The Two Witnesses Taken to Heaven in a Cloud. Image Credit: FCIT.

This post is the second of a five-part series exploring the proposal of an original Essene Jewish core of the Book of Revelation. In case you missed it, catch up by reading part one where I lay out the basic hypothesis we test presently.

In my studies, the key to unlocking the original historical context of Revelation is found in the identification of the Two Witnesses described in chapter 11. Using the analogies of “two olive trees” and “two lampstands,” the author invokes imagery associated with the Jerusalem Temple. A similar depiction is found in the book of Zechariah, a work ripe with Messianic undertones. “I see a lampstand all of gold…and by it are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left” (Zech 4:2-3 NRSV). The prophet is left in a state of confusion and so his heavenly interpreter finally explains the vision to him bluntly: “These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth” (Zech 4:14 NRSV).

In the verses above, the symbolism of the two olive trees is spelled out plainly for Zechariah by the angel. The trees represent two anointed ones. In ancient Judaism, the term “anointed one” (the origin of the title “Messiah”) could be applied to high priests, kings, and prophets, as each office entailed being ritually smeared with sacred oil.[i] At the time of his writing, the author of Zechariah clearly had both the High Priest Joshua and the royal hopeful Zerubabbel in mind. The ideal scenario was for there always to be a Davidic king reigning in Jerusalem and for him to have a priest by his side. After the Babylonian exile, however, the House of David never regained the throne of Israel. In fact, for much of this period, Israel had no king at all. During these times, only the high priest stood before YHWH of Hosts. This was done most notably on the Day of Atonement when it was the exclusive duty of the high priest to enter the Holy of Holies and ritualistically present blood and incense offerings to YHWH.[ii]

Keeping this background in mind, we might ask if there are any historical accounts that might have served as an inspiration for Revelation’s narrative of the Two Witnesses. In fact, there is. In The Jewish War, Josephus writes of two high priests who testify to the Jerusalem masses. The populace are caught up in the spirit of zealotry and are salivating for war against Rome.[iii] The two anointed priests, Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamaliel, attempt to sway the popular opinion away from what they foresee as an effort doomed to bring about the devastation of the land. Josephus ascribes lengthy speeches to each of these men, who act as social prophets under the circumstances. The High Priest Jesus addresses the crowd from the very walls of the Temple. Unfortunately for Jesus and Ananus, nothing is to dissuade the zealous citizenry. The two high priests meet their fate on a stormy night. With claps of thunder masking the sound, the Zealot Party are able to discreetly saw through the city gates and welcome in a group of bloodthirsty Idumeans, whom they have called upon for aid. Caught unawares, Jesus and Ananus are brutally murdered. Yet, what happens next proves to be even more shocking. As Josephus recounts:

And then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, [the Idumeans] upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city…and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts.[iv]

This account is strikingly similar in key details to what we read in the book of Revelation:

Their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb; and the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth .

Rev. 11:8-10 NRSV

In this passage, the author is cryptically referring to none other than Jerusalem as “the great city.” Ford cites parallel Old Testament references, where Sodom is used as a metaphor for Jerusalem in times of wickedness (Isa 1:9-10, Ezek 16:46).[v] And while we lack any reference to Jerusalem being referred to as Egypt in the Tanakh, Ford reasons, “Egypt is also a symbol of idolatry and slavery. This is quite in keeping with the attitude prevailing at Qumran.”[vi] It can thus be said that we have dual accounts of two anointed ones murdered in the same city in works written at roughly the same time. In each version, the victims’ corpses go unburied and are mocked by their enemies.

The notion that the Two Witnesses are to be identified with the High Priests Ananus and Jesus has been suggested several times in the past. As far as I have been able to trace, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was the first to make the association in his Commentary on the Apocalypse of John back in 1791.[vii] Amongst theologians, Preterist interpreters have reckoned seriously with the possibility in their bid to demonstrate that all New Testament prophecy has already been fulfilled.[viii] Recently, Neil Godfrey addressed Ananus and Jesus as possible subjects of Revelation 11 on his Vridar blog. Despite the many parallels, Godfrey ultimately dismisses the idea, writing, “they were not killed by Romans but by Idumeans; and Josephus knows nothing of them being resurrected and ascending to heaven.”[ix]

We will address the Beast that kills the Two Witnesses in our next post, but suffice it to say that we should not put the cart before the horse as far as concluding that the Beast was always meant to represent the Romans. Meanwhile, the resurrection of these two prophets after three and a half days might be seen to give us a fascinating insight into how the minds of ancient devotees may have functioned. True, we read nothing in Josephus of the high priests being called up to heaven, but it is not so difficult to imagine how such stories may have arisen. The trauma of seeing these two beloved public figures devoured by wild animals would have triggered the same sort of cognitive dissonance that scholars have posited as naturalistic explanations for early experiences of the risen Jesus.

