Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Apostle Simon Peter buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

Look at any history atlas, and you can find the ten German kingdoms that destroyed Old Rome and the West, and the provinces they took over. Again, 1) Saxons (Britain), 2) Franks (Gallia, Germania Inferior), 3) Burgundians (Narbonensis, Germania Superior), 4) Bavarians (Noricum), 5) Lombards [Langobards] (Pannonia), 6) Ostrogoths (Italia, Illyricum), 7) Visigoths (Hispania), 8) Suevians (NW Hispania), 9) Vandals (Africa, Numidia, Sardinia, Corsica, Mauretania), 10) Allemannians [Lothringians] (Germania Superior).

Look, Hermann -- any attempt to find "ten German Confederations" amongst The German Tribes is just a matter of mixing and matching: For example, your vaunted "Allemannians" are just another vassal of the Great Confederacy of the Suevians, which you have uncritically identified as a Separate Confederacy.

Your Indentification was False, of course; but you can mix and match any way you please -- you've 56 Tribes to choose from, to come up with your desired "Ten Confederations".

One thing you cannot change, is this:

1) Italia, 2) Sicilia, 3) Narbonensis, 4) Baeltica, 5) Numidia, 6) Africa, 7) Cyrenaica, 8) Creta, 9) Achaia, 10) Macedonia, 11) Noricum, 12) Asia, 13) Bithynia and Pontus, 14) Cyprus. ("Der grosse Atlas Welt-geschichte", pp. 34-35, Orbis-Verlag) Please let me know whan you determine which four of these were not really Senatorial provinces.

I don't have a copy of your obscure German Atlas close to hand.... But I can tell you about the Senatorial Provinces. "Senatorial Provinces ~~ First, one has to distinguish between imperial and senatorial provinces. The latter were governed by the regular promagistrates of the Republic. As a rule, there were always Ten Senatorial Provinces (and if a province was taken away from the Senate for some reason, an unimportant Imperial Province was transferred to the senate to maintain the number)."

If you have indentified some unimportant Imperial Provinces which were "given and taken away" during the First Century, you have only confirmed the observation: As a rule, there were always Ten Senatorial Provinces.

Galba (and Otho and Vitellius) was not a real Emperor of the Romans. The Emperor who continued for a short space was Titus (AD 79-81). The book was written in the reign of Vespasian (AD 69-79). Thus "five have fallen" is Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (Julius Caesar was not an Emperor, and did not rule a Roman Empire). "One is" is Vespasian, in whose time the book would appear to have been written (supporting Tantumergo's claim of AD 69-70). The future eighth is Domitian, who in his cruelty and bestiality, was considered a reincarnation of Nero.

This is pedantics, Hermann. If you are prepared to admit the "Tantumergo claim of AD 69-70" for the equivalence of "Revelation Babylon" and "Apsotate Jerusalem", then I shall gladly adress that position.

But STAKE YOUR CLAIM, if you be so bold -- does "Revelation Babylon" indeed refer to "Apostate Jerusalem", as both Tantumergo and I maintain?

If you think so, I should gladly address the matter of dating Revelation between AD 66 and AD 69.

But if not, then hear this, Hermann -- the attempted equivalence between "Mystery Babylon" and Rome is the province of eschatological idiots. Whaddya think of them apples?

Stake your claim, Hermann -- does "Mystery Babylon" refer to Rome? Tantumergo will not defend you -- he is smart enough to know that these passages refer to apostate Jerusalem.

Again, there are two Roman Laodicea's. One in Asia, and one in Galatia. The one in Asia is near Colossae. The one in Galatia is near Iconium and Lystra. After the one in Asia was destroyed by an earthquake, do you have any evidence that it was uninhabited? What evidence is there for us to determine which city is referred to?

John to the seven churches which are in Asia. (Rev. 1:4)

We're talking about the great Laodicea of Asia, as indentified in Revelation and many ancient writers, renowned for its wealth and self-satisfaction -- not the five or six other "Laodiceas" founded by Seleucus in memory of his mother (not to mention at least 16 "Antiochs" named after his father).

Good grief, Hermann -- if you woke up tomorrow to screaming headlines announcing "Paris destroyed by asteroid!", you wouldn't think they were talking about Paris, Texas.

Be realistic, for heaven's sake.

best, OP

"Out of curiosity, do you see something in the Petrine "Babylon" which clearly distinguishes his usage from the Johannine "Babylon"?"

Rather than the use of the term taken in isolation, it is the existence of other internal evidence taken in conjunction with it that leads me to believe that
Peter is referring to Rome as opposed to John's allusions to Jerusalem.

As we have already dealt with the other writings that do link Rome and Babylon, I think you would agree that this does therefore make it at least a possibility that Peter is referring to Rome.

Also Peter seems to be referring to a persecution that is beginning, rather than a persecution that has been ongoing for the last 30 years:

1 Pet 4,7 "But the end of all is at hand. Be prudent therefore, and watch in prayers."

4,12 "Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is to try you, as if some NEW thing happened to you"

4,16 "But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.
17 For the time is, that judgment should BEGIN at the house of God. And if FIRST at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God?"

The fact that the persecution he speaks of is impending, beginning and "new" speaks to me of the Neronian persecution. There isn't a specific persecution by the Jews that would fit the immediacy and visciousness of what Peter describes. He wouldn't speak of a persecution orchestrated from Jerusalem as new.

Also the manner of persecution - he speaks of the "burning heat" which is to try them - burning Christians like torches was popular with the Romans, but it was not a kosher method of execution for the Jews - they preferred to throw people off temples and stone them etc.

The presence of Mark also indicates a Roman origin:

5,13 "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark."

Quite apart from the tradition surrounding Peter's presence and death in Rome, there is much patristic commentary about Mark's presence in Rome with Peter, his writing Peter's gospel for the Roman audience, and his passing on from Rome to Alexandria to establish the third Petrine see.

Finally an argument from silence that I would put to you (I know, I know, but its worth giving some consideration!). The ONLY early church which claimed to be the site for Peter's martyrdom and the presence of his remains is Rome. This fact was not disputed by any other churches, either east or west, including Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, which all have legitimate claims of connection to him.

