Saturday, December 27, 2025

 


Great Harlot Antichrist City

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

  

“Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope,

Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power

that will rise up to persecute Christians”.

prererist.org

 

 

Introduction

 

Thanks to the influence of Preterist (as they call themselves) commentators, many of whom are presumably Protestants, a lot has changed since the days when the Beast of the Apocalypse was the pope (papacy) and the “Babylon” of Revelation was his Rome.

 

I, often inspired by writings of a Preterist nature, have written articles such as:

 

Literal Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation

 

(2) Literal Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation

 

Apocalypse Now? Or Then?

 

(4) Apocalypse Now? Or Then?

 

Apocalyptic Apoplexy

 

(4) Apocalyptic Apoplexy

 

Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

(4) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

 

(3) Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

 

Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad ... eating its own flesh

 

(3) Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad ... eating its own flesh

 

Book of Apocalypse based on Hebrew imagery

 

(4) Book of Apocalypse based on Hebrew imagery

 

Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom

 

(4) Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom

 

Stephen ‘Protomartyr’ is key to understanding ‘Beast’ of Revelation 13

 

(4) Stephen 'Protomartyr' is key to understanding 'Beast' of Revelation 13

 

Michal Hunt, writing for Agape Bible Study, has written well on the subject in:

 

CHAPTER 17: Babylon the Great Harlot and the Mystery Explained

 

Babylon the Great Harlot and the Mystery Explained

Succession Arrangements Continued

 

"....and the peace of God which is beyond our understanding will guard your hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7

 

"Their corpses lie in the main street of the great city known by the symbolic names Sodom and Egypt, in which their Lord was crucified." Revelation 11:8

 

 "At the end of the Passover meal after everyone has received the wine of the Cup of Acceptance, the host announces the completion of the meal and the recommitment to the Covenant by calling out 'teltelestai' which means "it is finished" or "it is fulfilled."  Christ in the Passover

 

"A jar full of sour wine stood there; so putting a sponge soaked in the wine on a hyssop stick, they held it up to his mouth. After Jesus had taken the wine he said, "it is fulfilled'; and bowing his head he gave up his spirit." John 19:30

 

"The 7th angel emptied his bowl into the air, and a great voice boomed out from the sanctuary, 'The end has come (IT IS FULFILLED)."  Revelation 16:17

 

*Old Testament reference: "The Great Harlot" Ezekiel chapters 16 & 23


In Revelation 11:8 the "Great City" was identified symbolically as both Egypt and Sodom.  After the sacrificial "pouring out" of the 7 chalices by the 7 angel/ministers of the Heavenly Temple it should be clear why this "Great City" is identified as both Egypt and Sodom. 

 

Question:  Why is this "Great City" identified with Egypt after the Chalice judgments? See Rev. 11:8. 

Answer: Egypt because of the "plagues" contained in the chalices, which correspond to the plagues of Egypt (see the Chart comparing the Chalice and Trumpet judgments to the Plagues of Egypt).

 

Question:  Why is this "Great City" also identified with Sodom (see Rev. 11:8). Hint: What happened to Sodom?

Answer:  The "Great City" is like Sodom because Sodom was destroyed by fire and like Sodom, the destruction will be complete!  After 31/2 months of the Roman siege and the intense suffering of the population, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by fire on the 9th of Ab 70AD the same day Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon was destroyed in 586(7)BC.

 

The "Great City" where Christ was crucified (Rev. 11:8) had become a "false prophet" in her testimony to the world that Jesus was not the Messiah, and in her apostasy she had become a "great harlot" and a "false bride." This "Great City" that will be destroyed by fire and who has become a "False Bride" identifies both Biblically and historically with the city "once full of fair judgment," the city of Jerusalem.  In this chapter the "Great City" will be symbolically identified as "Babylon." 

 

…. Jerusalem was meant to be the true "gate of heaven"; God's holy witness to the nations of the world.  But Jerusalem, whose name means "will provide peace" rejected God and the "peace of God which is beyond our understanding" when she rejected Jesus, the Messiah, God come in the flesh.  "The faithful city, what a harlot she has become: Zion, once full of fair judgment, where saving justice used to dwell, but now assassins!" Isaiah 1:21 (circa 740BC)


Please read Ezekiel chapter 16

Ezekiel 16:35-36 (Yahweh to Jerusalem) "Very well, whore, hear the word of Yahweh!  The Lord Yahweh says this:

 

For having squandered your money (literally "poured out [ekcheo] your bronze" [meaning "lust"]) and let yourself be seen naked while whoring with your lovers and all the foul idols of your loathsome practices and for giving them your children's blood for this I shall assemble all the lovers to whom you have given pleasure,... (v.58) "You have brought this on yourself, with your lewdness and your loathsome practices" declares the Lord Yahweh.  (Yahweh's message to Ezekiel 5 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586(7)BC)

 

Please read Revelation 17:1-7 Babylon the Great Harlot; the False Bride

Revelation 17: 1-2 "One of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came to speak to me and said, 'Come here and I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute (harlot) who is enthroned beside abundant waters, with whom all the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves, and who has made all the population of the world (those who dwell on the land) drunk with the wine of her adultery.'"  This is the 11th time the phrase "those who dwell on the land" is used in Revelation. As you will recall, I have mentioned that this phrase is symbolic for apostate Israel and is used 12 times in Revelation; once for each of the 12 tribes of Israel: Rev. 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10 [twice]; 13:8, 12, 14 [twice]; 14:6; 17:2,8). 

 

Question:  In what verses was "the city" symbolized as Babylon in previous chapters and what was the judgment prophesized for "the city"?  Hint chapters 14 and 16. 

Answer: John has already been told that "the city" is symbolized as Babylon by the second of the three sets of angels of the Temple in Revelation 14:8 "a second angel followed him (the first angel), calling, 'Babylon has fallen, Babylon the Great has fallen, Babylon which gave the whole world the wine of retribution to drink.'" And again he was told in Rev. 16:18c-19 "The Great City was split into three parts and the cities of the world collapsed; Babylon the Great was not forgotten: God made her drink the full winecup of his retribution."  The original city of Babylon no longer existed in the 1st century.  It had been the site of the building of the infamous tower of Babel in the land of Shinar … and had become the capital city of the Babylonian Empire, the world power that had destroyed Judah and Jerusalem in 586(7) BC. 

 

But John's city is not the original Babylon, instead ancient Babylon is a symbolic image of this city.  The clue lies in the description that this city sits or "is enthroned" beside "abundant waters."  This phrase can also be translated "many waters."  It is polus hydra in the Greek.  This is an image of the prophet Jeremiah's description of Babylon in his great oracle judgment against the city in Jeremiah chapters 50-51. "Enthroned beside abundant waters, rich in treasures, you now meet your end, the finish of your pillaging." (Jeremiah 51:13).  J

…. But ultimately the term "many waters" is used Biblically to refer to the abundant blessings that God bestows on His people. Yahweh even gave His blessing to Babylon but she prostituted those blessings for her own glory and rejected Yahweh.  Later in Rev. 17:15 we will told of an important aspect of the symbolic meaning of the term "many waters" but in this verse the point is the identification of the Harlot city with the ancient city Babylon who accepted God's blessings but turned from Him. 

 

Question:  So what is the connection between 'blessings' and Babylon and Jerusalem?

Answer: No other city in the world received more of God's blessings than the city of Jerusalem, but like Babylon she turned from Yahweh, prostituted herself and rejected God the Messiah and in doing this Israel (Judah) the Old Covenant Church and her priests have led "those who dwell on the Land" astray and into adultery.  They became "drunk with the wine of her adultery"; they become seduced into such a spiritual stupor that they did not even recognize their own Messiah and therefore have forfeited God's many blessings.