Some may express surprise at the fact that anyone from Qumran would approve of Ananus ben Ananus, an individual who opposed the war with Rome and even ordered the execution of James the Brother of Jesus. Upon closer inspection, however, we might see that Ananus and the Essenes did share some common ground. Josephus describes Ananus as a religious hardliner who was exceedingly strict in his interpretation of Jewish law.[x] This is very much in agreement with the philosophy at Qumran. To the followers of John, the Teacher of Righteousness, the Romans were mere agents of God’s divine vengeance on a city that had turned to wickedness–in large part due to the influence of the Zealots.[xi] Josephus as well, though himself a Pharisee and subsequently a traitor, gives glowing accounts of both the Essenes and Ananus ben Ananus in his works.[xii] Both were seen as shining examples of righteousness and appear to have been highly respected by the Jewish historian.[xiii]

As quoted above, Chapter 11 of John’s Apocalypse drops the curious detail that the city in which the Two Witnesses are killed is the location “where also their Lord was crucified.” The Lord in question can only be Christ Jesus, but what kind of Christian author would refer to Jesus as “their” Lord? Ford, drawing on Yadin’s analysis of the DSS “Lion of Wrath,” posits: “It need not be an expression of sympathy but, rather, on the part of our author an acknowledgment of a just penalty suffered by those whom the faithful Jews regarded as traitors and who would be in coalition with the “beast” of vs. 7. ‘Their’ (Lord) would refer to the enemy.”[xiv]

In the above statement, Ford is much closer to the truth than she herself realizes. Once we identify the Two Witnesses as the murdered high priests, we can easily pinpoint “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” who kills them. But first, let us take a closer look at the “great city” in which this traumatizing event takes place. For once we do, the original meaning of the apocalypse unravels even further.  

She’s a Lady

Much has been written on the “great city” described throughout Revelation. Perhaps the most memorable depiction of this sinful epicenter is found in chapter 17, where the author portrays the city as an adulteress riding atop a scarlet beast:

I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus.

Rev. 17:3-6 NRSV

Scholars have long viewed the wicked woman depicted here as representing the city of Rome, notorious for its persecution of Christians—especially during the reign of Emperor Nero. Bart Ehrman succinctly conveys the consensus position in an episode of MythVision Podcast when he states, “Rome is the issue.”[xv] Yet, the descriptions we are given of Revelation’s “Babylon” are murky, and while Biblical scholars have come far in decoding the author’s symbolism, the consensus must not be mistaken for a certainty.

Contrary to the prevailing view, I suggest that the Whore of Babylon seems to be a personification not of Rome, but of Jerusalem. The Holy City, the bride who was promised by God to the Holy Ones of Israel, had betrayed her vows and gone sashaying about with the idolatrous nations.

While there is no specific precedent for Jerusalem being labeled as “Babylon” in the Hebrew Bible, this is far from the first time that city has been portrayed as a harlot. As Ford details:

Hosea 2:5, 3:3, 4:15 speak of the harlotry of Israel; there is no suggestion that her Canaanite neighbors are so designated. The whole book of Hosea seeks to bring the adulteress back to her true husband, Yahweh. In Isaiah 1:4 the prophet addresses Israel as “a people laden with iniquity” (RSV) and in 1:9 calls her by the names of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Rev 8). Then in 1:21 he exclaims: “how the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of injustice” (RSV). In Jer 2:20 (cf. 3:1, 6, 8-10) once again Israel is called a harlot and in 5:7 Jerusalem is accused of harlotry and adultery. Micah 1:7 makes the same complaint about Samaria and Jerusalem. This theme is resumed in Ezek 23, where Jerusalem is seen as the worse of the two. In Ezek 23:31-34 the metaphor of the cup occurs; cf. Rev 17:4.[xvi]

Ford goes on to cite the most prominent influence on this portion of Revelation: Ezekiel 16. In this passage, the prophet launches an oracular attack on Judah’s capital. Ford notes, “He describes how God has seen Israel in her poverty, had compassion for her and caused her to live and grow to full maidenhood…He washed her, clothed her, decked her with ornaments (cf. Rev 17:4) and placed a crown upon her head (cf. the reference to “queen” in Rev 18:7)…However, she trusted in her beauty and played the harlot with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.”[xvii]

