I will have to put editorial annotations in the margins, so the text can be revised.

On the Diatessaron

Using the term Diatessaron for anything except the book called THE Diatessaron causes confusion and is unscientific. The book called THE Diatessaron was so named by mistake. The name can be taken to mean “spread across four” and might have only meant that the content was equivalent to the set of four, but it was interpreted very early to mean “compiled from four”. The long gospels can’t be called diatessarons. You can’t say a long gospel such as the Gospel of the Hebrews is A Diatessaron. It is a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS to say the set of four gospels was edited from a Diatessaron.

The use of such terminology puts the reader in the position of having to reject the terminology so as to understand the meaning intended. What will happen in practice is that the reader will assume you must mean what is printed and that you didn’t mean what is not printed. Then the argument will be rejected because it is self-contradictory.  Constant Mews was dubious about the assumptions about early long gospels because he assumed that the words printed must be what you intended to say. He couldn’t be expected to know that what was meant was something other than what was printed.

Using the term diatessaron for anything other than the book edited by Tatian will produce printed assertions that a long gospel was compiled from four early on, say in the late first century, and this long gospel was split up into four in about 180 CE. This is what the words mean, if what is printed is something like “the Gospel of the Hebrews was a Diatessaron”, but it is nonsense. If you say the Pepys text is a relic of an old long gospel and then say it is a diatessaron, you contradict yourself. And so on.

Images in the Palace of Agrippa at Tiberius

Josephus defends his destruction of the palace because it contained 'ζῴων μορφὰς.' It may well be a stock excuse for why he took revenge on his nemesis. However it might refer to the fact that it was built around a throne with similar images to the one in Alexandria.

On a Universal Religion

By “universal” I only mean compatible with the religions of the countries from Europe to Iran. My observations are useful. I will see if I can integrate these isolated data.

(a) The Jewish Temple and the Samaritan sanctuary were generally regarded by outsiders as dedicated to Jupiter = Zeus = Ba’al or El ‘Elyon, and were designated at times by Jews and Samaritans themselves as dedicated to Zeus for ease of communication. Plenty of examples in Josephus, I Maccabees, etc. as I recall.
(b) The Hebrew/Canaanite/Phoenician “El ‘Elyon”  אל עליון God Most High is the natural equivalent of Zeus Hypsistos Ζευς ‘Υψιστος.
(c) El and Baal tend to fuse in the Canaanite religion or religions.
(d) God is frequently called Ba’al בעל  in the O.T. as a metaphor, notably throughout the first half of Hosea, where it means “God” and “husband” both at once.
(e) There was a accommodation of Christianity with the old Roman religion in Rome (as any Protestant will tell you at length). Notice the choice of the Vatican Hill, the taking over of the title Pontifex, the inscription Deo Optimo Maximo on Roman Catholic churches to this day, etc. The Mons Vaticanus was so called because from it came oracles or pronouncements or predictions (vaticinia, singular vaticinium). Thus Papal infallibility. Note also the Pope’s blessing “urbi et orbi” “to the city and the world”. My own opinion is that this is the reason for the elevation of Latin to a sacred language by the Roman Church. Now obviously none of this would be relevant in Syria (including Palestine). Also, the elevation of Catholic Christianity to the position of one of the two most favoured religions and later on its supplanting of the other favoured religion, Mithraism, came later on, well after Vespasian. However, the ingredients must have been there beforehand. (A reminder. Catholic Καθολικος = “universal”, but as defined at the Council of Nicaea by the authority of Constantine, not R.C.!!!).
(f) The name Jupiter is a compound, with Jove being the Anglicisation of the base form. The cognate in terms of linguistic history in Greek is Zeus. I need to look at the oblique cases (cases other than the nominative and vocative) of the Greek and Latin words to see this. It has been argued with a lot of evidence that the Tetragrammaton YHWH is Indo-European, presumably from Hittite or Hurrian, languages from Anatolia spoken in parts of Palestine for many centuries. In this connection the forms used as prefixes, Yo and Yeho, the alternative independent formYah [The H is not a vowel-marker, but pronounced as an H], the suffixed forms Yah [the H is only a vowel-marker here] and Yahu, as well the form Yao known from magical texts are relevant. The site of the Jerusalem Temple was bought by David from Araunah [an Indo-European name] the Hittite. It was on an exposed bit of flat  hill-top, i.e. it was the site for an Akropolis. The Cave of Machpelah was bough by Abraham from Hittites. It is known from inscriptions that even in O.T. times the name YHWH was used by non-Israelites, including Aramaeans near Palestine.
(g) We now need to re-consider the record of the building of a Temple of Zeus by Vespasian or Hadrian or both on Mt. Gerizim, and think AGAIN about who might have regarded it with disfavour. We also need to look again at the words in one of the first of the Marqeh hymns about some kind of rejection of a form of religion practised very recently, apparently even by the congregation that recited the words of contrition. (See Kippenberg again)

On R. Meir's Being Originally Called Mayesha

The af’el participle mesha’ מישע and the Hebrew hif’il participle מושיע both mean “one who saves” or “saviour”, from the root ישע in both cases. The names יהושע Yehoshua’ (Samaritan pronunciation Yê’ûsha) and its shortened form ישוע Yeshua and the name הרשע Hoshea’ (anglice Hosea) all mean “the Lords saves” or “the Lord is salvation”, and allude to the last verses of Deuteronomy 33. This is the passage Jesus had in mind when he said to the Samaritan woman in John 4 “Ye venerate what ye do not know (i.e. are not familiar with by direct acquaintance, since the Sanctuary vanished in the time of the High Priest ‘Azzi, when the Râ’ûta (Favour) ended and the Fânûta (Turning away [of the face of God] started. We venerate what we know. THE Salvation (see Deuteronomy) is from the (tribe of ) Judah (not Levi, not Ephraim)”.