           

Let's look at the Biblical use of the words "many waters" or "abundant waters" and its significance in Scripture.  Biblically this expression is set within God's Covenant relationships reflected in His "abundant" blessings and in His liturgical interaction with His people.  In all the passages the Greek is the same "polus hydra" (Greek translation of Old Testament and Greek New Testament). Examples:

 

1.      Jeremiah 51:13: Babylon's abundance granted by God: "Enthroned beside        

abundant waters, rich in treasures, you now meet your end, the finish of your pillaging."

2.      Ezekiel 1:24: the voice from the Glory-Cloud sounds like many or abundant

waters and is produced by the innumerable angels in the heavenly council: "I also heard the noise of their wings; when they moved, it was like the noise of flood-waters [polus hydra], like the voice of Shaddai, like the noise of a storm, like the noise of an armed camp.."

3. Revelation 1:15: God's voice from heaven "as the sound of many waters" as His voice is similarly described in Ezek. 43:2 "like the sound of the ocean(literally "many waters" polus hydra) and Rev. 14:2 "like the sound of the ocean" (literally many waters polus hydra)

4.  Revelation 17:1 "the great prostitute who is enthroned beside abundant waters" (polus hydra); the "city" to whom God has given many blessings.

5.  Rev. 19:5-6 "Then a voice came from the throne; it said, 'Praise our God, you servants of his and those who fear him, small and great alike.'  And I heard what seemed to be the voices of a huge crowd, like the sound of the ocean (many waters/ polus hydraor the great roar of thunder, answering, 'alleluia!  The reign of the Lord our God Almighty has begun.." = Liturgical praise.

 

Given the Biblical background and context of the phrase "many waters" or "abundant waters" (polus hydra) it would be no surprise to John's readers that the Bride of Yahweh would be seen seated on "many waters"; the surprise is that she is a whore!

 

This Bride has received God's blessings and has prostituted them.  (I refer you again to Ezekiel chapter 16 in which Yahweh condemns Israel in a long allegory as a faithless wife, a "whore" of alien gods, and Romans 2:17-24 (verse 23-24 "If, while you are boasting of the Law, you disobey it, then you are bringing God into contempt.  As scripture says: It is your fault that the name of God is held in contempt among the nations.")

           

I should mention that a number of commentators identify the "harlot city" as Rome, the geographic center of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  John's 1st century readers certainly would not have accepted this interpretation.  Martin Luther championed this interpretation when he was excommunicated from the Church in the 16th century.  Luther saw the Church of Rome as the Harlot Bride and the Pope as the Antichrist.  Interestingly enough, Pope Leo X in turn saw Luther as the Antichrist! 

 

But the Church, which is founded by Christ through Peter, His Vicar, stands on the promise that Jesus made in Matthew 16:16 that "the gates of Hades will not prevail against her" because she is the True and Holy Bride of Christ.  The Church of Jesus Christ is full of sinners yet she is the sinless Bride. 

           

Question:  But is there a warning for us in the 21st century Church?  Did the Old Covenant Church believe that judgment could lead to destruction of their Temple and  the transformation of their Covenant?

Answer:  Even though the True Bride, New Covenant Church has the promise of Christ's protection we should never become so overly comfortable that we fall into complacency and therefore fall into the danger of unfaithfulness through unorthodox belief. 

 

We have so many blessings but how many Catholics truly understand their faith? 

…. It is only through ignorance that we lose Catholics to other denominations.  After all, if one truly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist how could one leave Him?  And yet, every year thousands of Catholics leave Mother Church.

 

Biblically the imagery of the "False Bride" is a familiar image.  In Biblical symbolism the motif of the Bride falling into adultery and harlotry identifies God's Covenant people falling into apostasy.  To go after false gods and to abandon the sacred Covenant is equaled with adultery and harlotry.  This metaphor of harlotry is exclusively used in the Old Testament for a city or a nation that has abandoned God's holy Covenant and rejected God.  This imagery is always used for faithless Israel, "Bride of Yahweh" with only 2 exceptions:

 

1.      The Phoenician city of Tyre and

2.      the Assyrian capital city Nineveh. 

 

These are the 2 cities, outside of Israel, that had both been in covenant with God.  See 1Kings 5:1-12; 9:13; Is. 23:17; and Amos 1:9. 

 

The city of Tyre was converted to the worship of Yahweh during King David's reign in the early 11 century BC and her king contracted a covenant with Solomon (David's son) and assisted in the building of God's Holy Temple on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem. The passage in Revelation 17:2"with whom all the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves.."  is taken from Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre where it primarily refers to her international commerce through which her influence and beliefs spread (Isaiah 23:15-17). 

 

The other city is Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire.  The city of Nineveh was converted through the work of God's prophet Jonah and her king declared Yahweh the true God.  See Jonah 3:5-10.


Later the apostasy of these 2 cities would be considered unfaithfulness to Yahweh expressed as harlotry.  Pagan Rome of the 1st century never entered into such a covenant relationship.

 

The other important point in the identification of the "False Bride" city is that she will be identified in contrast to another city.

 

Question:  What is the second city that is described in contrast to the Great City identified as the Harlot, the False Bride?  Hint: see Rev. 21:1-2. 

Answer: the "True Bride", the Church of the New Covenant founded by Christ, the "New" Jerusalem.  The identification of the "False Bride" as opposed to the "True Bride" only makes sense if the "New" Jerusalem is in contrast to the "Old" Jerusalem that has rejected Christ as her bridegroom and has become a False, Harlot Bride!  She has become like the builders of the tower of Babel that was built on the site of the city of Babylon.  Babel literally meant, "gate of God," but in rejecting Yahweh He judged them, cast down their tower and scattered the nations and confused their tongues. 

 

Question:  What was the reversal of the "confusion of tongues" at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9? Hint: see Acts chapter 2. 

Answer:  The second great Pentecost was the reversal of the Tower of Babel.  God the Holy Spirit came in "tongues of fire" and all the people present understood one language and the one message of salvation which would once again unite all nations in a Holy Covenant that would open the gates of Heaven through Christ the Savior, the Bridegroom of the New Covenant, universal Church and once again God's blessing would flow as "many waters;" Rev. 22:1 "Then the angel showed me the river of life, rising from the throne of God and of the Lamb and flowing crystal-clear."  

 

Revelation 17: 3-4 "He took me in spirit to a desert, and there I saw a woman riding a scarlet beast which had seven heads and ten horns and had blasphemous titles written all over it.  The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and glittered with gold and jewels and pearls, and she was holding a gold winecup filled with the disgusting filth of her prostitution..."


This woman is in a "spiritual desert," an abode of demons (Matt 12:34 Jesus said: "When an unclean spirit goes out of someone it wanders through waterless country looking for a place to rest, and cannot find one.")  In chapter 12 we saw the Woman, the True Bride, being forced to flee from the Dragon into the desert for a time where God protected her.  But to the False Bride, the wilderness is her element where she chooses to remain instead of accepting the Messiah and following Him to her inheritance: the Promised Land.  Therefore, the "wilderness" becomes her destiny and her heritage (see Num ch 13-14; Zech 5:5-11).

 

….

Some commentators point out that the Red Dragon of Revelation chapter 12 is connected by the same color to the Red Beast of Revelation chapter 17 but the Greek does not indicate the same color.  Instead the color of the Beast in chapter 17 (Gr. kokkinon) matches the woman's own dress in verse 4 whereas the Red Dragon in Revelation 12:3 is the color of fire (Gr. purros). 