This latter point may not carry much weight from within your paradigm, but if you try and get into the mindset of mediterranean Christians for whom the physical remains of the saints and possession of them is a MAJOR BIG DEAL, then you will realise that the lack of claims to have Peter's bones from the other churches is very significant.

Look, Hermann -- any attempt to find "ten German Confederations" amongst The German Tribes is just a matter of mixing and matching: For example, your vaunted "Allemannians" are just another vassal of the Great Confederacy of the Suevians, which you have uncritically identified as a Separate Confederacy.

Your Indentification was False, of course; but you can mix and match any way you please -- you've 56 Tribes to choose from, to come up with your desired "Ten Confederations".

But I don't need to mix and match OP. There are ten German Kingdoms that took over and destroyed West Rome and sacked the City. I listed them above. We aren't talking tribalism here, but the ten kingdoms that made war on the Harlot and the Lamb. Please, deal with the point. Its a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire." (Revelation 17.16).

Lets not forget it is the ten kings who sack and burn the great city, not the beast, not the Lord. Please name the ten kings who sacked Jerusalem.

And lets not forget that the ten Kings make war with the Lamb, which is exactly what the German kingdoms, with their creed of Arius' "Christianity" did to the Catholic Church, which is the body of Christ. When did the "Ten Senatorial Provinces" make war against the Lamb? How did they do that by sacking Jerusalem as instruments of the Lamb (which they didn't even do, but that is besides the point).

I don't have a copy of your obscure German Atlas close to hand....

Its not obscure, its one of the leading World History Atlases in Germany and Austria. Do yourself a favor and buy a copy. And its really cheap, only 8.50 Euros.

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3572047552/qid=1070287437/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_16_1/302-2360229-2388002

But I can tell you about the Senatorial Provinces. "Senatorial Provinces ~~ First, one has to distinguish between imperial and senatorial provinces. The latter were governed by the regular promagistrates of the Republic. As a rule, there were always Ten Senatorial Provinces (and if a province was taken away from the Senate for some reason, an unimportant Imperial Province was transferred to the senate to maintain the number)."

If you have indentified some unimportant Imperial Provinces which were "given and taken away" during the First Century, you have only confirmed the observation: As a rule, there were always Ten Senatorial Provinces.

List the Ten Senatorial Provinces. It shouldn't be hard. If that number existed, you should be able to list them quite easily.

This is pedantics, Hermann. If you are prepared to admit the "Tantumergo claim of AD 69-70" for the equivalence of "Revelation Babylon" and "Apsotate Jerusalem", then I shall gladly adress that position.

I haven't read Tantumergo's post, but I don't agree that Babylon is Jerusalem in Revelation. It doesn't fit, and its against the traditional interpretation of the Catholic Church.

If you think so, I should gladly address the matter of dating Revelation between AD 66 and AD 69.

Revleation is to be dated AD 69 or later. Again:

"And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads ... are seven kings. Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time. And the beast which was and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction." (Revelation 17.9-11)

Five are fallen - Octavian (Augustus), Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero.

One is - Vespasian.

The other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time - Titus.

The eighth - Domitian.

Again, Galba, Otho, and Vitellus are not real Emperors. They were not part of the official imperial list. Julius Caesar was not an Emperor - an "Augusti" in Latin.

"It is noteworthy that the Venerable Bede (673-735) numbered Theodosius II as the 45th and Marcian as the 46th Emperors since Augustus. This is considerably less than the count we might make now and it interestingly implies that Bede possessed a sort of "official" list from which many ephemeral Emperors were excluded." (http://www.romanity.org/htm/frame_friesian_en.htm)

Stake your claim, Hermann -- does "Mystery Babylon" refer to Rome?

Yes.

But if not, then hear this, Hermann -- the attempted equivalence between "Mystery Babylon" and Rome is the province of eschatological idiots. Whaddya think of them apples?

So? What is your point? People misinterpret the Bible? Shouldn't you heed your own note then and admit you are possibly misinterpreting it?

Tantumergo will not defend you -- he is smart enough to know that these passages refer to apostate Jerusalem.

Honestly, I don't care if he does or not. I can think for myself, and he is free to look at the same data I do and propose a solution.

Babylon can be understood as to applying to different events/cities/times

Good luck getting an admission that any interpretation besides his own has merit.

No one said that Domitian did not persecute Christians, if tortures and banishings and the like counts as "persecution". There just is not any contemporaneous evidence of any actual martyrdoms under the much-exaggerated Domitianic persecution. (A persecution can be exaggerated by later writers, and still have been a hard time for those who were persecuted). Re-Read the quotation.

A good deal of the modern presumption in favor of a Domitianic date is based on the belief that a great, sustained period of persecution and slaughter of Christians was carried on under his rule. This belief, as cherished as it is, does not seem to be based on any hard evidence at all. While there is no doubt that Domitian was a cruel and wicked tyrant (I come to bury a myth about Caesar, not to praise him), until the fifth century there is no mention in any historian of a supposedly widespread persecution of Christians by his government. It is true that he did temporarily banish some Christians; but these were eventually recalled. Robinson remarks: “When this limited and selective purge, in which no Christian was for certain put to death, is compared with the massacre of Christians under Nero in what two early and entirely independent witnesses speak of as ‘immense multitudes,’ it is astonishing that commentators should have been led by Irenaeus, who himself does not even mention a persecution, to prefer a Domitianic context for the book of Revelation." (Chilton, Ibid.)

Fifth Century?

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
Book III, CHAPTER XVII
The Persecution under Domitian
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.
CHAPTER XVIII
The Apostle John and the Apocalypse
It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”
To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.
CHAPTER XIX
Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
CHAPTER XX
The Relatives of our Saviour
“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.”
Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.
Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.” But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.

The Second Persecution - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7730/Christian_martyrs/TenPers2.html

Eusebius wrote in the 4th Century, Tertullian in the 2nd and 3rd. Elsewhere Tertullian notes of the treatment meted out to St. John during his persecution:

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! (The Prescription Against Heretics - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm, 36)

Tertullian's connection of the persecution of St. John with that of Sts. Peter and Paul is interesting (commemorated by the Roman Church festally on May 6 in the Feast of St. John before the Latin Gate), and strongly supports Tantumergo's claimfor the dating of the Apocalypse. If he was then freed circa AD 70 by Vespasian, we then have thirty years for St. John to busy himself with the Church in Asia and disciples like St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch.

