The two beasts of Revelation have sparked fascination within readers from ancient times all the way down to the present day. The grotesque description of the more prominent of these monsters, the Beast from the Sea, has certainly done much in contributing to the Apocalypse’s enduring popularity. Countless speculations have arisen over the millennia as to the identity of this “Antichrist”, with spellbound exegetes naming everyone from the pope to Adolf Hitler to Barack Obama. While perhaps serving some entertainment value, these suggestions provide little help in gaining us insight into the mind of Revelation’s first-century author. Academics studying the ancient context of the Apocalypse offer a different point of view on the Sea-Beast. The consensus scholarly opinion today is that the beast represents Rome and/or a selection of Roman emperors. Each of the Sea-Beast’s seven heads is thought to symbolize a head of the Roman state.[i]
Despite this consensus, a problem arises in that scholars cannot seem to decide which emperors should be counted. Any way they cut it, the numbers don’t seem to add up. Since common thought has Revelation being written during the reign of Domitian, that is taken as one clue as to how we should count our Caesars. Starting from Augustus, Domitian would make 11 emperors—too many for the seven-headed fiend described by John of Patmos. If we count Julius Caesar, who wasn’t emperor, but just for the sake of argument, that would make Domitian number 12! But, some say, we should not count the three emperors who briefly reigned after the death of Nero.[ii] Arguing this is an exercise analogous to Cinderella’s stepsisters attempting to wriggle on the glass slipper. It kind of fits, but the process is so painful that we ought to be highly suspicious. Even the seemingly assured identification of Nero as the beast that “had been wounded by the sword and yet lived” (Rev 13:14 NRSV) is not as neat a match as we might be led to believe, since the legends regarding Nero don’t have him coming back to life, but rather never dying.[iii] There must be a better explanation.
Head of the Family
In past articles, I have demonstrated that the later gospel portrait of Jesus as a pacifistic sage is inaccurate. The one nearly indisputable fact of Jesus’s life is that he was crucified for claiming to be “King of the Jews.” Given the title Jesus Christ in direct opposition to Caesar, the man born Judas bar Jesus founded the Fourth Philosophy detailed by Josephus. His populist message garnered him widespread support amongst the poor of Roman Judaea, but his messianic claims were not universally accepted. John the Baptist, the so-called Teacher of Righteousness, and his Essene followers chastised him for his breaking the Sabbath, his brash rejection of purity regulations, and the disturbingly violent tendencies of his roughian followers.[iv] Granted the similarities we have noted between Revelation and the Dead Sea Scrolls in previous installments of this series, it naturally follows that the Beast from the Sea is not the Antichrist, but the one called Christ himself. The seven heads of the Sea-Beast represent seven members of the dynasty to which he belonged.[v] This dynasty was the Hasmoneans also known as the Maccabees.
That Jesus, as the primary antagonist of the Dead Sea Scrolls Community, belonged to the line of Hasmonean priest-kings brings our research into close contact with the scholarly consensus apropos to the ideology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[vi] Many academics have noted that the Scrolls appear to be anti-Hasmonean.[vii] This stance is cogent, but only in the period after the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. “King Jannai” was a noted supporter of the Sadducee sect, religious hardliners, and we have evidence for the DSS sectarians offering him their blessings.[viii] After Jannai’s death, his widow, Queen Salome Alexandra shifted royal support to the opposing Pharisaic party (who mainstream scholars often identify as the “seekers of smooth things”). With this move, relations between the Qumran sect and the Hasmoneans very likely fast deteriorated.[ix]
The genealogy presented by the Gospel of Luke discreetly reveals Jesus’s Maccabean lineage. Several prominent Hasmonean names are listed by the evangelist among Jesus’s ancestors, including Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king. But perhaps most telling is the mention of a certain Jannai, a distinctive nickname used by the infamous Hasmonean ruler, Alexander Janneus (Luke 3:23-25).[x] In the gospels, the names of Jesus’s family members, such as Judah and Simon, are traditional Hasmonean names. Likewise, names common to the Hasmonean dynasty (Judah and Matthew) were found on the ossuaries of the Talpiot Garden Tomb.[xi] This cluster of priestly names leads Tabor to suggest that Jesus may be a descendant of the Hasmoneans through his mother, Mary.[xii]
Although starting with Aristobulus I, the Hasmonean rulers assumed the title of King, they were Levites by tribal descent and many also held the office of High Priest. This strengthens the connection we have already made in past articles between the Historical Jesus and both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talpiot Tomb. For example, while rejecting any link to the New Testament Jesus family, Pfann nevertheless posits that the Talpiot Tomb displays indications of belonging to a priestly family.[xiii]. Also recall that the Dead Sea Scrolls give the Community’s enemy the nickname of “The Wicked Priest.”[xiv] Mark’s Gospel likely preserves a relic of Jesus’s true tribal affiliation when Jesus asks, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son? (Mark 12:35-37 NRSV)” While followers of Jesus would quickly attribute Davidic descent to their leader, this lineage was but one of many secondary traits that attached themselves to the historical figure with the function of meeting popular messianic prerequisites.