Kokkinon is crimson blended with dark blue (see Isaiah 1:18).  It was a color used to attract attention (for example, the scarlet thread attached to the first twin of Tamar in Genesis 38:28 and to the home of Rahab in Joshua 2:18). 

 

Question:  What is significant about the way the Harlot is clothed? 

Answer:  Some commentators suggest the color is an indication of ungodly conduct (for example Isaiah 1:18 "sin like scarlet" and Psalms 51:5) and that the color stands in sharp contrast to the white garments of the elect.  But other commentators suggest that she is not dressed as a prostitute.  Please see Gen. 2:11-12; Ex. 3:22; Proverbs 31:21-22; Isa 54:11-12; 60:5-11; Ezek 16:11-14; Ezek 28:9-29; Rev. 4:3-4; Rev. 21:18-21.  In these passages the description of her clothing is in keeping with the Biblical descriptions of the glorious "City of God" in Isaiah and Revelation.  There is also a connection to the pattern of the jewels that covered the high priest's garments in Exodus chapter 28 and the Throne of God in Rev. 4:3-4.  Exodus, Ezekiel and Proverbs all describe the dress of a Bride with such finery.  In other words, it is possible that to first century readers that this woman is dressed as a "righteous woman", as a Bride.  She is adorned in the beautiful garments of the Church.  If this interpretation is correct, the Harlot Bride is still carrying the outward adornments of the chaste Old Covenant Bride of Yahweh!

 

Revelation 17:4 "she was holding a gold winecup.."

Question:  What is the wine of her fornication and what contrast or parody is there to the winecup of Holy Eucharist?  See Revelation 17:6

Answer:  The wine of her fornication is the blood of the Saints and the blood of the witnesses (martyrs) of Jesus it is in contrast to the holy and pure golden cup of Christ's blood that He offers those of the Covenant who are in a state of grace. ….

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, December 6, 2025

Seleucid Akra tormented the Jews

by Damien F. Mackey … many good researchers, closely following the ancient records, have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. A decade ago, in 2015, there was great excitement amongst archaeologists that the hitherto elusive Akra (Acra) fortress built by the Seleucid invaders in Jerusalem had been discovered. Brent Nagtegaal wrote about it enthusiastically a few years later: Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem | ArmstrongInstitute.org Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem Hannukah’s nemesis comes to life in 2015 discovery By Brent Nagtegaal • December 20, 2019 His article will require some correction (my comments to be added). He wrote: In November 2015, the Israel Antiquities Authority (iaa) sent a news brief to reporters in Jerusalem, calling for a press conference the following day to announce the “solution to one of the greatest questions in the history of Jerusalem.” The announcement did not disappoint: On site, in Jerusalem’s City of David, archaeologist Doron Ben-Ami announced that the famed Akra (citadel) of Antiochus Epiphanes had been discovered. Up until that announcement, little had been found testifying to the massive Hellenistic intrusion into the city early in the second century b.c.e. Yet here, at the northwestern portion of the City of David, a massive section of a city wall from that very period was found under layers and layers of construction from later civilizations. Damien Mackey’s comment: A chronological correction. While “the second century b.c.e.” is the standard era for Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes, this will need to undergo some lowering if I am right in my revised identification of this Seleucid king: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (4) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Brent Nagtegaal continues: Along with the city wall, the base of a fortification tower was unearthed, having a width of over 3.5 meters (12 feet) and a length of over 18 meters (60 feet). Attached to the lower portion of the wall was a sloped embankment known as a glacis. This was made up of layers of soil, stone and plaster designed to keep attackers away from the base of the wall, a key feature of a defensive city wall. According to the press release from the iaa, this glacis extended as far down as the bottom of the Tyropoeon valley, the depression on the western part of the ancient city. Around the massive wall, lead slingstones typical of Antiochus’s army were discovered, as well as bronze arrowheads featuring a trident symbol on them—the mark associated with Epiphanes. Further corroborating the dating of the wall were a number of coins, the earliest of which dates to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On top of that, hundreds of pottery handles impressed with markings from Rhodes that were used for wine vessels were also discovered, testifying to the Hellenistic nature of the fortress’s inhabitants. While one can rarely be 100 percent sure of the identification of such a site, the evidence certainly does support the conclusion that this building is indeed the famed Akra. Fortress of Antiochus Following an unsuccessful bid to conquer the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt in 168 b.c.e., Antiochus iv (Epiphanes) ventured back to Judea and unleashed one of history’s most atrocious anti-Semitic attacks on the fledgling province of Judea. He ransacked the capital city of Jerusalem, sacrificed swine flesh on the altar of sacrifice in the temple courtyard, and then set up a statue of Jupiter in the holy of holies. Afterward, he ravished the countryside in order to destroy any vestige of the Holy Scriptures he could find, as well as killing those who would not comply with his decrees. Then, in order to ensure the Jews didn’t rebel, he constructed a massive fortress in the northern part of the City of David and stationed a permanent garrison of his troops there. Damien Mackey’s comment: Now for a geographical correction. This is where the sensational find starts to unwind in terms of it being the Akra. Its position here “in the northern part of the City of David” is perfectly correct if the standard geography is followed, according to which the Jerusalem Temples had once stood at today’s Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif. But many good researchers, closely following the ancient records (e.g. Marilyn Sams below), have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. See also my article on this: True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring (4) True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring Brent Nagtegaal continues: This famed building stood for the next quarter of a century, a constant affront to the Jews as it sat adjacent to the temple. Even after the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes was successful at reclaiming Jerusalem in 165 b.c.e., the Jews still could not take the citadel. Damien Mackey’s comment: The war can be re-dated to the early years of Jesus Christ: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (3) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus Brent Nagtegaal continues: In fact, for the next 20-plus years, long after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Babylon, a garrison of Seleucid troops continued to be stationed in the Akra, constantly hounding those visiting the temple grounds. As Flavius Josephus relates in Antiquities of the Jews: [A]nd when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Greek: Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the multitude from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. It was only after Simon, the elder brother of Judas, came into power over the new, restored Jewish state in 142 b.c.e., that the Seleucid forces were finally ousted from the Akra a year later. Then, to ensure that foreigners would never again hold captive the religious practice of the Jews, Josephus records that Simon led a three-year, night-and-day effort to destroy the Akra completely, even grinding down part of the ground it rested upon. How could these excavators find evidence of the Akra if Simon destroyed it? …. I shall leave Brent Nagtegaal’s article at this point, with this relevant question hanging, to turn to an important article by Marilyn Sams, who far better understands the geography of Old Jerusalem: (4) Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot? by Marilyn Sams Since 2007, parts of the Givati parking lot excavation on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem, conducted by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets, have been characterized as the remains of Queen Adiabene’s palace and also the Seleucid Acra. Both of these faulty identifications are based on a misunderstanding of and/or lack of attention to literary descriptions which place both of these constructions in the lower city, formerly the City of David, called “Acra,” starting in the Greek period. “Acra” (meaning “citadel” in Greek) stands for both the citadel itself and the area it occupied--the lower city. Josephus and First Maccabees place them both south of the temple, which was in the middle of the southeastern hill, and also verify that Simon Maccabee not only destroyed the citadel, but also the hill on which it stood. Therefore, there were no remains remaining. This paper will set forth the literary evidence evidencing the citadel’s actual location, which was also near the location of Queen Adiabene’s palace. Citadels Preceding the Seleucid Citadel Because the Haram esh-Sharif has been falsely identified as the temple mount, rather than the Roman camp Antonia, claimed by eyewitness Eleazar ben Ya’ir to be the only monument remaining after the 70 A.D. destruction (War VII, 8, 376), there have been eight erroneous proposals for the location of the Israelite and Seleucid citadels. However, they were all in the same location, starting with the Jebusite citadel (called “Millo” in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles), where David resided before building his palace across from it in the newly renamed City of David (Antiquities VII, 3, 65). The northern boundary of this city can be assumed to be the Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I walls found in Kathleen Kenyon’s Area H at the bottleneck of the southeastern hill. Hence, the City of David covered roughly the lower half of the southeastern hill. In 3 Kings 2: 35 (Septuagint version), we discover that Solomon expanded this city by breaching its northern wall and adding the “wall of Jerusalem,” a fortification which would then protect the northern half of the southeastern hill and the daughter of Pharoah in the palace he had newly built for her, outside the City of David. The crescent shape of the City of David/Jerusalem (the shape of the southeastern hill) is witnessed by accounts in Josephus, Aristeas, Tacitus, and the Venerable Bede, confining the city to the southeastern hill, with no northerly extension described. It is notable from the Septuagint scripture that Solomon did not breach the City of David’s wall until he had already built the temple and his own palace and rebuilt the citadel. Since the temple was built on Mount Zion at the border between Benjamin and Judah, above En Shemesh (Spring of the Sun--the Gihon Spring), Solomon’s citadel replaced the former Jebusite citadel and acted as a landmark (along with the temple) demarcating the Benjamin/Judah borderline. Hezekiah repaired this citadel (2 Chronicles 32: 5), Nehemiah mentioned it in the Persian period (Nehemiah 7: 2), and Josephus described it during the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus the Great (Antiquities XII, 3, 133). Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the son of Antiochus the Great, replaced the citadel of these descriptions with a new one in the same place. The “Lower City,” “Acra,” and the “City of David” As noted by archaeological excavations or the lack thereof, the “city” of the Persian and Greek periods reverted to the southeastern hill only. Therefore, the “lower city” of those periods was the area south of the temple, which edifice Hecateus of Abdera (c. 4th century B.C.) described as occupying the “middle” of the city (Contra Apion I, 22, 198), a location shared by the Gihon Spring (Shiloah), as noted in Hagigah 76a of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Letter of Aristeas also implies the temple’s bifurcation of the city by describing “upper towers” and “lower towers.” …. In Antiquities XII, 5, 252, Josephus recounts Antiochus Epiphanes’ 168 B.C. conquest of Jerusalem, after having overthrown the walls, and his building a citadel in “the lower part of the city:” He also burned down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. (italics and bracketed Greek terms or other information mine, as in all further quotations) The towers and immense stones of the citadel are described by Aristeas and the height of the “place” of the citadel recalls the 3 Kings 2: 35 passage which says Solomon built his citadel “above” the temple, implying the Seleucid citadel replaced the former Solomonic citadel in the same place. The descriptions of the citadels’ location as being “above” and “high” and “overlooking the temple” are factors which have been minimized, ignored, or dismissed in the false locations posited for all the citadels. The literary evidence is clear that the citadels were in a place higher than the temple in the lower city--that part of the city, in both the Israelite era and the Greek era, being limited to the lower half of the southeastern hill. The reason for the height of the citadel being greater than the temple appears to derive from the difference in height between two natural hills, which were likely augmented by occupational tels (because of the spring), dating from 3,000 B.C., with Mount Zion, the hill on which the temple was built, being the lower of the two. Antiochus Epiphane’s destruction of Jerusalem is also set forth in Maccabees 1: 31-36, but in these verses, Acra, or the “lower part of the city” is referred to as the City of David: And when he [Antiochus] had taken the spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side…Then builded they the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for hem,…For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. Hence, the citadel built by Antiochus and occupied by his soldiers became a snare to the Jews, rather than a protection to the temple, as had been its previous role. The tide turned, however, when Judas Maccabeus made an assault on the garrison of Macedonians in the “upper city…[and] drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel [Acra]” (War I, 1, 39). Since the city of this period occupied only the southeastern hill, the “upper city” was north of the temple, and the “lower city” was south of the temple and called Acra, because the citadel stood there (just as the area around the citadel called Millo had also been called Millo). It appears from later descriptions that the Macedonian soldiers driven into the lower city were forced to reside in Antiochus Epiphanes’ citadel. Hence, the War passage explains why the Givati parking lot (located in the “upper” area of the southeastern hill) yielded lead sling shots, bronze arrowheads, and catapult stones stamped with Antiochus IV’s symbol, and coins from his era (Fessenden, 2015). The Macedonian soldiers had been there, in the “upper city,” before Judas drove them into the “lower city.” But it was in the lower city, not the upper, where the Seleucid citadel stood. ….