As to Domitian, if you had ever been to Rome, you can see the House Church of Titus Flavius Clemens, who Domitian executed for holding to "atheism and Jewish customs". It is two levels under the current Church of St. Clements. Pope St. Clement was a freed slave of the martyred Consul Clemens. Thus the Titula Clemens might be thought of as the first Vatican. It is quite believeable that the persecution of Domitian during his later reign was confused in some respects with persecutions during the time of Nero and afterwards (which might include Domitian's earlier reign), up to Vespasian, who ended them and successfully concluded the Jewish War.

However, you really need to stop using such easily discreditable sources.

See chapter 25 here - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03123.htm

Notice that the woman is embracing a 'sun-burst'.

The sun is commonly associated with the truth in art of every era (except perhaps our own), because it reveals what was hidden. Perhaps you have heard Rush talk about "shining the light of truth"? The man may have moved to Palm Beach, but that doesn't make him a sun worshipper.

Again, please cite your secular and archaeological evidence for (1) dating of the second Laodicean Earthquake, (2) evidence that the City was COMPLETELY destroyed and unihabited, (3) date of the rebuilding, (4) evidence that the rebuilding was a reconstruction from nothingness, and not a restoration of continued existence to a better state.

I note the Republic of Turkey cites the date of the abandonment of Laodicea by the Romans due to Earthquake as AD 194.

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/arkeoloji_en.asp?belgeno=2759

"Existence of one of the famous 7 churches of Small Asia in this city shows the importance of Christianity in this city. We don't know the reason why Laodikeia that was established near Goncalý and Eskihisar villages in archaic period was completely left. But, it is not difficult to guess that big earthquakes had a role in this event. A very big earthquake that happened in 194 AD has destroyed the city."

Note some of the other information on this site:

"It lies in southwestern of the city in east - west direction. The additional buildings and gymnasium are constructed so as to constitute a whole. The length of the stadium constructed in 79 AD is 350 m and its width is 60 m. The building, which is constructed in the form of a amphitheater has 24 - step sitting lines. A big part of it is destroyed. An inscription indicating that the gymnasium has been had constructed in 2nd century AD by proconsul Gargilius Antioius and devoted to Emperor Hadrianus and his wife Sabina."

Those dates conflict with your theories of a destroyed city.

It is difficult to even find citations that agree on the dating of the first earthquake. See here, which shows citations dating it as AD 60 and AD 66:

http://www.ucg.org/un/un0208/laodicea.html

Interestingly, this site quotes:

"After having been successively called Diosopolis and Rhoas, it was named Laodicea in honor of Laodice, the wife of Antiochus II (261-246 B.C.), who rebuilt it. It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66 or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius...The town was located on a flat-topped hill. A wall (about a kilometer long on each of its four sides) surrounded the crown of the hill. Gates pierced this wall on the N, E, and NW. At the SW edge of the plateau stood a stadium, built and dedicated to Vespasian in A.D. 79" (New Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1988, article "Laodicea").

That quotation from the website gives the same citation as you did in #384. Note that the rebuilding under Marcus Auerlius obviously was not of an uninhabited place, since the same article notes the stadium built by Vespasian in AD 79, as noted by the Turkish site. no reason to build a stadium in an unihabited city is there?

I trust the Archaeologists on this a lot more than I trust Preterists with axes to grind and theses to prove. And there does seem to be a lot of confusion in Protestant soruces between this city and Laodicea in Galatia, where the famous Church Council was held in the 4th century, and which remained a Christian city until circa AD 1450.

Ball's in your court OP. Your house of cards is rapidly collapsing as we knock out one support after another of your thesis. There is no archaeological reason to suppose Laodicea was uninhabited post AD 66. In fact, all the evidence is quite to the contrary.

But I don't need to mix and match OP. There are ten German Kingdoms that took over and destroyed West Rome and sacked the City. I listed them above. We aren't talking tribalism here, but the ten kingdoms that made war on the Harlot and the Lamb. 1) Saxons (Britain), 2) Franks (Gallia, Germania Inferior), 3) Burgundians (Narbonensis, Germania Superior), 4) Bavarians (Noricum), 5) Lombards [Langobards] (Pannonia), 6) Ostrogoths (Italia, Illyricum), 7) Visigoths (Hispania), 8) Suevians (NW Hispania), 9) Vandals (Africa, Numidia, Sardinia, Corsica, Mauretania), 10) Allemannians [Lothringians] (Germania Superior). Please, deal with the point. Its a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

Mixing and Matching is exactly what you are doing -- as the Evidence which I already provided you demonstrates: The Alemannians were but a part of the Suevian Confederacy, but you have incorrectly listed them as a separate confederacy in order to derive your "ten confederacies". (As the Link points out, the Suevian confederacy was formed of as many as 54 minor tribes, allowing for much mixing and matching).

On this basis alone, your "ten germanic confederacies" are shown to be a fabrication.

Oh, and by the way -- when did the "ten germanic confederacies" ever gather together at Megiddo

The Armies of The Senate and People of Rome (SPQR) did -- just before they destroyed Jerusalem.

List the Ten Senatorial Provinces. It shouldn't be hard. If that number existed, you should be able to list them quite easily.

Okay -- unus, duo, tres, quattor, quinque, sex, septem, octo, novem, decem. How's that?

See, as the Evidence which I have provided demonstrates, the number of the Senatorial Provinces was ALWAYS TEN -- but they weren't always the same ten provinces. It's entirely possible that each of the provinces you mention were numbered among the Senatorial Provinces at one time or another -- for sometimes one province was taken away from the Senate, and another added in its stead, that the number of the Senatorial Provinces should be ALWAYS TEN.

Lets not forget it is the ten kings who sack and burn the great city, not the beast, not the Lord. Please name the ten kings who sacked Jerusalem.

The Ten Horns are horns of the Beast and "give their power and strength" to the Beast.