The number of Judaea’s Hasmonean kings is a better fit for the description of the Sea-Beast in Revelation 17 than any selection of Roman Emperors suggested by scholars. In this chapter, the prophet tells us that “Five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while” (Rev 17:10 NRSV). In chronological order, I propose that the seven kings referred to by the author are the following:
- Aristobulus I
- Alexander Jannaeus
- Hyrcanus II
- Aristobulus II
- Antigonus II Mattathias
- Herod Agrippa I
- Menahem ben Judah
The first 5 names (five have fallen) are the five Hasmonean kings starting with Aristobulus I. As Josephus puts it, “Now when their father Hyrcanus was dead, the eldest son Aristobulus, intending to change the government into a kingdom, for so he resolved to do, first of all put a diadem on his head.”[xv] Aristobulus was followed by four more Hasmonean kings and a queen, who unfortunately, living in a patriarchal society, was not counted by Revelation’s author. These five male Hasmonean rulers held the title of king or basileos in Greek.[xvi]
For the king who was described as living at the time of the author’s writing, Herod Agrippa I most closely fits the bill. Agrippa reigned over the whole expanse of Judaea (unlike his son, Agrippa II) and was descended from the Hasmoneans through Herod the Great’s wife, Mariamne I.[xvii] Recall that in our deconstruction of Revelation, the author is posing as a great figure of previous decades, John the Baptist, effectively employing the common tropes of pseudepigraphy and historical review. As our ancient sources record, Agrippa I and John the Baptist were contemporaries.
I identify Judas bar Jesus (aka Judas the Galilean aka Jesus Christ) as the eighth head. This head is described as the one “who was and is not” (a play on the divine name) and who “ascends from the bottomless pit” and “goes to destruction.” Unlike the other names on this list, Judas could never officially be declared king, as Judaea was under Roman occupation throughout the entirety of his life. For this reason, he is not included in the list of seven, even though in many ways, Judas represents the Sea-Beast as a whole.
This was not the case with Judas’s son, Menahem, however. Between 66 CE and 70 CE, the Jewish rebels managed to drive out the Romans from Jerusalem. Coins were minted proclaiming the “Freedom of Zion.” For a brief period, Menahem ben Judas led the rebellion and was proclaimed king by his followers. It is this Menahem who is represented by the Sea-Beast’s seventh head. As Josephus recounts:
“In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king Herod’s armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition.”[xviii]
Josephus, War of the Jews, Book 2
Menahem reigned for only “a little while,” as he was murdered by Eleazar ben Ananias in retaliation for Menahem’s killing of his father, Ananias the High Priest. After this, Menahem’s followers fled to Masada, where they were then led by the son of a certain “Jairus,” who was also apparently related to this dynasty.[xix]
Michael, Maccabees, and the Mysterious Son of Man
We have shown that the number of Hasmonean rulers can be viewed to align with the number of the Sea Beast’s heads. But are there any other clues that might point to this monster representing the Maccabees?