Thursday, December 4, 2025

Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein

by Damien F. Mackey “Simon built a monument over the tomb of his father and his brothers. He made it high so that all might see it. It had polished stone at the front and back. He also set up seven pyramids, opposite each other, for his father and mother and four brothers. He devised an elaborate site for the pyramids, setting up great columns around them. On the columns, he put suits of armor for a permanent memorial. Beside the suits of armor, he carved ships so that all who sail the sea might see them”. I Maccabees 13:27-29 Modein, the ancestral home of the Maccabees, could not have been situated in central Israel The quote above from I Maccabees 13 tells me immediately that the presently favoured site location of the Maccabean ancestral home of Modein, at Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut in central Israel, could by no means be the Modein of the Maccabees. Why? Because, as we shall read below, “all who sail the sea” would not possibly have been able to have viewed the elaborate designs carved on a tomb which would have been some 27 km distant from the Mediterranean Sea - and much further away from the Sea of Galilee. Steve Fine has noted this fact when he wrote in (pp. 6-7 of): The Hasmonean Royal Tombs at Modi‘in Art and Identity In Latter Second Temple Period Judaea: (6) The Hasmonean Royal Tombs at Modi‘in Art and Identity In Latter Second Temple Period Judaea: | Steven Fine - Academia.edu It seems that the armor and ships at the Hasmonean tombs were meant to project Hasmonean power by sea and land. Located in the home territory of the Hasmoneans at Modi‘in, on this boundary between the Judaean heartland and the conquered (or soon to be conquered) coastal plain and the somewhat distant Mediterranean Sea (approximately twenty-seven kilometers to the west as the crow flies) … this typically Hellenistic monument presents Hasmonean military accomplishments and objectives in a concrete form that was easily understood by Jew and Greek alike. From such a distance, it is most likely that the monument could not be seen at sea. …. [End of quote. My emphasis] The archaeologists who have been getting excited in relatively recent times about a potential discovery of the Maccabean tomb in that central region, at Horbat Ha-Gardi, will seriously need to re-consider (my opinion) just what they are uncovering there: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/archaeologists-may-found-lost-tomb-maccabees-334463 Archaeologists May Have Found the Lost Tomb of the Maccabees Experts are taking a closer look at the site. Sarah Cascone, September 23, 2015 Archaeologists may have finally uncovered the lost tomb of the Maccabees, Jewish warriors who led a successful rebellion against Greek rule in the second century BC. Experts are taking a second look at a tomb at Horbat Ha-Gardi, near the ancient city of Madi’in. Over a hundred years after it was first discovered, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has resumed long-abandoned excavations at the site. First discovered in the late 1800s, the site’s similarities to historical descriptions of the Maccabees’ final resting place were immediately recognized. Researchers at the time even went so far as to claim “there is no room for doubt. I found the Tomb of the Maccabees.” In Antiquities of the Jews, a 2,000-year-old manuscript by Josephus Flavius, “the tomb was described as a tall, impressive structure surrounded by columns; it was said to overlook the sea and was built of fine stones and was covered with pyramid-like roofs,” according to a statement by the IAA. Early assumptions about the tomb were quickly challenged when Charles Clermont-Ganneau, a French scholar of the time, found a mosaic floor decorated with a Byzantine cross, indicating that the site had been built by Christians. However, Clermont-Ganneau maintained that the site could still hold the fabled Tomb of the Maccabees, writing that “it is possible that this structure was built by the Christians, so as to commemorate the burial place of the Holy Maccabees, since they were exalted saints in the eyes of Christianity.” Nevertheless, excavations were soon abandoned. Amit Re’em, an excavation director on the Authority’s new project, suspects the tomb was discovered by ancient Christians, who added the cross to identify the site as the burial place of important figures—namely the Maccabees. “What other important figures would be here?” he asked the AP. Re’em and excavation director Dan Shahar admitted in a statement that their efforts had yet to yield conclusive evidence: “An excavation and a lot of hard work are still required in order to confirm that assumption unequivocally, and the riddle remains unsolved—the search for the elusive Tomb of the Maccabees continues.” [End of article] If the Maccabean town of Modein was not situated in central Israel, then where should we look for it? Searching for the town of Modein in Galilee Why, Galilee? Because of my having re-dated the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids to the era of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, with Judas Maccabeus being identified as Gamaliel’s rebel, “Judas the Galilean”: Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” (2) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” This historical revision now enables for a serendipitous meeting of Rabbi Gamaliel’s “in the days of the census” (Acts 5:37) with Luke 2:1’s “decree that a census should be taken”. Same census, same emperor, same era, same revolt. We can now take all this a geographical step further. If the Maccabean ancestral home of Modein was in, not central Israel, but Galilee - as I believe it to have been - then it must have been very close to the only Sea in that region, the Sea of Galilee, in order that, regarding those splendid carvings of the tomb, “all who sail the sea might see them”. Tiberias has a famous cemetery facing the Sea of Galilee. There, for instance, we find a tomb dedicated to Moses Maimonides (Rambam).