SPQR
The Senate and People of Rome

During the Jewish Wars of AD 66 to AD 70, the armies of The Senate and People of Rome gathered together at Megiddo (Rev. 16:16) and from there went forth to besiege Jerusalem, the Great Whore.

Again, Galba, Otho, and Vitellus are not real Emperors. They were not part of the official imperial list. Julius Caesar was not an Emperor - an "Augusti" in Latin.

"Augustus" simply means "Exalted One" or "Godlike One". For our purposes, the important thing is that Julius Caesar was Imperator -- Emperor.

For all practical purposes, Julius Caesar was Emperor: He claimed the title Imperator, and most early Roman, Christian, and Jewish writers count him as the first Emperor. Suetonius begins his Lives of the Twelve Caesars with Julius as the first Emperor, as does Dio Cassius in his Roman History. Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles calls Julius “the first king: and 4 Ezra 12:15 speaks of Augustus as “the second” of the emperors. For our purposes, Josephus seems to provide the most convincing testimony, since he wrote for both a Roman and a Jewish audience, in the common parlance of the day. In his Antiquities of the Jews he clearly speaks of Augustus and Tiberius as the second and third emperors

of Caligula as the fourth

and of Julius as the first

(Chilton, ibid.)

Therefore:

Five have fallen -- Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius.
One is -- Nero Caesar, the Sixth Head of the Beast, whose name is given as 666 in the gematriya of Revelation 13:18.
The other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while -- Galba Imperator, who reigned for only a short space (AD 68-69)

For our purposes, we can throw out the insignificant Otho and Vitellus and identify Emperor Vespasian (who, with his son Titus, were the generals responsible for the destruction of the Great Whore Jerusalem) as the Eighth; but it is at least equally probable that the "Eighth" who is "of the seven" simply refers to the Beast of Rome in aggregate. Eight is symbolically the number of resurrection, and John is here hearkening his readers back to his prophecy in Revelation 13:3 that the Beast of Rome in aggregate would revive from the prophesied death of its Sixth Head, Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

So? What is your point? People misinterpret the Bible? Shouldn't you heed your own note then and admit you are possibly misinterpreting it?

I would, if I were... but I'm most certainly not.

best, OP

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain... they (the grandchildren of Jude), answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

Okay, so Domitian sent out a Death-Warrant -- and then rescinded the Death-Warrant.

How does that prove any actual martyrdoms during the Domitianic banishments?

But if not, then hear this, Hermann -- the attempted equivalence between "Mystery Babylon" and Rome is the province of eschatological idiots. Whaddya think of them apples?

So the Fathers of the Church are "Eschatological Idiots"? They interpreted Revelation precisely in this manner, which is the same manner I am interpreting it. The Futurist interpretation does not require any Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon interpretation. This can be said definitively, because the Fathers interpreted Revelation Futurisitically and Babylon as Rome.

1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings." It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord. For that the kingdom must be divided, and thus come to ruin, the Lord [declares when He] says: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." It must be, therefore, that the kingdom, the city, and the house be divided into ten; and for this reason He has already foreshadowed the partition and division [which shall take place]. Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, upon which came the stone cut out without hands; and as he does himself say: "The feet were indeed the one part iron, the other part clay, until the stone was cut out without hands, and struck the image upon the iron and clay feet, and dashed them into pieces, even to the end." Then afterwards, when interpreting this, he says: "And as thou sawest the feet and the toes, partly indeed of clay, and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided, and there shall be in it a root of iron, as thou sawest iron mixed with baked clay. And the toes were indeed the one part iron, but the other part clay." The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree; as also Daniel says: "Some part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part shall be broken from it. As thou sawest the iron mixed with the baked clay, there shall be minglings among the human race, but no cohesion one with the other, just as iron cannot be welded on to pottery ware." And since an end shall take place, he says: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven raise up a kingdom which shall never decay, and His kingdom shall not be left to another people. It shall break in pieces and shatter all kingdoms, and shall itself be exalted for ever. As thou sawest that the stone was cut without hands from the mountain, and brake in pieces the baked clay, the iron, the brass, the silver, and the gold, God has pointed out to the king what shall come to pass after these things; and the dream is true, and the interpretation trustworthy." (St. Irenaus of Lyons, "Against Heresies" - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm, Book V Chapter 26)

The divided Kingdom is the Roman Empire, divided East and West, with the West (symbolized byt he clay) destroyed by ten invading German Confederations (Saxons, Franks, Suevi, Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Burgundians, Allemanians, Bavarians) which set up ten Kingdoms, but the East (symbolized by Iron) remaining strong. The Christian East Roman Empire then destroyed three of the pagan/Arian tribes (Vandals, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths) through the wars of the Most Christian Emperor Justinian and in the name of Christ. The other seven Kingdoms were subjected to the Catholic Church, which is the final kingdom spoken of by Daniel.

It is not believeable that St. Irenaeus, taught by St. Polycarp, who was taught by St. John, should be utterly mistaken in his interpretation of the futurisitic prophecies of the Bible when they were all supposedly fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. But he was hardly the only one.

28. The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander's time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings judgment upon the world was Christ. (St. Hippolytus of Rome, "The Antichrist" - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm, 28)

St. Hippolytus also explicitly interprets "Babylon" as not being Jerusalem in the same book:

30. Come, then, O blessed Isaiah; arise, tell us clearly what thou didst prophesy with respect to the mighty Babylon. For thou didst speak also of Jerusalem, and thy word is accomplished. For thou didst speak boldly and openly: "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate as overthrown by many strangers. The daughter of Sion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city."
What then? Are not these things come to pass? Are not the things announced by thee fulfilled? Is not their country, Judea, desolate? Is not the holy place burned with fire? Are not their walls cast down? Are not their cities destroyed? Their land, do not strangers devour it? Do not the Romans rule the country? And indeed these impious people hated thee, and did saw thee asunder, and they crucified Christ. Thou art dead in the world, but thou livest in Christ. ...
34. But as the task before us was to speak of the harlot, be thou with us, O blessed Isaiah.
Let us mark what thou sayest about Babylon. "Come down, sit upon the ground, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit, O daughter of the Chaldeans; thou shalt no longer be called tender and delicate. Take the millstone, grind meal, draw aside thy veil, shave the grey hairs, make bare the legs, pass over the rivers. Thy shame shall be uncovered, thy reproach shall be seen: I will take justice of thee, I will no more give thee over to men. As for thy Redeemer, (He is) the Lord of hosts, the Holy One of Israel is his name. Sit thou in compunction, get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans: thou shall no longer be called the strength of the kingdom. ...
36. For he [John] sees, when in the isle Patmos, a revelation of awful mysteries, which he recounts freely, and makes known to others. Tell me, blessed John, apostle and disciple of the Lord, what didst thou see and hear concerning Babylon? Arise, and speak; for it sent thee also into banishment.

