Monday quote

The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.

George Orwell (1903–1950).

Monday quote

If we discover a desire within us that nothing in this world can satisfy, also we should begin to wonder if perhaps we were created for another world.

C. S. Lewis (1898–1963).

Gematria

In Hebrew and Greek character glyphs double as numerical glyphs. Gematria is the Hebrew term given to assigning a number to a word based on reading the letters as numerals and summing them. Below are the numbers assigned to various letters in Greek and Hebrew. Note the table is based on the numerical value and the two sounds in a row aren't necessarily similar. Greek uses some glyphs that had become obsolete as letters (6, 90, 900) and Hebrew uses glyphs of letters than appear different when they occur at the end of a word (500–900).

Number	Greek	Hebrew
1	Α	א
2	Β	ב
3	Γ	ג
4	Δ	ד
5	Ε	ה
6	Ϝ	ו
7	Ζ	ז
8	Η	ח
9	Θ	ט
10	Ι	י
20	Κ	כ
30	Λ	ל
40	Μ	מ
50	Ν	נ
60	Ξ	ס
70	Ο	ע
80	Π	פ
90	Ϙ	צ
100	Ρ	ק
200	Σ	ר
300	Τ	ש
400	Υ	ת
500	Φ	ך
600	Χ	ם
700	Ψ	ן
800	Ω	ף
900	ϡ	ץ

Monday quote

If you reject the Bible's history, you will reject the Bible's morality.

Ken Ham

Was Revelation written under Domitian?

Domitian

Nero died in 68 and there were 3 contenders for the throne in quick succession. First Galba, then Otho. After Otho's suicide in April 69 supporters of Vitellius proclaimed him emperor and supporters of Vespasian in the Eastern provinces proclaimed him emperor. The Senate in Rome accepted Vitellius as emperor initially in mid 69 and conferred Vespasian as emperor in December 69. About that time Vespasian was in Egypt securing food for Rome and his son Titus was fighting the Roman-Jewish war. Vespasian's other son Domitian ruled in Rome and was aided by the general Mucianus after the general arrived in Rome. Domitian was 18 at the time and ruled for 6 months until Vespasian arrived in June 70. Domitian had full consular authority. Josephus writes

[Mucianus] then produced Domitian, and recommended him to the multitude, until his father [Vespasian] should come himself; so the people being now freed from their fears, made acclamations of joy for Vespasian, as for their emperor, and kept festival days for his confirmation, and for the destruction of Vitellius. (War of the Jews, book 4, chapter 11.4)

Cassius in his Roman History notes that both Domitian and Mucianus acted like they were emperors. The sarcastic letter from Vespasian to his son Domitian is amusing.

Thus Vespasian, like some others, had been born for the throne. While he was still absent in Egypt, Mucianus administered all the details of government with the help of Domitian. For Mucianus, who claimed that he had bestowed the sovereignty upon Vespasian, plumed himself greatly upon his honours, and especially because he was called brother by him, and had authority to transact any business that he wished without the emperor's express direction, and could issue written orders by merely adding the other's name. And for this purpose he wore a ring, that had been sent him so that he might impress the imperial seal upon documents requiring authorization. In fact, he and Domitian gave governorships and procuratorships to many and appointed prefect after prefect and even consuls. In short, they acted in every way so much like absolute rulers that Vespasian once sent the following message to Domitian: "I thank you, my son, for permitting me to hold office and that you have not yet dethroned me." (Roman History, book 75, chapter 2. Emphasis added.)

There is a tradition that Domitian exiled John to Patmos and that he was freed by Nerva. Domitian was emperor from 81 to 96 and was succeeded by Nerva. This implies that Revelation was authored during Domitian's reign which is a common belief. If, however, he was exiled by Domitian when he was consul for his father Vespasian in the first half of 70, he could have subsequently been released by Nerva who was made consul in 71.