In fact, there are. In Revelation 13, the people of the earth worship the beast while asking, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?” Scholars have noted that this phrase, “Who is like the beast,” parallels the meaning of the name, Michael, which translates to, “Who is like God?”[xx]
The archangel, Michael, appears in the book of Daniel. Most notably in Chapter 12, the prophet writes:
At that time, Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:1-2 NRSV
Why would the author of Revelation connect the Sea-Beast to the archangel Michael? For us to make sense of these cryptic allusions, we first need to go over some context. Biblical historians agree almost unanimously that Daniel was written in the second century, during or after the crisis brought on by Antiochus II Epiphanes.[xxi] The basis for this dating relies in large part on the book’s prophecies, which seem to be accurate up to a certain point before supposedly veering off course. As John J. Collins writes, “In fact, the concluding prophecy of the death of the king was not fulfilled, and so Daniel 11 provides a clear indication of the time when the book was composed.”[xxii]
The criteria by which Collins judges that the foretelling of the king’s death went unfulfilled must be called into question. In Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks, sacrifice was said to cease for half a week, and after this, the end would be poured out upon the desolator (Dan. 9:27). Antiochus established the worship of Zeus in the Jerusalem Temple in 168 or 167 BCE, and by 164 BCE, he was dead, stricken by disease—an act of God if you will.[xxiii]
The outrage caused by Antiochus spurred the beginning of the Maccabean revolt in 167 BCE. In 164 BCE, Judah Maccabee purified the Jerusalem Temple, restoring the cult of Yahweh, and establishing a small but independent Jewish state. Taking this historical background into consideration, the book of Daniel might be seen as an example of pro-Maccabean propaganda.
In Daniel 7, the arrogant Horn who proclaimed himself divine, unanimously identified with Antiochus, reigns for “a time, two times, and half a time” (identical with the period of “half a week” elsewhere in Daniel). At that point, Daniel tells us, “Then the court shall sit in judgement, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and totally destroyed. The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them” (Dan. 7:26-27 NRSV). Is it a mere coincidence that we find this type of language at the precise time that a new dynasty is being founded in Israel–one composed of priests or “holy ones of the Most High?”
Some scholars have dismissed any association between the Maccabean movement and the author of Daniel, with the possible exception of a single reference to the Maccabees as “a little help” in Daniel 11:34.[xxiv] The two different spans of time in Daniel 12:11-12 are also pointed to as being an indicator that the promised end had failed to arrive.[xxv] Contrary to Collins, I view this forty-day discrepancy as a minor issue and any proposed theological chasm between the Maccabees and the author of Daniel as splitting hairs on the part of modern exegetes. The exact number of days is hardly an issue when the overarching picture is so clear. As Daniel 9:24 states, the seventy weeks are given to “put an end to sin” and “anoint a most holy place.” The defeat of the Hellenizing Seleucids and the consecration of the Jerusalem Temple by Judah Maccabee in 164 BCE satisfies these conditions.
The Maccabean Propaganda Theory for the composition of Daniel has been suggested previously by scholars.”[xxvi] For further pointers in this direction, we turn to a figure most familiar to Christian readers: The One like a Son of Man.
I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
Daniel 7:13-14 NRSV
Who is this son of man? In his analysis of how Daniel’s author weaves ancient traditions into his own contemporary political framework, Daniel Boyarin states, “The pesher insists that the One like a Son of Man is a collective and certainly not a divine individual but the saints of the Most High. These saints, for the pesher, are almost doubtlessly the Maccabean heroes who redeemed the temple after a time, two times, and a half time (three and a half years, the actual historical time of the temple’s desecration), and to whom dominion has been given.”[xxvii] This interpretation stands in contrast to that of John J. Collins, who rejects the identification of the Son of Man as a collective, despite the explanation offered by the author in Daniel 9:27. In Collins’s eyes, the One like a Son of Man is none other than the archangel Michael.[xxviii] Interestingly, Michael and the One like a Son of Man fill similar roles within Daniel’s visions, which often seem to be retreading the same historical ground.