"... it sent thee also into banishment." It being "Babylon", meaning Rome, NOT Jerusalem.

Why could not men close at hand to the destruction of Jerusalem, and not two millenia removed like us, not see what you think is so obvious?

Note that the rebuilding under Marcus Auerlius obviously was not of an uninhabited place, since the same article notes the stadium built by Vespasian in AD 79, as noted by the Turkish site. no reason to build a stadium in an unihabited city is there?

The building of a stadium on the same plateau (which would attract spectators from miles around) doesn't change the fact that the city itself was rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius.

So the Fathers of the Church are "Eschatological Idiots"?

In some cases, yes. (Hey, it happens).

Irenaeus himself (the sole early source for the alleged Domitianic date of Revelation) advanced an idiotic timeline for the Life of Christ, alleging that Christ died at over fifty years of age. That doesn't mean that Irenaeus was an idiot on every subject; but his contention that Jesus Christ lived to over 50 was, in fact, idiocy.

Why don't you provide some citations from those Fathers who claimed a futuristic interpretation of Revelation and equated John's "Babylon" with Rome, and we'll address them?

As we have already dealt with the other writings that do link Rome and Babylon, I think you would agree that this does therefore make it at least a possibility that Peter is referring to Rome.

It's a possibility, yes.

4,16 "But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For the time is, that judgment should BEGIN at the house of God. And if FIRST at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God?" ~~ The fact that the persecution he speaks of is impending, beginning and "new" speaks to me of the Neronian persecution. There isn't a specific persecution by the Jews that would fit the immediacy and visciousness of what Peter describes. He wouldn't speak of a persecution orchestrated from Jerusalem as new.

One problem you have here is that if Peter is writing from Jerusalem, then his reference to the judgment on the "house of God" may be an allusion to the imminent destruction of the Jerusalem Temple foretold by Jesus, as an illustration to the Church that God would not spare His own Temple from judgment, etc.

OTOH, there's no explicit evidence in the Epistle that Peter intends this allusion -- and even if he did intend the allusion to the Jerusalem Temple, it's still possible that he could have written it from Rome.

Also the manner of persecution - he speaks of the "burning heat" which is to try them - burning Christians like torches was popular with the Romans, but it was not a kosher method of execution for the Jews - they preferred to throw people off temples and stone them etc.

This, I will grant, is true; particularly of Nero.

The presence of Mark also indicates a Roman origin: 5,13 "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark." Quite apart from the tradition surrounding Peter's presence and death in Rome, there is much patristic commentary about Mark's presence in Rome with Peter, his writing Peter's gospel for the Roman audience, and his passing on from Rome to Alexandria to establish the third Petrine see.

I'm aware of the strong association between Mark's Gospel and Peter. That said, then, could you cite some of the patristics concerning Mark in Rome? I'd be interested.

Best, OP

Why don't you provide some citations from those Fathers who claimed a futuristic interpretation of Revelation and equated John's "Babylon" with Rome, and we'll address them?

See #452 above. Already done.

The building of a stadium on the same plateau (which would attract spectators from miles around) doesn't change the fact that the city itself was rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius.

Nobody would build a stadium in the middle of nowhere. Marcus Aurelius reigned AD 160-181, yet you tell us in #384 that the rebuilding was in AD 121, for which no citation can be found. The Turks tell us the City was abandoned AD 194 after another earthquake. Your chronology here seems to be all screwed up, as does the idea of an Emperor building a stadium in an abandoned city.

Like I said, dig up some archaeological citations for the dates of the earthquakes, the status of the city, etc., and then come back.

Why don't you provide some citations from those Fathers who claimed a futuristic interpretation of Revelation and equated John's "Babylon" with Rome, and we'll address them? ~~ OP

I meant, "besides Irenaeus" (whom I consider a fairly questionable source on the dating and meaning of Revelation, given his flubbing of the Life of Christ timeline by twenty years or more).

I missed the fact that the second part of your Post is from Hippolytus; but Hippolytus himself is believed to be a disciple of Irenaeus, and so may well have simply repeated Irenaeus' errors (I'm not aware of whether or not Hippolytus also taught that Jesus lived to over 50 years of age).

Mixing and Matching is exactly what you are doing -- as the Evidence which I already provided you demonstrates: The Alemannians were but a part of the Suevian Confederacy, but you have incorrectly listed them as a separate confederacy in order to derive your "ten confederacies". (As the Link points out, the Suevian confederacy was formed of as many as 54 minor tribes, allowing for much mixing and matching).

On this basis alone, your "ten germanic confederacies" are shown to be a fabrication.

Once again, when you calm down, please admit that ten Germanic Kingdoms supplanted West Rome. Its not hard. Its right there in your history books. You don't need to confuse the issue with how many tribal groups were involved. We are just looking at the issue of whether or not ten German Kingdoms took over West Rome. I'm not insisting you interpret them as the ten kings of Revelation, which I am doing. I just want an admission of a point of history on your part.

Yes or no, did ten German Kingdoms supplant West Rome?

Oh, and by the way -- when did the "ten germanic confederacies" ever gather together at Megiddo (Rev. 16:16)??

Relevation 16.12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon that great river Euphrates and dried up the water thereof, that a way might be prepared for the kings from the rising of the sun.
13 And I saw from the mouth of the dragon and from the mouth of the beast and from the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs.
14 For they are the spirits of devils, working signs: and they go forth unto the kings of the whole earth, to gather them to battle against the great day of the Almighty God.
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16 And he shall gather them together into a place which in Hebrew is called Armagedon.