Note well: the verb means both” venerate” (a place) or “worship”(God” according to the case of the following noun, whether accusative or dative. See the neighbouring verses for the distinction. All commentators all all modern translations have missed this, because the commentators and theologians are too thick to look at the Greek rather than their translation.  Besides, their command of Greek is limited.

Genesis Chapter 1 and the Samaritan Liturgy

Gen i. 1 - ii. 3 has a place in all the Samaritan liturgical orders for the Sabbath

Textual Corruption in the Mimar Marqe

John MacDonald observes (p. 28) "there is a confusion over the number of plagues (cf. Book II, passim), depending on whether the first was the serpents."  Clearly another example of corruption in the text.  I have deliberately avoided retaining the subsection headings as there is again disagreement in the MSS. This present section is identified in most MSS as 'the ninth judgement' although MS D(A) and L(A) identify it as 'the Seventh Address.'  The death of the firstborns are identified alternatively as 'the eleventh judgement' or the 'the ninth address.'  My guess is that the identification of the Crossing of the Sea as the 'Twelfth Judgement' is the original.

Elisha’ ben Avuyah

Was Elisha’ ben Avuyah somehow connected to early Christianity? Certainly Elisha’= Yehoshua. If Avuyah is a deliberate alteration of a symbolic name, then the original would have been Aviya אביה which AT THAT TIME (but not when the name came into existence centuries before) would have been taken to mean “my father is Yah”. This would strongly support your theory. The name Avuyah is otherwise unknown, whereas Aviyah is well attested in the O.T. [Note that in these two names there is a consonantal H at the end. The H is not a vowel-letter here]. There is a reminiscence in the altered form Avuyah of the word “avoy” אבוי meaning “Woe!”

Bostonos or Botonos in Abu ’l-Fatḥ

If you compare what Abu ’l-Fatḥ says elsewhere, it is apparent that he does not say large numbers of a Dosithean sub-sect in Alexandria were wiped out. Comparison of his style and method with other passages shows that he says the leaders of one sub-sect were wiped out. (Or more exactly, this is the style and method of his source. This is the same source that was known to Origen secondhand in fragmentary quotes out of context which he did not understand). Compare what Abu ’l-Fatḥ says about one sub-sect being wiped out when the roof fell in when they were ALL gathered. Similar stories are quote for the end of other sub-sects of the Dositheans. There is also the analogy of Origen saying there were only ever thirty Dositheans,, as well as Origen’s statement that Simon had thirty followers. Notice that in all cases a group founded by a named individual is involved.

In the standard references, you will find Abu ’l-Fatḥ quoted as saying that Bustanos came up out of the sea and killed these people. Then there are guesses that this might be Poseidonios (Poseidon). A Samaritan author would not attribute an event to a Greek god! The rationalising interpretation that a tidal wave might be meant is no better, since no Samaritan would call a tidal wave a manifestation of Poseidon. You have to bear in mind that when Abu ’l-Fatḥ is quoted, it is always according to Vilmar’s edition of 1865. This was a good start, but Vilmar frequently guesses and prints what is not in any manuscript without telling the reader. Very often he follows his ms. C against all the others because it is the oldest. It is not the oldest by very much, and it is badly copied. Guesses about what Abu ’l-Fatḥ might have meant are futile unless the mss. are checked. Both Prof. Haroutun Jamgotchian (of Yerevan) and myself have published careful studies of the readings of the mss. in difficult places, and this fact is quite clear from our samples (Textproben). The correct reading in this case is not Bostonos but Botonos. (The insertion of the S is an easy reading mistake with Arabic script). This probably means hippopotamus. After that, it does not say this imaginary figure put some of them into ships. The verb is passive. Here is something close to what Abu ’l-Fatḥ wrote. Remember the mss. have not been fully collated yet. “A hippopotamus came up out of the Nile and killed many of them. A substantial number were thrown into ships”. The name of the leader could be Ulyana (which might be Aramaic for Iulianus). Then again it might not be. The mss. don’t agree or even come close to agreeing. Anyway, it says he was killed. Then there is this. “Those that stayed in his movement thought they were in the time of Favour, but they were deluded. Numerous troubles came upon them, but they learnt nothing and did not return to their senses”. Notice that the movement was not wiped out at all. Something happened to the leaders at some time. When they were wiped out, they were probably about to immerse themselves, at least in the imagination of the source author. As for the believability of the hippopotamus story, this is not a question. What Abu ’l-Fatḥ says about the end of the other sub-sects is just as fantastic. If you want to have some story about the punishment of the wicked heretics, and they are on the Nile, why not have a convenient hippopotamus? (If they had been here, he could have invented a crocodile or shark). We might perhaps learn from this that they were in the Nile delta, if someone thought this believable. In each case, the source wanted to show that a group (meaning the leaders of the group) had been wiped out by the hand of Providence because of their wickedness, and being wiped out other than by the hand of man proved how wicked they were. The Dositheans did not vanish from Egypt, only the leaders of this sub-group. There is a notice in Photius of a substantial number of Dositheans in Alexandria in 588 CE, numerous enough to petition for official recognition as a denomination other than the rest of the Samaritans.

Approximate Location of the Ancient Church of St Mark in Alexandria