There is a Jewish tradition that the name “Maccabee” has a meaning very similar to that of “Michael,” being an abbreviation of the battle cry found in Exodus 15:11: “Who is like You among the mighty, O YHWH?”[xxix] Could Daniel’s author mean for Michael the archangel to be a stand-in for the Maccabees (or at the very least their heavenly representative)? If this is indeed the case, then the positions of Collins and Boyarin could be partially reconciled, as the One like a Son of Man and Michael the archangel would both essentially function as avatars for the Maccabean freedom-fighters.
While an etymological link between Michael and the Maccabees cannot be verified, Revelation’s author drops additional clues to the Sea-Beast’s identity via literary callbacks to none other than the One like a Son of Man. Tipvarakankoon draws attention to the fact that in Revelation the Sea-Beast is not portrayed as the fourth animal described in Daniel 7, as is the case in other early Christian works, but is instead described as a combination of animals.[xxx] Furthermore, whereas the monsters of Daniel are destructive in their nature, the Sea-Beast of Revelation uses lies and deception to convince the earth’s denizens to worship it willingly. “The relationship between the Sea-Beast and the earthly world in Revelation 13:1-10 is not antagonistic, but an alliance.”[xxxi]
From this observation, the question then naturally arises: What could it be that has convinced the people of the world to cross over to the dark side? Tipvarakankoon draws on Beale for a textual comparison between Revelation 13:7b-8a and certain translations of Daniel 7:14b.[xxxii] Beale demonstrates convincingly that Revelation’s author applies the specific wording of Daniel 7:14b to his description of the Sea-Beast. The monster’s being granted divine authority, the universal worship it receives, and the reference to cosmic books of judgement all harken back to this passage in Daniel.[xxxiii] This leads Tipvarakankoon to a stunning conclusion: “The whole world receives the misconception of the Sea-Beast by thinking of it in light of the position of the Son of Man in Daniel 7.”[xxxiv]
Christ or Antichrist?
But what about the mysterious mark of the beast? Scholars have convincingly demonstrated that the numbers 666 and 616 both point to Nero Caesar when decoded via the ancient practice of gematria. Even so, several clues exist that betray the fact that when we read “the name of the beast or the number of its name,” we are reading the clever misdirection of our Christian reactor.
The very fact that some manuscripts have 666 while others have 616 (or even 606 in another variant) should raise suspicions that this section has been tampered with.[xxxv] Indeed, that this passage was on the receiving end of some scribal funny business is not mere speculation. There is actual manuscript evidence to back it up. The Spanish Monk, Beatus, appears to have been working with a manuscript that lacked verse 18 and perhaps verse 17 as well. Ford cites H. A. Sanders when noting of Beatus’s commentary, “With regard to Rev 13 the text is given twice. Text I omits vss. 17-18, and text II all of vs. 18. Therefore, the number of the beast is missing in both texts.”[xxxvi] Ford goes on to acknowledge that Beatus does refer to the number of the beast in his commentary, but strangely enough, the Spanish monk then declares, “For it is the number of a man, that is, of Christ whose name the beast takes for itself…”[xxxvii]
Similarly, an unnamed commentator in Augustine’s text also omits the number of the beast. This leads Ford to state: “In view of these findings it is probable that the old Latin text of North Africa omitted the number.”[xxxviii] That there are ancient manuscripts out there lacking this well-known passage calls the authenticity of the verses into question, and all things considered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the infamous number of the beast is an interpolation.
Even without the Nero connection, it can be argued that the many commonalities shared between Jesus and the Beast can be attributed to the fact that Revelation’s author intends for the Sea-Beast to be viewed as an “ironic parody” of Christ.[xxxix] I do not find this explanation persuasive. For one, we are told that the reason the world follows the Sea-Beast is out of amazement that “one of its heads seemed to have received a death-blow, but its mortal wound had been healed” (Rev 13:3 NRSV). It is the hideous appearance of the Sea-Beast that leads to its worship.[xl] This description recalls not the might of Rome, but rather the primary hook of early Christianity, which leaned hard into the horrendous death and glorious resurrection of Jesus.