Forgive me OP, but I missed mention of "ten kings" here. I do see mention of Kings from the East coming across the Euphrates and a gathering of the Kings of the Whole Earth, which could obviously not be your mythical Ten Senatorial Provinces.

The Armies of The Senate and People of Rome (SPQR) did -- just before they destroyed Jerusalem.

The armies of Rome were raised from among the Romans, not from the Provinces, whose inhabitants were mostly not citizens. Again, this is a mark against your theory.

See, as the Evidence which I have provided demonstrates, the number of the Senatorial Provinces was ALWAYS TEN -- but they weren't always the same ten provinces. It's entirely possible that each of the provinces you mention were numbered among the Senatorial Provinces at one time or another -- for sometimes one province was taken away from the Senate, and another added in its stead, that the number of the Senatorial Provinces should be ALWAYS TEN.

According to your theory, at the time of Nero-Vespasian, there were a definite ten provinces that were Senatorial. List them or give up the point.

I will note this, in my previous list, I mistakenly thought Creta and Cyrenaica were seperate provinces. They were actually governed together.

The Ten Horns are horns of the Beast and "give their power and strength" to the Beast.

I agree. The Ten German Kingdoms were Arian, and so joined themselves to the Beast in persecuting the Church. Certainly the destruction of Jerusalem was not a war against the Lamb, since Jerusalem was under a blood guilt for having slain Him.

The great Arch of Titus, commissioned by the Senate to celebrate the sack of Jerusalem -- according to Hermann, an insignificant provincial cow-town of maybe 10,000 people

Again, the Old City at the time was 87 hectares in size, which is 0.34 sq. miles, or 9.4 million square feet. Utterly incapable of supporting a population of 1 million. Rome at 13 sq. miles had about 500,000 people, or one person per 725 sq. ft. The same ratio for Jerusalem gives a population of 13,000. I know facts disgust you, but you need to face them to have credibility. There were no ancient high-rise apartments in Jerusalem. The simple logistics of supporting a city of one million in Jerusalem would have been overwhelming given the need to bring in grain overland by wagon to feed the multitude. Palestine was not a granary like Africa and Egypt. One million people would have needed a minimum of one million pounds of food per day. That would be 500 one ton wagons per day every day, day in, day out, brought in from the coast. There is ZERO evidence of anything like that occurring.

(never mind the "many tens of thousands" of Messianic Jews -- Acts 21:20).

"But they hearing it, glorified God and said to him: Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews that have believed: and they are all zealous for the law." (Acts 21.20). Nothing there limits these men to Jerusalem. There were believing Jews all over the East and in Rome and Persia.

"Augustus" simply means "Exalted One" or "Godlike One".

No, it was specificially used to denote the Imperial majesty and was a title bestowed by the Senate upon Octavian. Go read soem Roman decrees.

For our purposes, we can throw out the insignificant Otho and Vitellus and identify Emperor Vespasian

Why include Galba then? They were all not real Emperors. The book makes perfect sense interpreting number one as Augustus and number six as Vespasian - you can maintain your Preterist interpretation that way too, as Tantumergo does.

For our purposes, the important thing is that Julius Caesar was Imperator -- Emperor.

Julius Caesar was known as a dictator, not an Emperor. Its not hard to find references to Augustus as the first Emperor.

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/augustus.html

http://www.romanity.org/htm/frame_friesian_en.htm

http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/empcont/e022.htm

"This paved the way for his adopted relative Octavian to gain power and become the first Roman emperor."

"That said, then, could you cite some of the patristics concerning Mark in Rome?"

The following is long but full of interesting citations on this topic. Enjoy!

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm

1. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?
1.1. Internal Evidence

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous; there is no internal, direct evidence for its authorship. Only sometime during the second century was the title "According to Mark" or "The Gospel According to Mark" affixed to the work, in order to distinguish it from the other gospels, which in itself counts as external evidence that Mark wrote it. There is, however, internal, indirect evidence to consider. What can you infer about the author from the following stylistic features of the Gospel of Mark?

1.1.1. The Gospel of Mark is non-literary, having a simple and popular style; it has affinities with the spoken Greek as revealed by the papyri and inscriptions. Second, the gospel has a Semitic flavor to it. By this is meant that Semitic syntactical features influence the form of the Greek. For example, corresponding to Hebrew and Aramaic syntax, frequently verbs are found at the beginning of a sentence in the Gospel of Mark. Two other examples of a Semitic syntactical feature is the abundant presence of asyndeta, the placing of clauses together without the use of conjunctions, and parataxis, the joining of clauses with the conjunction kai (and) (imitative of the waw-consecutive in Hebrew and Aramaic). (There are many other alleged examples of Semitisms in the Gospel of Mark.)

1.1.2. The Gospel of Mark has vividness of description that is consistent with its being an eyewitness account; details unnecessary to the flow of the narrative are included. Examples include Mark 2:4 (Breaking of the roof); Mark 4:37-38 (Jesus’ sleeping on a cushion in the stern of the boat); 6:39 (The arrangement in groups of the people whom Jesus feeds and the fact that the grass was green); Mark 7:33 (Jesus’ putting fingers in ears and touching of tongue); Mark 8:23-25 (The gradual process by which the blind man’s eyes were restored); Mark 14:54 (Peter’s sitting with the servants around the fire in the courtyard).

From the above data, one can infer that the author’s first language was not Greek, and he did not have a Hellenistic education, so that he did not have enough facility in Greek to write in a highly literary style. The Semitic features of the Gospel of Mark probably indicate that the mother tongue of the author was a Semitic language (probably Aramaic), which is consistent with his being a Palestinian Jew. The author also seems to have been an eyewitness or have had access to eyewitness accounts.

1.2. External Evidence

1.2.1. The earliest piece of external, direct evidence comes to us from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who quotes "the Presbyter" (elder) (Eusebius HE 3.39.15) (Eusebius quotes from what he identifies as the five treatises written by Papias, entitled, Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, which is no longer extant):

"And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

The first sentence is probably the statement of the presbyter, whereas the remainder is Papias's elaboration of the meaning of the presbyter's statement. Three claims are made in this quotation from Papias:

A. Mark wrote the gospel identified in Eusebius' day (and ours) as the Gospel of Mark.

B. Mark obtained his information from Peter, not being an eyewitness himself.

C. The gospel written by Mark lacks "order," reflecting the piecemeal and occasional nature of Peter's use of the gospel tradition in his preaching.