We might also find hints of the great city’s identification in the jewels that she is said to be adorned in. The gold and precious stones may be harkening back to the decoration of the Jerusalem Temple or even the breastplate of the high priest.[xviii] Likewise, pearls also offer some significance, as the New Jerusalem described later in the book is described as having a pearl on each of its gates. Lastly, the colors of the woman’s garments do not go without meaning, as Ford notes that scarlet (or crimson, kokkinon in Greek) and purple are colors used in the construction of the Holy Tabernacle (Exod 26:1, 26:31, 26:36, 27:16) as well as in the garments of the priests of Yahweh (Exod 28:5, 15, 23).[xix] 

As we have seen, Revelation speaks of “the great city” in a way that can only refer to Jerusalem (Rev 11:8), since this was the only place where anyone’s “Lord” was crucified. There is simply no good reason to assume that the “great city” described in Chapter 11 is not identical to the one lambasted throughout the rest of the book. It is unlikely that the author would suddenly switch gears and use the same expression to describe an entirely different locale. Despite the soundness of this logic, the mischievous hands of the Christian redactor have left scholars tying themselves into knots in their attempts to fit this key detail into the prevailing paradigm—that is the “harlot” symbolizing Rome. Faced with the clear reference to Jerusalem as the “great city” in Revelation 11, Biguzzi summarizes the position that many scholars in favor of the consensus view are forced to take up: “All this entails that the Jerusalem of Rev 11 is a symbol of the whole world, where the messianic and anti-messianic forces come to collide.”[xx] While a clever explanation, one can’t help but think that this is an over-intellectualization for what should rather be a simple conclusion: The Lord is crucified in the vicinity of the great city. The “Lord” is to be identified with Jesus. Jesus was crucified near Jerusalem. Thus, the “great city” refers to Jerusalem.

There are other hints of this identification later in the book, when an angel comes out of heaven, swings his sharp sickle, and gathers the “vintage of the earth.” The author then tells us, “The wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the wine press, as high as a horse’s bridle, for a distance of about two hundred miles” (Rev 14:20 NRSV). Under our current hypothesis, this fits a description of the massacre which took place outside the walls of Jerusalem around 70 CE. The Roman general Titus had the city surrounded, and yet, because of food shortages and the general inhumanity of the rebel despots, people felt they had no choice but to risk escape. The Romans were described as mercilessly slaughtering any Jew who came their way. Josephus chronicled that on some days, over 500 people were crucified, to the point that the Romans even ran out of crosses for their victims.[xxi]

Ford agrees that the massacre illustrated in John’s Apocalypse is a reference to the First Jewish Revolt. In her commentary, she suggests that the distance cited in Revelation 14 (one thousand six hundred stadia) could be describing the complete devastation of the Judean countryside brought upon by the Romans.[xxii] Furthermore, the metaphor of Israel as a vineyard is well-attested in the Hebrew Bible. In one example, the author of Ezekiel writes, “As the vine tree among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so will I give the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Ezek. 15:6 KJV).

Perhaps the most compelling case for Revelation’s author having Jerusalem in mind when writing of the great city (besides the very clear indicator that someone’s Lord was crucified there), is that we are told of a New Jerusalem coming down from heaven in Chapter 21.[xxiii] The New Jerusalem is portrayed as, “the bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Rev 21: 9 NRSV) as opposed to the great city, which as discussed, is described as a harlot. As Ford reasons, “The symmetry of the apocalypse might urge us to inquire whether the true counterpart of the new Jerusalem (Ch. 21) is not rather the old, defiled Jerusalem, rather than Rome. This would be in keeping with the theology of Qumran.”[xxiv] Thematically, it makes much more sense for the “Whore” to be the old, earthly Jerusalem in contrast to the heavenly New Jerusalem as the bride.

There is other evidence that the author of the original version of Revelation has Jerusalem in view. We will not discuss these in detail, but collectively, they add weight to the argument that we have presented here. For example, the city is said to contain “the blood of prophets and of saints” (Rev 18:24 NRSV) and it is well-established that the accusation of killing prophets was one often leveled at Jerusalem and not Rome.[xxv] Also, the wares mentioned as being sold by the city’s merchants (fine linen, precious wood, cinnamon, frankincense, oil, beasts, sheep, etc.) are all associated with the cult of the Jerusalem Temple.[xxvi] In regards to the “shipmasters and seafarers (Rev. 18:17 NRSV), Israel was known to have a thriving sea trade industry, especially around the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, which exported its famous salt to distant lands. This is to say nothing of Herod’s renowned seaport of Caesarea Maritima. Josephus even has Titus referring to Jerusalem as a second Carthage, inscribing a medal with the words “Victoria Navalis.”[xxvii]  

Thus, we see that the author of Revelation offers a brutal chastisement of first-century Jerusalem. As with nearly all other apocalypses, the description of the great city’s desolation was no prediction of the future, but a theologically colored account of events that had recently occurred. Pseudo-John’s position is made clear when he writes, “All nations were deceived by your sorcery” (Rev 18:23 NRSV). The source of this perceived deception we shall explore in our next post.