Vespasian took as his colleague in the consulship in 71 A.D. M. Cocceius Nerva. Now Nerva—the future emperor—was the representative of a family distinguished for three generations as jurists, and no doubt his appointment at this particular time was due to Vespasian's desire to have a skilled lawyer at his side for dealing with the mass of sentences of exile and of confiscation which were the legacy of the successive revolutions. Nerva held office during the first nundinum of 71 A.D., and it is permissible to believe that in accordance with tradition one of the sentences quashed by him was that which sent John to Patmos. If by an order of Nerva he were now released, his exile would have lasted almost exactly one year. (Edmundson, Church in Rome in the First Century, lecture 6)

Edmundson links a passage in Revelation to these Caesars. John sees a woman riding a scarlet beast with blasphemous names, 7 heads, and 10 horns. The angel explains this mystery,

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. (Revelation 17)

The 7 hills or mountains are usually identified with Rome. The 7 kings are sometimes identified as Caesars. Others have identified them as kingdoms. The beasts seem to be identified as kingdoms in Daniel. In Revelation beast may represent the Roman Empire. Earlier in Revelation John says that the number of the beast is a number of a man. I think the number likely refers to Nero. So is Nero the beast? Or does the number represent Nero and Nero identifies the beast as Rome? In the passage above a beast is linked to the kings. It is a beast that was, and is not, it is an eighth, but belongs to the 7.

Edmundson argues that these 7 Caesars are fallen so must have died violent and not natural deaths. He says that Domitian is the sixth king (acting for Vespasian).

"The one who is" signifies the man for the moment invested with imperial power, Domitian, the acting Emperor, who banished the writer.

Thus, as per Edmundson, the kings are

1. Claudius
2. Nero
3. Galba
4. Otho
5. Vitellius
6. Domitian
7. Vespasian

But the eighth is unclear—presumably Titus. And why start at Claudius? Caligula was murdered and Tiberius may have been (Tacitus states he was smothered by Caligula).

Julius is sometimes named the first emperor and Suetonius (c. 120) starts his count of the 12 Caesars from Julius, however Julius was involved in a civil war (which he won) and there was further civil war after his death. It was Octavian (Augustus) who won the subsequent wars and the form of government was changed. Although Julius was instrumental in the development of the Roman Empire, it may be preferable label Augustus the first emperor.

#	#	#	Name	Start	End	Reign	Born	Died	Age	Death
1			Julius	49 BC	44 BC	5	100 BC	44 BC	53	Murder
2	1	1	Augustus	27 BC	14 AD	40	63 BC	14 AD	75	Natural
3	2	2	Tiberius	14	37	22	42 BC	37 AD	77	Uncertain
4	3	3	Caligula	37	41	4	12 AD	41 AD	28	Murder
5	4	4	Claudius	41	54	13	10 BC	54 AD	63	Murder
6	5	5	Nero	54	68	13	37 AD	68 AD	30	Suicide
7	6		Galba	68	69	7 m	3 BC	69 AD	70	Murder
8	7		Otho	69	69	3 m	32 AD	69 AD	36	Suicide
9	8		Vitellius	69	69	8 m	15 AD	69 AD	54	Murder
10	9	6	Vespasian	69	79	10	9 AD	79 AD	69	Natural
11	10	7	Titus	79	81	2	39 AD	81 AD	41	Natural
12	11	8	Domitian	81	96	15	51 AD	96 AD	44	Murder
13	12		Nerva	96	98	2	30 AD	98 AD	67	Natural

After the suicide of Nero there were several contenders for the throne, each murdering his predecessor. It was a period of civil war with Galba killing supporters of Nero and in turn being killed by Otho, a friend of Nero. Otho went to war against Vitellius and those who supported Vitellius for Emperor, taking his own life when defeat was inevitable. And as noted above, the Eastern provinces threw their support behind Vespasian for Emperor mid 69 even though he wasn't recognised as such by the Senate until December. The 18 months civil war with factional support of differing claims to Emperor make it difficult to accept Edmundson's ascription of Galba, Otho, or Vitellius as emperors of the Roman Empire. Likewise, it is also difficult to accept his comment calling Domitian Emperor because he was ruling in his father's absence.

Thus we have as Roman Emperors

1. Augustus
2. Tiberius
3. Caligula
4. Claudius
5. Nero
6. Vespasian
7. Titus
8. Domitian

If this corresponds to John's 7 kings then

• five of whom have fallen: Augustus to Nero
• one is: Vespasian
• the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while: Titus

Note that Titus only ruled for 2 years.

And the beast?

The beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven. (Rev 17)

Domitian was in the sense he had been acting emperor. He is not at the time of Vespasian. He is an eighth in that he became the eighth emperor. And he belongs to the seven in that he ruled during the time of the seven: specifically during the beginning of the sixth reign. (One of the seven may also allude to him being related to Vespasian.)

This interpretation of Revelation 17 of being written early in Vespasian's reign but while Domitian was a proxy emperor makes sense of much of the internal and external data around the dating of Revelation. Internally Revelation was written in the late 60s, and externally it was written under Domitian; though when he was acting emperor for his father in 70 rather than during his emperorship from 81–96. If correct this would suggest Revelation was written in early 70 but prior to the final razing of Jerusalem.