There are two questions raised by this quotation from Papias:

A. What exactly did Papias mean when he called Mark the "interpreter" (hermeneutês) of Peter? Although this term normally means interpreter, the context suggests more the meaning of "translator."

B. Why did the presbyter say that Mark wrote accurately what Peter remembered (hosa emnemoneusen akribôs egrapsen) but not indeed in order (ou mentoi taxei)? It seems criticism was leveled against the Gospel of Mark for lacking chronological accuracy. In response, the presbyter points out that chronological accuracy was never Mark's intention. Papias explains further that Mark's method of composition was to collect the traditions used by Peter as occasion demanded in his preaching and that there is nothing wrong with this.

If true, what do you conclude about the author of the Gospel of Mark from Papias's statement?

One can conclude that the author was John Mark, who used the apostle Peter as his source for his gospel. He did not concern himself, however, with chronological accuracy, and so did not attempt to arrange Peter's teaching "in order."

How trustworthy is this tradition?

It seems trustworthy, because it is an old tradition quoted by a usually reliable anthologist and it agrees with the internal evidence.

1.2.2. Another early identification of the Gospel of Mark with Peter is found in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho (150): "It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means 'sons of thunder'...." (106.3) If by "his memoirs" Justin means Peter's memoirs, then these memoirs must be the Gospel of Mark, since only in it are the sons of Zebedee called the sons of thunder (3:17).

There are other, later second and third century sources that identify Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark.

A. Irenaeus (130-200), for example, says that the Gospel of Mark was written "When Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there"; he adds, "After their departure, Mark, Peter's disciple, has himself delivered to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching" (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; HE 5. 8. 2-4) ).

B. Eusebius reports that Clement of Alexandria (150-215), in his Hypotyposeis, citing an ancient tradition of the elders, described how the Gospel of Mark came into being as follows, "When Peter had preached the gospel publicly in Rome...those who were present...besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended" (HE 6.14.6-7).

C. The fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue says, "Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy."

Some scholars claim that some or all of these second and third century identifications of Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark are dependent on Papias, in which case they are not independent testimonies. But there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to conclude in favor of such dependency.

1.3. Considering all the evidence, what do you conclude about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

What internal, indirect evidence there is for the authorship of the Gospel of Mark agrees with the external, direct evidence. (John) Mark, being a resident of Jerusalem, would have been a Palestinian Jew, having Aramaic as his first language. The conclusion follows that (John) Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

In spite of the evidence, however, most New Testament scholars are reluctant to identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as (John) Mark and to trace its contents to the apostle Peter. Any other possibility is preferable to this, or so it seems. Thus, the testimony of the early church, no matter how early, is discounted as mere speculation. It should be noted, however, that if it was inventing authors, for apologetic reasons to undergird the authority of the gospels against detractors, the early church would surely have given the Gospel of Mark a direct apostolic origin.

1.4. What can be known about (John) Mark from references to him in the New Testament? (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:13; 15:37-39; 2 Tim 4:11; Col 4:10; Philemon 24; 1 Pet 5:13)

(John) Mark was probably a resident of Jerusalem, since his mother had a house in the city (Acts 12:12). He traveled with Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 12:25), and then traveled with them on the first missionary journey (13:13). He left Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia (13:13; 15:37). Later, because Paul did not want to take him along on a second missionary journey, he traveled with Barnabas to Cyprus and other places (15:39). (John Mark was the cousin of Barnabas [Col 4:10].) (John) Mark is with Paul in Rome during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome (Philemon 24). During his second imprisonment, Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to Rome (2 Tim 4:11). He is with Peter in Rome when he writes 1 Peter (5:13). (There is a tradition cited by Eusebius that places Mark in Alexandria after the writing of his gospel [HE 2.16.1; 2.24.1]. Whether this is true is a question to consider.)

2. For whom was the Gospel of Mark written?

2.1. Internal Evidence

There is no internal, direct evidence for the intended readership. There is, however, some internal, indirect evidence:

2.1.1. Translations are given of Aramaic words (e.g., Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 15:22). What does this suggest about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?

It suggests that the intended readers were not Aramaic-speaking.

2.1.2. There are many explanations of Jewish terms and customs (e.g., Mark 7:3; 14:12; 15:42). What does this suggest about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?

It suggests that the intended readers were not Jews.

2.1.3. The fact that there are Latinisms in a work written in Greek and full of Semitisms also constitutes internal, indirect evidence for intended readership. (Latinisms are Latin words that are transliterated into Greek.) Examples of Latinisms in the Gospel of Mark are as follows:

A. 4:27: modios = Lat. modius (a measure)

B. 5:9, 15: legiôn = Lat. legio (legion)

C. 6:27: spekoulator = Lat. speculator (guard)

D. 6:37: dênariôn = Lat. denarius (a Roman coin)

E. 7:4: xestês = Lat. sextarius (container)

F. 12:14: kênsos = Lat. census (tribute money)

G. 15:15: hikanon poieô = satis facere (to satisfy)

H. 15:15: phragelloô = Lat. fragellare (to whip)

I. 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn = Lat. centurio (centurion) (Both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek.)

In addition, on two occasions Mark provides his readers with Latin translations of Greek words:

A. 12:42: lepta duo, which is said to be the equivalent of a kordrantês = Lat. quadrans (the smallest Roman coin)

B. 15:16: aulês, which is said to be the praitôrion = Lat. praetorium

What does this suggest about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?

The presence of Latinisms and Latin translations of Greek words in the Gospel of Mark implies that the intended readers were Latin speakers, even though they could read or at least understand Greek. Latin speakers would have been found most readily in Italy, although not exclusively.

2.1.4. Mark’s reference to the woman in Tyre to whom he refers as "a Greek, racially a Syro-Phoenician" (Mark 7:24) implies a Roman readership, because such a designation would be most understood by Romans, who distinguished between Carthaginians, i.e., Phoenicians from Carthage and those from Syria.