On the other hand, the gospels portray a situation very reminiscent of that which Revelation’s author decries, with the world going after the Sea-Beast, only from the opposite perspective. The “authority” of Jesus and subsequent “amazement” of the crowds are cited throughout the gospels in a positive manner. For example, “They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22 NRSV). If this line of thinking is correct, it leads us to fascinating new insight into Jesus’s self-understanding. Specifically, when Jesus refers to the Son of Man, he speaks of himself discreetly, but with a clear understanding that this figure represents the Hasmonean dynasty of which he is a part.
Jesus’s royal dynasty would certainly play a major factor in the spread of early Christianity, but there were others who would come to take up Christ’s mantle in the aftermath of his earthly career. Never one to disappoint, the author of Revelation has plenty to say of them as well, with one “false prophet” standing out in particular. But that subject is one we must save for our next installment.
Notes
[i] Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2014), 73. Koester surmises that the seven heads are not to be viewed as historical figures, but that the canonical number seven “summarizes imperial rule” (p. 678). I see the symbolism in the number seven as fitting, but believe that there is a better way to count the heads/kings, especially since it is not really seven, but eight, who are described in Revelation 18, thus indicating that the author is molding real history to conform to his Biblical theology.
[ii] J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1975), 290.
[iii] Koester, Revelation, 571.
[iv] For an in-depth explanation of this identification, see The Jesus Theory of Everything Part 1 and Part 2. In these posts, I demonstrate how Judas the Galilean, who was also known as the “Wicked Priest” in the DSS was given a “new name” (Rev 3:12, cf. Phil. 2:9-10) in an analogous format to (Gaius) Julius Caesar.
[v] In a previous article, I suggested that we look to the Herodian dynasty in identifying the seven heads of the Sea-Beast. I am humbly rescinding this identification.
[vi] For a summary of the so-called “Standard Model” of Dead Sea Scrolls chronology, see Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 16-21.
[vii] For an influential opinion on the identity of the DSS Community’s rivals, see Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English Revised Edition (London: Penguin Books, 2011), 50-66. Vermes nominates Jonathan Maccabaeus as the Wicked Priest/Liar/Scoffer of the DSS. The identity of the Teacher of Righteousness in this reconstruction remains elusive. Vermes points out, “It has been suggested that this inability to identify the Teacher of Righteousness in the context of the Maccabaean period undermines the credibility of the reconstruction as a whole” (p. 64). While Vermes may disagree with this assertion, I find it to be quite telling that there are no compelling candidates for the Teacher to be found in this era.
[viii] See 4Q448, “In Praise of King Jonathan,” in Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 506-507. The authors correctly point out the problematic nature of this text for the standard model of DSS interpretation. Although my reconstruction of the sect’s chronology is not in agreement with theirs, nevertheless I concur that any proposed framework for the DSS Community must properly account for this text’s existence.
[ix] See Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 62. Vermes and other scholars reason that the Seekers of Smooth Things are to be identified with the Pharisaic party due to their liberal interpretation of Jewish law in comparison to the DSS Community and the description of the Seekers being hanged alive by the Furious Young Lion (see the Nahum Pesher, 4Q169). As I have elaborated on in previous articles, this is based on the mistaken conception that the Furious Young Lion was a Jewish King, when in the same text, the Old Lion is said to be Demetrius, King of Greece, and Jerusalem is called the lion’s den, a dwelling-place for the ungodly of the nations. Using these analogies as keys for our understanding, the crucifixion of the Zealots by Titus during the First Jewish Revolt is a far better fit. While the Nahum Pesher does indeed reference the civil war during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, it immediately hops forward in time when speaking of the Kittim (Romans). A liberal interpretation of the law and subsequent mass crucifixions better fits the attitude and ultimate fate of those who followed the Fourth Philosophy as told by Josephus. The C14 dating of the Psalms Pesher further supports the idea that the DSS describe people and events of the first century CE.
[x] For an in-depth discussion of this, see Joseph Raymond, Herodian Messiah: Case for Jesus as Grandson of Herod Second Edition (St. Louis, MO: Tower Grove Publishing, 2010), 24-28.
[xi] See James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006) 55-56, 104.
[xii] Ibid., 164-5.