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

The power of the Miraculous Medal

‘Is it possible that our enemies should display such activity and gain superior strength, while we remain idle, without getting down to work? Do we not have even stronger weapons, namely the protec¬tion of heaven and of the Immaculate Virgin?’ Saint Maximilian Kolbe We read in the following article: Maximilian Kolbe and the Miraculous Medal | Militia Immaculatae Maximilian Kolbe and the Miraculous Medal (Excerpt of the book “The Immaculate, our ideal”) As an outward sign of membership in the [Militia Immaculatæ), the Knight of the Immaculata wears her Miraculous Medal. We human beings are not only spirit, but also body. Our interior life, our ideal and mentality must be perceptible from outside, must be expressed in our external life. Therefore outward signs are necessary in order to bring the interior disposition to light. The Savior willed to grant His graces to people pre¬cisely through such “sacred signs”, namely the Sacraments. In a similar manner the Knight of the Immaculata must also make an outward pro¬fession. The Miraculous Medal is the outward sign of the interior Total Consecration to the Immaculata. Furthermore, as a weapon in the battle for souls he distributes these medals wherever he can. The Miraculous Medal should be the weapon, the bullet, which the Knight of the Immaculata makes use of. Even if someone is as wicked as can be, if he agrees to wear the Miraculous Medal, give it to him and pray for him, and occasionally try with a kind word to bring him to the point where he begins to love the Mother of God and to fly to her in all his difficulties and temptations. But anyone who sincerely begins to pray to the Immaculata will soon be con¬vinced to go to Confession as well. There is much evil in the world, yet let us consider that the Immaculata is even more powerful: “She will crush the head of the infernal serpent.” Isn’t such a practice somewhat exaggerated? How is it that the founder of the M.I. places so much trust in such an external thing? We should reply, first, that the very origin of the M.I. is closely related to a great miracle that was worked through the Miraculous Medal, namely the conversion of a Jewish man, Alphonse de Ratisbonne. In the year in which the M.I. was founded (1917), the seventy-fifth anniversary of this great miracle was being celebrated in Rome. Young Brother Maximil¬ian had already asked himself the question long before that: Is it possible that our enemies should display such activity and gain superior strength, while we remain idle, without getting down to work? Do we not have even stronger weapons, namely the protec¬tion of heaven and of the Immaculate Virgin? He found out the answer on that memorable twentieth of January, when the superior of the house presented to them the story of the impenitent Jew’s conversion as a theme for meditation. In that medita¬tion, as Father Pal, his friend and co-founder of the M.I. attests, the Saint received the inspiration to found a knighthood in honor of the Immaculata, which chose the Miraculous Medal as its emblem and shield for the future Knights. From that day on, Brother Maximilian often visited the church of Sant’Andrea delle Fratte in order to pray before the altar where Alphonse de Ratisbonne had converted. He also chose that altar as the one upon which he would offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the first time after his priestly ordination. Furthermore Fr. Maximilian often used to tell his friars about truly extraordinary incidents that he himself had experienced with the Mirac¬ulous Medal. For example, one time while he was recuperating in Zako¬pane he tried to convert a young Freethinker who proudly called him¬self “the Heretic”. All arguments were in vain. Nevertheless, out of courtesy he accept¬ed the Miraculous Medal. Immediately afterwards I suggested that he make a confession. “I am not prepared. By no means,” was his reply. But … at that very moment he fell on his knees, as though impelled by a higher power. The confession began; the young man wept like a child. The Immaculata had won. …. \Naturally, the cause of this miraculous change in a human heart was not the medal itself as a physical object, but rather the Immaculata, who attaches her special graces to the wearing of the Miraculous Medal. And there were many, many such incidents in the life of St. Maximilian. Therefore: Distribute her Medal, wherever there is an opportunity: to chil¬dren, so that they will always wear it around their necks; to the elderly and the youth, so that they, under her protection, might have enough strength to resist the temptations and falls that par¬ticularly beset them in our times. And also to those who do not go to Church, or who are afraid to go to Confession, who make fun of religious practices, who laugh at the truths of the faith, who are mired in a moral swamp or are living outside the Church in heresy – to all of these people you absolutely must offer the Medal of the Immaculata and ask them to wear it, but then fervently beg the Immaculata also for their conversion. Many people make use of another expedient when someone is reluctant to accept the Miracu¬lous Medal. They just sew it secretly into his or her clothing and pray for that person, and sooner or later the Immaculata will show what she is capable of. The Miraculous Medal is the ammunition of the M.I.

Sunday, November 23, 2025

Who built Rome’s Pantheon, Marcus Agrippa or Hadrian?