2.1.5. Internal, indirect evidence for a Roman readership is the fact that in his passion narrative Mark unnecessarily (from a literary point of view) identifies Alexander and Rufus as the sons of Simon the Cyrene (15:21). The probable reason that Mark does this is that these men are known to his readers: Mark wants to ensure that they know that the Simon the Cyrene mentioned in the text is the father of these two men. A man named Rufus is mentioned in Rom 16:13, being a member of the Roman church. If the Rufus in Rom 16:13 is the same as that in Mark 15:21, then likely Mark's intended readers were Roman Christians.

2.2. External Evidence

2.2.1. As already seen, Eusebius claims that Papias wrote that Mark composed his gospel for Peter's hearers in Rome (HE 2.15.2). In addition, both Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus imply that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome (see quotations above). What does this suggest about the intended readers of the Gospel of Mark?

Since the external, direct evidence implies that (John) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome, it is most natural to suppose that the intended readers were Roman Christians.

2.2.2. Further external, indirect evidence is found in the fact that Peter and Mark are placed together in Rome in the early sixties (1 Pet 5:13). On the assumption that it can be proven that the Gospel of Mark was written about this time (see below), who were the most likely intended readers of the gospel?

If he wrote his gospel in Rome, when he was there with Peter, then Mark probably was writing for the Roman Christians.

2.3. What do you conclude from the internal and external data about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?

The intended readers of the Gospel of Mark were Roman or Italian, gentile Christians.

3. When was the Gospel of Mark written?

The date of the gospel is difficult to determine with precision. There is no internal, direct evidence nor any internal, indirect evidence, although traditionally scholars have tried to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem based on Mark 13: it is assumed that the reference to "the abomination that causes desolation" in Mark 13:14 is an allusion to Titus's destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. But this is not so obvious as is often thought. The external, direct evidence is as follows. (It should be noted that tradition places Peter's death in Rome during Nero's persecutions [64-68].)

3.1. Irenaeus, as quoted above, says that it was after Peter's death that Mark produced his gospel: "And after the death of these (Peter and Paul) Mark the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutês) of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter" (Adv. Haer. 3. 1. 2 in HE 5.8.2-4).

3.2. Clement of Alexandria, as quoted above, writes in his Hypotyposeis: "When Peter had preached the gospel publicly in Rome...those who were present...besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended" (HE 6.14.6-7). The implication is that Peter was still alive at the time of the composition of the gospel.

3.3. The fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue, as already cited, says: "...Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy."

3.4. What do you conclude about the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark?

The external, direct evidence is contradictory. There is disagreement about whether Mark wrote his gospel before or after Peter's death, which took place during Nero's persecution of the church c. 65. The Gospel of Mark was written either when Peter was in Rome or just after his death in Rome. To be on the safe side a date ranging from 63-68 should be attributed the Gospel of Mark.

4. Where was the Gospel of Mark written?

4.1. Internal Evidence

There is no internal, direct evidence to conclude where the Gospel of Mark was written (provenance). The internal, indirect evidence has already been considered in dealing with the intended readership. It is as follows.

4.1.1. The existence of Latinisms and Latin translations of Greek words in the Gospel of Mark implies Latin readers.

4.1.2. The reference to the woman in Tyre called "a Greek, racially a Syro-Phoenician" implies that the Gospel of Mark was written for Romans (Mark 7:24-30).

4.1.3. That Alexander and Rufus are identified as the sons of Simon the Cyrene suggests, as explained above, that the intended readers are Roman Christians; if true, this may imply that (John) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome, where Alexander and Rufus reside.

What does this evidence suggest about the place of composition of the Gospel of Mark?

This evidence suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome. Since the existence of Latinisms and Latin translations of Greek words in the Gospel of Mark implies Latin readers, it is probable that Rome (or Italy) was the place where it was composed. Since the reference to the woman in Tyre called "a Greek, racially a Syro-Phoenician" implies that it was written for Romans, it is probable that the place of the composition of the Gospel of Mark was Rome (or Italy). The fact that the identification of Alexander and Rufus as the sons of Simon the Cyrene implies that the intended readers are Roman Christians further suggests that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, where Alexander and Rufus resided.

4.2. External Evidence

4.2.1. The external, direct evidence from the second-century points to the conclusion that Gospel of Mark was written in Rome:

A. As already seen, Eusebius claims that Papias wrote that Mark composed his gospel for Peter's hearers in Rome (HE 2.15.2). This implies that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome.

B. As cited above, Clement of Alexandria implies that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome.

C. Irenaeus, as already quoted above, implies that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome.

D. As cited earlier, the fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue placed the composition of the Gospel of Mark "in the regions of Italy."

4.2.2. The fact, as already indicated, that Peter and (John) Mark are placed together in Rome in the early sixties (1 Pet 5:13) constitutes external, indirect evidence that (John) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome.

4.3. What do you conclude about the place of composition of the Gospel of Mark?

The internal and external evidence points to Rome as the place where Mark wrote his gospel.

....

6. Why was the Gospel of Mark written?

6.1. Internal, direct evidence for Mark's purpose in writing is found in Mark 1:1: "The archê of the gospel of Jesus Christ." It is possible to take this verse as a title for the entire work, so that Mark's intention is to explain to his Christian hearers/readers the beginning or the basis (archê) of the good news that they believed. If this is the meaning of the term archê, what is the purpose of the Gospel of Mark?

Mark aims to give more information about Jesus, the focus of the proclamation of the early church. The Roman Christians believed the good news consisting of Jesus Christ, but needed to know more about the life, death and resurrection of the one in whom they believed, the arche of the gospel of Jesus Christ. From the contents of the gospel itself, he stresses Jesus' passion and resurrection, but also includes many accounts of Jesus' healings, exorcisms, controversies and some teaching. Mark does not intend, however, to provide a completely chronological account, as already indicated.

6.2. If Papias is correct, what is the purpose of the Gospel of Mark?

If Papias is correct, Mark’s purpose seems to have been to preserve Peter's eyewitness testimony and depository of traditions about Jesus for the Roman church.