[xiii] Stephen Pfann, “Demythologizing the Talpiot Tomb: The Tomb of Another Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,” The University of the Holy Land. Uploaded May 2016, 58. Pfann (who does not support any relation of the Talpiot Tomb to Jesus of Nazareth) supposes that the wreath design on the outer façade of the tomb’s entrance likely signifies that the family buried there contained rulers, priests, or scribes.
[xiv] See 1QpHab, Column XI, in Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 515, where the Wicked Priest appears before the Teacher on the Sabbath “to confuse them, and to cause them to stumble” in a story reminiscent of Mark 2:18, where a dispute arises between Jesus and a mixed group of John’s disciples and Pharisees over fasting. Mark then jumps to a story where Jesus’s disciples are accused of breaking the sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). Here, the Pharisees are once again the antagonists and John’s disciples are absent, however, the similarities to what is described of the Wicked Priest in the DSS are still plain to the eye. One must take into account Mark’s distance in time and space from the events he describes, which were possibly passed down via oral tradition, as well as the apologetic agenda of the gospel authors, who wished to absorb the John sect into Christianity by harmonizing the messages of their founders and smoothing over what were originally bitter rivalries.
[xv] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 13, trans. by William Whiston (London: W. Bowyer, 1737), Chapter 11 Paragraph 1. See also, Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews, Book 1, trans. by William Whiston (London: W. Bowyer, 1737) Chapter 3 Paragraph 1. 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.
[xvi] See Eyal Regev, The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity, Journal of Ancient Judaism, Supplements, 10, (Göttingen: Ruprecht, 2013), 184. Numismatic evidence attests to both Alexander Jannai and Antigonus II Mattathias using the Greek title, basileos, meaning king. This same title, alternately spelled basileus, is employed in Rev 17 to speak of the Sea-Beast’s heads.
[xvii] Agrippa I was viewed by some as messianic and divine in his own right. See A.J. 19:8:2. C.f. Acts 12:20 – 23. In both of these accounts of Agrippa’s demise, the blame is laid on his refusal to reject the enthusiastic suggestion of certain subjects that he was of a divine nature.
[xviii] B.J. 2:17:8.
[xix] B.J. 2:17:9. On the name, “Jairus,” cf. Matt 9:18-19, Mark 5: 21-24, Luke 8:40-42. It should be noted that “Jairus” was not a common name at the time, being listed 39th most popular among Palestinian Jewish males. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 86. Thus, there is a decent chance that the Jairus of Josephus and that of the NT are in fact one and the same.
[xx] Richard Bauckham, “The Book of Revelation as a Christian War Scroll.” Neotestamentica 22, no. 1 (1988): 17–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43070343. See also, Ford, Revelation, 212.
[xxi] John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 140-141.
[xxii] Ibid., 167
[xxiii] Hans Volkmann, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes,” Encyclopedia Britannica, January 5, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes.
[xxiv] Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 169.
[xxv] Ibid., 172.
[xxvi] Daniel Boyarin, “Daniel 7, Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult.,” The Harvard Theological Review 105, no. 2 (2012): 160. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474570.
[xxvii] Ibid., 159.
[xxviii] Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 158, 161.
[xxix] The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, s.v. “Maccabees, The,” https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10236-maccabees-the.
[xxx] Wiriya Tipvarakankoon, “The Sea-Beast in Revelation 13:1–10,” In The Theme of Deception in the Book of Revelation: Bringing Early Christian and Contemporary Thai Culture into Dialogue, Claremont Press, 2017, 112-113. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbcd1fj.8.
[xxxi] Ibid., 115.
[xxxii] Ibid., 115-117.
[xxxiii] Ibid., 116.
[xxxiv] Ibid., 118.
[xxxv] For a discussion of the number 666 and its variants 616 and 606, see Ford, Revelation, 226.
[xxxvi] Ibid., 216.
[xxxvii] H.A. Sanders, “The Number of the Beast in Revelation 13, 18,” JBL 37 (1918): 98.
[xxxviii] Ford, Revelation, 216.
[xxxix] Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), 237. See also, Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1984), 59.
[xl] Tipvarakankoon, “The Sea-Beast in Revelation 13:1-10,” 101-102.