by Damien F. Mackey “My investigation thus allows us to reclaim Hadrian’s planning and agency for at least part of this iconic building, and to discern more clearly his prominence, and perhaps even his personality, in the imperial capital city”. Mary T. Boatwright Introduction Conventionally considered, I believe that it is quite impossible for historians to arrive at a fully accurate answer to this question regarding the celebrated Pantheon. The received text book history and chronology just will not allow it. The conventional scholarship, as typified here by Mary T. Boatwright, would have Marcus Agrippa, whose inscription appears boldly inscribed on the Pantheon, dying around 12 BC, whilst the emperor Hadrian is thought to have come to power more than a century later, in around 117 AD. The best that could be said, from a commonsense point of view, is that Marcus Agrippa clearly built the Pantheon, while the emperor Hadrian may later have embellished and/or refurbished, it. The Pantheon could not have been a Hadrianic era building! My New History for Hadrian and Marcus Agrippa The revised history and chronology of these times that I have developed, however, can accommodate Agrippan and Hadrianic involvement in the Pantheon at the same time. This is because I have multi-identified both the emperor Hadrian and Marcus Agrippa in ways that are totally unconventional. Their era is the Infancy of Jesus Christ. The emperor Hadrian, a Seleucid king, was (among others) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Augustus, who decreed a universal Census when Jesus Christ was born (Luke 2:1): Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Marcus Agrippa, the Right-Hand Man Of Caesar Augustus (Lindsay Powell), was, variously Herod ‘the Great’ (also for Augustus); Philip the Phrygian (for Antiochus); and Herodes Atticus (for Hadrian). On this, see e.g. my article: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (7) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man So, just as King Herod (Marcus Agrippa) ‘the Great’ built on an enormous scale on behalf of the emperor Augustus Caesar, so, too, did he do the same for Hadrian as an alter ego of this Augustus. Disentangling convention Having laid this new and revolutionary foundation, we can now bring more light to bear on what Mary T. Boatwright has written at the beginning of her 2013 article: Hadrian and the Agrippa Inscription of the Pantheon (7) Hadrian and the Agrippa Inscription of the Pantheon Introduction Recent work has reignited debate about the authorship and meaning of the Pantheon, a now-iconic building whose convoluted testimony and unusual design have always complicated its understanding. …. Although the Pantheon is frequently considered to be Hadrian’s most famous construction and a key to his character and politics … it was long attributed to Marcus Agrippa because the inscription on its facade names this colleague of Augustus as patron: M. Agrippa L. f. co(n)s(ul) tertium fecit (CIL VI 896 [1]: … ‘Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, consul three times, made [this]’ …. Only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did scholars begin to agree that the structure was Hadrianic. Their deduction, based on brickstamps, excavation and literary evidence, seemed conirmed by Herbert Bloch’s more thorough analysis of Roman brickstamps in the 1930s, which dated to AD 118 or 119 the initial construction of the present Pantheon. …. Doubts about the Pantheon’s design and architect lingered … however, as Mark Wilson Jones explores elsewhere in this volume, as have questions about the relationship of the present building to the Agrippan and Domitianic predecessors known for its site. …. The newest challenge to the Pantheon’s Hadrianic date came in 2007, when Lise Hetland republished the Pantheon’s brickstamps. Arguing that the vast majority are Trajanic and only one clearly Hadrianic, she concluded that Trajan initiated the present building shortly after ad 110 (when lightning destroyed Domitian’s restored Pantheon), and substantially completed it before his death in AD 117. Damien Mackey’s comment: This adds an apparent further complication: TRAJAN. Once again my system can resolve this, for Trajan also was Hadrian: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (2) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian Mary T. Boatwright continues: …. If she is correct, Hadrian was responsible mostly, or merely, for completing another’s project. …. This conclusion has radical implications, including for the interpretation of Hadrian and his relationship to the city of Rome. Although I do not contest Hetland’s Trajanic dating for the Pantheon’s inception, and I leave to Wilson Jones discussion of the Pantheon’s design (and architects), I argue in this paper that the Pantheon still provides insight into Hadrian and the topography of Rome. My focus is the Pantheon’s famous Agrippa inscription. Its placement on the Pantheon’s pronaos makes it among the finishing touches of the building, and it must reflect Hadrian in some way. But the inscription does not name Hadrian. This is usually taken to confirm a notice in the Historia Augusta, that Hadrian restored the Pantheon and various other buildings and consecrated them with the names of their original builders (HA Hadrian 19.10). …. The literary evidence, however, deserves closer study. Furthermore, comparison of other building and rebuilding inscriptions in Rome, including the rebuilding inscription of Septimius Severus and Caracalla on the Pantheon, underscores the uniqueness of the Agrippa inscription’s huge bronze lettering, and argues for Hadrian’s responsibility. The cos. tertium wording of the inscription can also substantiate Hadrian’s authorship. My investigation thus allows us to reclaim Hadrian’s planning and agency for at least part of this iconic building, and to discern more clearly his prominence, and perhaps even his personality, in the imperial capital city. …. [End of quote] For more architectural anomalies pertaining to this period, see my articles: Emperor Hadrian’s palaces missing (8) Emperor Hadrian's palaces missing Did Hadrian or Herod build the Wailing Wall? Did Hadrian or Herod build the Wailing Wall? Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Emperor Hadrian’s palaces missing

“Stratigraphy confirms that Hadrian did not visit a destroyed Jerusalem, but one that had long since been restored”. Gunnar Heinsohn This article can be a companion piece to articles of mine (Damien Mackey) such as: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing Professor Gunnar Heinsohn wrote: Jerusalems_First_Millennium_AD_1000_year.pdf …. Jerusalem is obsessed with Hadrianic temples that are said to have been demolished to make way for other structures. On the Cardo Maximus this act is said to have been carried out in favor of Christianity, while on the Temple Mount it was done in favor of Islam. However, under the Jesus Compound on the Cardo, the foundations of an imperial temple of Venus have not been found. On Temple Mount, a Jupiter sanctuary is said to have been built over the ruins of the Herodian temple. The Umayyads supposedly demolished it to build the Dome of the Rock over it. Traces of this temple of Hadrian are missing as well. Nevertheless, the latest research on Roman Jerusalem claims, without hard evidence, the existence of such a structure: “A Temple to Jupiter on top of the temenos, as implied by Cassius Dio, cannot, in my opinion, be ruled out” (Weksler-Bdolah 2014, 58). Cassius Dio (ca. 165-235 AD) lived nearly a century after Hadrian. He provides the only source: “At Jerusalem he [Hadrian] founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter” (Historia Romana, LXIX, 12:1). However, the original of this source is lost. The passage is a paraphrase by John Xiphilinus (late 11th c. AD), a Byzantine historian and the nephew of Patriarch John VIII of Constantinople. He may have tailored this paraphrase to present an imperial blasphemy as a convincing cause of war. He painted the customary act of establishing pagan shrines in a new Roman colonia “in the harsh colors of a religious confrontation by using a ‘loaded’ verb and referring to the temple by a name familiar to both Jewish and Christian readers” (Eliav 1997, 142). Of course, this must remain speculation. Perhaps the term Capitolina in the new city name also led to associations with Jupiter. In Rome stood the most important of all Jupiter temples in the entire empire, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, on Mons Capitolinus (Capitoline Hill). There was also a contemporary of Hadrian, Appian of Alexandria (95-165 AD), with statements about Jerusalem. He did not know anything about Hadrian rebuilding a destroyed city and even putting a temple of Jupiter on its most holy site. Yet, he reminded his readers of Jerusalem’s destruction in the time of Vespasian and Titus to then add that “Hadrian did the same in our time” (Stern 1980; no. 143). This makes good sense if Hadrian’s war against the Bar Kokhba rebels (132-136 AD) resulted in damages to the city. Stratigraphy confirms that Hadrian did not visit a destroyed Jerusalem, but one that had long since been restored. There are also no better candidates than Arab Nabataeans with their Umayyad culture for repairing the city after AD 70. And unlike the Jupiter Temple of John Xiphilinus, the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount is indisputable. …. [End of quote] There are so many problems to be sorted out here. Let us take just a few of these. While the real Hadrian, who was the Seleucid tyrant, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, at the time of the Maccabees: Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian (3) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian did not come to a destroyed Jerusalem as he would have, had he really lived in c. 130 AD, he certainly invaded and despoiled that City near to the Nativity of Jesus Christ. What is wrongly called the Temple Mount is actually where the invading Gentile forces took up their residence. Cassius Dio, a non contemporary of Hadrian’s, is a most unreliable historian – for this period, at least. Appian, had he known of what Vespasian and Titus had done to Jerusalem, could not possibly, therefore, have been a contemporary of the much earlier Hadrian. Hadrian’s war belonged to the Maccabean era, decades before 70 AD. To find traces of Hadrian’s architecture in Jerusalem, one would need to revisit the Seleucid era, and the buildings of Hadrian’s right-hand man, Herod the Great, who was the same potentate as the great builder, Marcus Agrippa: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (3) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Hadrian, Aelia Capitolina, and which Jewish Revolt?