When was Revelation written? Internal evidence

Revelation was written by John (Revelation 1:1). We know the fourth Gospel and letters were written by John the apostle. There are similarities between the Gospel and Revelation which would indicate shared authorship. Differences in language would be explained by topical differences as well as John probably writing Revelation directly though possibly using an amanuensis for his gospel. A different John also seems unlikely as the author does not qualify himself further. Thus the book of Revelation would need to be written prior to John's death and therefore probably before the end of the first century.

References to the temple are not definitive. The temple is mentioned 10 times in the book of Revelation. Most of these are to God's temple in heaven. The reference in chapter 11 (twice) appears to be the earthly temple but the context could allow for a future temple in Jerusalem. If the temple was still standing this would mean the date of writing was prior to 70.

Revelation 13 gives the number of the beast as 666. This almost certainly refers to Nero for reasons I give here. Now Revelation 13 could be also referencing the state (via Nero), and perhaps it has a meaning at the time of Jesus' return as yet to be determined. Nevertheless, it is likely that it refers to at least Nero. Nero was emperor from c. 54–68 AD which narrows the date of Revelation to this period. John was exiled to Patmos. This would seem likely to be latter in Nero's reign rather than earlier.

Later in Revelation we read about 7 kings,

I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. (Revelation 17:7-12)

The 7 mountains are Rome The 7 kings could be Roman kings or perhaps the kings could represent kingdoms. The 6th king or kingdom being current at the time of writing Revelation, or at the time the vision refers to.

For the 7 kingdoms theory the following kingdoms are often suggested.

1. Egypt
2. Nineveh
3. Babylon
4. Medo-Persia
5. Greece
6. Rome
7. ?

The 7 kings theory is more difficult; where do we start and who do we include?

• Julius 
• Augustus
• Tiberius
• Caligula
• Claudius
• Nero
• (Galba, Otho, Vitellius)
• Vespasian
• Titus
• Domitian

If we go with the kingdom interpretation it does not help us with the dating as we already know that Revelation was written during the Roman Empire.

If we go with the king interpretation do we start the emperor count with Julius or Augustus? Do we include the short reigning emperors even though they fought and murdered each other during what was a civil war? Starting with Julius the sixth king is Nero (54–68). Starting with Augustus the sixth king is Galba (68–69) if we include the civil war emperors, and Vespasian (69–79) if we do not. It could also mean Vespasian during the time between when Nero took his life and when Vespasian was made emperor, i.e. between June 68 and 69.

There are further internal clues. The letter to the church of Pergamum warns against the teaching of Balaam (Rev 2:14). Peter also warned against this teaching (2Pe 2:15). This may reflect a common heresy at the time, and 2 Peter was written prior to Peter's death c. 68. Others see Jesus' rebuke to the Laodiceans concerning their boasting: "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" (Rev 3:17) as alluding to the city's boast that they rebuilt the city after the earthquake of 60 without help from Rome.

Laodicea, was that same year overthrown by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered itself by its own resources. (Tacitus, Annals, Book 14)

 Most of these dates suggest Revelation was written some time in the late 60s.

Monday quote

Consider the Pharisees at the time of Jesus. They had more evidence that Jesus was the Son of God than we could ever hope to have. They saw him, talked with him, and had their questions answered. They saw the miracles. They saw him die on the cross and watched as he was buried in the tomb. They even asked to have a guard posted and the tomb sealed in case the disciples tried to do something. But when they found the tomb empty, they did not worship Christ bu instead made up the story that the disciples stole the body.

David A DeWitt, Unravelling the Origins Controversy.

Does Job say the sky is solid?

Job 37:18 says

Can you, like him, spread out the skies,/
hard as a cast metal mirror? (ESV)

will you, with him, spread out the clouds,/
solid as a mirror of molten metal? (NET)

can you join him in spreading out the skies,/
hard as a mirror of cast bronze? (NIV)

Can you, with him, spread out [raqa`] the skies [shachaq],/
strong [chazaq] as a mirror [r'iy] of molten [yatsaq] metal?

raqa` means to "spread out".

shachaq is more often translated "clouds" or "dust". It is less often used for "heaven" and the more common word for heaven is the Bible is shamayim.

chazaq means "strong", so "hard" or "solid" seems reasonable if the context is that of a solid object.

r'iy means means "appearance". The more common word for mirror is mar'ah. Mirror may seem an appropriate translation based on the meaning "appearance".  However the Septuagint doesn’t translate the word as “mirror” but “appearance”.

yatsaq means to "pour out". It is translated into English as "molten" only here. As mirrors were made of metal (not glass) poured out metal is molten metal. Thus a reasonable translation if mirror is correct. But what is a molten mirror? One in the process of being cast (see ESV and NIV)? But a molten mirror would not be hard or strong, though perhaps mighty or powerful. The word "metal" is supplied for clarification, it is not in the Hebrew.