---

NOTES

[i] James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 57-58.

[ii] For a brief mention of this tradition during the time of the First Jewish Revolt, see Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews, Book 5, trans. by William Whiston (London: W. Bowyer, 1737), Chapter 5 Paragraph 7. All subsequent references from Josephus are taken from William Whiston’s translation available for free online at https://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/works.html. We will use the abbreviations B.J. for War of the Jews and A.J. for Antiquities of the Jews. All citations will use a Book:Chapter:Paragraph format in reference to the ccel.org presentation.

[iii] For the relevant sections of this narrative, see B.J. 4:3-5

[iv] B.J. 4:5:2

[v] J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1975), 172.

[vi] Ibid., 180.

[vii] Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Commentarius in Apocalypsin Joannis (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1791).

[viii] See Moses Stuart, A commentary on the Apocalypse, Volume 1 (Andover: Allen, Morrill, & Wardwell, 1845), 450-475. Stuart rejects Eichhorn’s identification of the Two Witnesses on the grounds that Ananus and Jesus were not Christians. As our current hypothesis holds that Revelation’s original core was not a Christian document, the argument that the two high priests need be Christians themselves no longer holds sway. For another Preterist take on this identification, see Patrick Stone, “The Two Witnesses of Revelation,” The Preterist Post (blog), September 1, 2008, https://preteristpost.blogspot.com/2008/09/two-witnesses-of-revelation.html. In this post, Stone provides a handy chart examining the leading candidates suggested for the Two Witnesses over the years. Although he does not ultimately make a 1:1 identification with any historical individuals, it is interesting that by his reckoning, Ananus and Jesus “check the most boxes” versus all the other options listed.

[ix] Neil Godfrey, “The Two Witnesses in Revelation 11: the theories,” Vridar (blog), June 24, 2022,  https://vridar.org/2022/06/24/the-two-witnesses-in-revelation-11-the-theories/.

[x] A.J. 20:9:1

[xi] For an example of the concept of the Romans being divine agents of God’s wrath in the DSS, see the Habakkuk Pesher, column 4: “They laugh at every fortress; they pile up earth and take it. Interpreted, this concerns the commanders of the Kittim who despise the fortresses of the people and laugh at them in derision…They destroy them because of the sins of their inhabitants.” All Dead Sea Scrolls references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Revised Edition (London: Penguin Books, 2011).

[xii] C.f. B.J. 4:5:2 where Josephus portrays Ananus as the greatest of the priests and cites the fall of the Temple as being a result of his murder. For Josephus’ high opinion of the Essenes, see B.J. Ch. 8 and A.J. 18:1:5.

[xiii] I judge the note on Ananus being “very insolent” found in Ant. XX to be a possible Christian interpolation made at the same time the description of James was altered to include, “the brother of Jesus, called Christ.” Alternatively, it may have been out of an abundance of caution that Josephus described Ananus as “insolent” in this context, as the high priest had just committed an act in violation of Roman authority.

[xiv] Ford, Revelation, 180.

[xv] Lambert, Derek, “Rome Is The Issue | The Book of Revelation Bart Ehrman PhD,” MythVision Podcast, April 3, 2022, video, 7:36, https://youtu.be/ek6Z0h_qR8w.

[xvi] Ford, Revelation, 283.

[xvii] Ibid., 283.

[xviii] Ibid., 278.

[xix] Ibid., 287.

[xx] G. Biguzzi, “Is the Babylon of Revelation Rome or Jerusalem?” Biblica 87, no. 3 (2006): 371–86, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42614689.

[xxi] B.J. 5:11:1.

[xxii] Ford, Revelation, 250.

[xxiii] For the concept of the New Jerusalem amongst the DSS community, cf. 4q554-5, 5q15, 1q32, 2q24, 4q232, and 11q18.

[xxiv] Ford, Revelation, 286.

[xxv] Ibid., 286.

[xxvi] Ibid., 305.

[xxvii] Ibid.,   306.