by Damien F. Mackey “In 1967 a hoard of coins that was said to have been illegally excavated in the northern part of the Judean desert surfaced on the antiquities market. The hoard included Bar-Kokhba coins and an Aelia Capitolina coin. This seemed to indicate that Aelia was founded before the revolt, since the refugees who supposedly hid the coins during the revolt also had an Aelia coin”. Hanan Eshel The very suggestion that there could have been a massive Jewish revolt against Rome (c. 132-135 AD) a mere 60 years or so after the complete and utter destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Titus and his legionaries, in 70 AD, I find quite ridiculous. According to typical accounts, some half a million Jews may have died in this second revolt. From whence did they all come? Judah, Jerusalem, the Temple, and Judaïsm, were all finished in 70 AD. ‘Not a stone was left upon a stone!’ (Luke 21:6). This is the sad tale of it as foretold by the Lord of History (vv. 20-33): ‘When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. ‘There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near’. He told them this parable: ‘Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away’. As I wrote in my article: Simon Bar Kochba in Temple Period (4) Simon Bar Kochba in Temple Period …. But the most compelling argument in favour of a necessary (as I had thought) synchronisation of the activities of Simon Bar Giora and Simon Bar Kochba was that the destruction in Israel was so complete in the first case, at the hands of Vespasian and Titus, with the entire land devastated, the great City (Jerusalem) and its Temple completely burned to the ground, and the people slaughtered wholesale, or sent into slavery, that I did not consider it reasonable to suggest that, some 60-70 years later - {and again readers might cite the recovery of nations much sooner after the First World War going in to the Second – but these nations, e.g. Germany, had not been obliterated internally} - Simon Bar Kochba was able to command armies of 400,000 men in Israel against a Hadrian-led Rome and to have several of the most famous of all the Roman legions on the verge of annihilation - only afterwards to see some 580,000 Jewish men die, almost 1000 fortified villages in Israel completely devastated, once again, and the people, once again, slaughtered or taken into captivity en masse. …. These are numbers both massive and completely unbelievable! Quite different from realism, however, is the account that we find in our text books. Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt, are considered to have followed the cataclysmic 70 AD event, as a Second Jewish Revolt - whereas they actually preceded it, in the Maccabean era. You see, Hadrian was not a Roman emperor at all, but was the Seleucid Greek tyrant, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, who definitely did not live as late as c. 130 AD: Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian (3) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian His Jewish foe, a Hasmonaean – presumably Simon – minted coins according to which the Temple was still standing. But note in the following article the admission that: “The Bar Kochba Revolt lacks the eyewitness accounts, like Josephus, who chronicled the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (A.D. 66-73)”. Typically, we read worrisome articles such as the following one by Mark Turnage: Weekly Q&A: What was the Bar Kochba Revolt? - CBN Israel Weekly Q&A: What was the Bar Kochba Revolt? Posted on June 23, 2023 By CBN Israel In Blog Hope stirred within Judaism sixty years after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its Temple. Perhaps this was the time when the Jews in the land of Israel would finally remove Rome’s presence. The revolt broke out in A.D. 132. The Bar Kochba Revolt lacks the eyewitness accounts, like Josephus, who chronicled the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (A.D. 66-73). The causes of the revolt are not entirely clear. Several factors seem to have contributed to a second Jewish revolt in the land of Israel within a sixty-year period. The Roman Emperor Hadrian banned circumcision in the year’s leading up to the revolt. His ban against circumcision grew out of a general ban against male castration. Romans viewed the Jewish practice of circumcision as mutilation. Of course, circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 17). The ancient sources disagree whether Hadrian refounded Jerusalem as a Roman colony, named Aelia Capitonlina, with a Temple to Jupiter, before or after the Bar Kochba Revolt. If it happened prior to the revolt, it may have served as a cause of the revolt. The Jews seem to have assumed this period would see the Temple of Jerusalem rebuilt. After the destruction of the First Temple, the Temple of Solomon, the Second Temple was built by Zerubbabel in Jerusalem. The Jews looked at this earlier precedent as a pattern for God bringing about the rebuilding of the Temple in their day. Some of the coins minted by the Jewish rebels depict the façade of the Temple. Others bear the inscription “for the redemption of Jerusalem.” The Jewish rebels anticipated their revolt would return Jerusalem to the Jews, remove the Romans, and see the Temple rebuilt. The revolt receives its name from its leader, a charismatic, messianic figure named, Shimon ben Kosiba. Rabbinic tradition relates how a great Sage of this period, Rabbi Akiva, hailed Shimon as the Messiah, calling him bar Kochba (“son of the star;” Numbers 24:17). After the failure of the revolt, the rabbis referred to him as bar Koziba (“son of the lie”). Shimon took the title Nasi Israel (Prince of Israel). This language comes from Ezekiel where the future, hoped for ruler will be known as Nasi. The revolt had a devastating impact upon the Jewish community in the land of Israel. Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources place the Jewish casualties between 400,000-500,000. Even if these figures are inflated, they speak to the widespread loss of Jewish life. The Jewish rebels also inflicted heavy causalities upon the Roman forces as well. Many Jews were sold as slaves because of the revolt. Others emigrated outside of the land. Jews from Babylon immigrated into the land of Israel at this time. The Romans changed the name of the province from Judaea to Palestina. Jerusalem became a Roman colony and Jews were expelled from the city. The Galilee, which had been a center of Jewish life, had idolatrous non-Jews settling in the region. It also impacted the relationships between Jews and Christians. [End of quote] In the next article, Hanan Eshel, also following a conventional route, will try to determine when Hadrian set up his Aelia Capitolina: Hanan Eshel. “Aelia Capitolina- Jerusalem No More.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, 6 (1997). | Center for Online Judaic Studies ‘Eshel. “Aelia Capitolina- Jerusalem No More.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, 6 (1997). Unlike the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.), which was chronicled in detail by the first-century historian Josephus, the Second Jewish Revolt, the so-called Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.), is known only from scraps of ancient literature. …. Archaeology alone can fill in the gaps. And it has been doing so in an amazing way in recent decades. …. One of the mysteries surrounding the revolt involves the founding of the city Aelia Capitolina, the name the Romans gave to Jerusalem. Did the Romans establish Aelia Capitolina before the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, thereby inciting the Jews to revolt? Or did they establish it after the revolt and exclude the Jews from the city as punishment? Scholars, as might be expected, have taken two views. Recent numismatic evidence—coins from the Judean desert—may provide the answer. The first view, that the founding of Aelia Capitolina preceded the revolt, is supported by the Roman historian Dio Cassius. In 130 C.E. Emperor Hadrian (117–138 C.E.) made a tour of his eastern lands, traveling through Judea, Arabia and Egypt before returning to Rome. According to Dio, Hadrian founded Aelia Capitolina during this journey. …. The church historian Eusebius, however, describes the transformation of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina as occurring after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt was crushed, in 136 C.E. …. The Mishnah, the earliest rabbinic classic, redacted in about 200 C.E., seems to support Eusebius. In Ta’anit 4.6, the Mishnah lists five disasters that occurred on the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av, including the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple and the Roman destruction of the Second Temple. The