Going with the more usual meanings of the words (if the context allows it), for the first half of the verse we get, as per the NET,

Will you, with him, spread out the [strong] clouds,/

Newman translates the verse

Can you, with Him, spread out the mighty clouds,
With an appearance of being poured out?

Monday quote

The problem is not sins but sin, that declaration of independence—whether stated viciously or politely—which says, "Yes, I do want to be like God, calling my own shots."

Dale Ralph Davis, Such a Great Salvation.

When did Hammurabi live?

One of my most viewed posts is Dating of the Hammurabi Code. In it I propose a revised dating of the code based on the premise that many dates are tied to Egyptian dating which I think is incorrect. My reasoning was as follows

• The very earliest date for the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties is c. 2200 BC
• Moses led the exodus of the Israelites out from Egypt around the time of the 12th and 13th dynasties (which may also correspond to the 6th dynasty)
• The 18th Egyptian dynasty was of some duration. The beginnings of which are possibly about the time of Samuel and Saul
• 1750 BC in traditional Egyptian chronology corresponds to the 12th and 13th Egyptians dynasties
• The first Babylonian dynasty ended with the fall of Babylon is dated c. 1500–1600 BC and corresponds to the beginning of the 18th Egyptian dynasty 

Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt c. 1450 BC. Saul began his reign c. 1050 BC. Thus I believe end of the 12th and 13th Egyptian dynasty to be out by ~300 years and the beginning of the the 18th dynasty out by ~500 years.

Hammurabi is dated variously to 1700, 1800 and 2000 BC. Shorting this by 300 to 500 years gives a range of 1200 to 1700 BC. Thus he could be contemporary to or even post-date Moses.

It is more complicated in that the 6th Egyptian dynasty may be contemporary with the 12th and 13th, and the assigned Babylonian dates may not completely rely on Egyptian synchronisms (as per my assumption).

Since writing this I have come across a discussion of Abraham's war with the northern kings. In Genesis 14 we read that

At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

Shinar is the plain where the tower of Babel was built and the location of Babylon. Amraphel was the king of Babylon. Amraphel has been identified with Hammurabi for over a century. Phonetically we have

• (a)-m-r-(a)-ph[p, b]-(e)-l
• (ha)-m(m)-(u)-r-(a)-b[p]-i

That is mrp-l and mrp. The same name other than the final el, Hebrew for God. A designation he likely used as Hammurabi was deified.

Abraham's battle with the kings occurred between his departure from Haran and the birth of Ishmael. Thus the time of Hammurabi is c. 1850 BC.

Inequality or absolute poverty

I have mixed feelings about the inequality argument. I think the issues are a slightly more complex than often argued, but in general I do not find it a problem. This puts me at odds with many of my fellow Christians, or at least the more vocal ones. Absolute wealth has its temptations, but I don't see inequality per se as a specific problem. We have inequality in many other areas of life: sporting, music, literary, and numeracy capabilities. Not many people argue against this natural inequality and most would just seek to optimise each individual's ability. Money has some differences to this but also some similarities.

Now I don't necessarily have sympathies with the extremely wealthy. I am not sympathetic to the legal protections for bankers or government bailouts. I think money can be made immorally. However I don't object to people having money just because they have a lot of it.

Nevertheless, I am concerned about the poor; especially the oppressed poor. Perhaps I could be more concerned in my actions, but in general I support just laws which I think protect the poor from oppression and, in the long term, rise them out of poverty.

But inequality is not the issue.

The Guardian quotes an Oxfam report.

The share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%.

But what does this mean and why is it so?

Here is the comparison of rich and poor.

Now there is some difficulty using this timeframe. It is during the time of the global financial crisis which may skew results based on fluctuations of various currencies. And it is probably too short, a longer timeframe would be preferable. Even so, the benefit of this graph is that it shows absolute values.

