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.