fourth item in the list is the fall of Betar, the last stronghold of Bar-Kokhba’s warriors, which ended the Second Jewish Revolt. The final item in the Mishnah’s list is the plowing of “the city”—that is, Jerusalem. When the Romans founded a city, they fixed its boundaries in a ceremonial ritual in which an ox and a cow, tethered together, plowed a line that marked the new city’s limits. That the Mishnah lists the fall of Betar before the founding of Roman Jerusalem seems to confirm Eusebius’s statement that Aelia Capitolina was founded after the Bar-Kokhba revolt was suppressed. Who was right—Dio Cassius or Eusebius? Like the rebels of the First Jewish Revolt, the Jews of the Second Jewish Revolt issued their own coins. These may help us answer the question. The Second Revolt coins are all overstrikes; that is, the rebels took coins then in circulation and imprinted them with their own impressions. Rome issued coins commemorating Aelia Capitolina. If an Aelia Capitolina coin had been found overstruck with a Bar-Kokhba impression, this would provide clear evidence that Aelia had been founded before the revolt. However, since no such coin has been found, some scholars have assumed that Aelia was established after the revolt, as punishment. In 1967 a hoard of coins that was said to have been illegally excavated in the northern part of the Judean desert surfaced on the antiquities market. The hoard included Bar-Kokhba coins and an Aelia Capitolina coin. This seemed to indicate that Aelia was founded before the revolt, since the refugees who supposedly hid the coins during the revolt also had an Aelia coin. Later, in 1970, hoards said to have come from the same area appeared on the market. These too contained a mixture of Bar-Kokhba and Aelia coins. As Yaakov Meshorer, the dean of Israeli numismatists, noted, these discoveries seemed to support Dio’s testimony that Aelia was founded in 130 C.E., during Hadrian’s eastern tour. There was a problem, however. These hoards were found not in professional digs but in illegal excavations. Local Bedouin regularly engage in such digs and then sell their finds to antiquities dealers. Some skeptical scholars have suggested that antiquities dealers may have added the Aelia coins to the hoards to increase their value. I can now report the controlled and legal excavation of a hoard of coins that may remove any doubts. This excavation is really part of a larger story involving the search for and excavation of caves in the Judean desert. Many of these caves were used by Jewish refugees fleeing from the Roman forces during the Second Revolt. …. Since 1951, 27 Second Revolt refugee caves have been identified. Eight of these caves have been found by the Israel Cave Research Center (ICRC), established in 1979 by the Israel Society for the Protection of Nature. All of these caves can be dated to the Bar-Kokhba period by the finds—pottery, glass, keys, wooden combs and bronze vessels as well as coins. In most of the caves, unfortunately, archaeologists detected evidence of prior illegal excavation. Nevertheless, important finds awaited discovery. In one cave that was clearly a Jewish refuge during the revolt (the Araq el-Na’asaneh Cave), ICRC volunteers found 16 silver denarii struck by the emperors Trajan (98–117 C.E.) and Hadrian, as well as one tridrachma from the Roman province of Cappadocia. Damien Mackey’s comment: Trajan and Hadrian I believe to have been just one and the same emperor: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (4) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian Hanan Eshel continues: This demonstrates that the Jewish rebels did not overstrike all the coins they got hold of but continued to use Roman coins bearing their original impressions. In 1986, I excavated a cave (known as the Abi’or Cave) to which 38 people had fled. We found their skeletons in the cave. They probably suffocated as a fire kindled by the Romans at the entrance withdrew oxygen from the cave. Five documents written on papyrus (three in Greek and two in Aramaic) indicate that the people fled to the cave in 135 C.E. Some of these documents were found on a terrace located at the entrance to the cave. However, the stratigraphy was reversed. Usually, as archaeologists dig deeper, they reveal earlier and earlier strata, or layers of occupation. But near the mouth of the Abi’or Cave, we found a fourth-century B.C.E. document above three documents from the Roman period. This indicates that some later occupants dumped the cave’s contents onto the terrace, thereby turning the strata upside down. Damien Mackey’s comment: Or, has the archaeology here simply been misconstrued? The interpretation of some of what follows I think may well be questionable. Hanan Eshel continues: It is not difficult to determine who did this: monks who lived in this cave during the 14th century. In 1987 I excavated another refugee cave, which yielded one bronze coin that had been overstruck by the rebels and a silver dinar of Hadrian, further proof that the rebels continued to use some regular Roman coins. In 1991 David Amit, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, and I excavated a cave that yielded a tetradrachma of Bar-Kokhba with the facade of the destroyed [sic] Jerusalem Temple on the obverse. About 2,000 of these coins are known, but this tetradrachma is the first to be discovered during a legal excavation. We named the findspot the Cave of the Tetradrachma. Finally, I come to the el-Jai Cave, on the south side of Wadi Suweinet, northeast of Jerusalem. I visited the cave several times, looking for artifacts from the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, but found only some Early Bronze Age potsherds (c. 2000 B.C.E.). When I led a group of students here in 1997, we found evidence of intensive illegal excavations. Near one of the cave’s two entrances we noticed potsherds from the second century C.E. Crawling into the inner part of the cave, we came upon broken glass vessels, often found in destruction layers from the Bar-Kokhba period. We also found two coins near the entrance to the cave’s huge hall and three more inside. The oldest [sic] was a bronze coin of the Roman emperor Domitian (81–96 C.E.), minted in Sebaste, with two countermarks (stamps) of the Tenth Roman Legion. (This legion led the forces that suppressed the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in the first century C.E.) The other four coins all dated to the time of Hadrian. Three of these coins are critical to our discussion: a city coin from Gaza, found in the huge hall, and two Aelia Capitolina coins, from a tunnel leading into the hall. The Gaza coin is important because it can be dated precisely. When Hadrian made his eastern tour, he visited Gaza, an honor the city wanted to preserve in memory forever. To do this, the Gazans recorded two dates on their coins: the Gaza era (the number of years from the Roman liberation of the city in 61 B.C.E.) and the number of years after Hadrian’s visit. The inscription on the Gaza coin from the el-Jai Cave tells us it was struck in year 5 after the visit of Hadrian and year 194 of the Gaza era. This double date (the difference between the two dates is seven or eight months) allows the coin to be dated to the end of 133 C.E. or the beginning of 134 C.E. [sic] One of the Aelia Capitolina coins portrays, on its reverse, the ceremony of the founding of the city as a Roman colony. The emperor appears plowing the boundary of the city with an ox and a cow. The Latin inscription reads “COL[ONIA] AEL[IA] KAPIT[OLINA], COND[IT],” or “Colony of Aelia Capitolina, founded.” In the background is the legionary standard. The other Aelia coin depicts, on its reverse, the head of Sabina, Hadrian’s wife, with the inscription “Sabina Augusta.” Both coins strengthen the association of the founding of Aelia with Hadrian’s tour, especially his visit to Jerusalem. If, as I believe, the Gaza coin was deposited in the cave at the same time as the Aelia coins, Aelia must have been founded by 133/4 C.E. The Bar-Kokhba Revolt lasted another year or so. Therefore Aelia must have been established before, not after, the revolt. Dio Cassius was right. The establishment of Jerusalem as a Roman colony named Aelia Capitolina was apparently one of the causes of the Second [sic] Jewish Revolt against Rome. One final insight provided by the coins from this cave: Some scholars have argued that the rebels had no commercial connections with people outside Judea during the revolt. Their argument is based largely on the fact that coin hoards from the Bar-Kokhba Revolt usually contain no Roman coins dating later than 132 C.E. The coins from the el-Jai Cave disprove this contention. The Jews who fled to this cave no earlier than 134 C.E. carried with them coins minted in 133/4 C.E.—during the revolt.