According to this data: in 2000 the poorest 50% had $400 billion, in 2002 $700 billion, in 2005 $1300 billion and by 2014 $1800 billion. So if we completely ignore the wealthy we note that the wealth of the poor has grown by billions in the last decade. Even taking into account the rising population, the poorest 50% are significantly increasing their wealth. This is a good outcome. Now this seems more preferable to me than the richest 80 people increasing their wealth, but that they did so does not bother me. And it is not obvious based on this graph (alone) that the increased wealth of the rich was detrimental to the poor. Now perhaps it was detrimental, especially when politicians offered to bale out massive companies at the cost to middle class taxpayers, though that probably hits the richest 50% in developed countries. But what if wealth grows like that?

What if, as productivity increases through the use of capital, the labourers and the owners of the capital both increase their wealth? If you had the opportunity to increase the income of the poor from $2 a day to $5 a day by entrepreneurs who also doubled their income from $10 million a year would you be happy? Or would you rather remove income from the wealthy and give the poor an extra $1 a day knowing that the following year their income would be back down to $2 a day?

Now if men make money from fraud or theft then justice demands that this is taken from them and given to their victims. And those with money should help the poor: both direct giving when necessary, or providing work, opportunity, or capital. But the cry of "inequality" without consideration as to the why can just reflect a politics of envy.

Monday quote

But all this shows only, that these good people [French Communists] are not the best Christians, although they style themselves so; because if they were, they would know the bible better, and find that, if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it, as well as to every rational measure.

Frederick Engels

The time of the end

Christians have predicted the end of the world for centuries, although such prediction has a bad wrap currently. Of course there are many failed predictions we can point to, as well as Jesus' admonitions telling us we cannot know when. Even Jesus didn't know!

I think the idea that it is impossible to know is a little simplistic. And while many people falsely thought the end was nigh, there will be a generation around when Jesus returns. So can we know anything about the timing? And what did Jesus actually say?

On 2 occasions Jesus mentioned to the disciples that they are not to know the time of the end. The first during the Olivet discourse recounted by Matthew and Mark

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

But concerning that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

The second before his ascension.

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8)

During the Olivet discourse Jesus prophesies concerning the destruction of the temple, the distress to come, and his return. It is his return which occasions the comments above. There will be signs in the sky at his return but people will be continuing their usual living: eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage; as in the days of Noah just before judgment.

Jesus' comments are notable for 2 things here. Firstly he mentions the day and the hour which may indicate quite a specific time. While not necessarily as specific as a certain day—it could preclude prediction of the year—it does not necessarily mean that one cannot know the approximate time. Daniel gives quite an exact prophecy timewise but it was difficult to understand at the time and even now continues to evade many commentators. Jesus' words here have been used to dissuade prediction and disparage predictors but he may not be completely prohibiting prediction as such. Which brings us to the second notable issue.

Jesus' comments expect men who live in the last days to recognise that they are. Right in the midst of describing his return and warning them that they cannot know the exact time Jesus gives the lesson of the fig tree.

From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

"When you see what I am describing" says Jesus, "know that my return is near." In fact Jesus' return will be during this generation.

So why have so many people in previous generations been wrong about Jesus' return? It is my contention that there are several conditions given around the end of the world, both here, and in other books such as Daniel, Zechariah, Thessalonians and Revelation. Other generations may have noted aspects of the world that fit some features, but not all. The generation of Jesus' return needs to see all aspects fulfilled, or being fulfilled. Ironically, the failed predictions of previous naysayers may have steeled the last generation against warnings of the end of the world, thus proving Jesus' warning about the days of Noah.

The warning in Acts does not detract from what I have said though it does need commenting on. Firstly, the nature of the kingdom of God was to be different from previous kingdoms of Israel, at least until Jesus' return. Secondly, the disciples concerning themselves with a coming earthly kingdom may have detracted them from Jesus' task which was discipling the world. Thirdly, this was given to the disciples of that time. Now while I think discipling the world applies to subsequent disciples including those of the final generation, this does not preclude the final generation knowing that they live at the time of the end.

In summary, we cannot know the exact time and we should concern ourselves with discipling the world. This does not necessarily preclude knowing the approximate time. And even if we cannot know the approximate time ahead of time, those living in the generation of Jesus' return are expected to be aware that they are living in the last days. Further, they must not be complacent.

Monday quote

The medicine of austerity always becomes worse than the disease of profligacy.

Victor Davis Hanson.

Monday quote

Rights and obligations are brother principles, both owing their existence to the God who made us creatures of equal dignity, possessing the logos that makes our self-government possible.

Matthew J. Franck